Fourth Session, 41st Parliament (2019)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, May 2, 2019
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 245
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Point of Privilege (continued) | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
THURSDAY, MAY 2, 2019
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is Her Excellency Josefina de la Caridad Vidal Ferreiro, who is the Ambassador of Cuba to Canada. She’s making her first visit here to British Columbia, and I will be pleased to meet with her later this morning. Would the House please make Her Excellency the Ambassador of Cuba to Canada feel very welcome here.
Hon. J. Darcy: I’m thrilled to have several groups of guests in the Legislature today.
First of all, from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which is Canada’s largest union, representing now 680,000 workers from coast to coast to coast, we have Mark Hancock, the national president of CUPE; Charles Fleury, the national the secretary-treasurer of CUPE; Tania Jarzebiak, executive assistant to the president of CUPE; and Michael Butler, executive assistant to the national secretary-treasurer of CUPE. I would ask the House to join me in making them very, very welcome in the people’s House today.
We have some members of the provincial executive of the Hospital Employees Union who are here today. I think they’re visiting the Legislature for the first time — certainly, question period for the first time. They will see us all at our best. We have, from HEU, Karen Vik, Bal Sandhu and Sara Mann. If the House would please make them very welcome today.
We have some of our wonderful staff from the deputy minister’s office in the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, the people who work behind the scenes and do amazing work every single day. We have Kayla Birnie, Justine Wendland, Amanda Richardson and Jasmine Johl. Please welcome them and thank them for the wonderful work they do on behalf of the people of British Columbia.
S. Cadieux: Joining us in the House and in the gallery over the next little while will be three groups of students from Hazelgrove Elementary, along with their teachers. There will be a total of 90 students and 30 adults joining us today. The teachers are Ms. Dahliwal, Mr. Cremayer, Ms. Reid and Mr. Johal. I would ask that the House please make the students welcome and, if they should see them in the hall, stop and say hello.
Hon. L. Beare: I’d like to introduce someone who’s a true leader in the tourism sector here in British Columbia and absolutely a tireless champion of her region, which is the Cariboo-Chilcotin-Coast, and someone who’s been a true resource to me as a minister. I can’t thank her enough for that. Would the House please make Amy Thacker from the Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association feel very welcome.
L. Throness: I’d like to welcome some guests this morning. Visiting this House is Sylvia Pranger. She’s the mayor of the district of Kent. She’s brought her grandson Brady Pranger along with her. They came yesterday to see another constituent of mine, Neil Brewer, receive a community achievement award, and I was there for that. We’re all pretty proud about that.
I’d also like to welcome my constituent Derek Fryer from Chilliwack. He’s just visiting in Victoria on holidays for a few days along with his wife, Dorothy.
Would the House please make my friends welcome.
Hon. M. Mark: Joining us in the gallery today are Ellen Woodsworth and Dr. Joy Masuhara, very special guests of mine and many members in these chambers.
Yesterday Ellen received a B.C. achievement award at Government House. Unexpectedly, the board of the B.C. Achievement Foundation also gave Ellen the second annual Mitchell Award, based on her work to inspire others to lead.
Ellen Woodsworth is a former city councillor with the city of Vancouver. She was named one of the top 30 women municipal politicians in history. She’s an international speaker and intersectional consultant on cities and currently the chairperson for Women Transforming Cities International Society. The Rosemary Brown Award. She’s got a distinguished CV and credentials.
She’s also joined by Dr. Joy Masuhara, who’s the co-chair of Women Transforming Cities, a physician working with diverse seniors, with a focus on culturally appropriate care, a board member of SUCCESS and a clinical assistant professor in the faculty of medicine at UBC.
They are here joining us in the gallery. Will all of my colleagues please join me in welcoming my two special guests.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today is a very good friend and a staff person of mine who’s worked for me for the last 18 months and has done an amazing job. Today is, sadly, her last day, and I’m going to miss her working for me. Her name is Talea Pecora. But I know that the next employment opportunity she’s going to is a really great one, and I’m very happy for her. Would the House please help me welcome her and thank her for the job that she’s done for the last 18 months.
Hon. R. Fleming: In the precinct and possibly in the gallery behind me, where I can’t see, are a number of members who are very active in Victoria’s long-standing Jewish community and who are joined with other survivors of the Holocaust here today to commemorate Yom HaShoah. I’d like to introduce these members of the Victoria Jewish community. Harry Abrams is here with us. Cameron Lackenby, Shoshana Litman, Meha Menksur are here as well. Peter Nadler, Helga Thompson and Leslie Wicks.
It’s of course now been over 70 years since the end of the Holocaust, and these survivors are very active in our school system, in our communities, ensuring that future generations, current generations, understand the lessons of history, the lessons of the Holocaust. They will be joined here and be willing to meet with the Members of Legislative Assembly. I know there will be statements from members coming up, but we are so fortunate to have them here in our presence to join us in the House today.
I would ask all members to make them welcome.
A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce three visitors to the precinct today. The first two are Colleen Glynn and Mr. Jack Trovato. Colleen, of course, is the association president for the Richmond Centre federal NDP riding, and Jack is a former 2015 federal NDP candidate for Richmond Centre. They’re here to witness the tabling of a petition that I’ll be introducing after QP today.
My third visitor today is Caitlin Ciceri. She’s a 2017 graduate from Glenlyon Norfolk School, now attending the political science undergraduate program at the University of British Columbia. An incredibly proficient singer — type her name into YouTube and you will see what I’m saying. You can witness her live busking in downtown Victoria this summer.
Would the House please make Jack, Colleen and Caitlin feel very welcome today.
S. Furstenau: I am delighted to introduce Daniella Marquez. She’s here to shadow me today. She’s a fourth-year political science and business student at UVic. She grew up in Calgary, Mexico City and Victoria. After graduating, Daniella’s interested in looking into the internships here at the Legislature, and she’s also considering law school. Daniella is a runner, and she was a competitive figure skater in her youth. Would the House please make Daniella feel most welcome.
A. Olsen: It’s an honour to be able to stand today and acknowledge two guests of mine in the legislative precinct: the first, Chief Rebecca David from BOḰEĆEN in the W̱SÁNEĆ territory and, as well, my father, who is joining us for the first time since my election a couple of years ago now. TSAYWESUT, Carl Olsen, is in the House today. Could everyone here please make them both feel very welcome.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 32 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2019
Hon. G. Heyman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019.
Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. This bill contains an amendment to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act. It modifies the boundary description of Loon Lake Park to remove approximately two hectares from the park to enable the Thompson-Nicola regional district to build a fire hall and to accept two segments of road traversing the park.
The 2017 Elephant Hill wildfire destroyed the Loon Lake community’s fire hall. The previous fire hall location is not considered adequate due to insurance requirements for maximum response distance from the most populous area of the community. There is strong community support for removing the land from Loon Lake Park for the purposes of rebuilding a well-located community firehall.
I want to also take this moment to acknowledge the advocacy of the MLA for Fraser-Nicola on behalf of her constituents and playing a role in seeing this come forward in a timely manner.
Loon Lake Park is an 8.74 hectare class A park, approximately 44 kilometres east of Clinton. The park was closed and all park facilities were removed in 2002 due to a steady decline in park visitation and substantial costs associated with managing the park.
The area proposed for removal was previously the site of a campground and does not contain any known conservation values.
On an administrative note, I want to point out to all members that the Office of the Clerk will be provided with a copy of the official plan, the map boundary, for their review, which depicts the adjusted boundaries of Loon Lake Park. In addition, the official plan will be posted on the B.C. Parks website.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Heyman: I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 32, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
BILL M212 — BUILDING
(NEW HOUSING ACCESS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2019
S. Cadieux presented a bill intituled Building (New Housing Access) Amendment Act, 2019.
S. Cadieux: I move that a bill intituled Building (New Housing Access) Amendment Act, 2019, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m grateful for the opportunity to reintroduce the Building (New Housing Access) Amendment Act. I first introduced the act last spring to enable an increase in supply of accessible housing for the roughly 15 percent of British Columbians who live with a disability that limits their daily activities. It’s almost a year later, and of course, there is still a critical shortage of adaptable and visitable housing in British Columbia.
Without action, this shortage will only grow as more of our population looks to age in place. This bill would require that all new multi-unit housing built would consider accessibility. A percentage of all new housing would be required to meet the criteria of either adaptable or SAFERhome certified or visitable.
Now, I know that everyone in this House is committed to making B.C. a more inclusive and accessible province, and ensuring that all British Columbians have a safe home that meets their needs is a fundamental step in doing just that.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
S. Cadieux: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M212, Building (New Housing Access) Amendment Act, 2019, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Ministerial Statements
HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY
Hon. S. Robinson: Today is Yom HaShoah. It’s a day dedicated to remembering the Holocaust, the systematic, state-sponsored genocide that murdered six million Jews, about two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe, and millions of others who were deemed unfit. But in order to remember, we need to know what happened.
We need to know that the Holocaust didn’t start with the Final Solution, the gas chambers. Some suggest that the Holocaust started on Kristallnacht, the night of shattered glass, in November 1938, the first organized pogrom when German paramilitary forces and their supporters ransacked Jewish homes, shops, synagogues and schools.
But that’s not when it started. It started much earlier. It started with hate. It started with fear. It started with ignorance. It’s not enough for us to just remember. It’s what we do with the remembering that matters.
B’nai Brith reported last month that for the fifth straight year, anti-Semitism is on the rise here in Canada. In British Columbia, there has been a 126 percent spike in anti-Semitic incidents in 2018, compared to 2017.
Imagine. You are a ten-year-old child going to school, and you see swastikas and “Die, Jew” written on your school wall. Or you’re driving to work and see “Hitler was right” messages on highway overpasses. Or you’re coming home from a New Year’s Eve gathering to discover a threatening anti-Semitic message left for you and your family at your home. Or you volunteer at one of the 13 synagogues that received a menacing photo at Hanukkah carrying the message: “Jewry must perish.”
In the U.S., there was a 57 percent increase in anti-Semitic incidents in 2017 over the year before — a 57 percent increase. There have been gunmen shooting down and murdering people in our synagogues, last year in Pittsburgh and just last week in San Diego.
We have much more to do than just remember. We have to act, and we have to act now. We have to stand up to hate. We have to stand up to fear. We have to challenge ignorance.
In the words of Martin Niemöller: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, for I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.”
M. de Jong: Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Center, is located in the hills on the outskirts of Jerusalem. As you approach it, you are overcome by a silence, a solemnity, a sadness entirely in keeping with the historic events that it is there to remind us of and remember. If you’re a Canadian, you might be aware of the fact that the centre was designed by Moshe Safdie, a Canadian from Quebec. But it’s not a place for pride.
You enter, and you begin a journey. That journey begins, through the magic of a projectionist’s screen, on a street. It might be a street in Poland, it might be a street in Lithuania in 1932, and the street is alive. You see children playing, and you see a child practising on the piano and a mother doing the wash, and a cobbler is repairing shoes. But the street is alive.
From there you descend, both metaphorically and literally, into the hell of the events that the hon. minister has just described — the passage of laws that stripped away rights, that isolated people and prepared the way for the even greater horror to follow, the evolution and the rise of Nazism — all in, as the minister pointed out, a democratic, civilized state.
There is evidence, in the centre, of the calls for help that went around the world that were largely ignored. In our case — in Canada’s case — the famous, infamous phrase from the desk of the undersecretary for external affairs when asked: “How many shall we take to save?” “None,” he wrote, “is too many.”
Finally, as you walk down, you are taken beneath the veil, behind the veil of darkness of the war, the Second World War that enveloped a continent and the world, where the killing and the murder began.
There is a place at the very bottom where you walk on a glass floor. Below the glass floor are all the shoes — thousands of them. A poignant reminder, obviously, of the magnitude of the crime and the magnitude of the horror. But there’s also one shoe. It’s a shoe from a two-year-old girl. Her parents had been out doing forced labour. They came back, and she wasn’t there.
The memorial on the flip side of the shoe is the date that she disappeared and was taken and killed. That’s all her parents could do. Of course, that story is indicative of the individual human cost of this horror. And as you can gather, it is very powerful.
Then you begin the climb up, and there’s light. Before you arrive at that light, there’s a pit. That’s probably not the right word. But there’s a pit that you look into. It’s bottomless, and it’s dark, and it conveys a despair, but there is a light.
As you emerge, quite purposefully there is a desire to convey that as long as there are people of goodwill who are vigilant, we need not descend into the darkness again. There is a tribute to the righteous amongst the nations, the people who, in countries all across Europe, took steps to try and protect people.
There are other memorials in other places in the world, and of course, there are the camps, which are perhaps the worst and most vivid recollection of a time when a civilized society conspired to eradicate an entire people — and almost succeeded.
Today at Yad Vashem, six survivors will light a flame to commemorate the six million. But they will also commemorate a two-year-old girl whose life was cut short.
In our own way, we will do that here, with survivors that are present, and take heed of the minister’s word — that it is our vigilance that will ensure this can never happen again.
A. Weaver: Today I rise to speak about Yom HaShoah. It’s a day dedicated to reflecting on the atrocities of the Holocaust and remembering those who suffered and lost their lives.
As time moves forward, each survivor that passes away emphasizes the importance of taking the time to remember. Their stories allow us to understand what happened. They allow us to reflect on our society. I’d like to thank and honour these survivors for sharing their story.
Sadly, anti-Semitism is rising in Canada. In British Columbia, we’ve seen a 142 percent increase in the number of incidents over the last year.
Greater volumes of hate are being spewed on line, often behind the masks of anonymity. Anti-hate groups are also reporting increased in-person incidents of hate.
Religious and ethnic intolerance is antithetical to the values we hold for society. The difficulty of accepting those who are different from ourselves has been a scourge on humankind throughout history. Our answer as a society must be a strong and resounding rejection of othering and hatred. We must consistently embrace our values of tolerance and liberty.
It was the deaths of people who wanted to live in an equal world that forged the society we live in today, and we cannot let their sacrifice slip away. We should use this day to remind ourselves we do not have a guarantee to our values of tolerance, freedom of religion. If we fail to defend them, we let slip the very humanity that generations have suffered to achieve.
Let us not forget the millions of Jewish people who were murdered. Let us not forget their stories. Let us not forget that there is still work to be done.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
SHAWN EASTLAND
G. Kyllo: Today I wish to draw everyone’s attention to a new book in our Legislative Library. It’s not about wild happenings in B.C. politics, and it’s not about global affairs or current events. No, this book is the legacy of a young man from the Shuswap with a big heart, a great sense of humour and a love of life, although his ended far too early.
The book is entitled i am I. Shawn Eastland was always up to some sort of antics, deriving great joy from making those around him smile and laugh through his spontaneous songs, dances and impersonations of people. Children, in particular, were captivated by Shawn and his giant personality. They were drawn to him like a magnet, and he always made the time to entertain them.
His smile could light up a room, and people would often remark that Shawn made them feel like they were most important person in that room. Shawn was special and made everyone around him feel that same way about themselves. He would often leave little notes and sketches for the ones he loved, including his brothers, C.J. and Tyson.
Tragically, Shawn lost his life far too early in a car accident at the young age of 26.
The Eastland family, including his loving parents, Karen and Clay, worked with artists to bring Shawn’s words and sketches together into an amazing book.
Now, i am I tackles many of life’s big questions, and while he may have intended it as a children’s book, it’s truly a book for everyone. One passage reads: “Where I had the profound notion that before I die, I’ll discover who, what, where, when and why am I.”
I hope all members will look for it in our Legislative Library. I know it will brighten their day, just as Shawn would have if he was with us here today.
Mr. Speaker: Member, I think you have the book. I think you should show that to us. Thank you.
HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY
R. Kahlon: Today in the Hall of Honour, the Premier and the Minister of Education will host a Yom HaShoah ceremony. This ceremony will include the lighting of seven candles, six of the candles for the six million Jewish people who were murdered as part of the Holocaust and the seventh to remember the others who were targeted by the Nazis, including Roma people, people of diverse sexual and gender identities, and people with disabilities.
Many of my colleagues have spoken eloquently today in this House around the history of this moment in our society. But I fear that we’re not learning the true lessons of this as a society. Hate crimes and hate-related terror attacks are becoming too normal and, according to recent reports, are intensifying year after year. The Jewish community has faced this terror in North America in high-profile incidents such as the attack on Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh or just last week at the Chabad of Poway synagogue in California.
Canada is not immune to hate and racism. Year after year, incidents of reported hate crimes are increasing. So how do we face this rising tide of hate and racism? Through love, understanding and education. Just last month we announced multiculturalism grant recipients who will take this work to communities throughout B.C.
One of these grants was to the Vancouver Holocaust Centre Society for Education and Remembrance. This society presents annual Holocaust symposiums to more than 7,000 senior secondary students and their teachers throughout this province.
We also are taking leadership in our education system. Students in B.C. learn about the Holocaust both in history and social studies courses beginning in grade 6. They also learn about discriminatory policies and injustices in Canada and the world, with a focus on analyzing what happened in the past to prevent similar human rights abuses in the future.
Even with all these initiatives, I acknowledge that we must do more. We will, and I urge all British Columbians to join us.
CYCLING WITHOUT AGE
R. Sultan: Good things also happen in our society. Nothing beats a fast bike ride in your hair. Ole Kassow from Denmark wanted to help elderly or infirm people also experience that joy. He convinced the city of Copenhagen to purchase five trishaws, and Cycling Without Age was launched. These are three-wheelers with two passengers up front and a pilot pedalling from behind.
While Cycling Without Age came to Vancouver only recently, it has 1,000 chapters in 38 countries. The member for Vancouver–False Creek persuaded me to attend the launch.
Seniors and the mobility-challenged can enjoy a bike ride on a sunny day. The volunteer pedalling from behind also promotes new relationships between generations, since social isolation can be an issue for some. It’s coming to Vancouver’s North Shore, thanks to Ian Rose-Inness and Silver Harbour Seniors Activity Centre. West Vancouver Community Foundation has helped with money.
These North Shore cycling programs will provide pilots serving 40 care homes and assisted-living facilities. Park Royal shopping centre and the Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve will be the operating hubs. They will travel on Spirit Trail, running about 20 kilometres from John Lawson Park over to Park and Tilford, since trishaws don’t mix very well with motor vehicle traffic. Fortunately, the North Shore’s dedicated cycling infrastructure continues to expand.
Congratulations to Ian Rose-Inness and Cycling Without Age.
VANCOUVER ASAHI BASEBALL TEAM
A. Kang: Ohayō gozaimasu. This year the Japanese-Canadian community is celebrating the 100th anniversary of Vancouver Asahi’s first victory in a baseball game. As part of the celebration, on April 24, 2019, a Vancouver Asahi baseball stamp was unveiled at Burnaby’s Nikkei Centre by Canada Post.
The Asahi was a Japanese-Canadian baseball club that played in Vancouver from 1914 to 1942. During that time, the Asahi endured harsh discrimination in their communities, but on the baseball field, the Japanese-Canadian players proved that they were all equals. The Asahi adopted a new playing style that used strategic tactics such as bunting and base stealing to win championship games. The once discriminatory boos slowly transformed to proud roars and cheers and applause by their ever-growing fan club as Asahi continued their winning streak across the Pacific Northwest.
Unfortunately, the winning streak came to an end in 1941, not because of the game itself but because of the war. Vancouver Asahi was forced to disband. During the Second World War, all Japanese Canadians, including the members of the Vancouver Asahi, were interned. In 1988, then–Prime Minister Brian Mulroney issued a formal apology for the internment of Japanese Canadians and offered compensation to survivors.
At the unveiling of the Vancouver Asahi baseball stamp, Koichi Kaye Kaminishi, now 97 years old and the sole surviving member of the original Asahi team, said: “Baseball helped us get through the internment.” He was joined by American actor and activist George Takei, better known for his role as Hikaru Sulu, the helmsman of the USS Enterprise in the television series Star Trek.
The stamp was revealed to be circular, in the shape of a baseball, with a Vancouver Asahi team picture on it.
Congratulations to Vancouver Asahi on your 100th anniversary.
Arigatō gozaimasu.
CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE
AND
RESILIENCY
S. Furstenau: Seven months ago Greta Thunberg started a climate strike, and just over a month ago over 1.5 million youth around the world joined her. Tomorrow youth will gather again here at the Legislature. Greta has also been speaking to parliaments in the EU and Britain, and yesterday the British Parliament passed a motion to declare an environment and climate emergency.
The U.K. is the first country to declare a climate emergency. Here in Canada, 27 municipalities across the country have also declared a climate emergency — Vancouver, Halifax, Richmond, our own capital regional district, Montreal, Ottawa and, most recently, Nanaimo. The list grows just as the impacts of climate change grow.
In New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, thousand-year floods are happening two years apart. Here in B.C., we’ve had unprecedented wildfire seasons, and this spring communities are already facing water restrictions.
We’re not in the new normal; we’re in an altered world. It’s our emissions of greenhouse gases that have altered it, and it’s going to take a new kind of thinking for us to navigate a path forward.
We need to relentlessly focus our efforts on resiliency in neighbourhoods, communities, towns, cities, regions — at every level. We need to recognize that resiliency encompasses the same fundamental elements: water security, food security, renewable energy security and a vibrant and circular local economy. We need to value education, arts and culture, and we need to recognize that diversity is essential to the well-being of our communities.
This is not a time to allow divisiveness and scapegoating to creep in. For us to thrive in an altered world, we need to reject the notion of separateness and instead recognize that we are, indeed, all connected to each other and to the natural world that we depend on for our survival.
We cannot rewrite the past, but as legislators, we are here to write the future. Let’s start with the recognition that future generations have a right to clean water, breathable air, healthy soil and a stable climate. And then let’s do everything we can to make that our legacy.
JEFF LOTT
S. Malcolmson: In 2011, Supt. Jeff Lott retired from the RCMP after 38 years of service. Joining the RCMP in ’72, he served across the country before coming back to Nanaimo in 2001 and becoming the chief of police for Nanaimo in 2003.
Yesterday Jeff Lott was honoured at Government House with a 2019 B.C. achievement award. Across the country, I’ve heard from his former colleagues who described his outstanding career and the way that he strengthened communities through partnership and relationship-building. Some of his colleagues from across the country said: “He was the leader everyone wanted to work for.” “He was one of the most reliable individuals I can think of.” “The consummate leader we all aspire to be. He did a fantastic job of preparing the next ones in line to assume key leadership. That is his biggest legacy.”
Our mayor, Nanaimo’s Leonard Krog, called him “a compassionate citizen who gives our city and province his energy and dedication with the same sense of duty he demonstrated in his distinguished career with the RCMP.”
Jeff was previously awarded the Order of Merit of the Police Forces by the Governor General in recognition of his volunteer work and his service in the RCMP. He served as honorary aide-de-camp for the Lieutenant-Governor for 17 years. He was previously awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee award, the Diamond Jubilee and the Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteers.
He is still working, volunteering for our community right now with the B.C. Children’s Hospital and the Bruce Denniston Bone Marrow Society. He travels around the world to pick up donated stem cells and bone marrow for transplants. He’s been the president of the B.C. Summer Games, and he is still training amateur radio operators to anchor communications for St. John Ambulance during times of disaster.
Our communities are made stronger by British Columbians who go above and beyond, and Jeff Lott is one of those who goes above and beyond. He has dedicated his career and his life to serving community, and Nanaimo is better for it.
Will the House please join me in congratulating and thanking Jeff Lott for his service.
Oral Questions
CHILD CARE SPACES
L. Throness: Nearly two years ago, the government was elected on the basis of what turned out to be a bunch of empty promises. Now we can add to them the failure of the government’s signature promise to parents on child care. Two years in, there are dire shortages of new spaces and workers, and we have parents waiting for years for a spot for their children.
Last year the Premier promised 8,000 new child care spaces every year for three years, but the Minister of State for Child Care admitted that the NDP have created just over 3,000 spaces since they were elected — less than half what the Premier promised.
Will the Premier now explain to parents across this province why his government has failed to deliver on his most important promise to them?
Hon. K. Chen: For many years, families in B.C. have been struggling with high child care costs and not being able to find child care and early learning opportunities thanks to the other side of the House ignoring the child care crisis for 16 years. Ever since we started doing this work, we have been finding every way we can, every tool possible to make sure we’re making child care more affordable, accelerating the creation of child care spaces and, at the same time, supporting the workforce to make sure early childhood educators and providers are getting the tools and the support that they need to be able to maintain the services.
I’m happy to say that ever since we launched our new spaces program and our maintenance funding, since the summer of last year, in only several months — not even a year now — we have created and funded, all together, over 4,000 new spaces. We’ll continue with the work to make sure that we continue to accelerate the creation of spaces, also making sure that, while the previous government ignored the crisis for so many years, we are giving every tool possible to providers and educators to maintain and continue to create more spaces and opportunities for B.C. families.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Kent on a supplemental.
L. Throness: Well, the minister tries to gloss over the breach of her government’s central campaign promise to B.C. parents, but here are the facts. The minister stated in estimates that she has created just over 3,000 — now, I guess, it’s 4,000 — spaces in their first two years in government. She also stated that the B.C. Liberals created an average of 3,000 spaces annually over the past ten years. Not only has she missed the mark by half, she’s creating fewer annual spaces than the B.C. Liberals did when they were in government.
Again, would the minister just admit it? She has failed to deliver on the promise the Premier made to parents.
Hon. K. Chen: Well, it is very encouraging to hear the member opposite talking about their investment in child care, which was very little.
We are doing everything we can to find solutions to support B.C. families. For the first time ever in B.C.’s history, child care costs are going down for B.C. families. And for the first time in B.C.’s history, we’re investing in early childhood educators and accelerating the creation of child care spaces.
Let me just correct…. I’ve done it so many times during estimates — making sure we correct the member opposite’s information. In about four or five years, the opposite member’s party…. When they were in government, in a total of 16 years, they funded about over 4,000 spaces, which is exactly what we created in just a few months. When families have been struggling for affordability, not able to access early childhood services, the opposite member continues to vote against our plan every step of the way as we’re trying to make child care affordable and more accessible for B.C. families.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Kent on a second supplemental.
L. Throness: It was the minister who said in estimates that we’ve created 30,000 spaces over the past ten years. That’s under the Liberals. Now allow me to quote from the Minister of State for Child Care during the estimates. Here’s exactly what she said. She said: “Currently we have approved 3,359 licensed child care spaces.” I guess she’s found a few more.
She also admitted that only $12 million of a $28 million budget for new spaces was claimed. New spaces are not being created.
Now, there’s no shame to admitting failure. Will the minister just admit that the Premier has broken his signature campaign promise to parents?
Hon. K. Chen: The opposition critic can throw out whatever number he wants. The child care centres….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the response.
Hon. K. Chen: I’m pretty sure that the member opposite and his colleagues, when they were on this side of the House for 16 years, know very well that they only funded about over 4,000 spaces in all the years that they were in power. I’m sure they can look into their record and figure that out very quickly.
Our government is committed to making sure that parents are getting relief. We are finding every tool possible. We’re working with some municipalities. Now they’re getting grants and funding to be able to do needs assessments. We are working with school districts to see opportunities to create child care on school grounds. We are working with local providers — non-profit, private, Indigenous communities — to find solutions together.
I would really love to hope that the members opposite and their members will be able to also join us in this effort to make sure…. After families have been struggling for so many years, finally it is the first time in B.C.’s history that we are giving a historic amount of funding and support to this sector, and no longer a patchwork. It is a comprehensive strategy to build a child care system.
I just really want to quote the member opposite what they said about child care.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. K. Chen: During their leadership campaign, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, on their platform, which is exactly…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. K. Chen: …what they’re doing at this moment, said: “The ideas on housing affordability, the ideas on child care — they’re just not there.” That’s exactly what the member for Kamloops–South Thompson said during their leadership race.
M. Polak: The key here is what spaces are new spaces — not just spaces that were there and maybe now are funded, but spaces that are new. One of the risks for all of us in this place is that, of course, the words we say are duly recorded. I think in Hansard the minister of state perhaps has offered us already an explanation for the discrepancy in the numbers.
Here it is from her words: “That has increased because that’s not just new spaces. It also includes providers who were not in a plan before, who were not receiving this funding. They could be existing providers who have already been doing business on their own for a long time. That is why the number is larger.”
The fact of the matter is that in terms of new spaces, this government, in spite of the Premier’s promises, has not provided an increase in new spaces. In fact, they’re not even close to being on track to meet their 8,000-space-per-year commitment.
What explanation can the minister provide for that broken promise?
Hon. K. Chen: I have to say that during the past year and a half, not a single week has gone by that I have not heard about local parents, providers and educators sharing how amazing it is that child care is finally getting more affordable and that there are more and more opportunities in B.C. communities.
There was this early childhood educator I met. Her name is Kim, and she is a mother of two young children in a newcomer’s family. She is currently paying affordable child care costs that are less than $10 a day. At the same time, she said that finally she is able to return to work as an early childhood educator. Finally, for the first time in history, they’re getting wage enhancement support.
There’s more and more work that we’re doing to make sure we continue to accelerate the creation of child care spaces to support providers and families in B.C., when their needs were neglected by the other side of the House for 16 years.
This is what a child care advocate has to say about the current child care situation in B.C.: “We have seen more actions on child care in the last 12 months than in the previous 16 years before this government all together.”
Mr. Speaker: The member for Langley on a supplemental.
M. Polak: Well, I accept that whoever wrote that quote or provided it wouldn’t have been, perhaps, familiar with what the minister of state herself said about the ten years under the B.C. Liberals. I’ll read the minister’s words, because she wants to dispute them, but here it is: “…for a total increase of about 30,000 spaces over the ten-year period.” And she’s referring to the ten-year period under which the B.C. Liberals governed.
The fact of the matter is that in spite of the spin that the minister of state wants to put on it — and I can understand that; it’s embarrassing when there’s such a big promise out there and you’re not meeting it — the numbers don’t lie, and the numbers say that they are not on track to meet their target. They should have produced an additional 8,000 spaces this year. There’s no plan going forward, at least not that we can discern from the Hansard.
I’ll give the minister of state a chance today. How does she…?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the question.
M. Polak: I’ll give the minister a chance today. How does she intend to make up the discrepancy in the numbers, which are verified by her own statements in Hansard?
Hon. K. Chen: As a parent with a young child myself, along with many of my colleagues on this side of the House, we understand that families have been really struggling for many, many years. But the child care crisis did not happen overnight. If the previous government had done something to help with families’ needs, then we would not be in this situation today. It is ironic to hear about the member opposite talking about child care spaces.
Let me rephrase. I don’t know how they’re able to twist the numbers so much. Child care has been….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please come to order. We shall hear the response.
Hon. K. Chen: Currently the child care sector is a market-based sector. There may be spaces being created. There may be spaces that we’re trying our best to maintain.
During the past many, many years and especially during their time in government, they’ve only funded about a little over 4,000 spaces. Whereas our government…. Just to set the record straight, they’ve only funded about over 4,000 spaces. While our government, in a short few months since last summer — we have funded over 4,000 spaces.
IMPACT OF OIL AND GAS
INDUSTRY ON
FARMLAND
A. Olsen: My colleagues have been asking concerning questions this week about natural gas exploitation, highlighting leaking wells, bankrupt companies, enormous environmental liabilities. Our lax regulation combined with excessive public subsidy is not just a bad policy, but it’s also negatively impacting those who live in the area. Today I’ll focus on the farmers.
In their final report, the ALR revitalization committee stated that the impacts of oil and gas extraction on agricultural land and farm businesses are reaching “a breaking point.” The exponential increase in oil and gas infrastructure has exceeded our current regulatory environment’s ability to protect farmland. The government’s own reports highlight the increasing infractions and the liabilities.
Additionally, there are many unknowns with respect to the impact of fracking on land and communities. We know the industry is causing earthquakes, environmental contamination and a growing financial burden on the public, but the government continues to barrelhead.
My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Will the minister provide tangible examples of how she and her government are addressing how the natural gas industry is negatively affecting sectors such as agriculture?
Hon. M. Mungall: You know, it wasn’t just child care that was neglected by the previous government for 16 years. It was also regulatory responsibilities in the oil and gas sector. That’s exactly why this government came out of the gate right away, looking at ways that we can actually fulfil our responsibility, our duty to British Columbians to be appropriate regulators. Part of that was making sure that we had the information necessary about what was happening on the land base so that we can ensure that it’s regulated for British Columbians now and well into the future.
That’s why we commissioned a report, with three scientists, on hydraulic fracturing. That’s why we also asked the advisory committee on revitalizing the agricultural land reserve to look at this very issue in terms of how agricultural land which is living right next to oil and gas production, sometimes oil and gas production right on agricultural land…. How is this taking place, and how can we do better?
We’ve received that report. We take it very seriously as a government. So does the Oil and Gas Commission. So does the ALC. We are moving forward with those recommendations.
Mr. Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.
NATURAL GAS CONDENSATE PRODUCTION
AND USE IN DILUTED
BITUMEN
A. Olsen: Despite all the clatter and caterwauling while in opposition, it appears that this government is as willing to embrace neoliberal principles in perpetuating this petro province, as the former government was. But in doing so, they’re not being honest about the tremendous social, environmental and economic costs paid by British Columbians from this industry.
In 2017, B.C. produced a record 19.7 million barrels of condensate, a by-product of fracking for natural gas. The number was expected to rise significantly by the end of 2018. As it turns out, we’re learning that companies are fracking not solely for the gas but for the condensate.
Here’s the problem. These by-products are valuable because they create the chemical cocktail to make bitumen flow. Without it, bitumen is a sticky tar that needs to be diluted by condensate to create diluted bitumen, or dilbit, the very substance that the government has rightly said threatens coastal communities.
On the one hand, this government opposes the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline and the increased shipping of diluted bitumen on our coast, while on the other hand, they are giving massive publicly funded handouts to an industry whose primary products are used to create the very substance we’re trying to keep off our coast.
My question, again, is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Can she please explain this obvious contradiction?
Hon. M. Mungall: Once again, let me just state very clearly for the record that this government takes its regulatory responsibilities very seriously. I’m happy to sit down with the member to go over, in detail, all the activities that we have undertaken since becoming government to fulfil our duties as regulators.
There is no subsidy, but there is also no secret. The reason that the member has this information about the condensates being produced here in British Columbia is because we require all facility operators to report publicly on the volumes for all products that they produce. So yes, condensates, and the use that they have, are produced here in British Columbia. Once again, there is no secret to that, that we are producing condensates, and yes, they are being used in diluted bitumen.
IMPACT OF FUEL PRICES
AND GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON
FOREST INDUSTRY
J. Rustad: The high cost of fuel is not only hurting motorists, but it’s hurting our forest sector. The pain-at-the-pump Premier has failed to address fuel prices. In addition, his forest policies are creating red tape. Now we’re seeing jobs being shipped to the U.S.A.
This is what Ted Seraphim of West Fraser said on April 26: “What gives us the greatest concern are the myriad of policy changes that the B.C. government is planning that impact the B.C. forest industry.”
Why is this Premier creating red tape that puts thousands of jobs at risk?
Interjections.
Hon. B. Ralston: Just wait till they settle themselves. They’re a little restive. Those internal debates in caucus have really riled them up, I know.
It’s important, as we draw to the end of the legislative week here, to perhaps recapitulate what the opposition has put forward as their so-called solutions to bring relief to drivers. One was to wrap up a giant gift and tie it with a red ribbon and give it to the oil and gas companies.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.
Hon. B. Ralston: If we took one or two cents off the motor fuel tax, as they suggest, the oil companies would simply increase the price of gasoline.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. B. Ralston: The gas companies would simply increase the cost of gasoline and pocket the difference, and the opposition would have us cut services that British Columbians rely on. In fact, UBC business professor Werner Antweiler said their so-called plan is a “completely ineffective proposition. It makes no economic sense.”
Additionally, the Leader of the Opposition has put forward, in response to an unconstitutional attempt to restrict the flow of gasoline and raise gas prices…. The Leader of the Opposition urged our government to sit back and simply let it happen.
I’m proud to say that our government rejects this proposal, and we will stand up and protect British Columbians.
Mr. Speaker: Member, Nechako Lakes, on a supplemental.
GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON
FOREST
INDUSTRY
J. Rustad: You know, that answer clearly shows this government’s attention to the forestry file.
Before the minister gets up and gives his standard pat response — I’m assuming it will be the Minister of Forests; who knows? It may be the Minister of Jobs that gets up and answers — I want to provide some facts. From 2009 to 2017, 10,000 jobs were created in the forest industry here in B.C. This is the first time in 40 years that we actually saw a sustained growth in forestry jobs.
Since the NDP has taken power….
Interjection.
J. Rustad: The Minister of Health would like to join this debate.
Look at the stats. Since the NDP has taken power, we’ve seen a loss of over 3,000 jobs. The trend has been reversed under this government.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.
J. Rustad: This NDP policy path on the forestry side is seeing shipping of jobs to the U.S.A. rather than the shipping of lumbers.
I will continue with a quote from Mr. Seraphim. “There are projects that we’ve been thinking about over the next couple of years, but I think for now, anything major is definitely on hold.”
Why is this Premier happy with hurting our forest industry and sending jobs down to the U.S.A.?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, let’s talk about hurting the forest sector — 30,000 jobs lost under their watch, 100 mills closed. On the coast between 2003 and 2017, under their watch, direct jobs in forestry fell by 41 percent. Lumber production on the coast in that period fell by 44 percent. That’s their record as well.
We are concerned with workers in the forest sector. We undertook the contractor sustainability review, using the work by a former Liberal cabinet minister, George Abbott. We are implementing those recommendations. The workers know that we’re on their side when it comes to forestry, unlike the actions of the previous government, the people who are sitting on that side.
M. Hunt: The Teal-Jones Group, which is headquartered in Surrey, is one of the largest privately owned timber harvesting and lumber manufacturing companies in British Columbia. On April 25, the co-owner, Dick Jones, wrote to the Premier to say: “We are very concerned about our employees, our company and the future of the coastal forest industry.”
Already 3,000 jobs have been lost.
Why is the Premier creating red tape that threatens even more forestry jobs in Surrey?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Of course, any time a curtailment happens and a worker is laid off for a short period of time, loses their employment, it’s of grave concern to this government. We pay close attention to those curtailments and the circumstances that created them.
The circumstances that created them are a result of inaction by the previous government for 16 years on the forestry file. All we saw on the coast was an increase in log export, a decrease in employment and a decrease in domestic production. We’re bending those curves back up.
What we’ve done is taken the coast forest sector revitalization initiative, where there’ll be more fibre coming out of the forests, increasing standards that were let lapse by the previous government and also increasing the amount of sawlogs available to companies like Teal-Jones.
M. Hunt: The Premier has been doing nothing to address the record high fuel prices impacting the forest sector. Not only that, his forest policies are making B.C. the highest-cost producer in North America. We have already lost 3,000 jobs because of this government.
Why is the Premier putting more forestry jobs in Surrey at risk?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Once again, 30,000 jobs lost in 16 years and 100 mills closed. That’s the record of the people on the other side. We’re taking forestry seriously, and also the challenges that are facing the forest sector. Within a month of becoming government, the Premier went to Washington on the softwood lumber dispute file, something that was never done by the former Premier. We’ve consulted with industry, with labour, with First Nations on the coast forest sector revitalization initiative.
Those initiatives are being implemented as of April 1. They’re going to make a difference to mills like Teal-Jones and other mills around the coast that were ignored by the previous government.
M. de Jong: Let’s see if the head of the Teal-Jones Group agrees with the minister. I think many members of the House know Dick Jones. He is not prone to hyperbole and exaggeration. He cares, I think, deeply for the hundreds of families that rely upon the operations of his business to earn a livelihood.
Here’s what he said. “They, the government, are making decisions without consulting with industry, and they need to, to understand the impacts this will have on industries, communities and employees. We are very, very concerned.”
The minister is creating abject uncertainty in an industry. It is leading to job loss. He talks about a softwood lumber dispute that the Premier said would be resolved years ago. It remains unresolved. He is overseeing an increase in fuel prices that is making our forest sector even more unproductive.
Will the minister stand up and acknowledge that it is the uncertainty of the policies of him and his government that is putting forest-dependent families and forest-dependent communities at risk?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Certainly I’ll stand up and defend rural communities and workers in the forest sector — any day. Of course, after 16 years of misguided policy, misguided legislation, misguided regulations around the forest sector, it takes a little while to steer the ship in a positive direction. That’s exactly what we’re doing.
We take the forest sector seriously. We take rural areas seriously. We’re making improvements that are going to make a difference to peoples’ daily lives in communities across the entire province.
[End of question period.]
Point of Privilege
(continued)
Hon. D. Eby: Hon. Speaker, I heard with surprise the House Leader of the opposition’s comments yesterday, with respect to my submissions related to the comments from the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. I will provide full submissions to you and to the House Leader of the opposition, who I understand is representing the member on this matter.
M. Polak: Just to reiterate, there is a process outlined in the standing orders. It’s outlined in Standing Order 26. Having reviewed Standing Order 26 along with the Hansard comments of the member, I see nothing that would fit within Standing Order 26 that is requiring a response.
Mr. Speaker: I will take that under advisement.
Petitions
A. Weaver: I rise to table a petition of 3,363 names of British Columbians respectfully requesting that the B.C. government support a public inquiry and create a commission to investigate and prosecute those allegedly involved in drug trafficking, money laundering and profiteering in British Columbia’s real estate economy.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 16, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2019. In section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on estimates for the Ministry of Tourism. In Committee C, the Birch Room, I call continued estimates debate of the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 16 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT
ACT, 2019
Hon. G. Heyman: I move that this bill be read a second time.
Amendments are proposed to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, but first, I’d like to recognize some very special guests today.
Joining us in the gallery for second reading today are the following students from ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱ Tribal School: Justin Charles, Kingston Daniels, Richard Henry-Williams, Jorja Horne, Natasha James, Tyrell Jimmy, Dani Jones-Canute, Danaya Sam, Demetrius Sam, Liam Sam, Mateaya Sam, Lorena Smith, Michelle Thomas and Joseph Underwood.
I’d also like to recognize their teachers Joyce Saul, Veronica Dick and Traci Sam; as well as some special guests who have joined us here today: Chief Rebecca David, Chief Don Tom, Joanie Olsen; as well as Jarrett Teague, a longtime volunteer who has done work in the park that I’m about to address.
This bill proposes amendments to rename one class A park, John Dean Park, to reflect its cultural significance to Indigenous peoples. Renaming parks allows our government to take an important step forward in our ongoing reconciliation efforts with Indigenous peoples across British Columbia, which includes honouring the commitments we made under the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.
The renaming of parks to traditional Indigenous names also reflects the very significant heritage values recognized by all British Columbians. Therefore, John Dean Park on Vancouver Island will be renamed ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱/John Dean Park. The mountain in the park features prominently in W̱SÁNEĆ culture as a place that helped save people during the great flood thousands of years ago.
Due to this connection to the park, the students at ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱ Tribal School have requested a name change for the park to include the traditional SENĆOŦEN name for the mountain, ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱, which translates to “place of refuge.”
I mentioned that it was a great honour to have these students joining us here in the House today in recognition of their hard work. Personally, I remember receiving a letter from the students addressed to me, requesting the name change and giving compelling reasons for recognizing their tradition, their culture, their language in such a special place.
It gave me pleasure to read the letter but also caused me to reflect on what it means to Indigenous youth to see revitalization and recognition and respect for their traditions, for their culture, for the language, for the stories that they’ve grown up with and which they would wish to transmit to their children and their grandchildren.
People have said reconciliation is a journey. I hope that today can be one small step on that journey.
This bill also continues what is a normal annual practice of adding to protected areas, improving protected area boundary descriptions and correcting administrative errors. Therefore, amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act will also add lands to six class A parks as a result of private land acquisitions. I will now detail these additions.
A 29-hectare island known as Heritage Island is added to Bridge Lake Park, east of 100 Mile House. The privately owned island within Bridge Lake was acquired by the Crown in 2017 as part of a land exchange and is now being included in Bridge Lake Park.
Approximately 2.5 hectares are being added to Harmony Islands Marine Park in Jervis Inlet. The acquisition of this land to the east side of Hotham Island adds to the park so that the entire island is now within the park.
Seventeen hectares are being added to Kikomun Creek Park in southeastern British Columbia. The addition contains a wetland and a small lake and secures an inholding that was completely encompassed within the park boundaries previously.
Approximately 19 hectares are being added to Myra-Bellevue Park, south of Kelowna. The addition of this land, which is bounded on three sides by Myra-Bellevue Park, addresses longstanding trespass issues and adds land with high conservation and recreation values.
Four hectares are being added to Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park as a result of a private land donation received in February 2018. The proposed addition provides a land connection between a small lakeshore component of the park near the community of Birchdaleand the much larger main body of the park within the Purcell Mountains.
A 35-hectare property purchased by the ministry from the Nature Conservancy of Canada is being added to Syringa Park in southeastern British Columbia. This property is within a rare ecosystem and provides important winter range for deer and bighorn sheep.
These amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act also make several administrative corrections and improvements to legal descriptions. This continues our work of moving from metes and bounds descriptions to map boundaries called official plans. Official plans are more accurate and understandable, as well as more practical for field surveying, than the written metes and bounds descriptions.
The administrative amendments in this bill are as follows: two ecological reserves, Gilnockie Creek and Trout Creek, and three class A parks — Conkle Lake Park, Jewel Lake Park and Johnstone Creek Park — will have existing boundary descriptions replaced with official plans.
A new official plan has been prepared for Fintry Park, eliminating the need for three exception statements that were in the existing boundary description. A revised boundary description for McDonald Creek Park will correct the eastern boundary of the park and add a lot that was previously omitted in error.
Over 14 percent of our province is contained within our provincial parks and protected areas system, and these amendments continue our ministry’s commitment to continually improving the system. This includes not only looking for opportunities to add ecologically significant lands to parks and protected areas but also includes improving recreational opportunities and experiences within our diverse system.
In addition to these proposed amendments, this commitment is demonstrated by the work our ministry is doing to increase the number of campsites available across the province and to deliver improved accessibility in our recreational facilities.
The ministry is also working closely with Indigenous peoples to find meaningful ways to recognize their cultures and connection to these protected lands. The proposed renaming of John Dean Park demonstrates and honours this commitment.
I look forward to debate on this bill. I look forward to the support of the House for continuing to advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, as well as adding to our parks and protected areas to protect significant ecological and recreational values.
A. Olsen: First, I want to acknowledge that I stand in this House on the territory of my Straits Salish relatives, who are now known as the Songhees and the Esquimalt. I’m honoured to be able to work in their beautiful territory each day.
Today my act of reconciliation is to share an important story of support for this legislation, Bill 16, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act.
Second, I want to acknowledge the W̱SÁNEĆ leadership, the elders and the youth who are here today to witness this debate. It is a good day. ÍY SC̸ÁĆEL.
In the beginning, it was the W̱SÁNEĆ teaching to look after Mother Earth. All of the animals, the birds, the trees, the salmon, the wind were, and still are, people. For many years, the people remembered the words of the Creator, XÁLS, and there was a long period of happiness and plentiful food. But they began to forget those teachings. The Creator’s feelings were hurt that the people forgot his good teaching, so the Creator told the people that a great flood would come and said: “Go prepare yourselves.”
The people prepared a cedar rope and gathered their food and all of their possessions. The tidewaters began to rise. The people loaded all of their belongings into their canoes. Some people did not heed XÁLS’s teachings. They were not prepared, and they were washed away. Their canoes were destroyed.
The water rose higher and higher, and the people paddled to the highest mountain nearby. The trees were still above the water. They tied themselves to an arbutus tree at the top of the mountain. Soon the tops of the trees were covered by the water. They were afraid, and they prayed that they would survive the great flood. They asked XÁLS to take pity on them.
After many days, a crow came and landed on the bow of the canoe. He was carrying a stick and was talking to the people. The crow had brought good news. Suddenly a mountain began to emerge in the distance. One of the men said: “NI QENNET TTE WSÁNEC.” Translated it means: “Look what is emerging.” He pointed to the mountain emerging in the distance.
Before they left the mountain, they gathered around a huge coil of cedar rope, gave thanks and said: “From now on, this mountain will be known as ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱, the place of refuge.” And they also said: “We will be known as the W̱SÁNEĆ, the emerging people.”
XÁLS heard their prayers. He said he would not punish the people again by flood. The people were saved. They are now known as the W̱SÁNEĆ people.
This is the story of our sacred mountain, the origins of how we became known as W̱SÁNEĆ. We are still emerging today, as is evidenced by the beautiful faces sitting in the gallery today. The story of the W̱SÁNEĆ is just another beautiful story of the success in our territory. Just as the ancient story of the great flood, which has been carried by our ancestors, our S¸ELELW̱ÁÁN, and passed to our youth….
It was not the last time that the W̱SÁNEĆ people were nearly drowned. There is a more recent story. These experiences are closer to the surface, and the scars still mark many of our people’s skin. It’s not an old story.
Only about 160 years ago, a colonial flood of settlers came into the surrounding waters and onto these lands. In those first decades, school was not something to be remembered; school was something to be feared. Despite the memories burned into the minds of our elders, the stories they carry became an embarrassing reminder of the cruel and despicable decisions that can be made in houses just like this one by members of these houses. While we would prefer to believe that this is our past, it is indeed still, unfortunately, our present.
But in the 1970s, our late elders Phillip Paul, Marie Cooper and many of our other grandmothers came together because they did not want their experience of school to be the experience of their grandchildren. They wanted a different future for generations to come. From those meetings, the Saanich Indian school board was born. The goal was to build an institution that would provide our youth with a western education in a safe and culturally appropriate environment.
If you consider the brutality that they and their parents experienced in school, this was really quite remarkable. But they knew that the floodwaters were rising and that they must tie their ropes to the quickly disappearing trees before it was too late.
The federal government policies that in many respects still divide us today, those same policies that have Indigenous communities fighting over the crumbs that have fallen from the Crown’s table, jealously guarding small scraps while overlooking the opportunity that unity brings, those deliberate policies were set aside by the Pauquachin, Tsartlip, Tsawout and Tseycum, those leaders that came together to create the Saanich Indian school board.
To this day, it remains the one institution that has truly united the W̱SÁNEĆ people on the Saanich Peninsula. It’s indeed a model that we should be aggressively seeking to replicate in all aspects of our governance if we are to truly be and continue to be the emerging people.
As the school campus evolved and a new facility was built in the 1980s and 1990s, our W̱SÁNEĆ elders began talking about what the name of the school would be. “What will we call it?” I heard a story about that time. My family members and many others families were involved in this discussion.
Ray Sam suggested that they should use the name ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱. The others thought that it might be better for it to carry a different name. Some said that the name ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱ is already used. It’s the name of the sacred mountain. ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱ is the place of refuge, and it got its name from the time of the great flood.
Perhaps that is exactly why they should use the name ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱. Our people were experiencing a new flood, a new social and cultural deluge. They were becoming overwhelmed by floodwaters. This school was to be ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱, a place of refuge for our children, for our culture, for our language, for our teachings, for our beautiful way of life. After a long discussion about the name of the school, it was finally settled. It would be known as ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱.
It’s important to understand the significance of names to the W̱SÁNEĆ. They carry with them a tremendous amount of historical information. When you are honoured with a name and it is bestowed upon you, you carry a responsibility to carry that name forward honourably. Naming ceremonies are powerful public events where families unveil their most sacred rituals and call on the most influential members of the communities to witness the events. Names are not to be used without the proper authority, and to misuse a name comes with tremendous shame.
The discussion about names in the W̱SÁNEĆ culture is the defining moment for a W̱SÁNEĆ person. It determines our social status, responsibility and roles. Life would be substantially different and difficult for a child whose parents passed away before they had received their name. When the elders in your family gather to determine your name, they are, in a sense, breathing life into you.
This example of the naming of a mountain and of a school is an indication that there is little difference in the import of the name of places and people. In many instances, they are the same, and they highlight a sense of a family or individual belonging to a certain place. They also describe the place, the resources, the characteristics of a place, so that when you got there, you knew that you were there. For example, SṈIDȻEȽ means the place of the blue grouse.
I share this to illustrate the substance of these actions today. It’s one line in one bill, jammed between question period and lunch, on an average Thursday in early May. It may be easy to overlook this as just another act in just another bill on just another day. Indeed, many of our colleagues will stand without even knowing the deep meaning and importance of this action.
When I stood before the break weeks to talk about the territorial acknowledgments, I asked the members of this House to consider them not as a duty or to read them as a prepared script but, rather, as an act of reconciliation and to provide the detail of what you are doing in your life to live your words. This, here today, is a powerful example of that.
In a sacred naming ceremony, they brought the name down from the mountain, our place of refuge, ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱, and put it on the school. It’s a place of refuge from a new, existential threat, ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱.
About a year ago, I was called to ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱. Ms. Melanie Neilson’s grade 3 class invited me to the school to present me with a petition. The students visited their sacred mountain and were appalled to see the signage. It had another name. “John Dean Provincial Park,” they read. They were sad that the name of the sacred place that saved their ancestors, ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱, was missing, and they wanted that to change.
So they put together a petition of the names of the students in the school, 174 in total. They were joined by 175 signatures from the students at Cordova Bay Elementary, a petition from those students standing with them in solidarity. They provided handwritten letters to the minister and asked me to lobby the government to change the name back to ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱, and they did what every powerful group of advocates do: they called the media. I promised them that I would do what I could. Thankfully, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy was willing to complete the work.
Today I stand to tell the story of our sacred mountain, ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱, the place of refuge. Just as that mountain saved our ancestors and gave us our name and identity as the emerging people, my work here today is to honour the effort of our beautiful children who have not forgotten their teachings. Today their S¸ELELW̱ÁÁN are here with us in this room today. They will be smiling with pride as their children and grandchildren have reminded us all of what it means to live in a good way.
To our elders — who debated whether or not the name of our school, the school that is now restoring our language and revitalizing our culture, should be called ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱ — I believe today will be a day when we can all agree that that was a good decision. I look to the children and their teachers who are with us in the gallery. On behalf of our leadership, our community members and our ancestors, I’m humbled by you, I’m excited about our future, and I raise my hands to you. HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.
Finally, I’d like to say that the name of the mountain on the Saanich Peninsula has never changed. But for a brief time, we’ve called it John Dean Provincial Park, or Mount Newton. The recent signage around the park and all the maps of the place have identified it with these names, but it has always carried the name ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱.
The people who’ve lived for generations at the base of that mountain and who have shared the original story of the great flood but never forgot the day of deliverance from inundation, are reminded of the reward for remembering the teachings of moderation, connection and collaboration — so that I may be able to stand in this place and recite those ancient narratives, so that we may be able to live in a good way. To those people, the mountain still carries the name ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱.
I’m pleased that the government — and, more specifically, the minister — heard the call and has officially moved to recognize the sacred significance of ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱ by adding it to the name of the provincial park.
I will, of course, be supporting Bill 16, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act.
P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 16, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act. I’ll just go over a couple of things. My comments will be somewhat brief. It seems to be a standard bill every year that comes forward. It’s good to see, and it’s certainly good to see the continuation, as we’ve heard today already, of the renaming of some of our significant class A parks to better reflect the Indigenous history and cultures in the areas that these parks have been located in, and protected areas within those areas.
Certainly when you read through the bill…. It’s not lengthy by any means — only three or four pages — but as we’ve heard, as well, from both the minister and the previous speaker, there is great significance with some of these changes. It relates predominantly with Indigenous cultures and recognitions and moving towards more areas of reconciliation. But it’s also the importance of making sure that we are continually updating and making amendments to our overall park system in a way that makes sense, in a way that doesn’t worry people, and to make sure that with such a vast area of a park system we have, it’s done very methodically and year over year.
That’s why it’s good to see, yet again, this bill this year, just as last year and previous years, as staff continue to always make those boundary changes and movements to make sure that things are better reflected. As mapping gets more accurate, as we’ve heard in this bill, as donations of land start to come forward, connecting into parks and making critical connection points between two areas within a park, those types of additions make perfect and sound sense. I think it’s something that all the public would be supportive of.
Certainly, our park system is the envy of many jurisdictions across North America. It’s something that I think everyone in B.C. takes great pride in, and it becomes a part of who we are as British Columbians, knowing that we have such wonderful access to such a varied variety of park spaces. From the more rustic hike-in areas to the drivable paved internal roads within certain large parks, it really does enable all of British Columbia to get out and enjoy the outdoors in a way that suits them, in a way that’s comfortable for them and in a way that they can actually see what great biodiversity we have in our province.
When you look through Bill 16, there’s really not much to take issue with. There will certainly be questions, as we head through committee stage, just to clarify the exact logic behind some of the changes. I know the minister covered off a great many of those during his opening comments. Again, we’ll make sure that we ask a few more questions — not to be opposing and adversarial with this bill but to make sure that the public understands fully the depth and breadth of what went into certain decisions, what exactly is being added or deleted in each park area.
I know a lot of times when park boundaries get moved, people get very nervous. I think the fact that the ministry staff, year over year, goes through this process speaks to the public’s confidence that this is not something that is done in a partisan way or a political way. This is something that is being done on a regular basis to make sure that the parks system is modernized, the boundaries are modernized and access points are maintained.
One thing we have found over time — and we see it certainly in the Interior where I’m from — is there are always areas that people assume are part of a park. It may be an access point or a waterfall or a feature. Then, over time, we start to realize that it may still be Crown land but not actually in the physical park area itself, in the park boundary. That’s why these bills serve a good purpose.
Knowing how protective all British Columbians are of the park system, if this bill was in any way controversial, I’m sure that the minister or myself would have been hearing loud and clear from the public about what was being proposed within this bill. People, when they feel their parks are being threatened or are not being managed properly, make sure that their voices are heard in a very loud way and a very clear way.
With that, I think I’ll reserve the rest of my comments for as we get into committee stage. Certainly, as I say, it is definitely a bill that is, obviously, supportable. Although it seems routine, as the previous speaker said, there really is great significance, not just on the Indigenous naming side of things — which is, of course, a very significant moment, especially for all the people that have worked very hard to get that change in place and to make sure that their heritage and traditions are better reflected in those areas around this park — but also the changes in the other parks, as well, in terms of some of those access points and some of the continuity pieces that are being created within this bill.
It will, overall, make a better functioning park system for the parks that are in this, and it’s one more way to make sure that all British Columbians can further enjoy the great outdoors and really cherish the spaces that we call our park system.
I look forward to committee stage on this bill in the coming weeks, and I will end my comments at that.
S. Thomson: I appreciate the opportunity to make a few brief comments on Bill 16, as well, the protected areas amendment act. I first want to acknowledge the sincere and important comments of the member for Saanich North and the Islands and the support he has here today for the steps within this legislation to recognize the Indigenous cultures and history — I think very important steps — and, also, to echo the comments of my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson in support of this bill and the process of the regular updating of boundaries and additions and things like that.
The reason I want to get up is to talk about one specific part of this bill, which is the addition of 19 hectares into Myra-Bellevue Park. Myra-Bellevue Park was originally established as a protected area in 2001 and made a provincial park in 2004. When that happened, there was this roughly 19 hectare piece that was not part of the park. That piece had very, very important ecological values, a grasslands ecosystem, a significant wetlands, an open forest — very, very important values. It was private property, and it was not included in the park. It had access issues and things.
Over the years, many organizations and groups in the community have been advocating for that to be added to the park. They’ve been important partners in the maintenance of Myra-Bellevue Park. Groups like the Friends of the South Slopes, the Myra Canyon Restoration Society, the Mountain Bikers of the Central Okanagan have all been working for this.
When I was the Minister of Forests and Lands, this was a project we were working on. We didn’t quite get it done. The Minister of Environment has got the process done, and I want to extend my real appreciation for that.
This resolves significant trespass issues. Trails and much of the access to the park were through that property. The previous property owner allowed that to happen, but it did create some challenges. Continued access to the park, if it was done by some other means, would have required some other adjustments in terms of the boundaries of the park. Acquiring this private piece and then adding it to the park is a great solution to address this long-standing desire of many, many of my constituents in my riding, including….
One of the main advocates for this process was my mother, who was a leader within the Friends of the South Slopes. In terms of her legacy…. My mother has passed, but this is something that she would have been really pleased to see. I know all of the members of the South Slopes and the naturalists club are all very, very pleased to see this.
I just wanted to add my support for the bill overall and my thanks for this one particular part of the bill, in adding this important ecological piece to an outstanding asset in our community in terms of the Myra-Bellevue Park.
I appreciate the opportunity to make those few comments.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the debate.
Hon. G. Heyman: I want to thank the members who have spoken — the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, and the member for Kelowna-Mission for sharing the story of what it means to his community to add a long-sought piece of property in the midst of a park.
I particularly want to focus my closing remarks on acknowledging and thanking the member for Saanich North and the Islands for sharing the story of the Place of Refuge — that’s the ancient story of the Place of Refuge — and sharing the more modern story about the ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱ School, the genesis of the school and what it means to the community.
I want to thank and lift my hands to the students from the ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱ School for bringing forward so strongly the rationale and the request to recognize the long heritage, the culture, the existing name for the place, as well as to recognize the meaning of the name that we will now, by passing this bill, give to the park, ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱.
It is an important piece of reconciliation, as I’ve mentioned. Acknowledging Indigenous names throughout British Columbia, but particularly in B.C. parks, is an important step in implementing the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.
Our ministry’s policy is to always consider these kinds of requests and move toward implementing them in a way that brings reconciliation and cohesion with the surrounding community while respecting and reflecting the traditions, the culture, the spiritual values, the language, the history and the stories of Indigenous peoples to better reflect the First Peoples of this place and their connections with the areas that we choose, collectively, to protect.
Again, thank you to the students. I hope many other students will pay attention to this moment and act with the same enthusiasm and the same sense of embracing and advancing their culture, traditions and language.
With that, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 16, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2019, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Dix: I’ll see everyone at 1:30. I move that the House do now adjourn.
Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TOURISM, ARTS
AND CULTURE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); N. Simons in the chair.
The committee met at 11:23 a.m.
On Vote 42: ministry operations, $160,544,000 (continued).
The Chair: Seeing no further questions…. [Laughter.]
Member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.
D. Clovechok: Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I always appreciate your sense of humour.
We’d like to start the day off talking a little bit from the History Channel perspective. That, of course, is referring to Family Day. Tourism operators in the ski industry and at least 23 communities were opposed to changing the Family Day date. Of course that happened. Tourism operators claimed that the change could cost the industry up to $10 million.
The minister, at that time, did not seem to advocate or champion for tourism, in the sense that the minister stated that the Surrey and Burnaby boards of trade supported the change. Tourism operators versus Surrey and Burnaby — it’s not the championship we would hope for.
My question to the minister is…. During the last estimates, the acting minister that was here on her behalf stated that the decision to move B.C. Family Day from the second Monday of February to the third was a government decision with no real consultation undertaken but, rather, based on comments coming into MLAs’ offices. Those were that individual’s words, not mine.
My question to the minister: now that the Family Day has occurred, what feedback or analysis has the minister done to evaluate the tourism economic impact?
Hon. L. Beare: Chair, if you’ll permit me, for one brief second before we get started. Last night all members were invited to a Creative Industries reception. While I was on the bus en route to the event, I met Don Allan. Apparently he and his wife, Helen Allen, were watching our estimwates process yesterday, and they were quite fascinated. Don was very excited to see me on the bus and have a conversation about the estimates.
I just want to say to at least the two people that are watching our estimates at home, Don and Hellen Allen: hello on behalf of the House.
To the member’s question, the change for Family Day became effective this February, which was only just a few months ago, so there hasn’t been a chance to analyze any full impact yet on that. I will let the member know that I am in constant consultation with the tourism sector. I have my tourism engagement council. I’m meeting with tourism organizations all the time.
I met with Canada West Ski Areas Association, and in fact, I received a message from Christopher Nicolson from the Canada West Ski Areas Association stating that on the decision to change Family Day to the new day in February — which was highly, highly popular among British Columbians and very, very much asked for by families all across the province, and we listened to them — the industry had moved on. They were happy to continue working with us to explore new ways to celebrate and promote the ski industry during the current Family Day.
D. Clovechok: The popularity of that decision would be debated, depending on where you are in this province, but we won’t deal with that today. The question, I guess, I would have, then — just listening to the minister: does your ministry plan on doing a strategic overview of the economic impacts that this has had?
Hon. L. Beare: The tourism profile comes out annually. We’ll be able to analyze stats from that. As I said to the member, to date, I have actually had no contact with anyone in the industry who’s expressing concern about the change to Family Day. In fact, quite the opposite. We are well aware that aligning Family Day with other jurisdictions in Canada provides an opportunity for families to travel and spend time with their loved ones. This is a strong, positive move to align the British Columbian holiday along with the rest of the provinces across Canada.
We believe the impacts are significant for both the tourism industry revenues overall as well as benefits to other industries that rely on interjurisdictional trade and markets. This is a benefit for everyone.
D. Clovechok: You talk about significant economic impacts. Can you explain what those significant economic impacts are?
Hon. L. Beare: The Family Day opportunities are endless. Families are able to spend time with their loved ones, doing a number of activities, coast to coast.
We supported $350,000 in tourism day activities here in the province. We supported free family-focused activities in communities, because that’s actually what Family Day is about, ensuring that families are able to spend time together and are able to participate barrier-free in their communities. You have families spending the entire day at our free events. They’re also enjoying other events all across this province.
D. Clovechok: I think I just heard her say a bit ago that there was a significant increase in revenues because of Family Day. The word “revenue” was used. So I’d really like to see from the minister: do you have any evidence of revenue impacts, negative or positive, at this time?
Hon. L. Beare: I do believe the member may have misheard, but this is a positive change for British Columbians. The tourism profile numbers will be released and will be analyzed.
D. Clovechok: I guess what I hear from that is that you don’t have any statistical information that would give us an idea of the impact. I do, so I’m going to share it with the minister.
Michael Ballingall of Kelowna’s Big White Ski Resort remarked this February: “All they did” — of course, the government — “was move B.C. to a day that is busier than New Year’s Eve or Christmas on the mountain.” According to Mr. Ballingall, his resort alone had lost between $700,000 to $800,000 before the weekend was even over.
The question, I guess, to the minister is: when can we expect to see some sort of economic impact study or economic impact results of this decision? Because, in physics, cause equals effect. Obviously, there’s been a cause. We need to understand what those effects look like.
Hon. L. Beare: It’s ironic that the member brings up Michael Ballingall, because the same week that that quote was taken from, I actually was at a dinner with Mr. Ballingall, who was quite happy with the work that was going on in my ministry and in the sector and expressed, as did the Canada ski west tourism association, that he’s moved on and really excited to continue working and partnering together.
The tourism strategic framework that we laid out, with the 6 percent growth that we talked about yesterday with the member — that’s an ambitious plan that takes in growth overall. These are opportunities all across British Columbia.
The member is focused on one day. We have tourism in British Columbia 365 days a year, and we’re going to continue to champion that. The tourism profile numbers will be released, and I’ll be happy to discuss that next year with the member.
D. Clovechok: We’re painfully aware that tourism is, in a very good way, more than one day. But this one-day change, respectfully, to the minister…. What the minister doesn’t seem to understand is that there have been some economic impacts associated with this.
In the February 2018 news release about Family Day, the change, the Premier stated: “Moving Family Day is the right thing to do for businesses small and large, and is better for families who may be spread out across the country.” Based upon what I’ve heard today about opportunities, can the minister tell us how this change was beneficial for local tourism businesses such as running ski resorts or whatever? Where’s the benefit here? We need to see some understanding of how this is benefiting. Those are the Premier’s words, not mine.
Hon. L. Beare: What the member seems to be forgetting is Family Day is for families. That’s exactly the intent and the point of Family Day. What we’ve done is align Family Day with jurisdictions all across Canada, which is what families were asking for. The public asked for this; we listened. We changed the day.
We’ve heavily canvassed this last year. We’re talking about it again this year. I’ll continue to answer the questions, but it’s not going to change. Family Day is about families, and we’re very proud of that decision. The member can keep bringing up the ski industry, but they’ve moved on. They’re happy with the work my ministry is doing. We’re happy to continue working with them.
I want to remind the member that year-to-date international visitor entries to B.C. from January to February 2019 are up 2.2 percent over 2018. Our tourism sector is thriving, and it’s about 365 days a year. The member can keep asking about one day, but it’s what families wanted, and we’re happy to have made that decision.
D. Clovechok: This member is not just asking about one day. It’s about families. I totally agree with her. It was always…. When we created Family Day, that’s what it was. And let’s not forget who created the day.
My question is…. We’re not debating whether we should have a Family Day and that it should be for families. We’re debating the economic impact that this particular decision has had on businesses. It goes far beyond the ski industry and the ski operators. It goes to restaurants and to all businesses that are associated with that. So, again, let me ask this question. Will this minister commit today to doing an economic impact study as to how this day has had the impact that it’s had on business communities?
Hon. L. Beare: Again to the member, I’ve met with the minister’s advisers council. I’ve met with members of industry all throughout the year and many since February. I have not heard a single concern from the tourism sector. Nobody has brought this up.
I want to remind the member that, year to year, visitor entries are up 2.2. percent. This is great for the tourism sector all across the province. That benefits everyone. The member can keep asking, but my answer isn’t going to change. This is a benefit to families, and we stand by the decision.
D. Clovechok: Again, it’s not about the day itself. It’s about the economic impacts it has had on communities.
Maybe the minister can explain how this change is beneficial for B.C. families when they are competing for limited accommodation, as an example. Again, let me use Big White. These were the statistics from Big White. “Only 27 percent of bookings this year came from the Lower Mainland this Family Day weekend, compared to more than 80 percent last year.”
Could the minister maybe, looking at those statistics…? So 27 percent of the bookings from the Lower Mainland this year, as compared to 80 percent last year — with about 54 percent from Americans. Can the minister explain how that might factor into the change of the day when you’ve got B.C. families not booking?
Hon. L. Beare: These questions have been asked and answered. My answer isn’t going to change. This is budget debate 2019-20 — budget of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture. This was heavily canvassed last year, and my answer does not change.
D. Clovechok: For the record, this directly relates to 2019-2020 budgeting. We want to know if those businesses that have been affected through this change — which they have been, whether the minister hasn’t heard it herself…. We have heard.
My question is: will the ministry look at doing an economic impact study on the results of this decision that has been made so that British Columbians can, one way or another, understand if it was a good move or not?
Hon. L. Beare: These questions have been asked and answered. Tourism profile numbers will be out. We’ll be analyzing them, tourism strategy. We’re anticipating 6 percent growth. We’re going to continue to work towards that. Tourism visitors, to date, are up 2.2 percent. These questions have been asked and answered, and I’d like to move on to Budget 2019-20.
D. Clovechok: That’s exactly where we are, in Budget 2019-2020. From the answer that I get from the minister, the answer that she has, for the record, is no. She won’t be doing an economic impact study so that the businesses and all the families and all the folks that have been impacted by this decision, which is a major policy decision within the first two years, won’t have an understanding of how the province has determined if it’s had an impact or not. We’ll move on.
Let’s talk some wildlife. Has the minister had any discussions or consulted with any of her stakeholders and tourism operators regarding the caribou recovery efforts, and/or have any of them written to her regarding this issue?
Hon. L. Beare: Yes, prior to the announcements and the consultation, we had received letters from a couple organizations, including the Adventure Tourism Coalition and HeliCat in B.C. They did write to us expressing some concern regarding the caribou situation, and we met with them at the ministry. We’ve met with them here in Victoria a couple of times. Staff have had numerous conversations with them.
Ministry staff have been, to date, now having daily caribou calls with FLNRO and Environment Canada and with the West Moberly First Nations to ensure that the tourism sector’s interests are being represented. We’re taking this very seriously, and we’re continuing to support the tourism sector.
S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity to ask some questions.
Has the minister, herself, spoken to the minister that is responsible for mountain caribou recovery to talk about the important impacts that may occur to the tourism sector?
Hon. L. Beare: These are conversations that we have across ministries all the time. Ministry staff are currently on daily calls with FLNRO and the stakeholders and are monitoring every consultation session that FLNRO is having.
With that, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MENTAL HEALTH
AND ADDICTIONS
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); B. Ma in the chair.
The committee met at 11:23 a.m.
On Vote 36: ministry operations, $10,067,000 (continued).
J. Thornthwaite: I’m going to continue on with my line of questioning from yesterday. Because QP went a little bit longer today, I think we’re going to come back after the lunch time as well.
I’ve got a couple of questions that are carrying on from last time. I wanted to know whether or not the minister had any information on the long-term success rates for people on opioid agonist therapy, OAT, who do not go to residential treatment centres.
Hon. J. Darcy: As the member opposite will know, opioid use disorder is one of the most challenging forms of substance use disorder and a driver of overdose deaths. As we know, the first line of treatment, as we discussed yesterday, is Suboxone. This is according to the guidelines for opioid use disorder treatment from the B.C. Centre on Substance Use. Second line is methadone, and then we go from there.
I did speak yesterday about the number of patients who are presently…. Well, the number of prescribers. We’ve significantly increased the number of prescribers who are able to prescribe opioid agonist therapy, which I generally have begun to call medication-assisted treatment, because nobody knows what opioid agonist therapy is except people who work or live in this world. The number of prescribers now, which includes not just doctors but nurse practitioners, is over 1,500. As of December 2018, the total number of patients on medication-assisted treatment, opioid agonist therapy, is now 26,503. Those numbers are continuing to go up.
I mentioned yesterday when I spoke that one of the areas that we’re working on very intensively now on the front lines is work that’s referred to as around the cascade of care. This is, really, work that people are doing on the front line — addictions specialists, doctors, and so on — and working with research to better understand why people might go off treatment. They would go on treatment for obvious reasons, but why would they fall off treatment?
There’s some very significant work happening in that area. I want to mention in particular something called the BOOST initiative, which is work that is happening with the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, who have considerable experience dealing with a previous very, very serious public health emergency.
This is a project that really involves…. There’s a cohort of patients that they are working with and following. It’s very close and continual follow-up with patients who are on opioid agonist therapy, very active outreach. So it is known, in almost the closest thing to real time, to the people involved in the project whether the patient is continuing with the treatment, and they’re able to do outreach and give the patient the support that they need. It’s a quality improvement initiative, really.
In their cohort so far, they have increased the retention on opioid agonist therapy from 35 percent to 75 percent, so there’s some very, very promising work happening there that we really want to build on across the province.
J. Thornthwaite: Do we know how many people that are on OAT are relapsing and ending up in the ER or overdosing and ending up in the ER?
Hon. J. Darcy: Thank you to the member for the question. There are a number of issues that I’d like to…. There’s some information that I’d like to share, that relates to this.
First of all, according to the coroner’s data, there has not been Suboxone found in any of the people who died of overdose. So that’s significant. It speaks to the effectiveness of Suboxone, and it underlines the wisdom of the expert guidance that’s been given by the BCCSU that Suboxone should be the first line of treatment.
The issue of emergency rooms and whether people have overdosed who are on Suboxone — whether they have records, whether they have that information — we will take on advice and follow up further with the Minister of Health on that.
I think the member will be well aware that there are long-standing challenges in the health care system in British Columbia in general of IT systems and electronic medical records connecting all parts of our health care system, including connecting emergency rooms back to health care providers, whether it’s a family practitioner or other people under whose care a patient might be. So that’s an ongoing challenge. It has been for a number of years. It is not resolved yet.
I can tell you that the overdose emergency response centre is working in partnership with the B.C. Centre on Substance Use on provincial guidance in order to enhance addiction care in emergency rooms. That’s an important piece of work that has already been undertaken. It will be very important going forward.
I’ve shared previously a really exciting pilot project that’s in place at St. Paul’s Hospital that we want to learn from and build on, where a patient who has overdosed or who is known to be at risk of overdose, after seeing an addiction specialist, is actually able to go home with opioid agonist therapy, with Suboxone and with a treatment plan.
We certainly want to ensure that we are enhancing the ability of our health care professionals in emergency rooms, in primary care and in all of the other places that people living with addiction might come in contact with, in order to help them to find their pathway to treatment and their pathway to recovery.
J. Thornthwaite: Just carrying on a little bit about the residential care. It is my understanding — and you can correct me if I’m wrong — that the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions is working with the Ministry of Social Development to increase the per-diem rates from $30.90 a day in assisted-living facilities. Perhaps the minister could give me an update or send me to the Social Development Ministry on the status of the work.
Is there an increase coming? This has been an ongoing issue that keeps coming up in recovery facilities. Will the providers of the licensed residential care also get a per-diem increase from the $40 per day that they get? Does the minister, in fact, think that that would be sufficient for this vulnerable population?
Hon. J. Darcy: On the issue of recovery homes and per diems, let me just say, first of all, that the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions is working with the Ministry of Health and across government with health authorities and service providers in order to strengthen the safety, the quality and the oversight of supportive recovery services in British Columbia. I know that wasn’t specifically the question that the member asked, but I thought that she would be interested to know that.
The immediate focus of the work is to improve the delivery of safe and effective supportive recovery services across the province. That’s been done. There’s been considerable engagement and consultation with people who work in the recovery community on this.
We certainly also have heard that stable and adequate funding is a significant concern for some operators. Most mental health and substance use facilities and residences charge user fees to cover the cost of room and board for adult residents. The user fee, as the member probably knows, is based on the type of facility — the level of service that’s provided.
The current user fee rate — and the member mentioned this — for licensed residential care, including licensed mental health and substance use residential treatment, is $40 per day. Current user fee per-diem rate for registered mental health and substance use assisted-living residences, meaning supportive recovery homes, is $30.90 per day. These user fees are paid by the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction in the form of per diems in lieu of support and shelter payments for ministry clients residing in them. The current rates for mental health and substance use facilities were established in 2008 and have remained unchanged for 11 years.
Currently our ministry is actively working with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction to explore options and develop recommendations that would begin to address the immediate funding concerns from operators.
Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.
Copyright © 2019: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada