Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources. In Committee A, I call continued debate of the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,
LANDS, NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

On Vote 28: ministry operations, $473,452,000 (continued).

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ve got a couple of additional pieces of information that I’d like to put on the record. I’ll go from the furthest back to the most recent.

This one goes back to March when the member had a question in regards to the $191 million that was part of a federal allocation to support softwood lumber jobs through litigation. I just wanted to put on record some additional details that we’ve learned from that. The federal budget announced, of $191 million, for softwood lumber was a five-year commitment to Global Affairs Canada and Natural Resources Canada to support softwood lumber jobs, including through litigation under the World Trade Organization and the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanisms.

This funding is not meant to go to the provinces and is separate from the previously announced softwood lumber aid package of $867 million. As stated, the money goes to two federal agencies for their operations related to the softwood lumber trade case, particularly litigations. That was one.

Working my way up to more recently, we were talking about the water levels in Okanagan Lake. I believe it was yesterday that I informed the assembly that the lake levels were now 25 centimetres lower than was the level last year. Those levels are changing daily, so I wanted to make sure that we kept members who have interest in this, due to constituencies, updated.

As of April 1, the level of the lake was 30 centimetres lower than at this time last year. It continues to drop on purpose in order for us to manage the spring freshet. Today it’s 41 centimetres lower than what it was at this time last year.

Finally, the member for Peace River South had a comment about the importance of the Wolverine Forest Service Road just before we broke for lunch. I wanted to relay a couple of things that I can add to an answer on that. Although we do have limited capital funding to maintain bridge structures on the 12,000 kilometres of forest service roads across the province, priority number one is rural community access. Second is rural resident access, and third is high-value recreation access. So many of the points that were made by the member.

Our staff have engaged with the snowmobiling club, the Tumbler Ridge riders club, over the last six months. We’ve been able, through regional operations, recently to provide $9,000 to the snowmobile club to hire engineering consultants to undertake a review of the curved bridge structures to determine options for maintaining or restoring. We’ve got an independent engineering consultant coming to the same conclusion that our engineers did, that current load rating is not high enough for safe snowmobile access. So we’re working with the snowmobile club on that topic.

We’ve got a few other points that I’ll put in a letter to the member. I just want to make sure that he knows and the House knows that we’re aware of the issue and working on it.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that information, particularly the update on the lake in the Okanagan. As I’m sure the minister is aware, with the snowpack levels in excess of 150 percent, there’s certainly some concern by the folks there. That’s good to hear — the update in terms of the continued creating of some room within the lake.

A couple of quick questions. We’re going to start off carrying on with the wildlife, and then we’re going to go into a little bit of forest health and then a wide range of things that we’re going to try to cover off in the time we have remaining over the next number of days — or hours, depending on how things go.

Starting off, once again going back to this stakeholder engagement that’s happening today through Thursday. Is there opportunity for anyone who is not necessarily invited to be able to attend, if there happened to be an oversight in terms of groups or representatives? I’m thinking, in particular, about…. You know, there’s more than just the Guide Outfitters of B.C. There’s another guide-outfitting organization.

[1:40 p.m.]

There are others that may have an interest in attending. So I’m just wondering if there’s opportunity for anybody else to be able to drop in to be able to attend that session, whether it is a delegate or to observe.

Hon. D. Donaldson: This isn’t a closed session. We want to try to accommodate as best we can. The only caveat is that if they aren’t able to come to the first day of the session, they might miss some of the context.

Having said that, I would encourage them to contact our ministry, and we’ll put them in touch with the Fraser Basin Council who are organizing this. Afterwards, I’ll supply the name and the contact to the member so that they can make sure that those who are interested can get in touch with our ministry about where they might be able to be slotted in.

J. Rustad: Obviously, this is about caribou and caribou recovery. From the caribou recovery program discussion paper, which, I believe, was part of this, on page 17, it talks about predator control. It says: “Wolves are the caribou’s principal predator in British Columbia, and high numbers of wolves are associated with declining caribou populations.” Predators are obviously a significant challenge for caribou, as is recognized in the report, but they’re also a significant challenge for many ungulate species in the province.

I’m curious. Wolves are one form of predator. Does the ministry have a list of what other species, what other animals, might be included as being predators in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Primarily, the predators that our biologists are concerned about are wolves and, in some instances, cougar. But the wolves, especially in mid to late winter predation, when the access is set up on the snowpack either through sledding or from just the ability of the snow to support the weight of the wolves to get into alpine access and elsewhere, is the major concern.

Predator control. The number one topic is wolves and, to some degree, in some areas, cougar.

[1:45 p.m.]

J. Rustad: The reason for asking is I’m wondering if grizzlies are considered to be on that list of predators.

Hon. D. Donaldson: We know that bears — black bears and grizzly bears — do predate on caribou, mainly when it’s in calving season. But our biologists have determined, to this point, that they aren’t a driver of population numbers in that regard.

J. Rustad: I think we have a situation where obviously caribou herds are in decline, and all species that prey, whether it’s on the calves or the adults, are a potential risk. Strategies need to be put in place in terms of mitigation. It’s clear from the report, the discussion paper that’s out there, that the principal predator, of course, is wolves. We certainly agree with that. But there are other predators.

I can recall many stories in the past, in historic years — 40, 50, 60 years ago — when there were ungulate populations that had gone into decline. It was associated with large packs of predators, wolves primarily, but others that are in the area. The way to manage that was to significantly reduce those predators. Within a few years, the ungulates came back. It is one of the most effective strategy tools.

I recognize there are other things, such as penning and other programs that have been in place, but is the ministry considering serious action, in terms of resolving this challenge in those areas where we have species that are at risk, such as caribou, in order to significantly reduce the loss due to predators?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member is correct in that predator control is one aspect of managing wildlife populations, regarding sustainability. Predator management is a legitimate tool. I believe that we are part of, now, managing wildlife, and that’s one of the tools.

He also touched on other tools, like maternal penning. Also, we know that habitat conservation is the primary tool that we can use in order to ensure that nature runs its course and we have healthy wildlife populations.

The evidence thus far, when it comes to caribou, is wolves are the primary predator. That’s why we’re instituting predator control programs, but we’ll keep an eye on others as they arise. Wolves are the primary focus on the predator control program currently.

[1:50 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I would suggest that there are certainly programs and initiatives that are needed around habitat, but there’s a short-term, immediate need. Habitat and habitat conservation and strategies around that will take time to be able to help recover. But a hungry wolf won’t wait, and it will take down whatever it can take down.

The question is, given the potential threat from the federal government and the declining populations, whether the minister believes this would require significant intervention to deal with the predators — to deal with wolves, in particular, but other predators — in order to be able to stabilize the caribou population and allow for other programs, such as habitat restoration and other work, to be able to take effect.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, we want to manage the caribou populations in B.C. in order to achieve sustainability and avoid any intervention by the federal government under the Species at Risk Act. We are using all the tools at our disposal, and one of them is predator control. The primary focus for that…. The evidence so far is that wolves are the primary predator when it comes to caribou populations.

We consider that we have made significant intervention around controlling the wolf population. Of course, it’s a herd-by-herd decision point, based on the severity of the population decline around different populations in the province. Hand in hand with the predator control, when we’re talking about wolves, is monitoring the effectiveness of that. Also, considerations are made for the natural predator-prey interaction in populations.

All those are taken into account. We certainly have the tool at our disposal and are using it, when those other factors come into play, to actually embark on predator control.

J. Rustad: I’m reminded of…. I think it’s a southern caribou herd down in the Kootenays, if I have the name correct. There was an attempt at that point to relocate some caribou down in that area. I think there were 20 caribou that were relocated into that area and tagged and tracked. I think three of them took off across the border and headed south, and the other 17 were meals for wolves.

This is why I’m asking about this, obviously. We’re in a situation where this is a serious, potential issue — well, not potential. It is a serious issue. But it also extends far beyond that.

As you know — I’m sure the minister must know — other ungulate populations have come down significantly, including moose and deer, in many areas of the province, in the Cariboo, even through my area. At the same time, we are seeing very large packs of wolves, large numbers of predators, through the area.

I recognize that the ministry is doing work around caribou and trying to do its best around that. I would suggest that predator control may be something that could be enhanced to be able to help. I think consideration also needs to be extended into other areas where we have significantly declining ungulate populations.

The question to the minister is whether or not the ministry is prepared to take steps to enhance or to initiate significant predator-control programs in areas where we have very low numbers of moose, deer and elk populations.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I guess the short answer…. I’m going to give more than a short answer because this is of high interest. If the evidence is there that predator control would be a valuable and main management tool in order to address an endangered population or a declining population, then of course we have the opportunity to use that tool. That’s the short answer to the member’s question.

There are lots of points. I mean, we’re prepared to take those steps if the numbers warrant it. In relation to moose, the wolves are sometimes the primary driver of the decreasing population, but we’re confident we have habitat in the mid- and long-term that’s available to provide for improved moose populations. That’s something we’re monitoring.

As well, there are other mechanisms, appropriate hunting mechanisms, to ensure that the ungulate species is sustainable. We’re engaged with First Nations around the trapping of wolves when it comes to caribou. The wolf-management plan really addresses caribou and predation on livestock. Again, we’re prepared to take steps where the evidence presents itself.

As far as that initial comment, those caribou that were transported down to the southeastern part of the province — I believe it was the Selkirk range — came from Stikine, from Spatsizi. I don’t believe it was just wolves. There was cougar predation, as well, that we lost them to.

J. Rustad: I agree. Cougar have a taste for caribou meat as well. Thank you to the minister for that.

Just one quick story for the minister to think about. It was in the early 1950s, and the McLeod Lake Indian Band were struggling. They didn’t have a lot of food because the moose populations at the time had been decimated in the area. The ministry people back then went into the area and discovered there was a pack of 38 wolves that was in that area. They did predator control, took out that pack of 38 wolves, and within three or four years, there was an overabundant moose population back in the area. That was before there was a whole lot of activity that was damaging the habitat. There was tons of habitat in the area.

[2:00 p.m.]

There’s lots of evidence to suggest what needs to be done here. I agree. There needs to be work on the habitat side. But we’ve got a significant situation, particularly for First Nations around the province, where the declining moose, deer and elk populations are making it difficult for them to be able to carry on with their traditional hunting.

It’s also, of course, something that many people around the province — resident hunters that like to go out and to be able to hunt to fill their freezers and supplement food for their families — are having challenges, because of declining populations. There needs to be significant effort around the management and looking at this particular issue.

To that end, I want to ask, actually, another couple of questions around the budget for this. I know the additional $14 million — $1 million this year, $3 million next year and $10 million the third year. As the ministry is developing a plan, I would like to have seen that initial $10 million committed right away so we could see work starting right away. But I understand you want to take some time to study and consult and all of those things, among so many of the other consultations that are going on at the moment.

I guess the question around this is…. There are fees that are paid by hunters on an annual basis. It was $9 million to $10 million, I think it was, as of a year ago. I’m not sure what it is in this current year going forward. Is the ministry prepared to commit those fees to wildlife management on an ongoing basis so that there is a steady, consistent funding model for that? And through the consultation process that you’re looking at around wildlife and wildlife management, is an opportunity for an independent body to be able to manage wildlife being considered as one of the options?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m excited to say work is starting right away. In year 1, the $1 million is definitely for starting the process around input for wildlife improvement and habitat conservation. It’s also about investing in priority pilot projects. So you can see we’re ramping up.

Just to be totally forthright, we wouldn’t have the capacity in-house to start right away on entirely the $14 million in this first year because we have an obligation to collect the information that was spoken about earlier from regional and people locally who have knowledge on the ground. We want that information to inform the bigger wildlife management strategy that we’re working on. We want to be able to engage with First Nations as well. That’s not only time-consuming, but it’s realistic, and I think it’s a good approach.

[2:05 p.m.]

As far as the bigger picture, at the end of this three years, yes, part of what’s being contemplated is an independent body to guide wildlife management in the province. Part of that is a recognition that when there have been other of those types of bodies created, there’s an ability to multiply the financial resources, not simply what the province has. Those independent bodies, the way they’re structured, can sometimes bring in federal dollars that aren’t available, foundation dollars that aren’t available and dollars from stakeholders that aren’t available, necessarily, in a provincial government–only setting.

That’s part of it. Those are the kinds of discussions we want to have around the province with those interested in wildlife management and with First Nations. That’s where we’re going to get to.

J. Rustad: I did mention the Selkirk herd. Just out of curiosity, how many caribou are left down in that area? I had heard a very low number, but I’m just wondering if the ministry’s got updated information on that.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I need to correct myself. I got my ranges wrong. The Purcell range is where those from the Spatsizi ended up. The member was talking about…. Subsequently, most of them didn’t survive.

As far as that southeast portion of the province, we can have an updated number for you by the end of the week. It’s very low. We don’t have the updated information, but we’ll get it to the member. It’s of grave concern, the numbers there, though.

J. Rustad: I look forward to receiving that information. I didn’t think you would have it at the fingertips, but it was one of those questions that just came to mind that I popped in.

Going back to the funding model, the one question I asked around the funding and the wildlife that wasn’t quite answered was whether or not the minister would commit to the hunting tags, the revenue that comes in, as an ongoing funding model for wildlife management.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes. I’m aware that’s…. One of the proposals that has been floated out there is around using the money that comes in directly from hunters, when it comes to tags and associated government fees, to be dedicated to the wildlife management pot.

That’s something that we’re going to discuss with all stakeholders as part of this process. I’m sure we’re going to get into it pretty soon here, in the first year, around what that model could look like. Of course, in the end, there’ll be recommendations. It’s also within the purview of the Minister of Finance to make a dedicated allotment like that.

What we’re also interested in is growing that pie and growing that revenue generation through being able to manage the population, such that we’re able to have more tags issued. So that’s also part of it.

You’ll recognize that at year 3, the amount that we have to dedicate towards this wildlife strategy is similar in funding to what’s being brought in currently with the tags. But as I say, once again, we want to try to grow that.

J. Rustad: I do recognize it’s similar in terms of where it’s at. The reason I’m asking the particular question, of course, is because many residential hunters, guide-outfitters and those that enjoy the opportunity for wildlife would like to see some dollars put into management. There may be opportunities to talk to them about that.

They would want to make sure that what they would be paying in terms of fees would be dedicated. Now, controversial — maybe they wouldn’t want to do that. But the reality is that if they know it’s going towards conservation…. Conservation is a huge value for all hunters, I would argue. They enjoy the wildlife. They enjoy the outdoors. They enjoy the opportunity, and they want to see that opportunity carry on. To that end, conservation, of course, is an important component of hunting. My hope is that that would be able to be recognized at some point in some way, whether it’s through legislation or otherwise.

Speaking of that, in terms of conservation. I know we have many instances where we have conflicts between animals and humans, and we have to bring in conversation officers to either trap and relocate or eliminate the animal. That is creating a challenge. Last year I know there were a number of instances, particularly with bears.

I’m just wondering how many animals had to be destroyed — in particular, bears and grizzly bears — by conservation officers or other enforcement officers due to conflicts with humans, whether in urban or in rural areas.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m just trying to dig through some information there. Primarily, the ministry that’s responsible for keeping the kinds of records that you’re looking for is the Ministry of Environment. They deploy the conservation officers in the instances that the member described.

We can get those numbers for him. Considering the Ministry of Environment estimates are being canvassed at the same time, I understand you might not have a chance to ask that question. So we can get those numbers for him.

The one area where we have more of the direct involvement, although we get apprised by Ministry of Environment staff about those numbers, is the livestock protection program. That’s not provincewide, but in the areas where we’re running that, last year there were 850 calls. That involved wolves, coyotes and bears. Again, we can break that down for you. We don’t have that number here because it’s the conservation office that takes care of the bear numbers.

J. Rustad: There may even be an opportunity yet for me to ask that question of the Minister of Environment, but I appreciate the offer by the ministry and by the minister to be able to provide that information from his colleague from the Ministry of Environment. I’ll look forward to seeing that.

One other question on grizzly bears and bears. As I’m made aware, one of the food sources that grizzly bears like to eat is huckleberries. That happens to be one of my favourites as well, like many other people. Huckleberries is one of those types of things.

Particularly in the Kootenays, there’s been some concern with regards to people from down in the States, some local people as well, that go out and harvest the wild huckleberries for commercial purposes. There’s no permitting around it. They just go up and pick the berries and take them across — whether they make jam out of it or sell it directly. Of course, it’s a significant number of huckleberries being taken in some of the areas of the Kootenays where there’s also some concern around grizzly bear levels.

I’m curious as to whether or not the ministry is planning any particular efforts around looking into the issue of the harvesting of huckleberries and the potential destruction of the plants and that particular damage to habitat and whether or not the ministry is considering any type of action that might be able to help preserve those types of areas for grizzly bear habitat.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’re aware of the situation that’s been described. The unmanaged commercial huckleberry picking in East Kootenay emerged in August 2017, obviously, because that’s when the berries ripen. I know and won’t call it anecdotal, because it was apparent up in the area in which I live, that there was commercial harvesting of huckleberries going on. People who normally went out to harvest those berries, similar to the member — they’re a great-tasting berry, my favourite pie — went out and found that the areas they usually use, close to roadsides, for instance, had already been picked by people that came and used it commercially.

There are provisions under the Forest and Range Practices Act around the ability to manage a commercial harvesting activity like that on the land base. We’re doing a policy review on it right now.

It’s important. You’re right. It’s important for grizzly bear habitat. There are a whole number of policy measures that we could use to ensure that that commercial picking doesn’t impact not only grizzly bear habitats but also the ability of locals — it’s our people’s own backyard — to harvest those berries as well.

J. Rustad: I won’t reveal my special patches where I go to get huckleberries from time to time. I want to move on to another question and then come back to some forestry stuff, some local stuff, and then get into a few other components in the remaining time that we have.

Wetlands and strategies around migratory birds — in particular, ducks and geese and swans and these types of things. There’s a desire, particularly by some groups, to look at some policy and strategies around wetlands, around the preservation of wetlands and enhancement. I’m curious whether or not the ministry is doing any work with the Ministry of Environment with regards to any strategies around wetland, wetland management or wetland enhancement.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: From my days studying wildlife biology, which I have an undergraduate degree in…. I was joking that it was post-Darwin, but it was a while ago. The understanding is that wetlands are extremely valuable habitat for supporting the entire ecosystem. A huge amount of biodiversity is associated with wetlands and the interconnected structure around them, and a huge amount of bioenergy is stored in those systems. So we are working with the Ministry of Environment in their efforts around conservation of wetlands.

The province is such that…. I know the member has had an opportunity to travel around many parts of the province, especially in his years as an MLA. There are many localized opportunities to conserve wetlands, and we have habitat biologists within our ministry who are well aware of that and have used that information in wildlife management areas in order to conserve wetlands. We’re having discussions with MOE about stepping up those efforts.

Of course, I want to highlight the fact that it is the 50th year of Ducks Unlimited working in B.C. with the provincial government, a great year to celebrate the kind of work they’ve done in conserving wetlands as well.

J. Rustad: First of all, thanks for that, and thank your staff for the ability and for the questions we were able to canvass on wildlife.

We need to move on to some other topics. We’re going to move and talk a little bit about log exports and old growth, old-growth management. Just a couple of questions, and then we’re going to be bouncing around a little bit. I am going to turn the floor over to my colleague from Sea to Sky to ask a couple of direct questions around topics in his area and then come back to those topics.

J. Sturdy: To the minister, I appreciate the response with regard to Bowen Island that I asked prior to the break. I wasn’t able to attend to hear the minister’s response, but I did read it in Hansard. The minister has acknowledged, I think as we all do, the sensitivity and the complexity of operating on a place like Bowen Island, and the minister suggested that he would like to, in conjunction with BCTS, provide an opportunity for additional consultation and dialogue with residents of the island. I wonder if the minister could let me know what that might look like and when we might see that consultation taking place.

Hon. D. Donaldson: We have some staff coming in, so I’ll get to that in a second so I can give accurate information.

[2:30 p.m.]

I’m glad you were able to read the transcript over the last three weeks. We were making a joke that we’ve gone two months now in these budget estimates, March and April.

The process is just unfolding, but instead of getting into a lot of detail on what it’s going to look like and the timeline, what I can offer to the member is a briefing, from a senior staff person, to enable you to convey that information in a much more accurate manner to your constituents. We’ve got a number of opportunities and a number of strategies, but I think the best avenue would be a briefing to you, and then we can go from there.

J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister. Part of what the minister did talk about, though, was that it might not be in the best interests of Bowen residents to have the area removed from the timber-harvesting land base. That was the suggestion, and the proposition went along with a number of suggestions on how that might be accomplished.

He mentioned wildfire, and I certainly appreciate that. I’d actually highlighted that to the Bowen residents in the past. But I was wondering if we could understand how we go about determining that the removal is not in the best interests of the residents. It’s a fairly subjective thing, and I wondered how we could approach that.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Really, if we retain it in the timber-harvesting land base, yet recognize that we’re not going to be harvesting in the foreseeable future, or ever, then it really just puts pressure on additional and adjacent areas and communities.

I guess, as a follow-up, I would ask the minister if he would consider the possibility of removing it from the timber-harvesting land base as an option. Has he given any consideration to how that might happen? Or is it just not on the table?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member brings up a really pertinent question about how you go about these decisions and what the best societal outcome is for a certain area, regarding whether it’s timber harvesting or other values.

What I can say is that the best way to reach those decisions is understanding the concerns and sharing information. That’s what we’re committing to — that through consultation, we’ll share the information that we have about what the drawbacks might be of removing that from the timber-harvesting land base. Likewise, we want to be an open avenue for understanding, in a deep way, the concerns of people who would rather see it removed from the timber-harvesting land base. That way we can get to a point where you can make a decision based on the shared information.

What I’m saying is that’s outlining the basis of the process that we’re going to undertake. That consultation, obviously, hasn’t occurred yet, so I can’t make an opinion on if removing it is an option. I just want to make sure that the member understands, and he can relay to the constituents who, I imagine, will be hearing from him — and also reading, possibly, this transcript — that we want to hear from them. We want to share the information about the options that we have with those concerned.

J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister. I will look forward to that briefing so that I can communicate that to my constituents and we can begin that dialogue. I think it is an important dialogue to have.

Moving on to other…. Bowen is actually not in the Sea to Sky natural resource district, but it’s obviously very much connected to it. Typically, the available timber in the Sea to Sky natural resource district is mature hemlock and balsam stands. I think it’s fair to say that in the Sea to Sky, the development harvesting costs more often than not, generally speaking, significantly exceed the domestic log prices.

Interestingly, from what I’ve seen, export opportunities are commonly blocked for strategic domestic log-buying reasons. We’ve even seen circumstances where people have blocked hemlock and balsam in order to acquire cedar cheaper. It’s a very complicated process that I know the minister is certainly aware of.

The result is that our licensees and BCTS have been significantly undercutting in the Sea to Sky natural resource district, just because the numbers don’t work. The numbers don’t work for the domestic market, anyway. Fundamentally, without processing…. We don’t have processing in the Sea to Sky, generally speaking. We have some small processors, but if we don’t harvest, we don’t work. I think it’s important to support and to emphasize that the viability of the district licences, most of which are First Nations’, are to a large degree at risk here.

To further exacerbate the problem, the newest appraisal manual that determines stumpage has resulted in significantly increased costs for the Sea to Sky district. I believe the effect of the appraisal manual revisions was anticipated to increase coastal stumpage rates by $2 to $3 per cubic metre, on average. The result in the Sea to Sky, however, has been an increase of anywhere from $5 to $11 per cubic metre. In the specific instance of one smaller First Nation, the N’Quatqua, the stumpage rates have been enough to render the blocks that they’ve developed unviable. I’m told Lil’wat will be facing the same issues in the very near future.

[2:40 p.m.]

I wonder if the minister has had the opportunity and is willing to address this disproportionate burden on Sea to Sky natural resource district licensees by making changes to the manual that will make them competitive with other licensees operating in the same coastal region.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I believe, at some point in the question, the member outlined that there are complexities. I must say that’s why it’s taken a lot of time to answer the question.

There are a number of components there. Of course, the member did a good job of outlining the context. Any licensee…. When it comes to undercutting, they have a five-year cut period, so the total annual harvest can be harvested annually over those five-year periods. Depending on the market conditions and other conditions, the licensee has a bit of an opportunity for flexibility there. That’s one thing.

He is correct that as of December 15, we were able to convey and provide a new appraisal manual for licensees.

[2:45 p.m.]

We have the ability to adjust that on a quarterly basis, depending on lumber prices, for instance. So there is an ability of responsiveness in that system that could have an impact on those people that are harvesting the less desirable timber and the less viable hemlock and balsam. It’s not less desirable; it’s just less viable, usually due to location.

We’re doing some quick work, since that December 15 issuance of the appraisal manual, to identify additional opportunities for those licensees who are working in less viable hemlock-balsam stands. The member makes a good point. In the absence of exports, some of these stands become less viable. But we have the surplus test. We have a system for assessing exportability.

I also have the understanding that export of logs is always part of a viable industry, so there is a role to play with the export of wood. By the same token, we’re very aware of the public’s concern and workers’ concern and communities’ concern about what’s perceived as an overexport of logs.

All those factors play in. I can understand the viability concerns that the member raises.

J. Sturdy: Well, in terms of specifics, I think currently we’re looking at about $85 a metre for harvesting costs for domestic hemlock and balsam to get it to tidewater, and the local market is $60. So clearly, that doesn’t work. It’s a bit perverse, frankly, that that export opportunity and that higher value provides opportunity to in fact, in some respects, subsidize the domestic log supply locally.

I know there’s much other work that needs to take place, including developing additional innovations and technologies to make these products, especially from the hem-bal side, more valuable to people — and understanding the wood, understanding what can be done with it. I think keeping an access to a market and keeping those logs going into other jurisdictions so everybody better understands how those logs can be taken advantage of is certainly important.

With regard to the Sea to Sky specifically, and recognizing that the Skwxwú7mesh and the Lillooet and the N’Quatqua and the In-SHUCK-ch have the vast majority of the tenure in the area, yet increasingly their tenures are not viable due to the limitations on export, the blocking that is taking place…. In fact, I’m happy to provide the minister with some of the documentation around how other licensees in the coastal region, with processing, who are undercutting their own tenures, are then blocking export for these First Nations who don’t have a resulting access to export market.

It’s a very difficult situation. We’re also losing reinvestment. We’re losing an opportunity to retain people in the industry or to have people understand that forestry is one of the most renewable and green business opportunities we have in this province. Yet they don’t see a future in it.

I’d very much like to maintain forestry as an important sector in the Sea to Sky. It’s under tremendous pressure already. Yet with the stumpage costs, this is something that is really putting the industry at risk completely.

[2:50 p.m.]

I wonder if the minister has any plans or there is anything that could be put in place to support these licensees and tenure holders who are specifically First Nations to have access to markets so they can at least cover their costs.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just as an opening remark, I certainly wouldn’t characterize any of the discussion that we’re about to have or have had with the term “subsidization.” I’m sure the member knows why that is a very sensitive topic. I want to make it clear and on the record to not construe any of what we’re doing in the forest sector or in this discussion as related to subsidizing.

Having said that, absolutely, we want to ensure that B.C. logs are processed in B.C. mills and provide B.C. jobs. That’s a goal of our government. We want to see that happen. If there are scenarios that are similar to the ones that the member has described around undercutting and blocking and not processing to full capacity, then those are the kinds of things that we absolutely don’t want to see happening.

We want to see the resource, the publicly owned resource, used in a way that’s going to benefit the communities, primarily, and the public and then, generally, into the revenue stream for the province. There are a number of the complexities on the coast. The market value versus the logging cost, which has been highlighted by the member. There’s operating conditions. There’s First Nations concerns. We’re taking all this into account in policy deliberations.

We have to consult and work with industry and communities and with First Nations on it. These aren’t especially new issues. It’s something that is a result of a number of years that we’re faced with now. And we want to get to a solution. So I welcome the inputs like we’ve had today from the member as well as working on some solutions.

We know the challenges. That’s for sure. People are very good at articulating the challenges. It’s the solutions that I’m interested in — realistic and doable solutions. That’s what I’m focused on, and that’s what we’re focused on. I can’t give, today, an answer to the dilemma that has been described by the member, but I want him to know that we’re working on it. It’s something that’s — as I said, I’m solutions-oriented — realistic and doable.

[2:55 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: Okay. I will provide one suggestion, then, and a solution. That is to reduce the stumpage rate down to the average of $2 to $3 from the $5 to $11 that is being felt in the Sea to Sky natural resource district.

To move on slightly here…. Perhaps we can cover some of that in some of the briefing that we, hopefully, are able to arrange with regard to Bowen. Perhaps there we can cover some of that so I can better understand it. As much as I do have conversations and engage with the industry on this, I find there’s always more to know and certainly more to understand. There are so many levels of this.

This is a similar issue. It’s specific to cottonwood. As the minister, I’m sure, understands, there is no domestic buyer of cottonwood, at least to my knowledge, not on the south coast. Scott Paper was a buyer a number of years back, but they no longer purchase logs. Yet there is an opportunity to create an international or export market for this product, because it is in demand in other jurisdictions.

The challenge with creating a solid customer relationship with producers — specifically in my region, because that’s what I’m most familiar with — is the fact that they cannot supply logs on a consistent basis because they get blocked. Believe it or not, they get blocked.

An ancillary benefit here, not that the blocking’s a benefit, is that much of the agricultural land in the region is under cottonwood. To clear that land to put it into agricultural production is incredibly expensive, in the neighbourhood of $10,000 an acre — to harvest, dig stumps, pick up sticks and get it ready to plant. If there was an opportunity to sell those logs at a profitable level, they could cover the costs of clearing land for agriculture. There’s potentially a win-win here.

I wondered if the minister would consider the idea of eliminating the surplus test on cottonwood for a fixed period of time, specifically in my region — and I leave it to the minister to look at other regions — for the benefit of creating long-term business relationships as well as the benefit of creating opportunity to create or clear agricultural land and bring it into production.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Although cottonwood is not specifically exempted from the surplus test like cedar would be, staff inform me that we have no evidence of the blocking of cottonwood when it comes to the surplus test. I’d be happy to meet, maybe in the same conversation we’re having on the Bowen Island issue, so that we can get some more details or evidence of blocking.

We’re open to any ideas. I mean, I know the use of non-traditional species is important for some manufacturers. Cottonwood is one that escapes me a little bit, about how it’s being used for domestic purposes.

As the member knows, it’s not as commonly available or highly available as other species that are used more in the creation of products, because it generally grows in riparian areas — lots of cottonwood up where I live and lots of it in the flood zone and the low-lying areas. That constrains, oftentimes, the ability to harvest for other values.

If you want to meet a little bit more on the evidence of blocking and the issue you’re bringing, I’m happy to have those discussions and staff is happy to have those discussions.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister. Appreciate that.

I think that the idea of exempting it from the surplus test for a period of time would allow us to create long-term customer opportunities that don’t exist right now, because we can’t reliably deliver to our international customers.

I look forward to the meeting and the briefing where we can discuss this further. Hopefully it will be timely, as I understand, or I’ve been told, that we’re not able to set up a time to meet with the minister before the end of session. Hopefully this meeting actually takes place in advance of that — in fact, in the next little while. I’d appreciate it so that I can bring this back to my constituents.

Hon. D. Donaldson: We can arrange a meeting with senior staff within the next two weeks, and depending on my schedule, I’ll see if I can attend. I think it’s really important for you to be able to flesh out some of those details — around the consultation process on Bowen Island and the issue around cottonwood and the other topic on stumpage rates in the Sea to Sky — with senior staff. That’s extremely important.

C. Oakes: I’m just seeking some clarification on comments that were made in March in respect to a constituent file that I’ve brought forward in this House on multiple occasions — a guide and outfitter, Stewart Fraser.

I would quote that in response to multiple questions I started to raise both in the fall estimates as well as prior to March, the response back from the minister was: “On this specific case, if you would like to encourage the individual to get in touch with the ministry, we’d be happy to meet with them about the challenges they’re facing.”

Further, in another question, a similar question, from this constituent around guide and outfitting: “We’re also working with the guide-outfitters on options around permitting and fees and those kind of things. So we’re open to creative thinking around this.”

A final comment from the ministry in quotes from estimates. Again, in reflection of concerns I’ve raised from our constituent Stewart Fraser: “I would encourage the member to ask the individual to get in touch with us directly, and we can explore options.”

[3:05 p.m.]

My office has tried to make those arrangements with your office. Stewart Fraser has contacted your staff directly to, again, set up that meeting with the minister. We are being told that we will not be able to meet with you for a meeting. Hunting season…. Stewart Fraser requires this information prior to May 14, when hunting season starts.

To the minister: how should we best set up this meeting that the minister suggested we do?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Our local regional executive director and the ADM responsible will reach out to Stewart Fraser and arrange to have a meeting, depending on his schedule, in the next couple of weeks.

That would be the most productive start, to meet with senior staff at that level in order to make sure all the information is accumulated about refunds on permits and about the impacts of the wildfire on his operation. So that is what I’m offering up to your constituent, through you. Then once that meeting happens, we can go from there.

As far as meeting with me, it would be more appropriate for him to meet with senior staff in order to get that information to them and make sure he brings that information to them. They’ll be reaching out to him.

C. Oakes: I appreciate that. But again, Stewart Fraser…. When we canvassed this prior, the minister suggested that Mr. Fraser contact yourself. I think it is very pertinent that he has that conversation with you, as it has been reflected in prior comments that the minister has made.

[3:10 p.m.]

With all due respect, it is a hope that the constituent could meet with…. Even through a phone call. He’s happy to meet you in Kamloops when you are there.

He has offered multiple options to meet with the minister, but it’s critically important. The minister has said that he is open to hearing from guide and outfitters. I know that they have made that request. To the minister: I think it’s important that you hear what the guide-outfitters — and, specifically, Stewart Fraser — have to say.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I definitely am always encouraging guide-outfitters, and especially through their association, to get in touch with me. I always enjoy the conversations I have with them. They are people who share a love of the land and a stewardship of the land, and it’s something I share with them.

As far as setting up a call, I’ll take that to my staff and see if we can set up a call. At the same time, though, it’s important for them to meet in person with senior staff because, to be totally forthright, they’re the ones that have much more information at their fingertips around providing direct answers to Mr. Fraser.

I’m certainly able to arrange a call with him to hear directly his concerns from what he has experienced. I don’t know what my schedule looks like in Kamloops for an in-person meeting, but definitely we can set up a call, and we’ll see what happens as far as Kamloops. I’ll have a look at the schedule in Kamloops as well.

J. Rustad: As much as I want to go into talking about exports and blocking and, you know, undercuts and these type of things, I think we’re limited a little bit in time. But I do want to ask the minister particularly about old growth on the coast. Just a question or two with regards to that.

There is a movement. I think a number of environmental groups and others are suggesting that there should be a moratorium on old-growth harvesting of timber on the Island, on the coastal area. I’m wondering, first of all, how much old-growth area has been protected on the Island? You may not have these exact numbers, so you can get them to me down the road. I’m okay with that. How much old growth is being protected, and how much old growth is left in terms of the overall area of the Island?

Then it’s whether or not the ministry is considering this request from these groups to put in place a moratorium on any additional harvesting of old-growth timber.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I have some interesting and pertinent facts for the member in response to his question: 40 percent of Vancouver Island’s Crown forest lands are old-growth forests, with 38 percent of that currently protected or reserved. That translates into 520,000 hectares.

As far as our approach on Vancouver Island when it comes to old growth, we’re very aware of the concerns expressed by those who value and are interested in old growth. We have initiated, over the next 12 to 18 months…. What we’re doing is developing a non-legal trial policy for coastal B.C. on the retention and protection of big trees. That’s something that’s of interest and that we’re working on through industry and also with B.C. Timber Sales.

Definitely, there’s a lot of old growth protected on the Island, but we are aware of people who are concerned about the old-growth values. We’re working with them and industry to look at the retention and protection of big trees.

J. Rustad: Thanks for that answer. I mean, I just find it interesting. This was something else that was an interesting question that came up at COFI, the Council of Forest Industries, where it talked about if there was a moratorium on old growth from the Island, the coast, I think it would mean a 25 percent reduction in the harvesting levels for that coastal area. Obviously, that’s pretty significant in terms of whatever policy that may be in place.

But it raises the question…. I think the minister just talked about developing a policy and a discussion around what this would be. How many engagements are there within the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations with various groups around the province on forestry and wildlife and all the other aspects of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development?

My apologies. I meant that to be specific topic engagements. Obviously, there are engagements happening every day with First Nations and other groups and stuff like that. So it’s more around, very much around, policy discussions and engagements that I’m asking this question about.

Hon. D. Donaldson: We engage — you’re right — on a day-to-day basis with First Nations and licensees and communities. Those are routine.

[3:20 p.m.]

We also have many policy initiatives that were in our platform — ones that relate specifically to the ministry I represent in regards to ensuring that we process more B.C. logs in B.C. mills, that we look at engineered wood products, around land use planning, around wildlife management. There are many, many engagements on the broad area of interest that this ministry touches on.

What I want to say and am going to say is that this government feels it’s important to talk with the people who are most impacted by policy decisions first, before making policy adjustments. We’re advancing many new policy initiatives in order to enhance the forest sector, in order to ensure wildlife populations are sustainable, to work on certainty around the land base with First Nations.

These are all major initiatives that needed attention when we came into government. It is taking the approach that the people on the ground, in communities, are the ones that deserve to be consulted because they are the ones that are going to ultimately bear the impacts of any policy change, positively or negatively.

J. Rustad: I fully support going out and doing engagements and discussions. After 16 years, I find it curious that there’s a whole bunch of discussions, when they had all of the answers in the past. But, having said that, I’m wondering if the minister could table a list or provide me with a list of papers that have gone out or various groups that have been put together or other types of initiatives around policy that impact on FLNRO, so I can get a total list.

I know there have been a number of announcements, both in the ministry and outside the ministry, around this. It would be nice to have one consolidated list of these engagements so we can have an opportunity to be able to make other people aware who may not be aware of these so they have an opportunity to input. It’s also to be able to track timelines and inputs and components to have some sort of idea of just where the direction within the ministry might be going.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Certainly, we can put together a list in the spirit of transparency and openness. Also, I appreciate the offer of the opposition MLAs getting the word out around the different processes that we’re embarked upon. So we’ll put a list together, from my ministry’s purview.

I appreciate the member’s comment about after 16 years having all of the answers. I come from the perspective, and from a government, that we don’t have all the answers. So we’re going to get the answers and on-the-ground perspective from people to the issues that they’re facing within their communities.

J. Rustad: Well, I’ll leave the politics alone on that because there are too many other things to talk about at the moment. In any case, hon. Chair, thank you for the opportunity.

I want to switch to another topic. In particular, I understand that Catalyst Paper is either taking downtime now or is scheduled to take downtime. I’m wondering if the minister could confirm that and if the ministry is aware of what length of time that Catalyst Paper may be down for.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, we’re aware of the situation with Catalyst. We’re very concerned about the situation that they’re facing.

[3:25 p.m.]

The information we have is that on approximately May 14 the Powell River Catalyst mill will be on curtailment for three weeks. We’re not anticipating…. We’ve been told by Catalyst that it’s a temporary curtailment, with no loss of jobs in that three-week period. It’s shutting down one of their lines of production, and that line of production has to do with uncoated groundwood paper.

There are a couple of factors at play here. One of them cited by Catalyst is fibre supply, and we’re working on that situation. The other is the unwarranted, unjust and unmerited duties that have been applied recently by special interest groups in Washington state and endorsed by the U.S. Department of Commerce in August.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the opportunity I had to be on the call talking with the federal counterparts with regards to the groundwood pulp. The supply, particularly the fibre supply, the chip supply, is the component here that I wanted to ask a couple questions on.

Specifically, back when we were doing estimates last month, three or four weeks ago now, I had asked the minister with regards to the shortage of railcars and the fact that there was a difficulty moving forest products to export markets — as well, of course, as moving various products around, which would include moving chips to facilities like Catalyst. At the time, I believe the minister had responded and said that they weren’t aware of any particular serious issue.

We’ve seen now the report that the number of exports over the last quarter down to the United States is down dramatically — I think 20 percent or in that category — with regard to the softwood lumber exports. We’re seeing Catalyst in a situation where it doesn’t have the chip supply it needs because it can’t get the product that it needs. I’ve talked to a number of mills, a number of licensees — and I’m sure the minister had a chance to as well — over this period of time, and with COFI about their challenges in their yards trying to get product moved and the components.

I guess the question is…. Given that the minister didn’t think there was an issue associated with CN in the past — obviously, there has been quite an issue associated with the forest industries — is the minister engaged with the federal counterpart with regards to the availability of railcars and the movement of forest products? What steps is the ministry asking the federal government to take with regards to their jurisdiction over rail and rail traffic so that our interests in the forest industry are being looked after?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: These are some systemic issues that our government has inherited.

[3:30 p.m.]

We are concerned about the transportation of product, especially the lumber exports, which were what was highlighted at the Council of Forest Industries annual meeting in Prince George that we both attended. CN was mainly the transportation company that was highlighted as far as railcar scarcity. I sat with the CEO of West Fraser and the CEO of Interfor, and we had a very good discussion around the impacts of that.

My counterpart here in this government, the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology, has been engaged on this issue with his federal counterparts. They’re the ones that need to put pressure on CN. I know that at that COFI meeting, both the CEOs of West Fraser and Interfor and other major licensees had a direct meeting with Minister Garneau on this. So those avenues are being explored, as I said, through the Jobs, Trade and Technology Minister.

As far as the actual Catalyst issue and the supply of fibre in the form of chips, the chip supply, from what I understand from staff, is not a matter of railcar scarcity. When it comes to the mill at Powell River, it’s not an issue of the transportation and the lack of railcars to transport that to get that product to that mill. I’ll leave it at that for now.

J. Rustad: I was talking with some of the south coast industry this morning, and I was led to believe that the supply of chips coming in, in particular from some of the Interior or other places, was a factor for Catalyst.

Regardless of that, the railcar issue is certainly an issue. As was canvassed in question period today, there is a tremendous amount of resources used by the two major rail lines in Canada, being CP Rail and CNR, that are going towards the movement of oil. Obviously there’s a huge demand. It’s impacted on wheat. It’s impacted on forest products. There have been winter issues. There have been other issues. But the reality is that our forest industry has been taking a hit.

Now, given where lumber prices are, the forest industry is not a critical issue. But it is a very important issue for the industry to be able to move more product to market, to be able to meet its obligations, as well as to be able to take advantage of prices in markets that we currently have. Certainly, if there was availability of more cars — because certain products aren’t being moved by rail but moved by other safer means — that would be significant.

Once again, the question I had around the previous question was the steps that are being taken. I understand the Minister of Jobs is being engaged, but this is a significant component for forestry. So I’ll ask again: what steps is the Ministry of Forests looking at in terms of not just the current impact but long-term supply — of the ability of the industry to move product in this province by rail?

Just to go back and give a little bit of history, there was a situation many, many years ago, back in the ’80s, when B.C. Rail went on rotating strikes through about six weeks, which really backed up the forest industry. At that point, the forest industry said: “We won’t be held hostage again, and we’ll start moving more product by truck.” Obviously, by truck, there’s more expense. There are more problems and more issues around it, whether it’s greenhouse gas or otherwise.

The point is the forest industry, at that point, was 85 percent, 90 percent moving by rail and moved down to around 65 percent moving by rail, because they needed to have other options. If we can’t resolve this issue around railcars, industry is going to have to look at other options once again, in terms of moving product around.

[3:35 p.m.]

I would ask if there is a strategy in place or if the ministry is considering a strategy of engagement both with industry and with the rail lines and with the federal government to look at what a long-term strategy will look like to be able to ensure that our forest products can make it to market and keep the industry healthy.

Hon. D. Donaldson: This lack of railcars at certain times of the year is a seasonal issue that affects all shippers who are shipping by rail. This is a topic that was also faced previously by the government that this member represented at the time. It’s something that we’ve inherited from that government as well as federally, and we’re very concerned about it. As I said, I sat at COFI and heard the stories from CEOs about the amount of product that was sold and waiting to be shipped, and this is an export product. This is lumber.

My position in this ministry is to support the forest sector and also to collaborate with the ministries within this government that are focused on the export issue. That’s primarily the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology, as well as the Minister of Transportation. They’re having extensive dialogues with the federal government, and we’re working with the federal government to exert pressure in a federal jurisdiction, which is rail transportation.

If the member has some further suggestions on how to advance it, I’d be all ears. It’s not something that’s lost on us. It’s not something that’s new. It’s something that was faced by previous governments as well. It’s something that we’re working on.

J. Rustad: I’m glad to see that the minister is concerned about it. It’s a significant change from where it was four weeks ago in estimates, but in any case…. We’re going to do a little jumping around here.

I’ve got a couple of questions from my colleague from Cariboo south. That’ll be followed by a question from one of my colleagues in the Okanagan. From there, I want to go in to canvass briefly, if we can, the issue of land resource planning. With that, I’ll turn the floor over to my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin.

D. Barnett: Yesterday afternoon, Minister, in estimates, we discussed guide-outfitters. I quote from your comments: “We’ve asked for documentation from the guide-outfitters impacted by wildfires, on their losses. We’re awaiting that information so that we can have further discussions with them, but we’ve got to get that information first.” The Red Cross has been there as a business, and they got what is available. “Contact our rural development representatives in their area, and they can be helped to walk through the process, as well as through FrontCounter B.C. So there are many avenues for that access.”

Well, believe it or not, people are at home watching these estimates. Guide-outfitters are. I have had a couple of calls from guide-outfitters since these comments were made. They went to FrontCounter B.C., and FrontCounter B.C. told them they knew nothing about rural development. They knew nothing about any place where they were taking impacts from guide-outfitters as to their losses.

[3:40 p.m.]

My question to the minister is: where are all the rural development staff situated? Where do they go to get help? You said here that you were taking impact statements and impact of losses. Where do they go to get this done? Who is there to help them? You just said — and I congratulate you — you’re solutions-oriented. This is a huge issue. Guide-outfitters in my region, in Cariboo North and south of me, in the Kootenays, were all impacted in some way by fires. We need concrete solutions. We’re here to work with you for solutions, but we need to know concrete answers. Where do we go, and how do we get help?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Housed in the district offices — our district offices in Williams Lake, 100 Mile House, Quesnel and Kamloops — are community recovery managers. We can get the names for the member of those community recovery managers in those four communities, and contact information. We’ll make sure the FrontCounter B.C. staff who aren’t aware of that will have that information as well. But generally speaking, FrontCounter staff should be aware of that. If they’re not, then we’ll make sure they are.

D. Barnett: Minister, they did go there this morning, a couple of guide-outfitters, and they got a response that they knew nothing. Back to the question from your statements. As you are waiting for their impacts…. They understand, these people, that there would be some help for them, from what you said yesterday.

Who do they give these statements to of their losses, and what help is going to be out there for them after they give the statements?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the question. We want to make sure that we try to have a streamlined interaction between guide-outfitters who are seeking remedies around impacts and losses and the provincial government support teams that are in place. We do have a specialized, specific cross-ministry team that’s in place to work with individual guide-outfitters and through guidefitters associations.

I realize that some guide-outfitters are not part of broader regional associations. They’re in place to work with both individuals and the associations. What we’ll do is make sure that the community recovery managers are ready and in touch with the cross-ministry team. I wouldn’t want to see the situation where a guide-outfitter comes in to provide, as the member said, a statement about impacts and losses and simply is told by the community recovery manager: “Well, here’s the number for the next person on the line.”

We want to make sure that that’s streamlined. So that’s what will happen. We’ll make sure that the community recovery managers are in touch with the cross-ministry team so that when the guide-outfitters come in, they’ll be able to deal with the person and the team that’s in place to take those statements about impact and losses.

D. Barnett: Thank you for that.

We talk about solutions. We, as the front line in our communities, would really appreciate this information so that we can be of assistance. The more knowledge we have, the more assistance we can give to our guide-outfitters and to your ministry, the sooner we will move forward.

You made an announcement — or the Premier did — in Prince George of $139 million from the Forest Enhancement Society, $99 million for the Cariboo region. I understand $30 million of that is for First Nations.

My question is: what are the projects? How many projects? In which community? How can a community apply for mitigation funding? The process, the time frame? When will the project start? Is this one year? Will this be continuous over the next five years? We know there is over $2 billion worth of damage on the land from the wildfires of 2017.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for highlighting this investment in rural communities, to the member. That $139 million referred to approved projects, approved by the FESBC, the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C., board. They made that announcement just last week. These were dollars that were in our existing three-year fiscal plan to FESBC.

As the member might remember, it’s an arms-length organization that was set up in the day that her party was in government. Its focus is on engaging in capacity-building, wildfire recovery, wildfire risk reduction and mitigation activities. Part of the reason behind FESBC being set up at arm’s length from government was in order to try to multiply government dollars that we’ve allocated towards it.

[3:55 p.m.]

As I said, the $139 million was approved projects by the FESBC board. The member is correct that $99 million of that was targeted to projects in the Cariboo. We can provide the member with a list of projects. That’s no problem. We’ll get that to her as quickly as we can.

The nature of the projects are…. As far as the length of period that they cover, it’s multiple. Some are one year. Some are four years. So there are multiple projects in that.

In addition, some of the questions were lengthy and lots of points in the questions. But how communities, for instance, can apply to the FESBC funding envelope — that’s possible. They have periodic intakes. I can’t describe to you when the next intake is, but they do have a website that describes that information.

I can also offer to the member, because it’s of particular interest to her, considering the damage that was done in her constituency and neighbouring constituencies…. We can get an individual from Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. to get in touch with you to describe the intake process and the application process.

D. Barnett: Thank you. I look forward to the list, and I’ll wait for the Forest Enhancement Society call.

S. Thomson: I’ve just been given the opportunity for a very quick question and, I hope, a quick response as well. You shouldn’t have to change up staff to be able to respond here.

As you know, in the Okanagan, we’ve got a very, very significant issue with respect to dock replacements as a result of all the impacts last year on individual homeowners, businesses and things with all of the damage done to docks.

Firstly, the positive side of it. We really do appreciate the response and the extra resources and have heard that there’s good turnaround time in terms of dealing with the applications and things like that. So sort of a general thanks for all of the work that’s being done there.

But there’s always a but in this, and there are a growing number and a significant number of applications that have created real challenges. It all relates to what we believe is a very prescriptive application of the policy, a prescriptive approach that doesn’t result in common sense being applied in terms of the approval process and the application process.

We’ve got a request in to your office for a meeting. Rather than go through today all of those specific applications and the individual examples, the request simply today is to have the opportunity for an early meeting with you to review those specific applications and look for the commonsense types of solutions in those cases that would provide the answers within the parameters of the existing policy. We think there are ways to do this that don’t appear to be considered, currently, with a prescriptive approach.

On behalf of the Okanagan MLAs, particularly from our three ridings around Kelowna and on Okanagan Lake, I wonder if we could have that opportunity to review a number of specific files at a very early opportunity. As you know, there are also timing windows with respect to dealing with these. Our concern is that we’re going to miss the windows and that we’re also putting a number of property owners through a lot of additional process and cost and everything, in their application process, that really just doesn’t seem to make sense.

So just on behalf of the group, our request is for an early opportunity to meet and review those specific files. We can provide the list before the meeting, but what’s mostly requested here is a very early opportunity to do that.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: First off, I want to welcome back the member. It’s good to see you back here in the Legislature. Nice to see you. It’s good that you appear to be in good health, and I wish you the best as far as your health goes.

I can reinforce what the member said. We had extra resources put towards this topic. The team that we had in place, the flood recovery team, as I mentioned — I believe it was yesterday — has been extended and will remain in place until at least the end of September — September 30 of this year. That should help. As well, the temporary staffing uplift for an auxiliary term for a dedicated natural resource officer is in place. I know that the member recognized that work that’s been done.

As far as some specific cases, where the member typifies it as maybe prescriptive rather than common sense in policy application, I definitely would be willing to meet about that. The first step would be to make sure that the files that are of concern are forwarded and that senior staff will meet with you and other concerned MLAs within the next week or two. Then, if there are other considerations after that, I’d be willing to meet. Of course, it’s much more, I think, efficient and effective for you to meet with senior staff right off the bat, and perhaps we can get resolutions more quickly that way.

There is that balance — and I know you know it, having been the minister — between prescriptive policy and environmental considerations. I appreciate your perspective, and when you talk about common sense, I know that you know the constraints within legislation and you know what common sense is.

I want to make sure that you know to get the files to us. The senior staff will meet with you and other concerned MLAs on those files. Then, if that doesn’t bring about resolution, I’d be happy to meet after that.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that answer. I actually want to go back to one quick follow-up on FESBC and the funding around that. You know, I understand the funding, I understand the decision, and I think it’s appropriate that the money be spent, obviously, in that area. The impact of the fires was significant, and it’s good to see those dollars going.

As the minister likely understands and knows, that money was be put in there for…. There were many other needs and many other interests around the province that that money could have been allocated towards. We obviously had an emergency situation that came up because of the forest fires, and money needs to be spent.

The question is: why weren’t there new or additional funds put in to be able to handle that emerging issue? And will the existing or the other priorities that that money was put in for have to take a back seat for a period of time until such time as there may be an additional infusion of cash into FESBC and the good work that they do?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I do like to talk about this because it’s a successful investment in the land base and in rural B.C.

In this most recent independent announcement by Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. around funding, there was a focus on the Cariboo. That’s…. I guess I’ll use the word “coincidental” in that FESBC is set up for land recovery, and a lot of that had to do with the mountain pine beetle impacts in the Cariboo before the wildfire situation of last year.

There’s still significant funding remaining in FESBC for other parts of the province — in this last announcement, $34 million for investment outside of the Cariboo. As well, we have the $50 million increase in the budget for wildfire resiliency around the province. So we do have significant resources available for all parts of the province.

I’ll just finish off by saying that FESBC, through our forest carbon initiative, is hoping to partner with the federal government’s low-carbon economy initiative in order to multiply provincial dollars even further. That’s something that will happen that wasn’t part of this recent announcement, but we hope that’ll be something that we’ll be able to announce in the coming year.

J. Rustad: Sticking on the topic the minister just raised around the $50 million that’s available for the mitigation, I guess…. It’s not mitigation — reparation. I can’t remember exactly the words that the minister used.

Can the minister provide some details? That’s spread over three years. I know it’s $10 million this year and then incremental increases over the next two years. Can the minister provide some detail as to where that money will be allocated and what the thinking is behind it? I’ll leave it at that.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’re very excited that we were able to secure this budget uplift when it comes to increasing community resiliency in regard to wildfires. The member is right. It’s a $50 million commitment over the next three years — $10 million this year and $20 million per year in each of the next two years. We are in the middle of designing the rollout of how that investment will happen. It’s investment in rural areas of the province, which is very important.

That will particularly be informed, that rollout, around recommendations that arise from the Abbott-Chapman review, the independent review. But it’s also informed by our ongoing efforts in SWPI, through the UBCM, and through FESBC that we just discussed.

I’ll give a general outline about how we anticipate, in a broad sense, this money to be allocated. We’re going to target two components. One will be dedicated streamlined funding for local authorities, First Nations and Indigenous communities to undertake planning, capacity-building, engagement, and implementation of resiliency and preparedness tools — for example, fuel treatment, land use planning policy and bylaws, education and incentives to participate. That’s a nice category, and I’m sure that the Abbott-Chapman review will have some additional suggestions that fall within that one.

The other component is target investment for provincial priorities and critical assets necessary to maintain community resiliency, such as power, communications, water supply and rural commercial entities such as ranchers and mountain resorts. We know that some of that was under threat this past fire season, so we want to target some of the investment in that as far as protecting those into the future.

J. Rustad: I seem to recall, when that member was in opposition, talking about the significant need for more resources than that around wildfire resilience. Regardless of that, we need to move on to another topic. There are a few last little things I want to try to cover when I can here, through this, particularly land resource management planning.

Back in the ’90s, I was in the private sector at that time and involved in LRMP and some of the mapping and processes. The minister, I believe, has talked about revitalizing that land management planning. I’m wondering if the minister could provide this Legislature with some details with regard to the intent of revitalizing these and what the minister is hoping to achieve.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Again, another exciting endeavour, part of my mandate letter from the Premier and an area where we were able to secure additional financial resources for our ministry as well as the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Those three ministries, but primarily ours, will be the ones investing $16 million over the next three years to modernize land use planning. Our ministry will expend approximately $1.8 million in this fiscal year, $5.7 million next year and $7.3 million approximately in the final year.

The intent. I appreciate the clarity of the question. Intent and outcomes — those are the kinds of things that are obviously always important to address. The intent involves the fact that many of the land use plans have not been updated — sometimes, in 20 years.

Definitely they’re dated from the aspect of over those ensuing decades, there have been tremendous impacts in certain parts of the province at the landscape level — disturbance, for instance, through wildfires or mountain pine beetle. Those have all happened in a more significant manner in the last couple of decades. There have been impacts from climate change that have been part and parcel of that as well.

There has been a focus from the federal government on species at risk. That’s all in the intervening years. There have been increased concerns around water sustainability that weren’t addressed in a significant way in many of the original land use plans.

I think, very importantly, there have been successive court cases that have outlined to a more certain degree Aboriginal rights and title. In many cases, that was not considered in original land use plans, so the land use planning process that we’re embarking on is definitely a major tool when we consider reconciliation.

[4:20 p.m.]

The outcomes that we’re anticipating and that we’re working towards are increased certainty on the land base — which is good for communities, good for First Nations, good for industry — and improved stewardship of the land, considering those factors that weren’t high-attention subjects in the original planning processes.

J. Rustad: I agree it’s been a while, but there are obviously significant issues around land use management planning, particularly with First Nations, as the minister has mentioned. The need to resolve land claims issues with First Nations could play a very significant role in terms of whether land use plans are even valid today in some areas.

So the question to the minister would be: does he feel that land use planning can be successful, given that First Nations were not involved with the original plans, I believe, when they were started up in the 1990s and may have started even before then?

The need to be able to resolve the title question may override existing plans or the ability to be able to update the plans. So how is the process going to be able to move forward, in light of the fact that the underlying question of land and title will likely play a very significant role in terms of the discussions of process now that First Nations will be included?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I believe the question was: can we be successful in land use planning, considering the context of Aboriginal title? Yes, I do believe we can be successful. For me, there’s greater risk in not trying to undertake a renewal of the land use planning process than there is in just waiting. It’s too risky a situation to hold off on this on the concern that we might not be successful.

I do believe that we can be successful. Why do I believe that? It’s based on the fact that the collaborative approaches that have been taken in the past…. I’ll highlight some of them that the member will be familiar with. Some of them started many years ago; others more recently.

For instance, the relationships our ministry staff have developed with First Nations in processes like the Great Bear Rainforest, the marine planning partnership, environmental stewardship initiatives. Those relationships have shown that a collaborative approach can lead to the outcomes that I described in the last answer, around certainty on the land base, reconciliation and an approach that brings First Nations in early on in the process. That’s what has been lacking in the past.

[4:25 p.m.]

There is complexity. There’s no doubt about that, and I think that the member is aware of that in his previous role when he was Minister of Aboriginal Relations. There is complexity, but that’s why we’re working on this in conjunction with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. We’re going to take a phased approach, and we’re going to ensure that First Nations are involved in this first year in the design of the process.

From what I’ve seen of successful applications of land use planning, I think this is an opportunity to move forward together with First Nations and non–First Nations to make sure communities benefit and industry has some certainty.

J. Rustad: Having seen the process of land use planning — in some cases, taking a decade or longer in terms of the discussions — ultimately getting to some agreements simply by the fact that people were worn down from lengthy, lengthy conversations between all the stakeholders on the land base…. I never, of course, want to refer to First Nations as a stakeholder, but back in those days when all of that happened, First Nations and the complexity of title were not part of those discussions. It will be entertaining. It will be interesting, I’m sure, in terms of how this proceeds.

I guess the question to the minister around this…. Given all the complexities of the existing ones, the challenges of bringing all those players together to the table and having the conversations and then adding in the component, the rightful component, of Aboriginal title and rights to that, what performance measures has the minister put in place in terms of this process and expectations for completion or time frames associated with land planning?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The important part of designing how this is going to roll out is in partnership with First Nations, stakeholders, industry and the public, so those will be how we define and come together on performance measures around the land use planning initiative.

I also want to point out that there’s been a lot of data sharing and gathering and trusted data between, for instance, First Nations and non–First Nations, between First Nations and this ministry. Those are the kinds of areas where we can move ahead, where values and data sharing on the landscape have already been worked on and shared. Those kinds of places set it up for a more condensed land use planning process. It’s not like we’re starting from scratch in some areas. We do have the initial land use plans that were already done, so we’re looking at scalable planning projects that need a wide range of land use needs and aren’t responsive to current land use issues and drivers.

I believe there’s going to be areas where we can move ahead quickly and get some demonstration of how this works in a positive manner, and that will make it easier for the areas that are more complex.

[4:30 p.m.]

We’ve had a request for a five-minute recess. We’re willing to take that on, unless we’re getting closer to completion.

J. Rustad: Given the time, I will avoid…. I know we want to wrap up. There are other things that need to be done. There are many more questions that could be asked around this ministry.

I want to thank the minister. I particularly want to thank the minister’s staff for all the efforts. I know there’s been some back and forth and rotating doors. The thing is rotating as people come and go on a regular basis, but staff have been great in going through this process, and I want to thank you.

I’ll avoid my closing political comment if the minister will do the same, and we’ll wrap up here. Once again, thanks for the process.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I wanted to, in my closing comment, say that I appreciate the experience and the perspectives brought by all MLAs who’ve asked questions in this process. Many of them relate to areas of the province that I have a great interest in, and on subject matters. And we are embarking on some new initiatives. I look forward to the support of the critic on the other side and, also, providing additional perspective that is needed from a member of the official opposition. I look forward to working together.

Vote 28: ministry operations, $473,452,000 — approved.

Vote 29: fire management, $63,986,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 50: Forest Practices Board, $3,845,000 — approved.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that the committee rise and report completion of the resolutions and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:33 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

[4:35 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 7; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 4:38 p.m.

On section 1.

M. Lee: Thank you, first of all, for arranging the briefing on this statute. I would like to just go through a number of questions, particularly for this section, and just for the record as well.

Can the minister explain the types of reports that are contemplated by the existing provision of the Crown Proceeding Act, under section 15, that will not be the subject matter of this revised and proposed report under the amendment? Specifically, the report, as you have set out, includes sections that reference 13(4) and 14(4), as opposed to the other certificates under that particular provision under section 15 in the Crown Proceeding Act.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that the reports are the same. It might look like it’s been narrowed, but the application of the sections is the same under the revised text as it was under the old text. So there are no reports that this does not apply to, if I understand the member’s question correctly. There’s no change intended here in terms of the reports that it applies to, which would be the same, despite the fact that it appears to be more narrow.

M. Lee: Perhaps another way to come at the question is the language in the proposed amendment refers to the report being tabled by the Attorney General in front of the Legislative Assembly. That would be as opposed to tabling the actual certificates that, previously, the comptroller general provided to the Attorney General. Is there going to be more information in this report beyond the certificates?

Hon. D. Eby: It might be useful to take a step back before I attempt to answer the member’s question.

This is intended to ensure that the legislation reflects what the past practice has been. It has been the practice that the Attorney General’s ministry prepares, in the fiscal year, this report about money paid out and lays the report in front of the Legislative Assembly. That’s been the way that it has worked.

The legislation, though, says that it’s the comptroller general that does it and that it involves certificates. That has not been what has been happening in the Legislature. So the intent is to actually get the legislation to map up with what’s been actually going on in the Legislature.

The member will see no difference, in terms of the practice in the Legislature, in any past reports that have been laid in front of the Legislature under this new provision compared to the old one. The issue was that what was happening before was not consistent with what the legislation said was happening, which was that the comptroller general should be the one preparing the report and that it involves certificates and so on.

The reports will contain the same amount of information as before, and what this does is it just makes the act comply with the practice.

M. Lee: Just to clarify further — I appreciate the response — the obligation under the current provision is that the comptroller general provides these certificates. In the practice, is that a change at all in terms of the proposed amendment to that section of the act? Will the comptroller general continue to provide that information?

Hon. D. Eby: The issue has been that it has not been the comptroller general preparing this. It has been the Ministry of Attorney General attending to this.

The Crown Proceeding Act report is a report detailing the money paid out to satisfy judgments and settle claims against the government so that there’s accountability to the public. The public knows how much money has been paid out in relation to these judgments. It’s prepared by Ministry of Attorney General staff who have that knowledge because they’ve been involved in the process — either settling claims or there have been awards against government in courts, tribunals or so on. They have been preparing this report, passing it up to the Attorney General, who then tables it in the Legislature.

The comptroller general is certainly involved in terms of overall financial responsibility but in terms of actually preparing the report has not been involved. So to have the legislation applying accountability to the comptroller general, when in fact it’s prepared by Ministry of Attorney General staff, is not an accurate representation for the public about how it happens, and we wanted to have legislative authority for what was happening in here to ensure that the law reflected actual practice.

I hope that that addresses the member’s question.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

[4:45 p.m.]

M. Lee: On section 2, in terms of the appointment of officers, we look at the existing provision in the Interpretation Act. Subsections 20(2), (3), (4) and (5) are not carried over into this proposed amendment. Those provisions deal with, in effect, delegation of authority — where the deputy minister is, for example, under sub (2), not able to be present or unable to act. Have these provisions been dealt with elsewhere?

Hon. D. Eby: We’re just looking at the act. In the version we’re looking at, section 20 has three subsections. I wonder if the member could just clarify for us what he’s looking at there.

M. Lee: Maybe a carryover to the actual section. Section 20 in the existing only has the three subsections. It’s probably something just to confirm.

Hon. D. Eby: In the proposed text in the bill, section 20, under “Appointments of officers,” has five subsections. That would replace the old text, in which section 20 has three subsections.

The intent here is to set out, in a single section, the rules that apply to the time of day at which an appointment made under a statutory authority takes effect or terminates. Currently section 20 of the Interpretation Act is about the time of day at which an appointment or its termination is effective. In section 4 of that act — the same act, the Interpretation Act — about when an enactment or its repeal commences, they might both be engaged. It’s hard to figure out which would appropriately apply if it came down to a matter of when the statutory authority for the appointment was engaged.

Sometimes in law, there are these very fine points about exactly when the person was appointed. Currently there are two sections that could potentially be used. Section 20 and section 4 could be in conflict about when the person was actually appointed or when the appointment ended. So we’re bringing it all into a single section here, in section 20. It’s grown a little bit — it’s now five subsections — but it’s meant to clarify when an appointment takes effect for an appointment of an officer.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

M. Lee: On section 3, with the Interpretation Act, again, a number of provisions, of course, have been changed. I appreciate that this has been to clarify the calculation of various reference periods. I’d just like to ask the minister the purpose of the addition of subsection 25(4) and how that is different from the approach that is under the proposed 25.5?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: We might take a few goes to get through this. It is highly technical and not a little bit complicated, but it’s meant to make things clearer.

Under the old section, 25(3) referred to: “If the time for doing an act in a business office falls or expires on a day when the office is not open during regular business hours….” So “falls” was taken out and moved to a separate section. What was attempted to be done here is to ensure that “expires” applies…. I’m going to try this again. If a period begins or ends in an act, then section 25 is the governing section. But if the act talks about something falling on a certain day, then you’re in section 25.5.

M. Lee: It’s fair to say that 25(3) under the current act is consistent with what’s proposed under 25.5. So going back, then, to what’s a new provision under 25(4), I’d just like to ask: is that a change in approach under this legislative interpretation act — to go to the concept, under 25(4)(b), that where the period, as the case may be, for doing an act is on the previous day, you basically go back one day as opposed to going forward? Previously, under the Interpretation Act, section 25(3), you go forward by one day to the next day that the business office is open. My reading of this provision suggests that we go back to the previous day. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. There is a minor policy adjustment here. It’s reflected in section 25(4)(b)(i). If you’re going back and you’re counting…. Basically, it says to somebody that if you knew the office is regularly closed on a certain day, you can’t benefit from a provision that gives you more time or an interpretation that gives you more time if you acted in a manner that just ignored the fact that the office is regularly closed on that day.

It does necessarily result in shorter periods whenever the determination results in a date that falls on a holiday Monday or a Sunday, because on reaching Saturday, the direction changes and the date moves back through the holidays to the next day the office is open during its regular business hours.

[4:55 p.m.]

The member is right. It is really intended to not allow someone to unintentionally benefit by relying on the fact that the office was closed. They should have reasonably known that it was going to be closed because it’s regularly closed on that day.

M. Lee: Thank you for the explanation. I just want to note for the subsequent consequential amendments to various other pieces of legislation in terms of how periods work…. I’d just like to ask the general question to the minister. Has this provision been tested to ensure that we’re not prejudicing by shortening periods, through uses of examples to test these various periods as to how it might play out?

I take the point that we are talking about regular business hours. Typically, that might be contemplating around banks or government offices or other places of work. But to the extent that it plays into other pieces of legislation — like the Election Act, for example — I ask whether his staff has been able to test some of that out to ensure that there isn’t undue prejudice to any individual who might come into contact with this provision.

Hon. D. Eby: Staff have looked at different applications of this and at things like the Vancouver Charter notice for hearings. One of the policy decisions that was made was that the person who is giving the notice is…. If you have to give notice ten days before a council meeting, for example, you could potentially set it up so that you only had to give seven days if it fell within a certain range of holidays. We wanted to make sure that the person who is entitled to the notice period — in this case, the ten days — actually gets those ten days.

It does put a burden on the other party to pay attention to when the holidays are. But we think that that is properly where the burden is placed, as opposed to placing the burden on, in this case, the city, which then only gets seven days when, under the law, they should be getting ten days. That was the policy decision that was made, and the staff looked at different scenarios to ensure that that was a fair application of the interpretation.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

[5:00 p.m.]

M. Lee: Under this provision…. The use of the term “foreign enactment” was something that was discussed during the briefing. I’d just like to have the minister respond, in the context of this committee proceeding, as to some examples where foreign enactments are actually the case in our B.C. legislation. If he could share with the House some examples where that occurs.

Hon. D. Eby: You learn something new every day. I thank the member for the question because it’s enlightening.

I would have said that this was in relation to interpretation of contracts, but it turns out that we do adopt foreign enactments in B.C. In particular, as an example, we have incorporated Environmental Protection Agency regulations from the United States, around wood stoves, in our legislation here in British Columbia. In addition, previously, British Columbia has incorporated emission standards for cars similar to California.

So those are a couple of examples around technical environmental standards that have been adopted in domestic B.C. regulation that are foreign enactments.

M. Lee: On this same provision, under the proposed amendment in subsections (2), (3) and (4), there are provisions relating to domestic enactments. I’m just wondering — the nature in which those sections are drafted — whether they are applicable as well to foreign enactments.

Hon. D. Eby: No, (2), (3) and (4) refer to domestic enactments and should not be read to include foreign enactments.

M. Lee: There’s no need, then, to have those subs (2), (3) and (4) in the case of foreign enactments?

Hon. D. Eby: The member has picked up on a distinction in how British Columbia treats domestic enactments versus foreign enactments. We adopt foreign enactments on a static basis. So as of the day that the law or regulation comes into force, the enactment as it stood on that day in the foreign jurisdiction is as if it’s frozen in time in British Columbia in terms of application here.

Domestic enactments are adopted on a rolling basis. That means that as the federal government updates their laws or amends their laws or regulations and we’ve incorporated it into B.C. legislation, or another province does so or British Columbia does so, that is incorporated on a go-forward basis. It’s the current version of the statute domestically.

It is a different treatment between the two laws, and that’s a distinction that the member has rightly picked up on.

M. Lee: Just a small footnote, while we’re at it. The consideration of Bill 11, which the Attorney General tabled for first reading in the House yesterday, does refer to UNCITRAL in terms of the model of arbitration that’s there.

[5:05 p.m.]

I presume that that might be considered to be a foreign enactment. That’s my first question. If so, what the Attorney General just ran through is something to consider in terms of it wouldn’t be a live interpretation. It would be something that would be static. That may be a question we come back to in the context of discussing Bill 11, but I just want to note that and see if the Attorney General had any comment at this time.

Hon. D. Eby: Bill 11 — and we will definitely address that in committee stage — is an example of us incorporating a model law from the UN, UNCITRAL. I’m trying to think of the full acronym. It’s the UN body that deals with international arbitration rules.

The bill actually takes that model law and adopts pieces of it for British Columbia. It becomes a B.C. statute. It is a domestic piece of legislation. If Bill 11 said British Columbia adopts the model statute of UNCITRAL, the member, I think, would be right. I mean, the UN is kind of different. It would be a foreign enactment. It’s not a British Columbia enactment, and it would be adopted in a static way.

I don’t know if it’s the best example because it’s not actually a country. But that particular bill is actually an adoption of the model law in its entirety. It becomes a domestic statute. So not the best example of a foreign enactment.

A better enactment — I’ll just draw on staff again — would be where the B.C. regulation says that B.C. adopts the EPA standards for wood stoves. That would be a foreign enactment frozen in time, and it wouldn’t be up to…. If the EPA later changed their wood stove regulation, we would still have the old version until such time as B.C. updated its statutes.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

M. Lee: I know that we just had the conversation about the example where extending time, under subsection 25(4), for example…. The analysis had been done. I just want to note it in the discussion of this particular section.

Perhaps the Attorney General could summarize, just for the sake of this particular provision, that that modelling has been done by staff and that the purpose is something that the ministry feels is fair to individuals who are dealing with this particular provision as they need to.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. There is a policy change in the repeal and replacement of section 25, and it’s reflected in the proposed section 25(4). That provision requires that if a period begins or ends on a day when the business office in which something must be done is regularly closed and the reference day is after the period, the thing must be done on the previous day that the business office is open during its regular hours.

The purpose of this is to allow people who are bound by legal instruments other than enactments to agree to apply the new provision and, failing agreement, applies the old provision to instruments that have unfulfilled obligations on the day this section comes into force.

The purpose of the second transitional provision is to apply the former rule to determinations at the beginning or the end of periods of time if the reference day occurs before the day this section comes into force.

Sections 8 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

M. Lee: In terms of the amendments to the Cooperative Association Act, I just have a few questions to the minister in that respect. First of all, I will point out that….

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: We have different staff for this section. It’s Ministry of Finance. I just wanted to thank Dawn Leroy and Tyler Nyvall for their assistance in those initial sections. We’re bringing in the Ministry of Finance staff just to assist me here. I welcome Jill Sinkwich to join me here from the Ministry of Finance for these sections. We’re good to go.

M. Lee: Just to start, just a minor typo that could be addressed is under the amendment subsection 36(e), the reference to “by adding the following subsection.” Sub (3) should be (iii) as opposed to the number 3. I believe, when you look at the actual legislation, that sub (iii) is what would be reflected, just from a numbering format point of view.

Hon. D. Eby: We’ll have a look at that. I believe that that is actually correct, the 36. You see sub (1), sub (2) and sub (3) that are not Roman numerals. The current draft in the bill — sub (3) is actually the third major subsection and does not modify 36(2)(e), as Roman numeral (i) and (ii) do.

We’ll have a quick confirmation of that, but that’s our understanding. If the member has other questions on this section, then I’d welcome them while staff have a quick look. If not, we’ll just take a second and confirm that.

M. Lee: Just moving on to some questions. Under 36(2)(e), under the proposed amendment, makes reference to prescribed conditions. There is a subsequent amendment that we’ll be reviewing coming up under section 19 of this amendment act, but I’d just like to discuss what types of prescribed conditions might be applicable here in terms of termination of a particular member?

Hon. D. Eby: An example of an intended condition is the condition that the housing cooperative pay filing fees to the court, and then they may ultimately get those fees paid back. But that is an example of a prescribed condition that is reasonable to anticipate under a section like this.

M. Lee: The change to broaden the reference to a person whose membership in an association under subsection (a) of 36…. When we look at the definition of “member” in the act, it includes a joint member. When this provision is amended under the proposed amendment, I wonder whether there’s any need to pick up this term, “joint member,” in terms of how, presumably, individuals or persons…. Persons, of course, are not just defined as individual persons but can include other definitions. Is there any contemplation of that as the ministry might have reviewed this particular proposal?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The intention behind this change is to make section 36 consistent with section 37, which also refers to a person rather than a member. Part of the reason for this is that if an individual’s membership is terminated, they are no longer a member. They are a person. To avoid confusion between sections where there are different terms and also for greater accuracy, referring to a person with membership in an association — as opposed to a member, because the member may be terminated — was thought to be more helpful.

The member raised an interesting question about joint membership, where two individuals may hold one membership. The section is intended to capture that, because the effect would be the same. It would be a person whose membership is proposed to be terminated even in a joint scenario.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

On section 19.

M. Lee: This provision of the Cooperative Association Act provides under section 211 the power to make regulations. Are there any particular limitations on this power-making authority in terms of the types of conditions?

The Attorney General has given a helpful example of a prescribed condition, but perhaps he could share with the House a little more in terms of the thinking around when this particular regulation-making power would be applicable to the kinds of provisions of that act?

Hon. D. Eby: The member rightly notes that this is an ancillary provision to the section that we’ve already discussed providing a regulation-making power in relation to these conditions. I can advise the member that the only condition that we’re currently considering is in relation to requiring the cooperative to pay court fees in advance, as a condition. That’s something that we’re looking at doing.

The member is right. It could include other conditions, and one would assume that those would be in relation to protecting the interests of a member whose membership is being considered here, ensuring fairness in that process if there was some sort of an issue that was raised. But this section is currently only contemplated to provide…. Well, the only condition we’re currently considering is in relation to the court fee issue, but it could potentially be used for other conditions before termination.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

M. Lee: Just getting down to the Building Act amendment here. This is, again, something that there’s been some discussion about. I’d like, for the purpose of the record, to give the opportunity to the minister to describe the purpose for having the Regulations Act not apply to the building regulation under the proposed amendment, sub (3).

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I’d like to introduce that I have Jarrett Hutchinson here today with me — he’s the director of building regulations — as we move through this part of this bill.

Section 20 speaks to disapplying the requirement to have the…. The disapplication of the building regulation requires publication of a notice in the Gazette if a building regulation is enacted, amended, repealed or replaced.

M. Lee: I note, of course, and agree that is one part of this proposed amendment. I suppose one area of concern might be when the Regulations Act is no longer applicable to building regulation. Under the Regulations Act, section 2, it states that before a regulation is enacted, it must be submitted for examination to a person designated by the minister.

Without that review, would that suggest…? In the area of building regulation, what will be the impact in terms of removing that oversight?

Hon. S. Robinson: Part of what goes on in developing a building act is sort of a whole national process that occurs. It’s pretty significant, it’s pretty rigorous, and it’s pretty technical. So these codes, because they’re highly technical, they’re regulations consisting…. Our regulations consist of about 95 percent of the model national codes. Part of what happens is that it’s already gone through a very rigorous process.

The proposed legislation will amend those three existing acts to state that the Regulations Act does not apply to these codes. There’s a significant amount of legislative time that goes into this additional review that isn’t really necessary. The legislative review is still available should there be certainly some challenges or some concerns, so we can make sure that that happens.

Again, this is sort of an additional process when it’s actually already gone through a very significant process nationally.

M. Lee: Just to clarify, when the minister states 95 percent, can you give the sense of the other 5 percent? What does that pertain to?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m very proud of the fact that B.C. is forward-thinking and very progressive around some of our building standards. In things like wood-frame construction, we’re a little bit further ahead than the national code. Accessibility is another place where we’re a little bit further ahead. Those are a couple of examples of where there’s a little bit of extra effort that we go into our building.

M. Lee: This will not preclude the ability, of course, of the government to continue to develop local standards, just without that Regulations Act applying. Just to confirm that this should not impair that ability to continue to develop local standards in that matter.

Hon. S. Robinson: Absolutely not.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

M. Lee: A similar question, in terms of the confirmation of the purpose of removing the applicability of the Regulations Act in the way that’s being proposed.

Hon. S. Robinson: The building code is under section 20, and the Fire Services Act is under section 21. It applies in the same way, for the same reason.

[5:25 p.m.]

M. Lee: For section 21, in terms of the Fire Services Act, it’s the same rationale? If we can just give a little more explanation for the rationale for that.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the question. Yes, it’s for the same rationale. It’s gone through a very rigorous process nationally. It’s already been through a legislative review nationally.

To go through and use up staff time here to do it yet again when it’s all been a work-through is not the best use of resources. I’m sure the member opposite agrees. This is another way of being more efficient with the resources that we have, given that it’s all already been identified and reviewed, legislatively, nationally.

M. Lee: Just as we say that, is there any periodic subsequent review — once it’s established as to whether those regulations, safety and otherwise; even though I appreciate they’re national standards — just to ensure in terms of whether those standards are the ones that British Columbia would want to have in place or whether we’d want to have a higher standard.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the member that British Columbia engages in the national process so that when it comes back nationally we’re comfortable with what comes back. But should there be a time when British Columbia chooses to move a little bit more forward, we certainly have the opportunity to be more stringent.

Sections 21 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 7, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[5:30 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — COMMUNITY CARE AND
ASSISTED LIVING AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. A. Dix: I move second reading of the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2018, Bill 5.

We know that families want access to as much information as possible to make the best choices for their children, parents and other loved ones. The legislation, Bill 5, has been introduced because we know families want access to that information to ensure, under all circumstances, that they know what we know when they’re making choices, whether it’s putting their child in child care or supporting family members as they might enter assisted living or long-term care.

In the past, they did not always have access to the details they needed, as we know. Information on licensed community care facilities and registered assisted-living residences can sometimes be difficult to find under the current statutes. A family may not know if there have been any investigations or substantiated complaints about the location or operator. So we brought forward this legislation.

It’s important, I think, to understand the context of the legislation and the purpose and the reason it was brought forward. The first reason, I think it’s fair to say, as sometimes is the case, is that it’s a response to a particular case, a particular circumstance that occurred that showed a broader problem.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The broader problem was that the information, not just about child care facilities but about long-term care facilities, as well, was inconsistently held across health authorities. In some cases, of course, particularly in the case of unlicensed child care facilities, it was not available at all.

There was, as members of the House will know…. We don’t need to go into the details of it because those details, for those who have seen them, are fresh in people’s hearts and fresh in people’s minds. The circumstances of the case that’s sometimes called the Baby Mac case affected all members of this House. I know members on both sides of the House guided the government in coming forward with this particular piece of legislation.

The changes we are proposing to the act here are about making sure the public has access to more information about licensed child care facilities as well as those facilities operating in contravention of the act, without a licence. The Community Care and Assisted Living Act, as members will know, regulates the licensing of community care facilities, including both child care spaces and residential care facilities. In addition, it also oversees the registration of assisted-living residences such as homes for adults which offer accommodation and some support with day-to-day needs while allowing people to retain their independence.

There is currently inconsistency in the level of detail of information published on line about licensed child and residential care facilities. And previously, as I’ve noted, no information was available about facilities and residences operating in contravention of the act. Therefore, these legislative changes create greater transparency for individuals and help to ensure consistent information is available for five years so that people can easily check for information on a facility.

Information will now be available that includes summaries of inspection reports, details of substantiated complaints and the names and addresses of all facilities and assisted-living residences, unless doing so would be a health and safety risk for the people in care. This will be the same for licensed care facilities or registered assisted-living residences and is being expanded to those operating in contravention of the act as well.

The amendments also require high-level summaries of substantiated complaints, also known as investigation reports, to be available for five years. This is both for licensed facilities and registered residences as well as facilities and residences operating in contravention of the act.

Summaries of investigation reports where there are substantiated complaints are not currently posted for a child care facility. Inspection reports and high-level summaries of substantiated allegations are available presently for seniors’ long-term care facilities, but only for a period of two years. The information for community care facilities will be posted on regional health authority websites and information on assisted-living residences on the assisted living registry website. Revised sites are intended to be up and running by this fall, as the legislation comes into effect.

This, of course, is part of the province’s child care initiatives. As Minister of Health, I’m responsible, of course, for this regulation. But the inspiration within government for this legislation comes from my colleague the Minister of State for Child Care and my colleague the Minister of Children and Family Development, who, from the first moment we took office last July, raised this issue with me and made it a priority within government and are responsible, both personally and politically, for the fact that we’re standing here today with needed changes to the law.

[5:35 p.m.]

In addition, I would note that because transparency is important but enforcement of the law is the most important, nothing takes away the responsibility of government to enforce the law of the province. We have to, of course, ensure that the public has the widest range of information, but it is the responsibility of government to ensure, as noted, that laws are enforced.

It’s for that reason, in the budget, in particular, we have added $2 million to boost the number of health authority licensing officers, the individuals who inspect and monitor care facilities such as child care places. This will mean 16.5 new full-time positions will be added provincewide in terms of licensing officers and an additional five positions for administrative staff.

Now, the principal reason for this, of course, you will know, is the government’s priority to expand child care services across British Columbia — a remarkable step, a cornerstone of the government’s budget this year, which will help British Columbians in every part of the province and will improve our economic outcomes by giving access to child care, of course, but also improving both the quality and the number of child care facilities.

My colleagues the Minister of Children and Family Development and the Minister of State for Child Care may go on at greater length about the extent of this initiative. But part of that is ensuring a higher quality of care, which means allowing and permitting and working with people who are currently unlicensed so that they can become licensed, and also to dramatically improve access in the first new social programs, I think, in decades, in British Columbia.

I would say this, in summary, on this important piece of legislation. It’s important because of what’s happened, but it’s also important because it assists parents and all of us in important decisions we have to make. It provides access to information that isn’t presently available or either wasn’t previously available or sometimes wasn’t previously consistent to ensure that availability is there and to ensure that that consistency is there, whether you are a senior entering residential care, in that system, whether you are seeking an assisted-living facility or whether you are seeking other care facilities or child care.

As noted, and this is something we’ll have some occasion to discuss at committee stage…. It is important to remember that while this act, this decision of government on Bill 5, ensures transparency on some of the most critical decisions that citizens have to make in their own lives and members of their family, we also have an obligation. That’s why it’s so central to the work that the government is doing on child care to ensure both that standards are enforced and that access is increased.

These are not inconsistent with one another. In fact, they accompany one another so that as we improve our system, we also improve the transparency of that system. By increasing transparency and providing the public with access to more information, the proposed legislation will help people make informed choices. This will also discourage persons from operating in contravention of the Community Care and Assisted Living Act — something that nobody wants — and protect health and safety of vulnerable children and adults in care.

I am looking forward to committee stage discussion with members opposite, and I’m pleased to move second reading of Bill 5, the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2018.

L. Throness: I want to seek leave, first, to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

L. Throness: I used to work in Ottawa for many years, for federal politicians. There I had the pleasure of working with a fellow that I also became friends with. Greg Yost is now a lawyer with the federal Department of Justice — here, no doubt, on matters of immense federal importance. Would the House please welcome Greg Yost today.

Debate Continued

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure, also, to stand and speak to the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act of 2018. This bill spans a panoply of different facilities, but really only two kinds I want to emphasize today.

[5:40 p.m.]

Those are child care facilities, daycares and assisted-living residences that offer treatment for addictions — so-called recovery houses. First, I want to address child care, and then I’ll move on to recovery houses.

By way of background, this bill deals with both licensed and unlicensed daycares. Unlicensed daycares are legal if they care for just one or two children. Usually these are in a family home. Any facility caring for more than two children must, by law, be licensed and adhere to the child care licensing regulation.

We really don’t have any idea how many legal unlicensed daycares there are. Nor do we know how many operate that are illegal — that is, caring for more than two children at one time without being licensed.

Under this legislation, the government will publish a list of daycares on our website and also routine inspections and special investigations into daycares. That’s really about all it does. It’s about making things public and, specifically, about publishing inspections and investigations with both positive and negative outcomes. It will name and shame facilities in the hope, first, that they will improve their behaviour if licensed and, second, that they will become licensed if they are unlicensed.

Now, there are a number of things that will not change under this legislation. I just want to point them out.

It’s an offence to operate an unlicensed daycare with more than two children in it. This bill does not change that. It will remain an offence. Offences and penalties are laid out in the existing legislation, the current legislation, and these won’t change. Public health officers already investigate child care facilities that they believe may be operating unlawfully, and they do. That won’t change. A health officer cannot force an unlawful facility that is unlicensed to become licensed. That will not change.

This bill doesn’t apply to smaller providers, called licence-not-required providers, who only care for one or two children, as I mentioned. They have no current legal obligation to register with the government, even though they can register on a voluntary basis. This won’t change, although I will have something to say about that in a moment.

This bill doesn’t really change very much. It just allows for more transparency in the work that the Ministry of Health has been doing all along. In fact, I’ve learned from the ministry that health authorities have already been posting the information required in this bill for some years. You can go on today to the website of any health authority and find a list of licensed daycares and reports of inspections and investigations into them, as I did. It’s just that the government had no specific statutory authority for these postings. This bill will give them the statutory authority to do so — not only the authority but the obligation to do so.

I also inquired into another detail. It may be that a licensed daycare may not want to be publicly listed. Would they have the choice to be anonymous? At the moment, legislative provisions of general application found in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection Act would apply. In fact, I’ve found that health authorities have different practices with respect to whether they post addresses of family child care providers.

For example, Island Health does not post addresses of family child care providers unless they’ve received express permission to post them. Other health authorities routinely post this information. Bill 5 would provide that this information may be withheld if an exemption is requested due to a concern for the health and safety of children or of clients.

Since the object of the bill is to provide greater transparency for institutions that receive public funds, we think, in general, that greater transparency is a good thing, a good object of public policy. Since we’re mostly ratifying an existing practice, we’re recommending to our caucus that we support the bill. It doesn’t do much. It only does a little. But if we agree with what little it does, then we’re going to support it.

Now, in the budget a couple of weeks ago, the government announced its larger program on child care. The government is providing higher subsidies and fee reductions to parents who use licensed child care only. This means that parents who currently use unlicensed but legal care and unlicensed and unlawful daycares — that is a daycare with more than two children in it that’s not licensed — will only be eligible for subsidies if they decide to license their daycares.

This means that parents will be pushing unlicensed daycares to get licensed. It could result in more daycares going through the licensing process. We’re not sure. We’re going to find out more about that soon. If that happens, this bill will provide a repository of valuable information on newly licensed daycares for all parents in B.C. — and also existing ones on the website.

[5:45 p.m.]

I think it would be in a daycare’s interest to be on the website, because children drop in and out of daycare. Spaces open up unexpectedly. It will be helpful for daycares which were not licensed before to now be publicly open to take on children. It may help to reduce vacancy rates. For the same reason, it’ll be helpful for parents to have more choice of daycares, as they are listed on the ministry website.

We do think the bill could use a couple of amendments, so I want to go through them. I think we should amend the bill in the following way: to insert a clause after section 15.1, which I would entitle “Publication of no-licence-required information.” I don’t have the exact wording of the clause, but certainly the government’s drafters could quickly figure this one out. The new clause would require that no-licence-required — that is, unlicensed but legal — daycares, which care for one or two children, would be able to register on a voluntary basis, yet on a basis that is equal with licensed daycares, and have that information published on the web along with licensed daycares.

It wouldn’t cost anything, but it would help to inform parents who are looking for a space and also help those daycares if a child drops out. Information always makes the availability of child care spaces more visible, so I would call upon the government to make this change. These daycares may be on the website now, but they have no statutory right to it. We think that they deserve the same rights as licensed daycares in this regard.

It would do one more thing. It would assist in the recognition and respect that these smaller daycares deserve. They provide care of high quality. They’ve earned the right to be recognized along with larger providers, on the same website and on the same basis. It would be a mark of esteem of the very real value that these smaller child care centres provide for British Columbian families.

The bill also would provide parents and others with some knowledge of the quality of licensed and unlicensed daycares which have been inspected or investigated, because those inspections and investigations, both positive and negative, will be made public. Of course, we support that.

Finally, the bill will serve a commercial purpose in that it will make for a more level playing field between competing daycares. Right now larger licensed daycares compete on an uneven playing field with smaller ones that remain unlicensed, operating outside the law, and therefore do not adhere to the child care licensing regulations.

Now that all licensed providers will be published on the same site, as well as investigations of unlawful ones, it won’t be perfect, but more will be abiding by the same set of regulations. More daycares will be publicly known, and fewer may operate unlawfully. This won’t eliminate the competitive concerns of larger daycares, but it might reduce them to some degree.

We have a few other concerns. Allow me to state them. One publicly stated intent of the government is to enhance safety, but the ministry has not produced statistical evidence demonstrating that there’s an existing safety problem to solve. In Quebec, for example, two infants tragically died in the last couple of years while in publicly regulated licensed care. There was a story of a 13-month-old child passing away in a daycare in May of 2016 and a 23-month-old child just a year ago, in February of 2017.

Sad things like this can happen in any daycare settings at this time, licensed or not, publicly funded or not. So I’m interested in seeing the statistical evidence of safety events happening in unlicensed daycares that, in part, drives this legislation. We’ll be asking the minister to bring forward that evidence because we believe, as I’m sure the other side believes, that public policy needs to be driven by evidence, not just anecdotes.

Moving on within the bill, within 30 days of licensing, a health officer will publish both the name of the provider and the name and address of the business. We agree with this, but we do have concerns about the privacy of individuals in publishing their personal names, and we will address this in committee.

We understand that because business names and addresses can change quickly in what we might call fly-by-night operations that sometimes happen with daycares, it’s at least important for the government to know who the person is behind the business name. Whether that personal name should be on the website or not is perhaps an issue for the Privacy Commissioner for B.C. to address. It would be interesting to get the commissioner’s opinion on that.

In any case, a health officer will have to publish a report on an investigation or inspection of a licensed community care facility, as well as what the officer has done about it, and this information will remain on the website for five years, which is a long time. Now, I’ve not heard from any daycares about this, but this law could be unfair if a good-quality daycare receives a bad inspection about a minor issue and fixes the problem right away but for five years will have a black mark on the public record that is no longer deserved. Parents will tend to avoid that daycare, which is a commercial problem for that provider and may result in unnecessary vacant spaces, which of course we’re trying to avoid.

The government could amend the bill to add a provision to remove information about minor negative inspections or investigations in a more timely way should the problem be corrected. Major ones could remain, and major and minor investigations could be defined in the bill.

[5:50 p.m.]

Particularly, we would need to amend section 15.2(3) and section 15.3(4), which both require that negative inspection and investigation reports remain on the web for five full years. That’s a long time, and it could really hamper a daycare that had a minor fault at one time, has long ago cleaned up its act and is no longer deserving of a bad record.

In addition, a subsection should be added to both of these sections, giving the daycare the right to appeal in law to a more senior health authority to have that information removed if the underlying problem has been resolved. The discretion could be given by law to the health authority either to do so or not to do so. I simply think it’s unfair for a daycare to have a black mark on its record on a minor issue for a full five years.

These small amendments would also serve a positive purpose. The possibility of the removal of negative information, once resolved, might provide an incentive to correct a problem quickly so that the bad report would disappear.

Moving along in the bill, the new requirements will also mandate the posting of information about unlawfully operating facilities, for which there is presently no statutory authority. This would help to ensure that the public is provided with better and more consistent information.

It seems strange to me that health authorities would publish inspections and investigations of unlicensed facilities instead of closing them down. I inquired about this, and it has been explained to me that there is no intention to permit unlawful activity to occur. A provider will have a choice, once investigated, to be shut down or, if they did not intend to operate unlawfully, they could reduce their numbers to no more than two children, thereby coming within the terms of being a licence-not-required operator and continuing to operate lawfully thereafter.

A provider might appear on the website after an investigation that finds that it was operating a non-compliant daycare but reduces its size so it can continue to operate. If it grew again unlawfully and perhaps operated under a different name and address, then when it was investigated, again, this pattern would become apparent on the website.

Publishing those investigations would make it apparent over time that this is a provider to watch out for and be a warning to parents. It doesn’t hurt to have that ongoing trail of information about a bad provider.

I would add that health authorities use a progressive enforcement approach. Maybe a child care provider is unaware of the need to have a licence and is willing to go through the process to get a licence. We don’t want to penalize or discourage these folks. But in cases where the risk to children is higher and the operator is unwilling to provide lawful care, health authorities will and should escalate their enforcement activities as needed, which may include seeking an injunction or utilizing the offence provisions provided in the act.

I also want to warn the government that there could be an unintended consequence of this bill, and that is to reduce the number of available child care spaces. Unlawful providers obviously don’t license now because of the extensive licensing requirements — even for a family child care category, taking care of from three to seven children.

Let me give some examples. Licensing requirements include a criminal record check; a program of activities; numerous written policies and procedures; extensive recordkeeping, including a log of minor injuries that did not require medical attention; journalling everything each child eats; a comprehensive file on each child; reports to the local health authority. The list goes on and on.

If I’m a parent with three children, I have no rules to follow. The government has no concerns. If I’m a no-licence-required provider and I keep two children, I don’t have any rules to follow, but if I add just one more child, to keep three children not my own, I jump into the fully regulated category.

While none of these requirements are a bad thing, perhaps not all are necessary. I would suggest a parent does not keep that kind of information about his or her own children. That doesn’t seem to be a problem to the government, while providing additional care in the family home to three more unrelated children suddenly triggers many extra requirements.

My prediction is this: to shame unlawful providers publicly in the hope that they will license is rarely going to work, because the government is not making it easier for them to license. The reasons they have not licensed in the past remain and will not change under this bill. Indeed, some may license for other reasons, but others will simply drop a child or two from their service, down to two children, so that they can continue to provide care legally unlicensed. We will lose the remainder of those spots, and parents will be left looking for other spaces for their children. Lineups will grow, and parents and children will be further inconvenienced.

I would think that if the government wanted to give more incentive to unlicensed daycares to licence, it would provide some kind of graduated regulation so that a provider with three children, for instance, would be subjected to a lighter regime than a daycare of, say, 40 spaces.

[5:55 p.m.]

There is some of that now with respect to the family child care category in the regulations, but I think more or something different could be done to give more incentive to smaller daycares to move into the licensing framework rather than out of it.

We’re going to support the bill because we think that transparency, in general, is a good thing, but we don’t necessarily think it will help the government to meet the needs of parents for more child care spaces. In fact, it could do just the opposite, and we’ll be watching carefully to see if this comes about.

Now, to move on to assisted-living residences just for a moment, in addition to child care facilities, this bill targets assisted-living residences. Some of these are seniors care, but almost all of them are already licensed. The category that is a problem is that of recovery houses.

We’ve heard about this in the news for years, particularly in Surrey. For people with addictions, these places are notoriously unregulated. They often victimize people who are suffering with addictions rather than providing addictions programming to help them break free from their addictions. This has been a big concern of mine while I’ve been an MLA.

They, too, are required to license under this act, and we think that’s a good thing. Certainly, we support more inspections and investigations of recovery houses, licensed and unlicensed under the act, and we support the public transparency regarding inspections and investigations whereby they must be published on a government website.

The Crime Reduction Strategy for Surrey, which was made public in late 2016, recommended that a database be created for all licensed treatment and recovery facilities. This, I think, may fulfil that recommendation. In that way, it would be a good thing.

We hope that more transparency will give more power to clients with addictions, who may be able to better avoid bad places. We hope that more inspections and investigations will cause some bad actors to be shut down and others, actually, to clean up their game and improve as they’re supposed to do.

However, I would point out that another recommendation of the Crime Reduction Strategy is not being followed by the government, and that is to establish an accreditation board to develop programming requirements, housing and care standards and other requirements for a tiered system of recovery houses in the city of Surrey. Without such a board, it will be harder to push out bad actors in the addictions recovery system. I would once again, as I’ve done before, exhort the government to create such an accreditation board in some other piece of legislation.

All in all, in conclusion, we’re going to address our concerns in the committee stage of this bill. We’re hoping that the government will make a few changes, and we’ll be able to stand in support of them.

Hon. K. Conroy: I rise today to support the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act. I am very happy we are taking this action to improve safety and peace of mind for British Columbians and particularly, as the Minister of Children and Families, for parents. I want to thank the Minister of Health and his staff for tabling this important legislation.

One of my first priorities when the Premier appointed me minister was to address the child care crisis in this province. Contributing to that crisis was the lack of information parents could access about child cares operating illegally. We heard from parents across the province that they are anxious about child care, and I believe we are all aware of the tragic case of 16-month-old Baby Mac, who died while under the unlawful care of a child care operator in Vancouver.

What was incredible, though, was the parents of Baby Mac, who turned their grief into advocacy — advocacy for safer, quality child care for all families in B.C. That has been an inspiration to me — an inspiration to me and, I believe, to many of us in this House.

As a mom and a granny, I know how important the safety of my family is. I remember when I had to go back to work. Our youngest son was just a year old. It was in 1985, and there weren’t many licensed child care spaces for infants in our area. You had to find someone who would look after kids in their home.

We were lucky. We found an amazing woman, Olga, who looked after our son, Ben, until he was two years old, until he was old enough to go to Hobbit Hill Children’s Centre, a licensed centre for kids in Castlegar. Not only did Olga provide this incredible, loving care to Ben, but he became very much a part of their family. In fact, it wasn’t until he was an adult that he learned that vovó wasn’t in fact Olga’s mother’s name, but it actually meant “grandmother” in Portuguese.

I know that when I went to work, I had no worries about the care he was getting. Today Olga now works at the family centre where my grandchildren go a few days a week to drop-in programs. She is loved just as much by them as she was by Ben.

[6:00 p.m.]

We know that not all parents are so lucky. It’s almost impossible to go about your day if you don’t know that your kids are okay. I’m sure other parents in this House would say the same thing. But that’s the situation that some parents in British Columbia are facing.

As the child care crisis in B.C. has been building, over the years, many parents have been forced to settle for their child care provider, not because it’s their first choice but because it’s the only provider with an opening or the only one that they could afford. Many don’t have that information that they need in order to make an informed decision about whether they’re leaving their kids in a safe place.

Parents currently have no way to check on the history of a prospective unlicensed child care provider, if they are operating unlawfully with more than two children, and no way of knowing whether their provider has been investigated and found to be in contravention of the act and the regulations before. The amendments to the Community Care and Assisted Living Act will give parents another layer of information to help them make a decision about how to choose a prospective child care provider.

Starting in the fall, the health authorities will post information on unlicensed providers that have been found to operate illegally by caring for more children than they’re allowed to. Parents will be able to see addresses, names and substantial findings of the investigations of unlawful providers who have been cited for illegal operations. If there haven’t been any issues flagged for a particular unlicensed provider, they won’t be listed on line.

It’s important to note that child care providers can legally operate without a community care facility licence as long as they are only caring for a maximum of two children or a sibling group, in addition to their own. Any more than that, they’re operating illegally.

We want parents to know that they can call their local health authority if any unlicensed provider is caring for too many children or if they have any health or safety concerns that have come to their attention. It’s primarily through getting those calls that we know if unlicensed providers are caring for more than two children, and that always needs to be investigated.

The health authorities will also support parents by making it easier to find information on licensed facilities, including inspection reports, which are already available on line. Under these amendments, investigation and inspection reports for licensed child care facilities will be posted on line for five years. It will help to give B.C. parents more confidence that their provider is meeting the standards needed to take on such an important role — that being caring for one of our most valuable resources in B.C., our children.

This legislation also complements the steps that we’re taking under Budget 2018 to strengthen the child care system in B.C. This includes building new child care spaces and encouraging and offering opportunity to unlicensed child care providers to become licensed, and lowering the cost of licensed child care for B.C. parents.

This start to implementing a system of child care that will be affordable, accessible and provide the quality of care for families and their children right across the province is an incredibly important move that I am incredibly proud of. It’s taken a government that recognizes the need for this child care in our province, that recognizes the crisis in our province and is taking action to make this happen.

I also want to take a few minutes to talk about the changes in this legislation that affect seniors facilities in B.C. When I was a seniors critic in opposition, the issue of unlicensed caregivers or finding out if a facility had any licensing infractions was raised many, many times, particularly by families who were looking for care for their mothers or fathers or grandparents.

This legislation is exactly what families are looking for — the ability to go on line and see if the facility or caregiver they’re considering had any infractions. The proposed legislation would amend the act to require the posting of information on line about community care facilities and assisted-living residences, including persons operating without a licence or registration in contravention of the act.

The information will have to be posted on the websites of health authorities, with respect to community care facilities, and on the website of the Ministry of Health, with respect to assisted-living residences. This includes the following information: the operator’s name, the business name, address and summary report of investigations and inspections.

By increasing transparency and providing the public with access to make more information accessible, this legislation will assist families looking for care to make informed choices, discourage persons operating in violation of the act and will better protect the health and safety of children and vulnerable adults in this province.

[6:05 p.m.]

This legislation is being introduced because we know families want and need access to as much information as possible to make the best choices for their children and the seniors in their families. We have heard about this for a number of years now, and we know this is something that is incredibly important to parents of young children as well as people that are looking for care for seniors they’re related to.

Of course, I’m incredibly pleased to support the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act and look forward to the discussion and the opportunity to hear more about this.

D. Barnett: I am here today to support the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2018, Bill 5. We can never, ever have enough security for our seniors, for our children and for the vulnerable. We do, however, have some of the best facilities, best daycare and best seniors facilities anywhere in the world in British Columbia today. They didn’t come overnight. They came with work. They came with dedication. They came with good government regulation and funding.

Today we talk about daycares. We talk about whether there are one, two, three, ten children. People that have daycares do it because they love and they care for children.

There are pieces of this bill that I have concern with. I have concern with issues on how daycare will be funded. That isn’t in this bill, but I will speak about that for a moment. Parents should receive the funding, not daycare facilities. Parents should decide where their children go — whether it’s an hour in this daycare, four hours here. That’s a parent’s choice, not a government’s choice.

I feel that seniors should have the same right. Seniors should have more rights than most of us here today. They have worked hard. They have built this country. They deserve respect, and they deserve privacy.

Something that shocks me, to no end, is the fact that we want to put on line a lot of information, which is fine for the facility. But I think we must also always remember the privacy of the client. Who is the client? We must also remember that we must support these institutions, not just regulate them.

In the bill, it says that the bill will serve a commercial purpose in that it will lead to a more level playing field. All licensed providers will be published on the same site. All will have to abide by the same regulations. More daycares will be publicly known, and fewer may operate unlicensed. However, we have some concerns. One publicly stated intent of the government is to enhance safety, but as my colleague said, the ministry has produced no statistical evidence demonstrating there is an existing safety problem.

This may be unfair, if a daycare receives a bad inspection and fixes the problem but for five years will have a black mark on their record that is no longer deserved. The government needs to add a provision that will enable updated information to be added to the record should the problem be corrected.

The government will also publish inspections and investigations of unlicensed facilities. We want to ensure that family home supervised child cares are not being unfairly named and punished for not operating at the same standards as commercial facilities.

[6:10 p.m.]

If the intention is to shame unlicensed providers in the hope that they will license, that is concerning. A one-size-fits-all approach to child care space licensing seems unfair, as larger centres have a different set of resources available to them than do smaller, family-run homes. Some may license, but others will simply drop a child or two from their service, down to two children. Therefore, we will lose spaces.

We will support the bill, as I said to start, because we do support transparency. We always support transparency. We always support safety for our children, for our seniors, for all our citizens. But we must also remember we must not be overregulated. We have organizations now in our communities, such as child care referral resource organizations, that refer child care homes, and they are the best.

We will support this bill, but we will also be watching how it’s regulated, how it moves forward, how child care is funded and how our daycare in this province and our adult…. We have adult daycare, too, in this province, and hopefully, adult daycare will be expanded and will be taken into consideration through this regulatory regime.

Hon. K. Chen: I’m so pleased to have the opportunity to rise here today to support, and give my very strong support, to the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2018. This is very important legislation that can help to make sure that some of the most vulnerable British Columbians and their families, including young children and seniors, feel safe and secure when they are in the care of others — in child care settings, residential care or assisted-living residences.

I would also like to speak about this legislation in the context of our government’s commitment to B.C. parents and families that have been waiting for a long time and that need to access quality and safe child care services.

With our government’s historical $1 billion investment for the coming three years, we are focusing on creating accessible, affordable and quality child care for every family that wants it or needs it. It is a comprehensive plan with a lot of details and actions to make sure we can build a system that will work for B.C. families. It also includes safe, quality child care and early learning services.

Quality care is not just about having quality staff to look after our children. It also means having facilities that are safe, so when parents are saying goodbye to their kids in the morning, they know that the kids are in good hands.

As a working mom of a young child, I know that feeling every morning, when I’m saying goodbye to my four-year-old. I want him to have a really good, happy and very safe day, but I look forward to seeing him when I go home in the evening, that everything has gone all right for the day, and I’m seeing him happy and safe.

For far too many years, many parents in B.C. really struggled to find quality and safe child care options in B.C. The wait-lists are long, and the child care chaos in B.C. was ignored for many, many years. Parents have been struggling with tough decisions to choose whether they should put their career or their education on hold to stay at home or to look after their young children or to put their children in any type of care that they could possibly find. The child care chaos has really failed many families.

While our government is committed to accelerate the creation of quality, licensed child care spaces, this legislation will allow parents to access more information and see if there have been any substantiated complaints about the provider that they are considering to choose to look after their young children, and see if those issues have been resolved before they choose to send their children there — to allow parents to have more information, to have that peace of mind. It is very important, especially when it comes to unlawful child care providers.

Currently providers that are only looking after two children or a sibling group in addition to their own do not need to be licensed, and they are legal providers that can operate in B.C. However, if someone wants to care for more children than that, they need to be licensed, or otherwise they’ll be operating illegally.

[6:15 p.m.]

The problem is that currently parents have no way to know if a provider without a licence is breaking the law. This new legislation will mean that any substantiated complaints about child care providers, whether they’re licensed or not licensed, will be available to the public. Making this information available to parents will really enable them to consider their options when they choose the child care provider that will offer the best care to their children and their families.

I know that these changes will help to bring peace of mind to families across the province, allowing them to have more information and to leave them feeling secure in the choices they have made for their little ones.

To support the creation of more than 22,000 new licensed child care spaces over the next three years, the Ministry of Health will also add more licensing officers, who will, first of all, work with child care providers to ensure that new spaces meet the health and safety standards for our young children, and also help providers to become licensed if they wish to or if they want to expand their services to look after more children. Also, the licensing officer can be on hand to investigate if a local health authority gets a complaint about a licensed or an unlicensed facility.

I hope that all members in this House…. I’m glad to hear the opposition members are supporting this bill, as we continue to build a more accessible, affordable, quality child care system in B.C. Through this amendment act, we will help to better support B.C. families when they choose to put their loved one in child care settings, residential care or an assisted-living residence.

I’m so thankful that the Minister of Health has introduced the act, along with the support of the Minister of Children and Family Development. Our government is committed to making sure that there are better services for all British Columbian families, and I’m so pleased to have the opportunity to give my strong support to Bill 5.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the member across the way for letting me get up. I’ll be short and sweet. The comments so far have captured much of our thoughts on this bill.

Transparency. Particularly when it comes to looking at where we are going to place the most vulnerable members of our families for care, clearly transparency is an important piece of that decision-making process. As parents, or as adults looking after our own parents, we certainly want to know all of the information that would be pertinent to making that decision, to ensure that our children and our loved ones are in the safest place possible. So we stand and support this bill.

I think this is a good step. It’s one piece of a very large puzzle in bringing high-quality child care and early childhood education to B.C. We appreciate the efforts that have been made to look at some of the challenges that were identified by the tragic case with Baby Mac. As with any parent looking at that information and knowing that there had been investigations and indications of problems that weren’t available publicly, that certainly underpins the need for the transparency that’s going to be brought through in this bill.

I think, of course, that any systems that involve human beings, any systems that involve care for vulnerable people, are going to be far more complex than systems that aren’t human-oriented. So I hope the government will be looking at recognizing any kinds of hiccups that could come with this, seeing how much detail is going to be necessary on the reports, for example, and how the complaint-driven process is going to work. I appreciate that frivolous complaints won’t be put forward, and we’ll be protecting people that way.

Overall, we think this is a good step. We support the efforts being made, and I look forward to the conversations at committee stage.

[6:20 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Bill 5. Child care affects most of us directly, or we actually know somebody, some good friends that we know that are troubled or face challenges on the cost and the spaces that are available, or not available. I know personally how costly daycare is and how limited the space is. I’ve got two children of my own. One’s nine, and one’s 12, so they’re just getting out of that daycare area and saving me a bunch of money, and that’s always a good thing.

Creating more spaces is important, but attracting and retaining these educators is paramount, as spaces are only good if they have qualified people that care for our children. There are a few things about Bill 5 that make good public policy and properly address some gaps that there might currently be right now. However, there are those of us on this side of the House — and, I dare say, some on the other side — that would like to clarify some of the further issues inside this bill that are concerning to us and to the general public at large.

Let’s first do a little background on the bill proposed and get a good lay of the land, so to speak. Child care. We know this bill targets child care facilities. Unlicensed daycares are legal if they care for just one or two children. Usually, these are in family homes or friends’ homes. A facility caring for more than two children must, by law, be licensed and adhere to the child care licensing regulation.

The object of the bill is to provide greater transparency, as the member opposite just mentioned, for institutions that receive public funds. We think that’s a good goal, and we’ll support the bill on those bases. Given that parents who use unlicensed daycares — for example, those that have more than two children — will be eligible for subsidies if their daycare gets licensed, we expect to see more get licensed. This bill provides a database of valuable information on all licensed daycares for all parents in B.C. I, for one, support transparency, especially when it comes to our children.

The bill will provide parents and others with some knowledge of the quality of licensed and unlicensed daycares which have been inspected or investigated, and we will support all these things. This bill will serve a commercial purpose, in that it will lead to a more level playing field. All licensed providers will be published on the same site. All will have to abide by the same regulations. More daycares will be publicly known, and a few may operate unlicensed.

What will change under the legislation? The government will publish routine inspections and special investigations that it didn’t publish before. It is about naming and, possibly, shaming facilities in the hope that they will (a) improve behaviour, if licensed, and (b) become licensed, if unlicensed. What will not change, unfortunately, under the legislation, for example, is that it is an offence to operate an unlicensed daycare with more than two children in it. This bill does not do anything to change that. Offences and penalties are laid out in the existing legislation, and these won’t change.

A public health officer can already investigate any child care facility they believe may be operating unlawfully. This won’t change as well. A health officer can’t force an unlicensed facility to become licensed, and that won’t change either. However, we have some concerns on that. One publicly stated intent of the government is to enhance safety, which is good. But safety issues are seen in both licensed and unlicensed facilities. There have been numerous examples of very troubling situations — children dying, being abused — in both licensed and unlicensed. It can happen anywhere at any time.

Within 30 days of licensing, a health officer will publish both the name of the provider and the name and addresses of the business. We agree with this, but we have some concerns about protecting the privacy of individuals. We will address this at the committee stage. There must be another mechanism, I’m sure, to provide, for those that need child care, the information required to seek it out and not have the privacy of individuals published for those that have no interest in child care whatsoever.

A health officer will have to publish a report on an investigation or inspection of a licensed community care facility, as well as what the officer has done about it. This information will remain on the website for five years. This may be unfair if a daycare receives a bad inspection and fixes the problem.

[6:25 p.m.]

Sometimes these infractions can be very minor and be resolved very quickly. But for five years, they will have a black mark on their record that is no longer deserved. The government needs to add a provision that will enable updated information to be added to the record should the problem be corrected. In fairness to operators that are doing a good job, that perhaps missed something very minor, I don’t think they should be held accountable for five years and have that dark cloud hanging over their heads for that long.

The government will also publish inspections and investigations of unlicensed facilities. We want to ensure that family homes that provide child care are not being unfairly named and punished for not operating at the same standards as commercial facilities. There could be an unintended consequence of this bill to reduce the number of child care spaces available. That’s a strong possibility. It could happen.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Yeah. So providers often don’t seek out a provincial licence due to the extensive and sometimes costly requirements. Licensing requirements include a criminal record check, a program of activities, numerous written policies and procedures…

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Absolutely.

…extensive recordkeeping, including a log of minor injuries that did not require medical attention, a comprehensive file on each child, reports to the local health authority and so on. This may be difficult for family-operated homes to operate at this level. If they’re only caring for the minimum of three or perhaps four children, it could be neighbours or friends or distant relatives.

If the intention is to shame unlicensed providers in the hope that they will license, that is concerning. Even though licensed daycares in a family home have slightly relaxed regulation requirements, there’s still a heavy burden to bear.

Large centres have a different….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, noting the hour.

T. Shypitka: Noting the hour, I move adjournment of the debate and reserve my place tomorrow.

T. Shypitka moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Dix: Although I know members would like to go all night, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House will stand adjourned until 1:30, Wednesday, April 11.

The House adjourned at 6:28 p.m.