Second Session, 42nd Parliament (2021)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 94
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Legislative Assembly Management Committee, accountability report, 2019-20 | |
Office of the Auditor General, Community Living B.C.’s Framework for Monitoring Home-Sharing Providers, June 2021 | |
Office of the Ombudsperson, special report, Alone: The Prolonged and Repeated Isolation of Youth in Custody | |
Forest Appeals Commission, annual report, 2020 | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2021
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.
Introductions by Members
A. Olsen: Today I’d like to stand and acknowledge the graduates from my riding. Gulf Islands senior secondary school, Parkland Secondary School and Stelly’s Secondary School all have graduates this year. And for the first time in my riding, the W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Secondary School is graduating students out of grade 12.
Five students are graduating out of W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Secondary School. This is an endeavour to ensure that our W̱SÁNEĆ youth can start school in elementary and go all the way through in the SENĆOŦEN language program. They’re working their way towards that.
I raise my hands to my niece Madison Olsen, who’s graduating from Stelly’s as a Stinger; and to my cousin Demetrius Olsen, who we know as Weems, who is part of that first graduating class of the W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Secondary School.
Please, could all of the members here congratulate W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Secondary School for the work that they’ve done and to all of the graduates from Saanich North and the Islands.
Hon. G. Heyman: I’m honoured today to rise to recognize a favourite constituent, Margery Kellett, who recently celebrated her 99th birthday. Margery was born on the family farm in County Cork, Ireland. While she was studying in Dublin, she met her husband, Robert. They travelled the world before settling in Vancouver with their three children and two dogs in 1959.
In addition to her lengthy teaching career, Margery was one of the first women wardens at Christ Church Cathedral, where she once helped protect sex trade workers facing harassment who sought sanctuary inside the church for three nights. Margery is also the only person who ever hosted a meet-the-candidate gathering for me in Shaughnessy and managed to attract a pretty good turnout.
She also has advice for all of us, at age 99. She says: “Life is completely irrational, but never miss a party.” I hope all members will join me in celebrating Margery as she begins her 100th year.
R. Russell: I have the honour this morning of wishing a very happy birthday to a constituent of mine, Nancy Koch, who next week is turning 100 years old. Please join me in wishing her a very happy birthday.
R. Merrifield: Well, my dad taught me to be fearless, to allow courage and principle to be my guide. My mom, however, taught me to listen in order to understand and to be fierce in defending those without voice — and also to always have an extra seat at the dinner table because you never knew who was going to join.
Generous, bold, kind, thoughtful and still learning in their 70s, they raised four crazy kids into, arguably, responsible and contributing adults, with 14 grandkids to love. I wish that everyone could have parents like mine, and for today, this House can.
Would the House please join me in welcoming my parents, Bruce and Norma Merrifield.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
ELDER ABUSE AWARENESS
S. Bond: Today is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. It’s an occasion to reflect on the care and the treatment of seniors and older British Columbians. Many of our older citizens are dependent on those that they trust for support as they age. Whether living independently or in long-term care, elder abuse is a heartbreaking phenomenon that we as a society must address head-on.
Elder abuse can take many forms, ranging from physical and psychological harm to financial exploitation and manipulation. Seniors from all walks of life and in communities right across the province are vulnerable to being taken advantage of or mistreated. And when the person who is mistreating them is someone from their family, many seniors are simply afraid to speak up. Help is available for elders and their families and friends to recognize and get support when abuse may be suspected.
But all of us need to do more. It is unfathomable to think that at a time when people who should be able to age with dignity and respect, they are neglected and abused. The World Health Organization recently noted that as COVID progressed, the ill treatment of the elderly has grown considerably. It has also been noted that mistreatment of the elderly is one of the least addressed issues in the world.
Today gives us the opportunity to raise awareness and commit to increased education and preventative measures. Now more than ever, we need to take the time to check in on those older family members, friends and neighbours and provide them with the assurance that we care. It’s up to us to raise awareness, to do our part to protect those who are vulnerable and to let B.C. seniors know how important it is to speak up so that all older British Columbians can live safely with dignity and respect.
All of us have a role to play. Elder abuse is preventable. Together, today, let’s commit to making this issue a priority in British Columbia. Our elders deserve nothing less.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE ON HIGHWAY 16
J. Rice: For many years, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities have asked for improved transportation options along Highway 16. The Highway of Tears Symposium recommended in 2006 that improved public transportation options be put in place along Highway 16. Commissioner Wally Oppal recommended in 2012 that urgent action be taken to improve transportation options along Highway 16. For decades, many women have gone missing along the highway, many of them Aboriginal.
June 4, 2018, was a proud day for me as an MLA, when B.C. Bus North’s wheels hit the ground, filling a void left by Greyhound when they pulled services from western Canada. We’ve also made improvements to the Northern Health connections bus, expanding its ridership to include seniors’ travel. We’ve also put in place community busing grants and B.C. Transit intercommunity bus service along Highway 16.
Safe, affordable and reliable transportation is essential for people who live and work in the north. Our government is committed to this goal. We recently announced a grant of nearly $8 million to Northern Development Initiative Trust, to help ensure that regional transportation options are available through to March 2025.
The funds are from the federal-provincial safe restart program to help offset the cost of essential public transportation as communities recover from the pandemic. Northern Development Initiative Trust will engage with communities and other stakeholders to determine transportation needs across the region, from Prince Rupert to Prince George, Valemount, Fort St. John, Fort St. James and points in between.
Northern B.C. is a vast region with many unique communities, several of which are isolated. Safe, consistent and affordable transportation is a necessity for many residents in the north, especially now that the province is reopening and travel will increase. I’m pleased to be a part of a government that understands the importance of safe, reliable public transportation options for vulnerable communities.
LNG INDUSTRY AND PROJECTS
E. Ross: LNG Canada represents one of the largest energy investments in the history of Canada. Once complete, one ship will come into Kitimat every 24 hours to fill up and take an LNG ship into Asian markets, creating what should have been the start to a world-class liquefied natural gas industry in British Columbia and Canada.
The reason why LNG Canada chose to locate its $40 billion export facility in Kitimat is because B.C. has the second-largest natural gas reserves in Canada and is ideally located for shipment. With all of these available advantages, one might have thought more of the 17 other proposed LNG projects would also be under construction at this stage. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.
Just recently, the Chevron-Woodside proposed project in Kitimat has joined the list of projects that decided to leave B.C. for more welcoming jurisdictions like Australia, with 16 LNG export facilities, or Qatar’s 12 LNG facilities. This is on top of the 46 LNG liquefaction terminals worldwide, including the United States.
While it remains clear that LNG Canada will be the last and only major project B.C. will ever build, there’s a glimmer of hope for the smaller-scale proposals that survive and are trying to reach final investment decisions. The Nisg̱a’a re-engaged Western LNG with the hopes of exporting LNG to Asia. Squamish Woodfibre is still progressing, as it sits on the site of a closed mill, and are making progress on their project. The Haisla Nation’s own Cedar LNG project announced their new equity partner, Pembina, in their project that is a spinoff from LNG Canada.
B.C. didn’t fully capitalize on the energy demands from overseas, and investment did bypass us. But there’s still hope that the remaining proposals can keep B.C. on the energy-demand map, like other countries have.
I call on all members of this House to support and save what was a good start to B.C.’s LNG export industry.
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION
ACT REVIEW
COMMITTEE
M. Elmore: As members will recall, the Legislative Assembly appointed a Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act, or PIPA, as it’s known. As Chair of the committee, I’m joined by the very capable vice-Chair, the MLA for Penticton, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak today about our work.
PIPA governs how private sector organizations collect, use and disclose personal information. It also requires organizations to protect and secure personal information against unauthorized use or disclosure and grants individuals the right to access their own personal information.
We know that we have become more reliant than ever on technology to stay connected with friends and family and to do our work. Now is an opportune time to modernize our private sector privacy legislation in response to this new reality. We also want to ensure that B.C. businesses are supported in protecting and using the personal information they collect so they can remain competitive and successful.
Our committee is currently undertaking a public consultation as part of our work. We’re looking forward to hearing from British Columbians about the act. We’ll be holding a number of virtual public hearings in the coming weeks to hear from subject-matter experts and other stakeholders. On behalf of all committee members, I encourage everyone to take some time to share their thoughts on how to strengthen this important piece of legislation. The committee is accepting input until July 30. More details on how to participate are available on our committee website.
I would like to encourage all members to share this information with individuals and organizations in their communities who may be interested in participating.
The committee’s work will be presented to the Legislative Assembly and made public by December 8 this year.
TED ITANI
B. Stewart: It’s a great honour to rise today in this House and remember the life of an incredible Canadian with deep roots in West Kelowna.
Tetsuo Itani was born in Ucluelet, B.C. in 1939. His father, Takeo, was a successful commercial fisherman, a second-generation Canadian and homeowner. Unfortunately, this did not stop the Canadian government from labelling Ted’s family and all the other Japanese Canadians as enemy aliens, following the attacks on Pearl Harbor in 1941.
Much of Ted’s childhood was spent in internment camps at Hastings Park and East Lillooet and then, when they were allowed to, the Itani family decided to move to Westbank on Dobbin Road, just down from my constituency office. Takeo grew vegetables and his mother, Sumako, worked for the Reece family at the family packing house.
Ted always looked for ways to get involved in his community, and he decided to…. One of the few groups that would allow him to be a member was the Cadets. He spoke of the program as giving him a sense of belonging in a place and at a time when it was difficult for him to find one. This decision ended up shaping the rest of Ted’s life.
After the Cadets, he went on with 37 years of service in the Canadian Armed Forces. He served with NATO, was involved in UN peacekeeping and humanitarian missions across the world and was awarded the Order of Military Merit in 1994.
He then retired from the military and went on to a successful 26-year humanitarian career with the Red Cross and a few years ago was inducted into the Order of Canada.
The headline in the local newspaper: “Once Shunned by Canada, Ted Itani Now Among Canada’s Honoured Elite.” I just want to read a clip from the Governor General.
“Ted Itani is a role model of service to people in crisis around the world. Following a distinguished military career, he became an adviser to the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, where he drew on his own experiences to help design peacekeeping training courses conducted by the centre around the world. A committed humanitarian, he led responses to…natural disasters, including the earthquakes and floods that ravaged Pakistan in the last decade. He was a senior volunteer in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement.”
Ted’s life is a story that looks like somebody that dedicates oneself to service, despite having every reason to bear resentment towards Canada. He chose to spend his life serving his country and working to improve the lives of people around the world.
His life and legacy is remembered by his community; his wife and author, Frances; Bing of 100 Mile; Nancy of 108 Mile; and sister-in-law Beryl Itani in Kelowna West — an example of dedication, resilience and commitment from which we can all learn.
GRADUATES OF 2021 IN
MAPLE RIDGE–MISSION
AREA
B. D’Eith: I rise today in the House to say congratulations to the high school graduating class of 2021 across British Columbia, and especially in my riding of Maple Ridge–Mission. This past year students have shown great resilience in overcoming adversity during the pandemic, and many have dedicated time to contributing to the health and well-being of others through their actions.
In Maple Ridge, Thomas Haney Secondary School’s Selma Babiker started an anti-racism club and spoke to over 3,000 regional delegates at the virtual Lifting Black Voices Youth Conference. Selma talked about how colourism had affected her in her daily life and shared the impact that this had on her mental health.
At Maple Ridge Secondary, grads Tayah Bitter and Nana Yamamoto helped to organize a mental health week initiative in their school. They got creative to come up with mental health activities that would respect social-distancing rules.
Last week there was a Grad Walk event kicked off in Maple Ridge to celebrate and honour graduating schools from school district 42. Youth partnered with local organizations and businesses to decorate ten storefronts along 224th. The Grad Walk allows students and their families to take memorable grad pictures and celebrate their grad.
I also heard from Jim Pearce, who’s the principal of the Mission Secondary School, about this year’s grads, and he said: “The journey has been long and complicated for this grad class. Since the pandemic started, these youth have endured part-time school, full-time school, online and combinations of those. As principal, I’m so proud of what they’ve accomplished.”
So on my behalf, of course, and on behalf of the MLAs for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and Abbotsford-Mission, I’d like to congratulate the class of 2021. My message to you is be bold, follow your dreams, reach for the stars, and in your lifetime you may literally be able to do just that.
Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO
U.S. LEGISLATION ON
CRUISE
SHIP INDUSTRY
S. Bond: Well, yesterday once again, as we have been for months, we raised serious concerns about the risk of cruise ships permanently bypassing our ports. The Premier was, as he has been from the very start, dismissive about the issue. Let’s be clear. The consequences will be devastating for British Columbia. We know that it will threaten thousands of jobs and impact billions of dollars to our economy.
But here was the Premier’s response: “The governor from Utah may have trouble with a 100-year-old bill in his jurisdiction. Fair enough. Change it. That’s what you should do.” That quote and the Premier’s continued responses show how completely out of touch he is on this file.
Can the Premier explain to British Columbians what on earth he was talking about yesterday and explain why he has been completely missing in action on this file from day one?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for the question.
Yesterday was a very important day for all British Columbians and a welcome day when Dr. Bonnie Henry, the Premier, the Minister of Health, the Ministers of Tourism and Jobs and Economic Recovery announced stage 2, announced the further reopening of our economy — a reduction of health restrictions in terms of our social and economic activities, the ability to have outdoor gatherings of up to 50 people, more in-person services being possible. Some spectator events and activities are being resumed.
What Dr. Henry outlined yesterday was that we’re on track, over the next incubation period, to announce a further reduction in health restrictions, when we reach stage 3 on July 1. This is fantastic news. This is a tribute to everybody who has worked so hard to keep British Columbians safe. It’s a tribute to the job that public health has done in leading this province to a place of COVID safety and the restoration of economic activity and as much normalcy as possible under the pandemic circumstances.
We will also proceed to stage 4 based on how we perform this summer for further reductions, still. So what the announcement today did for British Columbians was align perfectly with what the Premier has called for publicly. He has called for the Prime Minister to take the opportunity on June 21, when the United States and the Prime Minister’s Office, representing Canada, announce what our approach will be on opening the border.
The Premier has been clear that if you’re dealing with the land border, you have to deal with airports and you have to deal with ports. We are in a far better position today than we were just three weeks ago, when we were still in a COVID circuit breaker situation, when we had hundreds and hundreds of new cases per day. The vaccination rates are continuing to proceed on pace in our country. Now is the time for the Prime Minister to lead the discussion on what reopening the border looks like for the U.S., including for the cruise industry here in British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
S. Bond: What’s painfully obvious is that this Premier has been completely missing in action on a file that is critical to British Columbians. It is absolutely unbelievable that this minister completely ignores the essence of this question. His Premier called the situation with cruise ships potentially bypassing British Columbia a “blip.”
The minister might want to reflect back on three weeks ago. Well, if this Premier have been doing his job from months ago, we would not be in the position that we are in today. It’s time for him to stand up and admit that he has made a complete mess of this file. He was wrong then, and he is wrong now.
Let’s look at the now-famous words of the Tourism Minister. I would quote her words, and they will be quoted for a long time, I am positive. This government is “arrogant” in their confidence. Yesterday that was on display in this House.
Over and over, we have heard the statistics, and the members opposite know exactly what they are. Thousands of jobs are at risk. Billions of dollars are at risk. And what did the Premier call it? A blip.
Yesterday what did we hear the leader of British Columbia say? Here’s what he said: “Fair enough. Change it. That’s what you should do.” Well, not only has the Premier completely botched this file; now we need to ask an even more basic question: on whose side is he?
When will he finally stand up for the men and women who will be impacted if this decision becomes permanent? That’s his job. He is missing in action. It is time for him to get up and fix the mess.
Hon. R. Fleming: Again, to the Leader of the Official Opposition, what the Premier has done is speak to his counterparts: the governor of Washington, representing the port of Seattle; he has talked to legislators in Alaska; and most importantly, he has talked to his fellow Premiers in this country, right across all provinces and territories, about the federally decided position on the border closure.
We’re now just being able to glimpse what normalcy might look like. We are just now able to talk in a tangible, realistic way about how Canadians might safely visit their loved ones and relations in the United States and vice versa, for Americans to come to Canada. That’s the light at the end of the tunnel today, after a 15-month-long struggle, one that was very difficult on the cruise ship industry in particular, it must be said.
We know how they in particular struggled at the beginning of this pandemic — tied up in ports around the world, active sites of some of the worst COVID transmission outbreaks that the world knew. Now we have, just on May 6, a set of guidelines that have been developed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. They’re conducting trial cruises.
The Prime Minister, when he announced earlier this year, in February, that ports would be closed for an additional year, it was an entirely different time.
We forget, because time seems very compressed during this pandemic, what things were like just a few short moments ago. But at that time, many provinces were losing the battle against COVID. It was infecting more and more Canadians — mortality in seniors’ homes, a disruption of businesses, disruption of schools. British Columbia did better than most, and we’re proud of that. But the discussion in February of 2021 was not about opening up the border willy-nilly in Canada between the United States. That’s a real discussion today.
Today the case counts are down. Today the Prime Minister is meeting with his G7 counterparts, including President Biden, about reopening the border. I expect that the Prime Minister will revisit the port closure order that he brought in four months ago. I expect that will happen. Certainly, British Columbia and this Premier have had opportunities and have taken them…
Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I don’t think this is the only question that’s going to be asked.
Hon. R. Fleming: …to make our position known that the border should be opened in an orderly process.
M. de Jong: We first became aware of this issue back in the end of October of last year. In February, the Americans, the state delegation from Alaska, wrote to the Canadian government, wrote to the British Columbia government. We raised the issue directly in this House in March. The government was dismissive. The Premier was dismissive. The Minister of Tourism was dismissive.
By April, we were in regular correspondence with the government, alerting them to the risk that the cruise industry was articulating. And yesterday we found out, in response to questions from the Member for Vancouver-Langara, that the Minister of Tourism didn’t actually get around to writing to federal officials on the whole question of technical stops that could have provided a solution and eliminated the need for legislative amendments in the U.S…. He, apparently, didn’t get around to writing to his federal counterparts until the end of May.
How on earth are British Columbians, who are desperate to see a return of international tourists, whose livelihoods depend on the return of tourism, supposed to have any confidence in this Premier and this government when it takes four months to write a letter exploring a solution that could have precluded the need for amendments to American legislation? That’s not leadership.
Will the minister explain to British Columbians why it took him four months to get off, to get down to business and write the letter that should have been written back in February?
Hon. R. Fleming: We’ve taken a whole-of-government approach since day one. IGRS has been in communication with the Prime Minister’s Office. The Minister of Tourism has met with stakeholders and her counterparts. I’ve met with my counterpart in Ottawa, both the current Minister of Transportation and his predecessor, about border issues, about ports, about the cruise industry for many months.
I know the opposition likes to mischaracterize the industry. I think that’s very dangerous. They should not be talking down the industry or COVID safety or criticizing a science-led approach to what has led us to a successful position today, where we’re having an active border reopening discussion — led by the Prime Minister, because it is his jurisdiction — with the United States, a comprehensive border reopening announcement that we expect on June 21.
Listen. The CEO of the Victoria port authority had written the Prime Minister on June 11 and reminded him that his port and the industry originally supported the extension in February of 2021, the closure of our ports to February 2022, but suggests to the Prime Minister — in light of vaccine rates, in light of COVID safety increasing, in light of the USCDC developing safe sailing protocols in May of this year, last month — that the government should reconsider whether ports need to be closed to February of 2022.
That is exactly the position that I have expressed to my federal counterparts. That’s the position of the province of British Columbia.
There is opportunity, thanks to the herculean efforts of British Columbians to stay safe, to have an all-of-Canada approach that reopens our ports, our land borders and our airports in accordance with strict, scientific policies that will keep people safe.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.
M. de Jong: The Americans wrote in February. This government — this Premier, this minister — did nothing. Worse than doing nothing, they belittled the very people who were in the U.S. who were in a position to change laws that will have a profoundly permanent impact on tourism in British Columbia.
The belittling and the dismissing and the insulting continues from the Premier of British Columbia. We saw evidence of it again yesterday, belittling the junior senator — who is not the junior senator, by the way. He is wrong, as he has been every step of the way through this saga.
Carnival, Holland America, Princess, Celebrity, Royal Caribbean, Norwegian. Carnival Miracle, Majestic Princess, Nieuw Amsterdam, Serenade of the Seas, Ovation of the Seas, Celebrity Summit, Norwegian Bliss. What do all of those names have in common? They’re all ships that, next month, are going to begin sailing to Alaska, right past British Columbia ports like Victoria, Vancouver, Campbell River, Prince Rupert, and they won’t be stopping there.
What’s worse, because of this minister’s inaction, this Premier’s inaction, this government’s inaction, there’s a chance — a very good chance — that in the future, they won’t be stopping either. I can’t believe that even today, after everything that has taken place, there are still people on that side of the House dismissing that as not a possibility.
Will the minister, on behalf of the government, explain, in the face of a challenge that has materialized, that is real, that the Americans intend to pursue, why it took him four months to write a letter to the federal authorities articulating and advocating on behalf of British Columbia for a solution that could have made all of this go away?
Hon. R. Fleming: A very interesting bit of historical revisionism from the member opposite.
In February of 2021, only 2.3 percent of Canadians were vaccinated, and 0.1 percent of Canadians were fully vaccinated. We were in dangerous winter conditions that enhanced the spread of COVID. People indoors. Harsh restrictions. Some provinces — not ours, but some provinces — in full and complete lockdown.
What was preoccupying the minds of the country and Canadians in general was not a hypothetical cruise ship reopening in July. It was about how we were going to get towards a safer future in our country. How we were going to get more vaccine into this country. How we were going to keep one another safe. How we were going to support each other. How we were going to roll out programs to keep businesses, communities and workers whole. So for the opposition to say that was their preoccupation….
But it gets worse, in terms of how erratic this opposition has been. In the middle of the circuit breaker — a measure that was absolutely necessary in March of this year, just a couple of months ago — when case counts were about 1,150 on a rolling seven-day average and projected by our provincial health officials to go as high as 3,000 if we didn’t take additional steps…. In the middle of that circuit breaker, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson was saying an entirely different thing about borders. He was saying we should have a hard border enforced on Alberta.
They weren’t talking about reopening of borders with the United States. They were talking about taking steps that no province even has the constitutional authority to do. Instead, we brought in a ban on non-essential travel. We brought in restrictions that kept people safe…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, come to order, please.
Minister, thank you.
Hon. R. Fleming: …and we started to see the case counts go down. We came out of that circuit breaker lockdown two weeks ago.
That’s what letting scientists lead on COVID policy-making decisions looks like. That’s what’s kept British Columbia safe.
REQUEST BY SQUAMISH NATION FOR
DEFERRAL OF OLD-GROWTH
LOGGING
A. Olsen: Last Thursday Squamish Nation clearly gave notice to the province that they want old-growth logging in their territory deferred. Squamish Nation spokesperson Khelsilem said: “The government is infringing on our rights by allowing these sites to be logged without our permission and without our consent.”
In his response last week to the Huu-ay-aht, Ditidaht and Pacheedaht request for deferrals, the Premier said: “The first step in protecting old growth must be respecting Indigenous Peoples’ land management rights in their territories.” The Minister of Forests was also eager. She said: “True reconciliation means meaningful partnerships, listening to Indigenous Peoples and trusting their stewardship of their territories. This is a step in the right direction, but we know there’s more work to do.”
If the Premier and this minister are sincere in their promises to respect land management rights of Indigenous Peoples in their territories, we will see an immediate positive response to Squamish Nation’s assertion of their rights.
Simple question to the Minister of Forests: has she accepted Squamish Nation’s request for deferrals on old-growth harvesting in their territory?
Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. Our government has received several requests from First Nations to implement deferrals. We’ve responded to all incoming requests and are committed to working with them. We have been working with the Squamish Nation since last fall and have deferred some areas in their territory, as we speak.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.
A. Olsen: I think Squamish Nation is being clear, and I’ll be clear. They don’t want talks about protecting bits and pieces, small areas here and there. The nation is calling for an immediate two-year deferral in its entire territory. They’ve identified at least 20 cutblocks with old-growth logging planned for the next five years, a point the minister does not want to talk about.
The minister said recently: “The first step is putting Indigenous Peoples at the centre of land management in their respective territories.” That’s a dramatic difference than the response that we just heard, which is just more rhetoric.
The Premier set a precedent in his riding. Finally, after more than 100 years, Indigenous nations have a pathway to stewarding and conserving their lands and can negotiate better economic terms than the pittance that this government has ever offered them. It’s an exciting time. For decades, this province has been operating a cut-and-run forestry policy. Now the decisions can be made by people who live on and care for the land.
My question, again, is to the minister. The minister and Premier have said they’re embracing a new era of Indigenous people making decisions in their territories. Our relatives in Squamish have made their decision. They’ve been clear about what that decision is to this government.
Will the minister do the honourable thing and immediately grant a full set of deferrals, pausing old-growth harvesting in the Squamish Nation territory?
Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member. Our government is committed to reconciliation and environmental protection, which we believe must go together. The days of making unilateral decisions without Indigenous Peoples are over. The member is quite accurate.
We’ve been clear that the first step to protecting old growth is putting Indigenous people at the centre of land management in their territories. That’s exactly why our government is working with the Pacheedaht, the Ditidaht and the Huu-ay-aht First Nations to defer old-growth logging in their territories — discussions that have been ongoing for a while.
The member has said that we are reaching out to nations. We have responded to nations that have asked for deferrals. We are having those important, confidential government-to-government discussions.
We will continue to do that with nations across the province who are looking to have more access to the land management in their traditional territory, to be able to have a say in how their land is managed. It’s critically important to this government. We are moving forward. We will have more deferrals to announce this summer.
AMBULANCE RESPONSE TIMES
AND SERVICE
MANAGEMENT
R. Merrifield: Well, we’ve heard a flood of stories of people who have had to wait unbearably long hours for an ambulance. The government says it doesn’t happen that often. But to the people who are waiting in excruciating pain, it’s happening far too often.
Troy Clifford, the head of the paramedics union in B.C., says that delays and waits are becoming the norm: “We need to modernize the service delivery model, recognize this profession is vital to public safety and health care and recognize the professionals doing the work and treat them similar to other health care professionals.”
Seniors shouldn’t have to wait hours in their own waste. Accident victims shouldn’t have to drive themselves to the hospital after waiting five hours. No one wants to hear that the Premier wants to deflect blame.
Can the Premier tell British Columbians what he’s going to do to fix this crisis in our health care system?
Hon. A. Dix: What we’ve done since 2017 to address the situation amongst ambulance paramedics I think should be well known to the member. We’ve more than doubled the increases the ambulance service gets every year, compared to the four years prior to my becoming Minister of Health and the Premier becoming Premier. We’ve added, since last fall, 263 positions, and as of July 2, 434 additional positions will be posted, based on a plan that we worked together with the union, with CUPE Local 873, the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C, and on a contract we negotiated together.
Of course, every time someone calls 911 we need them to get the service they deserve. Every time there’s a problem with that, it’s a subject of concern for every ambulance paramedic and for the B.C. emergency health services. That’s why we’ve put together an unprecedented investment. We’ve added an unprecedented number of ambulance paramedics.
Yes, we’ve treated ambulance paramedics with respect, rather than taking away their rights at the bargaining table. We’ve added to those rights since 2017, treating them as other health care workers are treated: with respect and with dignity.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission on a supplemental.
R. Merrifield: Well, despite the minister’s urging that more money is being spent, more money is not the answer for mismanagement. Troy Clifford has been clear that mismanagement has been leading to these delays becoming the norm: “They have an obligation to staff ambulances and put two paramedics in them, to make sure we have enough dispatchers to answer the call, to make sure that we can provide medical assistance while they wait for the ambulances. That’s not happening right now. It hasn’t been happening for a while.”
In my area of the province, the problem of vacant cars is posing a serious challenge. This includes no advanced life support for the Okanagan two nights a week for a few months now. In other regions, stations like Kimberley and Pemberton are being downgraded to part-time and on-call, despite increases in population and calls. This is putting people’s lives at risk.
Again to the Premier, when will he move to fix this crisis before someone pays a heavy price with their life?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, since the pandemic began, we’ve added 55 ambulances across B.C., particularly in rural and remote communities, who were particularly underserved before. Since the pandemic began, we’ve added five new air resources to our ambulance system to improve services, again in rural and remote communities. Since last fall, we’ve added 260-plus ambulance paramedics positions, and we are posting more than 400 on July 2.
We’ve done this because of the priority we give to the ambulance service everywhere in B.C., moving to more full-time paramedics, hundreds of new positions. All of the efforts we’re making are necessary because we do have to modernize the ambulance service into the 21st century.
Some of that work, it should be said, occurred under the previous government, particularly the actions of George Abbott when he was Minister of Health, in adding community paramedicine, which stabilized the ambulance services in rural and remote communities.
We have built on that work, the best that was…. But we also added resources that were never put in place to ensure that rural B.C. gets the ambulance service it deserves and that we add ambulance paramedics everywhere in B.C.
The member wants a plan. There is a plan. That’s why we’re adding hundreds of positions.
C. Oakes: Quesnel is one of five rural remote stations that is being deeply impacted by this transition that happened in April, under this new model that this minister has been talking about, which is now leaving us with a single ambulance.
Quesnel receives 1,300 calls per year. The reality is that the second car is no longer staffed. That means the local station is serving a population of 35,000 people with one car. Further, the station covers a very large geographic area. It can take hours to get to one call in Nazko. What happens if there’s an accident on Highway 97 near McCleese Lake many, many hours away, or what happens if someone is under cardiac arrest in Quesnel, where the timing is the difference between life and death?
People are worried now. They’re worried about what happens when they call for an ambulance and there just simply isn’t one because we don’t have the staffing. Again, in Quesnel, they could get 12 calls in a six-hour period, and they cannot possibly meet all the requests. What happens when staffing becomes even more challenging in July and August?
Please, will the Premier step up, do the right thing and fix this crisis so that the people in Quesnel have proper ambulance care?
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question. As the member will know, 55 new ambulances in rural and remote communities. Significant addition in full-time paramedics in the Cariboo since 2017. Additions to community paramedicine. That focus. The focus on improving service in rural B.C., as we do transition to a model of more full-time people, which is exactly what rural B.C. deserves….
The old model of ambulance service didn’t work adequately for the people of rural B.C. in the modern reality of rural B.C. That’s why these very significant investments, the most significant investments ever made in paramedic services in rural B.C., have been made in the last three years. It’s what I think MLAs across rural B.C. have been calling for, for a long time. It is what we intend to continue to deliver.
These were added to when the Premier announced on April 20, 2020, additional resources and services for rural and remote communities at the time of COVID. This priority is real. We continue to add spaces and add services, including in the Cariboo, in order to ensure that we give people the service they deserve. It is a challenge, in a very big province, to provide such services.
B.C. emergency health services has been given the resources and been given the direction to deliver those services across rural B.C. I think the significant investment over the last three years is a demonstration of that.
[End of question period.]
A. Olsen: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to introduce a petition.
Mr. Speaker: Proceed.
Petitions
A. Olsen: Today I stand to introduce a petition on behalf of the Fawkes family, Emma Epp and Ella Hale. Twenty-five hundred people in just two weeks from across B.C. have rallied around the disgraceful treatment they received at the hands of the Royal Jubilee Hospital to call for an independent review of psychiatric emergency services in the Vancouver Island health region. That’s what the petition is here.
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to table the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Accountability Report 2019-20.
I also have the honour to table the Auditor General’s report, Community Living B.C.’s Framework for Monitoring Home-Sharing Providers, and the Ombudsperson’s special report 48, Alone: The Prolonged and Repeated Isolation of Youth in Custody.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I have the honour to present the 2020 Annual Report of the Forest Appeals Commission.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued estimates debate, Ministry of Finance.
In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call continued estimates of the Ministry of Health.
In the Birch Room, Section C, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Transportation.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 10:56 a.m.
The Chair: We’ll take a five-minute recess to get this all set up. Then we’ll return for the estimates for Finance. Thanks, everyone.
The committee recessed from 10:56 a.m. to 11 a.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
On Vote 26: ministry operations, $307,466,000 (continued).
M. Bernier: Good morning, everyone. Good morning to the minister and her staff that are assisting her. We’ll move right into it.
Obviously, yesterday we spent a bit of time, kind of high level, on some issues. I just want to go back to finish off where my train of thought was, if the minister will indulge me. This is around the increased employment incentive. We had just about finished wrapping up some questions I had in there.
There is some interesting information that came out of that. We have all these employers who were applying for this 15 percent tax credit. I was quite surprised to find out that we don’t really have a lot of data that’s collected through that application. The minister acknowledged that they were trying to make the process as simple as possible, as quick as possible, which I completely support. At the same time, interested…. As we’re running these government programs, sometimes the data is important.
We did find out yesterday that we didn’t really know how many were full-time or part-time employees. We did find out that there was around $5.5 million of $190 million that’s been expended to date. I won’t get into that too much further.
Since we don’t have the part time, full time…. I was wondering. In the data that’s being collected, though — I’m assuming, at least, when people apply for this credit — do we have the information on how many are new hires and how many are just wage increases that they’ve applied for?
Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, we did canvass this program significantly yesterday. I had read into the record that we had net new employees. We had 4,163 net new employees, which is good. It’s doing what the program intended, which was to have these people employed in the last quarter of 2020.
M. Bernier: I’m going to move on to a different train of thought. This is around the contingency funds.
Budget 2021 contains about $3.25 billion in pandemic-related contingencies, $1 billion the year after and $300 million the year after. Also, reading through the budget documents, it appears that there’s $1.1 billion that’s devoted to unanticipated recovery measures. One of the concerns or one of the trains that I want to canvass here is….
Moody’s credit-rating agency has highlighted that 58 percent of projected annual deficits are accounted for in contingency funds. I look at that. We have a lot of unallocated contingencies that have taken place. So when the minister announces, through a budget document, I would argue, a fairly large deficit, but within that deficit it appears there are large contingencies that are unallocated funds….
Now, the minister will say or has said in past conversations in this House…. Of course, there are a lot of unknowns. We’re in the middle of the pandemic. Hopefully, towards the latter part of the middle of that pandemic…. We continue to use the phrase “middle.”
My question is…. There is a large contingency built in. What is the plan? Does the minister have a plan to fully utilize those contingencies at her disposal that are within this budget, and what would they be used for?
Hon. S. Robinson: I’m grateful for the public service that are speaking in my ear and helping me find the right page so I can get the correct information for the member. As you can see, there are a number of binders here, and understanding exactly which binder information is in can sometimes take a little bit of doing.
I think it’s really important to get on the record that the pandemic and recovery contingencies allocation, as the member rightly pointed to, at $3.25 billion for this year, has some notional allocations, recognizing, again, that this pandemic has continually evolved and shifted over these last 15 months.
It’s why, for example…. The circuit breaker is a perfect example of a program where we needed to be quick on our feet, recognizing that the pandemic was getting away on us as a province, so public health put in orders to change our behaviour and, essentially, shut down restaurants. So having the circuit breaker grant available — and then extending it, when that got extended, was really about being a responsive government. It’s for that reason that we’ve put in significant contingencies — pandemic and recovery contingencies — so that we have the flexibility to adapt to the changing landscape of this pandemic.
It’s with that in mind that we put together these pandemic recovery contingencies. The notional allocations are $900 million for health and safety measures. We continue to recognize that there are challenges, going forward, around making sure that we are responsive. We still need contact tracers, for example. We still need extra cleaning protocols. I know that we’re all looking forward to schools opening up, but we want to make sure that they continue to be safe. What does that look like, going forward? So we need to have some flexibility built in.
We have $1.2 billion for supports for businesses and people. Again, not sure when borders are going to open. What is the impact going to be on the tourism industry? How are things going to be, moving forward? And remember, when we put this budget together, we were just hearing about how quickly we could move on our vaccination, but the expectation was that we wouldn’t be fully vaccinated until well into the later part of this year, perhaps by the fall.
It looks good. Things are moving more quickly, but, again, not having any certainty about anything meant that we needed to be ready for whatever inevitability might present itself. We’ve allocated notionally, again, $200 million for preparing for recovery. We want to make sure that we can help businesses adapt to the new landscape.
Then we have set aside…. The remainder is for unanticipated urgent health or recovery measures. Again, we have been through 15 months of unprecedented times. The word is overused. I will freely admit that. I think it’s overused. But I can’t think of another word, and if the member has another word, I’d be happy to incorporate it into my lexicon. But at this point, it just feels so unprecedented. Making sure that we are ready for whatever this pandemic may throw at us, I think, is really important.
I just want to finish off with this. The decision of public health to vaccinate more people with a single dose was seen as controversial back in the day. It was a decision made based on science, but we didn’t know what the impact was going to be. Certainly, now, finding out that that’s better than double-dosing everybody else and leaving people without any vaccination — is the better way to go. It was the right decision.
But, again, it’s hindsight that we know. But at the time…. You know, we trust science, and we certainly trusted public health. But we really felt…. I think it’s being a responsible government to make sure that you have your inevitabilities covered off so that you can continue to take care of people, as we have over the last 15 months.
M. Bernier: I was trying to brainstorm for another word other than “unprecedented,” but I’m actually stuck as well, to come up with another one at this time. But unprecedented in the sense that I think many of us didn’t see this coming. But it has been here, now, for a year and a half.
During that year and a half, I hope that we have — government has — learned a lot about what’s working and not working and how to help people. So I do acknowledge that sometimes, obviously, contingencies for the unknowns are important. Can the minister, then, for the record, just confirm…? Because contingencies are supposed to be for those unknowns. That’s my understanding, anyway. Does that mean that there is no routine or structural spending that will be utilized? None of this money will be utilized for routine measures or structural spending?
Hon. S. Robinson: If I recall the question — and I’m trying to remember which way it was phrased — our commitment and this commitment that I’ve made, certainly, before, in this House, is that any spending that is not used for pandemic response and recovery, health response and recovery, will go to pay down the deficit. It’s not to be used for other purposes.
I want to remind the member that, just like last year, we will be reporting out quarterly on where these particular resources are going as part of our response to the pandemic and recovery initiatives that government is undertaking, again, to support the people of British Columbia. This is about making sure that people have the health resources, have the supports that they need to get through to perhaps what we’re calling the tail end or the beginning of the end. I’m not quite sure what to call this phase that we’re in. Phase 2, but it feels like we’re coming to an end and making sure that communities can recover.
That’s, I think, the key focus for all of us. What does recovery look like? How do we support the opportunities that come with recovery, because I think it’s important to be really clear that there are certainly opportunities for us. I’m looking forward to working with all members of the House to capitalize on the opportunities that are before us as we move through to this final leg of this pandemic and into a normal and a time when we can actually put the pandemic behind us.
M. Bernier: Maybe the minister can just clarify for me one of her comments there, just so I understand. Maybe the House understands. The minister said: “If the money was not utilized, it would be used to pay down the deficit.” What I think the minister would acknowledge, for the first time in quite a while, we’re in a deficit budget situation. So we wouldn’t be paying down the deficit. I assume it would be borrowing less money and the deficit that the minister would announce at year-end would be less than projected.
Hon. S. Robinson: Perhaps I misspoke. It’s about reducing the deficit. Yeah.
M. Bernier: Just wanted to give the minister the opportunity for that.
One of my concerns on this is we’ve seen to date, on a lot of the different programs, that we have been unable to, for varieties of different reasons, get a lot of the money out the door. Some programs have been a bit more successful than others, and some have been struggling — as we’ve heard in the last one that we campaigned of only $5.5 million out the door out of $190 million.
Where I’m going with this is: where is the certainty that the minister will, hopefully, give the House that we’ll have this money in the budget, that we have these programs that are within contingencies? Because, of course…. Just to back up a moment, when the minister comes out with her budget document…. She’s talking about a 60-plus-billion-dollar operating budget; plus, we’re over $100 billion in debt. I mean, there are a whole bunch of different things built into a budget. We’ll get into some of the specific details after.
Obviously, one of the concerns — Moody’s raised it, and I’ll maybe talk about that a little later — is when we’re putting these large contingencies in the budget, is it to overinflate to make the budget look worse than it is, just to come out later and say: “Hey, it’s not as bad”? The whole intent, I would assume, is to actually get this money out the door, to actually help people.
The minister has been very forthright with her comments yesterday, and I assume today as well, that that’s the intent. But there are so many people that are falling through the gaps right now, so many people that are needing help. A lot of these programs are to support those people.
What flexibility is there within government? What mandate or direction has the minister given to the other ministers that are responsible to ensure that this money and these programs are successful and the money gets out the door to help people?
Hon. S. Robinson: In response to the member’s question, certainly, $6.7 billion in the last fiscal year went out the door to support people in businesses and communities. That’s about being a responsive government. Whether it’s rent supplements, worker benefits, it was just really about supporting people in the moment, when they needed it.
We’ve certainly continued that as the pandemic has evolved. We’ve remained nimble, because that is what responsible governments do: to remain nimble to the uncertainties. For example, we have the circuit breaker, and $125 million is the estimated amount that has gone out to and will have gone out to businesses, as a result of public health orders.
Again, this is about being nimble to the changing nature of this pandemic. I also think, to the member’s question about building prudence into this budget, it’s the responsible thing to do when you’re faced with uncertainty.
I think we can all agree in this House that, if anything, the pandemic has become this uncertain beast that we’ve all had to face in trying to figure out how to best manage not just as individuals but, certainly, as families, as businesses and as communities — about how we keep ourselves safe and how we keep each other safe. That has meant people having to make other choices, like not participating in community events, not going to the gym, not going to restaurants and not participating in life as we know it. That has had implications.
What that means for us as government is: how do we help people to get through it? We will get through it. We are getting through it. That’s really exciting for all of us. Again, when we built this budget — we need to remember that we built this budget earlier this year — certainly, what we were faced with was a lot of uncertainty. Here we are into this beginning of the end, the end of the beginning, or the end of the middle — I don’t know what it is — of this pandemic, and we have a bit more certainty, for sure.
We know that vaccinations are working. We are in the next phase, which is really exciting. Again, that builds certainty, and that’s a good thing for all of us. At the same time, I don’t want to get too cocky in the face of this pandemic, because it continues to throw punches at all of us. I think the responsible thing is to have significant provisions available in the face of uncertainty. As I said to the member earlier, our commitment is to reduce the size of the deficit, if these resources aren’t needed.
M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for that. Nobody’s arguing the fact that we want to get the money out the door and that we try to help people. The biggest concern, obviously, that we continue to hear is that there are a lot of people falling through the gaps still. We want to ensure that we find those mechanisms in place to help them.
Now, the minister, if I understood her correctly — and, somewhat, with her last answer as well — is confirming that none of this money will be used for routine spending within ministries, that these are earmarked toward specific, if I may say, COVID-related challenges, which are unanticipated and which are not routine. We assume the money will not be spent in those areas, because, otherwise, they should have been allocated and defined specifically in the budget, if that was the case, if they were structural or routine spending. That’s why I wanted to just ensure that we had that discussion.
I don’t want to get into the political debate too much with the minister on this — because I think I’ve been enjoying the back-and-forth dialogue to date, just trying to get factual information on the record, for the public, as we go through this — but I’d just remind the minister, too, that the whole idea, the minister said, of delaying the budget by a couple of months, to April, was to try to avoid the uncertainty.
We look at this, and there still seems to be…. I assume the minister will stand up and say: “Of course, there is uncertainty, because we’re still in the middle or, hopefully, at the end of a pandemic.” But the financial prudence and the responsibility is still to try to determine as many certainties as possible as we move forward. There’s still $1.1 billion, though, within this that’s unanticipated.
I should say, by the way, that the money we’re talking about within the budget is notional. I should clarify that, if the minister has not already. These are notional dollars that we’re talking about — $1.1 billion of unanticipated measures, I believe — to be covered under unallocated.
My question. In a perfect world, a lot of these dollars will be fully allocated; a lot of the dollars within the contingencies will be fully spent. We will get that out the door. The minister mentioned the circuit breaker. We haven’t seen success yet, but arguably, we want to.
So if, for instance, the minister responsible is able to get all the money out the door for the circuit breaker funding for the different programs and finds that there is still need, has the — I don’t want to say cabinet — Finance Minister highlighted, for the other ministers responsible, that we have $1.1 billion still sitting here — so if there are programs that are fully allocated, they can come back to the Minister of Finance and ask for additional funds to continue on in the programs or reannounce next phases of programs, especially if there’s still need out there?
Hon. S. Robinson: I’m pleased to answer the member’s question about how, as Finance Minister, I work with my cabinet colleagues, because I think that that’s really what the member is asking.
I engage regularly with my cabinet colleagues, of course. In putting together this budget and presenting a budget, this was built with their input, for sure, around what they were anticipating or not anticipating. That’s really the challenge we had before us in putting this particular budget together, that there were so many unknowns. Putting together a budget with so many unknowns is certainly a challenge.
It’s based on their best advice — on the advice of the public service in all of our various ministries — about what they had seen, what they had learned over the year of having lived through a COVID pandemic, and doing their best to identify what the needs were that were temporary needs that relate to COVID and what, perhaps, unanticipated needs might be. It was their sound advice and their recommendations that got built into this budget. So my colleagues are well aware of what’s available should there be need. Again, I want to get on the record that it is really about: should there be need.
This is about dealing with the pandemic, dealing with recovery. It’s not to be built into the budget — the base budget, I think, is what the member was referring to. It’s really about continuing our nimble response as we see our way through to the very end of this pandemic. We know that we are going to need to continue to have a response. I would imagine, even once we’re completely vaccinated, there may be still some fallout that may present itself that we need to respond to.
We started off our discussion yesterday around, “This is really about people,” that we can go back and forth around numbers, and we have. I want to acknowledge that my colleague has continued, also, to talk about people, which is good, and businesses, because that’s really what we’re here to talk about. Again, we need to make sure that however things play out, we remain nimble, continue to be responsive to the needs of people.
That’s really how the circuit breaker response played out, which was: we know we have a contingency. We’ve had an order that we weren’t expecting. What do we need to put in place to help people get through this next bit? Then, of course, we extended it, because it went longer than we anticipated. So again, we extended it.
This is really about making sure that we’re nimble and continuing to respond, and my colleagues around the cabinet table know that as a Finance Minister, they can always come to me and identify where additional supports are needed for the people of this province.
M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister.
With $1.1 billion of unallocated, notional…. I appreciate what the minister is saying. Obviously, we want to get the money out the door, but like I said, we’ve seen some of these programs that do not get fully utilized, subscribed, by the people for a multitude of different reasons. Some people know there’s a program there and may choose not to apply. There are other reasons outside of government, I would say, for people not applying.
To that, though, we are hopefully — I think as a lot of us were saying as we moved into stage 2 — starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel. The minister and I used that phrase quite a bit last fall: the light at the end of the tunnel. It was coming. We just didn’t know how long the tunnel was, I think we were saying. But the end of that tunnel, hopefully, is getting closer, and the light is getting brighter.
With that, the question then…. We’ve got these programs in place. Is the $1.1 billion going to be treated the same way as contingencies and unallocated dollar amounts? If all of these programs are not fully subscribed, or they are fully subscribed and no need, hopefully, for continuation for the supports, because the economy is starting to come back and people are back at work….
Is the $1.1 billion going to be treated the same way, then? It will just not be borrowed? It will not be part of the deficit? It will not be allocated in any way? It can be scratched off the list, and that’s less money the taxpayers need to borrow?
Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, that is accurate. It is part of the global $3.25 billion pandemic and recovery contingencies. It will be used only as needed.
I want to point out, just to again get it on the record, that we are…. A full account of spending under the pandemic and recovery contingencies will be disclosed as part of the regular quarterly financial reporting. The member, everyone in the House and all British Columbians will be able to see how those funds get expended.
M. Bernier: It’s really important on those quarterly reports. That brings me a little bit to Moody’s and other credit-rating agencies who look at the books, who look at the province, look at our budget, our spending and projections around our credit rating. This might be odd. I want to actually congratulate the government and the minister for continuing to have what, when we were in government, is a triple-A credit rating. I think that’s really important on behalf of taxpayers. That’s really important, and it’s good to see that this government for now has and hopefully continues to have that triple-A rating for that base.
But the baseline credit assessment, though, did drop a little. It was downgraded to a double-A-1 for the baseline credit assessment that’s done. It was highlighted in there by Moody’s some of the concern of the province…. The possibility of not being able to rein in spending when you look at the projected deficit, not only this year, but into future years with no certainty of when that may or may not end.
Moody’s also notes that the multi-year structural deficits expects our debt to double. They expect our debt to double over the next five years. In fact, I found a quote here, that the BCA downgrade — which I just referenced — reflects the resulting further deterioration of the province of British Columbia’s debt burden. “The debt burden was already on a rising trajectory pre-pandemic, and Moody’s now projects it to double over a five-year period.”
I guess that puts me to a question. Does the minister feel Moody’s assessment of our provincial budget is accurate? Does she actually see our debt possibly doubling over the next five years?
Hon. S. Robinson: While I will acknowledge that Moody’s did provide the province with a triple-A credit rating which puts us in…. And we have maintained it the entire time that we’ve been in government. We are committed to making sure that we have a strong fiscal framework for delivering services for British Columbians, and maintaining our credit rating is absolutely critical to us.
Moody’s assessment is seen as a recognition of the province’s priorities. I think, certainly, they acknowledge that we’ve made our priorities at a time to repair the economic damage that the pandemic has done and support people through the pandemic. They recognize what we’ve done.
They also recognize that recovery won’t happen overnight. I think that they see how, globally, this pandemic has impacted economies all around the world. But they also recognize that our focus, our priorities of focusing on people and focusing on businesses and focusing on communities and creating new opportunities for people, building certainly a more affordable province…. We can ensure a strong economic recovery. So all of these things I think — I believe — as well as our history in having a strong economic performance have provided them with confidence about what the future looks like.
Now, the member talked about Moody’s having lowered our baseline credit assessment from a triple-A to a double-A-plus equivalent. It does reflect a deterioration in the credit profile, given multi-year deficits. We look out on a three-year plan, and we can certainly see that as well — the rising operating capital expenditures accompanying rising debt, for sure. They certainly recognize that.
However, in spite of that — and I think this is the part that I want to emphasize — and because of our diverse economy and the prudence built in the budget that we were just talking about and discussing here in this House, they have confidence in our ability to implement the measures to sustain our fiscal strength. I think that’s the compliment to us as legislators, as stewards — that they recognize that in spite of all those things, they see our path. They see our cultivation of making sure that we can get through these next number of years. They also note that we have the most affordable debt burden in Canada, which, among our peers, is also very significant.
This is really, I believe, a more than half-full-glass sort of story, especially given the pandemic and given all the challenges that our peers are experiencing, with our diverse economy and with the people of this province. We have incredible people here. Moody’s recognizes that the future does, indeed, look bright, albeit we need to be cautious and build in prudence, which we’ve done. They recognize that we are worthy of a continued triple-A credit rating overall.
M. Bernier: You know, I have never been the Finance Minister, but I’ve had many friends, including this minister, who are Finance ministers. I think every single one of them would say it’s one of the more difficult jobs in government. I think that’s fair to acknowledge. There’s a big burden there, because if you lose a credit rating, if you lose a notch through that fiscal planning, it’s a big responsibility of the minister on behalf of not only her political party, obviously, but the taxpayers for British Columbia.
I think it’s also fair that Moody’s also points out — and the minister doesn’t need to comment, because it’s part of the reality to this — that a big help to this provincial government and all provincial governments was federal bailouts, as well, that took place in the last year, 18 months, the majority of that due to the pandemic.
I’m just looking at the chamber getting a little busier there, Chair. I might have time for one more question before lunch.
Since we’re on the topic of the credit ratings, can the minister quickly tell me…? Maybe I shouldn’t use the word “quickly,” because that’s not always fair. Is the minister able to tell me what the annual debt-servicing payments are right now? I’ll just go for this fiscal — the debt-servicing payments based on the debt we already have.
And then — her staff can help her with this, I’m sure — if we actually were to lose a notch on our credit rating, instead of it being a triple-A, what impact would that have to the budget for increased costs that we would have to incur in debt-servicing?
Hon. S. Robinson: I’ve still got lots to hear from my folks, so I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Yao in the chair.
The committee met at 11:06 a.m.
On Vote 32: ministry operations, $23,725,698,000 (continued).
R. Merrifield: Where we left off was on rapid testing. Just to remind the minister, we were talking about, asking, if there was funding allocated towards the expanding use of the rapid testing. I believe the minister said the short answer is yes. I was wanting to follow up with another question, which is: who is being consulted on the rapid testing framework at this time?
The Chair: I do apologize, but due to technical issues, we’re taking a one-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 11:09 a.m. to 11:18 a.m.
[H. Yao in the chair.]
The Chair: I now recognize the minister.
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. I’m unhappy to say that I think we lost four or five rating points there, but fortunately my colleagues are still steadfastly staying with us. I’m honoured by that.
The member may know that we’re working closely, through both the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Recovery and through the provincial health office, with the Business Council of B.C. to support businesses interested in a point-of-care screening program. This is a program they’re developing with us, which will provide support to businesses interested in this.
Businesses obviously will have to meet an eligibility requirement and sign an agreement with the Provincial Health Services Authority, which is very much involved in this around quality assurance.
What the BCBC program — the member will know Greg D’Avignon, who has taken a leadership role in this area, with the B.C. Business Council — will provide is a concierge-type support to make it easier for businesses to do so.
The plan in that program includes support for businesses with the application process, of course; understanding the quality assurance, which is critically important in such a program; training on the use of point-of-care tests; implementation of a screening program; and reporting solutions that meet federal and provincial reporting requirements. All of this is consistent with the broader Canadian initiative that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is involved in. But here in B.C., it will almost certainly be the Business Council program, because we don’t need two programs, that will support all of these initiatives.
Public health and, obviously, others are consulted. There are further discussions that are beyond the realm of the Business Council with the non-profit sector, which also, as the member would imagine, would have its own interests in this regard. Those consultations are taking place as well.
It involves public health; it involves health authorities; it involves, significantly, the Provincial Health Services Authority, which houses the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. It’s obviously being led in consultation with what we sometimes call JERI, or the Ministry of Jobs, and the Business Council of B.C.
R. Merrifield: Just to clarify, the minister is referencing businesses and framework around businesses and rapid testing. But during last week’s estimates, the minister said that rapid testing was going to be used in long-term-care homes, schools and workplaces across the province.
With respect to the…. Whether it’s the schools, the post-secondary institutions, the food-processing plants and the congregate care or living; whether it be farms with housing or work campuses or work camps, how are all of those being brought into the framework that the minister just spoke of, with respect to the businesses?
Hon. A. Dix: What I said, I believe, to the hon. member — I’m happy to be corrected on this — is that it has been used in a significant number of long-term-care homes. I’d be happy to provide the member with a list of long-term-care homes. Very significantly in rural and remote communities, very significantly in B.C. Corrections, where it plays a useful and important role in that congregate and other congregate settings. In some of the school outbreaks, it’s been used, and so on.
Those are the things that have been used since December but, most importantly, since March, where rapid testing has been used by public health to address, principally, exposure events and outbreaks in different settings across B.C.
What we have is…. Rapid point-of-care testing is another tool for public health to use, in addition to the more significant PCR testing program they have to address and to support communities and workplaces and get information to public health sooner, so they can help people sooner. Those are all places and examples of places where point-of-care testing has already been used. Obviously, it would be our intention to continue to do so.
R. Merrifield: As the minister knows, COVID-19 is likely to be around with us for a long time. What I am attempting to ascertain is whether or not the minister has looked at an overall framework for deployment of rapid tests that expand to all of the different sectors that he’s already mentioned, as well as the business sector, to really give British Columbians that security and confidence when they are moving into an open economy and moving into the next stages of our opening.
Would the minister again consider deploying a rapid testing community program that would encompass all of what has been mentioned previously and that would also allow for the evolution of rapid testing as more of these types of tests are available?
Hon. A. Dix: What the member is describing is exactly what public health has been leading with its point-of-care testing program since they became available in B.C.
Public health started by validating the tests — which, as the member will know, the federal government is unable to do. We released our testing strategy on March 1, which provided wider use in workplaces and settings where there is a higher risk of outbreak and transmission. That includes industrial camps, food processing plants, post-secondary residences, and so on. That process continues to expand.
The other thing that’s changing — transforming, I think it’s fair to say — is that through the early stages of the pandemic, the technology around testing didn’t move as quickly as the technology around vaccines, I think it’s fair to say. So there are, now in Canada and largely I think in other parts of Canada, some home-based tests that are available. As the technology changes and as the needs of the pandemic change, the strategy will evolve. This work that we’re doing with the business council is a reflection of that ongoing strategy.
The key testing continues to be PCR testing. The good news, of course, on that is that our testing program, which has the capacity of over 20,000 but it’s not obviously being used to that capacity, is the results of that have become dramatically better, such that I think the seven-day rolling average of test positivity for people who are largely symptomatic in those testing environments was 2.4 percent over the last seven days.
R. Merrifield: Of the approximately — I didn’t check the number this morning — 146,000 cases in B.C., how many individuals are suffering from long COVID?
Hon. A. Dix: I think we are, right now in the pandemic, at 15 or 16 months. I think it’s fair to say that many people — and it reflects the seriousness of COVID-19 as a virus — and especially people with associated conditions, pre-existing conditions, are affected and sometimes dramatically affected over the long term with COVID-19. For a virus that came into existence in our consciousness, really, at the end of 2019 — at least that’s when I first heard about it — and then, obviously, a pandemic was declared in March. In some ways, we’re still at the early stages of understanding.
What we have done is establish five centres to address the issues of people who are having ongoing effects in their COVID-19 diagnosis. There have been…. We are in the stage of obviously doing our own reviews of that through the BCCDC and support for people at the grassroots level by our clinicians and, of course, family doctors and nurse practitioners across B.C.
There are, across the world, studies being done. But those studies are in the initial phases. We have to…. I think part of it is understanding that when the member asks for a number, well, that effect on individuals may be different. So you need to establish definitions before you can establish numbers.
But what we do know and what it reminds us of and why everyone needs to get vaccinated and why we need to continue to follow public health guidance and measures is that no matter what your age is, getting COVID-19 is a big problem.
For some people, perhaps not, or it’s less of an impact. But the potential of having long impacts beyond mortality or hospitalization is significant. There have been some studies, but most of the studies around long COVID in the world have focused on those who have been hospitalized.
Obviously, the overall percentage of people who are suffering ongoing illness is more significant amongst those that already have significant illness. They’re either in hospital or critical care. That group of people — clearly the recovery time is different than it is for someone who isn’t hospitalized. So this is obviously an ongoing area.
This is a significant area of study everywhere in the world. Everyone sees the same thing. I don’t think there’s a place in the world where people would say: “Well, there is X number of people right now.”
What we do know is that COVID-19 is a vicious, nasty, rotten virus and that it can affect…. Of course, it can lead to people’s deaths and serious illness and hospitalization, but it also can have long-standing effects.
That is something that the world community, I think, is going to significantly address. It is going to be one of those primary care issues, principally, that we’re going to be addressing in the coming days and weeks and months. In fact, we’re already addressing it at five specialized centres, but to be effective, we’re going to have to deliver care through communities everywhere. That means by providing excellent information and support to primary care physicians, to primary care nurse practitioners, to nurses and, obviously, to communities everywhere in B.C.
R. Merrifield: What I heard the minister say was that right now we don’t really have a definition of long COVID. We have five centres that are providing some form of resource for these individuals. To date, we haven’t really quantified or studied, and we need to expand how we are treating patients with long COVID through our GP network. I believe that is what the minister said. If I said anything incorrect there, I’ll leave it to the minister to correct me.
My biggest concern is that we’re not collecting the data on these individuals. We don’t have a way to actually quantify what’s happening or quantify the impact on these particular individuals.
How much is the ministry investing in the research, in the definition and in the expansion of services for long COVID?
Hon. A. Dix: First of all, I’d say that there is a significant group of researchers, which is the post COVID-19 interdisciplinary clinical care network, the PCN-ICCN, if you’re keeping track at home and you like the acronyms. It’s the first network of its kind in Canada to standardize post COVID-19 care through health authorities and to integrate real-time research, which was really necessary in this case because of the immediacy of this, into clinical care.
Involved in this are the B.C. academic health sciences network, the Simon Fraser University faculty of health sciences, the University of British Columbia’s Faculty of Medicine and Nursing, the School of Population and Public Health at the University of British Columbia, the Canadian Institute for Health Information and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research where there’s a significant…. I’ll provide the member with a list of recent grants that have been provided related to COVID-19. And the Canadian COVID-19 prospective cohort study.
The intent is to provide truly evidence-based care, to have a core of supports that would be around the centres but, clearly, to provide that evidence-based care and to deal with the best possible evidence as soon as possible across the B.C. health system. What is going to be required, as with, I think, all good care, is both specialized work and research, and that is happening here in a way that I think, to date, is unique in Canada. That’s a good thing, and that reflects the approach of the very committed people that are dealing with this subject. Also, obviously, the assurance of that information and that research can inform practice.
What COVID-19, as with other…. For people who have long impact, it has the effect of a chronic disease. The care that we provide for all other things through the urgent primary care centres, primary care networks, doctors’ offices, nurse practitioner centres and public health around the province….
The work we’re doing on COVID-19 and for those who are still dealing with those lasting consequences on their health has to be a part of that. It is not, obviously, the only thing that people in the province struggle with, but it’s an important thing and an immediate thing right now and one which we’re learning more information every single day.
One of the things I have the privilege with is obviously meeting on a daily basis with Dr. Bonnie Henry. Dr. Henry will — I don’t think the right word is regale — describe the most important research that’s ongoing on COVID-19. I’m not sure…. I think it’s very advantageous basically not to take any time off and to read everything as she does. Her and her team are obviously both focused on this and delivering the best possible and the highest level of support and research to people across the province.
It’s not an issue of not knowing numbers. But when there’s going to be different effects of COVID-19, it’s not just going to be one effect. It’s going to be a number of different effects and people dealing with a number of different conditions. The research work that we’re doing now, across these platforms, is important work for the future of people’s health in B.C.
R. Merrifield: There are quite a few definitions already in use throughout studies across, really, the globe. I am a little bit curious as to why B.C. wouldn’t choose to use some of those other definitions and then study those that are presenting with those symptoms, within our own communities, and also to formulate a support system around them.
Having said that, I’ll go back to what the minister was talking about, in terms of the different research centres and then how patients will be treated. What is the amount of money that is being allocated to this research, in terms of studying, data collecting and treating long-haul COVID patients?
Hon. A. Dix: Just to put this in context, in terms of financial implications, and this involves COVID-19-related research. In total, approximately $58.7 million from provincial and federal sources. So $34.4 million of that is provincial, and $24.3 million of that is federal. It’s being invested to support the research response of the pandemic.
What I’ll do, because we’ve had some interruptions this morning, is share the details. I could read them all out, if the member would prefer. This involves many of the agencies, both within…. And the support that we’ve given to the BCCDC Foundation to do so. I think those are the significant research investments.
Of course, it’s undoubtedly the first of many, with respect to our recovery clinics, three of which were opened at the time when this note was done. As of May 4, 656 patients have visited post-COVID recovery clinics in B.C., and 1,400 people have registered — 135 of those to the Jim Pattison Outpatient Centre; 235 to Vancouver General Hospital; 277 to St. Paul’s Hospital; and nine, at the time of just opening as a soft launch, at the time of May 4, the Abbotsford Regional General Hospital.
Just to note that a significant portion of that and the work is this patient registry and biobank, so that we have a standardized set of tests performed, biological samples if the patient agrees that these tests can be used for research and stored in the biobank.
This is how research is done and, obviously, our researchers, who are amongst the best in the world, are working closely with international researchers all the time. The idea that we’re behind or not listening to other jurisdictions is not correct. If I gave any impression of that, I wish to correct that, because that’s not the case. In fact, B.C. is a leader in Canada in this research.
This is a struggle for people. It’s a struggle for people with COVID-19 who are dealing with its lasting impacts. That’s why these resources have been proposed, why this research is there and why COVID-19 and the impact of COVID-19 — its lasting impact — both on our physical health and, I’d argue, on our mental health, as well, will have to be the subject of both resources and study and effort, starting now, but throughout the coming years.
R. Merrifield: Much appreciated. I do appreciate the answer to the question, and I also salute any time that B.C. can be a global leader. So thank you for that further clarification, Minister.
I’m going to turn over the next question, actually, to my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to my colleague from Kelowna-Mission for the time today.
Last week my colleague asked the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries about the health concerns posed by fur farming of transmission of COVID-19. As you know, there have been several COVID-19 outbreaks linked to ten of the fur farms across British Columbia. In January 2021, jointly, the WHO, UN Food and Agriculture and World Organisation for Animal Health documented the risks and estimated the risk of spillover from fur farms to humans in Canada as very likely and the transmission of COVID-19 from fur farm animals to susceptible wild populations as likely.
The minister, when asked, confirmed that there have been some concerns that have come with COVID, as COVID-19 can transfer from mink to human and human to mink. “We have had some positive tests that have come back from fur farms…. We’ve been working with the Ministry of Health on that.”
“As far as making decisions,” she said, “around mink operations and COVID and shutting farms down or not, we take our guidance from the public health officer on that.”
My question to the minister. I’ll put two together for the sake of time here. Was the advice of the public health officer sought prior to the breeding season for mink in British Columbia? Second part of that is: why didn’t the Ministry of Health recommend the closure of these farms prior to the breeding season?
Hon. A. Dix: This is an issue in which, obviously, the provincial health officer and the BCCDC have been very involved, and Dr. Henry and our really remarkable team in Fraser Health as well. The group of people that have been involved in this include the Public Health Agency of Canada, of course; the Canadian farm inspection agency; the Ministry of Agriculture, which played an important role in addition to that of the BCCDC; and Fraser Health.
Overwhelmingly, if the member is talking about mink…. All of those people have been involved in terms of the development of surveillance and testing. So at every stage, these decisions are made by public health based on the evidence and based on their involvement in consultation with all these groups.
What I’d suggest to the member, and she might appreciate this, is that I would be happy to arrange a briefing on the details of that testing, should she wish, with public health — either with the team at Fraser Health, which does a lot of this work on the ground, or with Dr. Henry’s office — and take her through the step-by-step details. This question and these farms — in particular, fur-bearing animals but principally, the mink farms — have been a significant issue for public health for the last number of months of the pandemic.
Very significant actions have been taken, always under the guidance of public health. I think the response has been both useful and effective for them. What I would offer to the member, though, because I think there are a lot of scientific details…. Should she be interested in that, I’d be happy to arrange that for the member.
Do you want to…?
Interjection.
Hon. A. Dix: I will sit down and allow the follow-up before I move the motion.
The Chair: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, do you have a follow-up?
K. Kirkpatrick: Yes, thank you very much.
What I understand is that the benefit of continuing mink farm operations in the province outweighs what has been described as a significant risk of COVID transmission. That was a statement that can be corrected.
One final question is: do all fur farms in British Columbia require a health management plan for licensing? That is my final question.
Hon. A. Dix: There are two roles. Public health — in other words, those who work on the mink farms — is the responsibility of the provincial health officer, so that process. There’s also a very significant role for — I’m sure this is not this person’s title — the provincial vet. But I think you get the idea. The member will know, as a member interested in this thing, who I’m referring to.
The decision on issues around breeding animals are obviously made by the provincial vet, in consultation, in this case, because of the pandemic, with public health and the BCCDC. As respects those working on the farms — the humans — the final decision around that is made by the provincial health officer. With respect to the animals, there is a responsibility for the provincial vet, and they have been working in tandem on these issues.
That’s the appropriate division. I think the member will understand that. But I think it would be useful…. I have to say that I’ve learned more about mink farming than I would have anticipated — I think that’s fair — over the last little while. But I think the full briefing of mink farming should come from the people who taught me all that I’ve recently learned about mink farming. If the member is agreeable to that, I’d be happy to arrange that. Perhaps she could just indicate that to my office, if that sounds good.
With that, if it’s okay, I’ll move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dykeman in the chair.
The committee met at 11:08 a.m.
On Vote 43: ministry operations, $948,948,000 (continued).
M. Lee: I just wanted to come back to the May 21 letter and ask the minister: would he please table a copy of that letter to this committee?
Hon. R. Fleming: I was just checking whether there were any issues with the release of the letter. I would be happy to provide the member with a copy of it.
M. Lee: Thanks very much to the minister for that. I appreciate that.
Just where we were in discussion yesterday afternoon, I had asked, for the purpose of this discussion here in terms of the purpose of the correspondence: was it talking about technical stops? The minister replied: “There are points in there about technical stops.”
I wanted to bring us back to that discussion, in terms of the May 21 correspondence, just so I can have an understanding as to what is on the table, so to speak, between the province and the federal government around technical stops, including around May 21.
What were the specific points around technical stops that were raised with the federal government in that letter in terms of what involvement there would be to put those in place? Was there a view expressed, which the minister talked about yesterday, in the last few months — before May 21, presumably — about technical stops? Just so I can get greater clarity about what the position between the province and the federal government was about adopting or putting in place technical stops at that period of time.
Hon. R. Fleming: I’ll answer this question. I will note that we’re several hours into this set of estimates, and the member has not asked a single question that’s linked to the operations capital plan or service plan of this ministry. But I’ll indulge him a little bit further on this. I’ve just offered to give him a copy of the letter so he can read it for himself.
What I asked, specifically, Minister Alghabra to convey to the government of Canada was that Canada considered the request from the senators on technical stops and offered assistance from public health officials in B.C. to facilitate the means to do that safely. We asked them to consider taking a position that would facilitate some resumption of the cruise season and offered to connect the government of Canada with our Safer Operations Working Group, which is chaired by members of the B.C. Centre for Disease Control.
M. Lee: I appreciate that response. As the minister responsible here, including for the cruise ship industry in this province…. Can I ask…? At what juncture has the minister sought direct input and engagement with the entity called the Cruise Lines International Association, which does represent 95 percent, as I understand, of the cruise ship industry?
Hon. R. Fleming: As I outlined yesterday, we’ve covered this well. Now that I have met with my counterparts in Transport Canada, the Minister of Transport’s office in Ottawa has been in touch, primarily on the issue about port reopening, with port authorities — so Vancouver Port Authority, Greater Victor Harbour Authority.
My understanding is that other ministries have been working with individual cruise lines and meeting, hearing their concerns. The member is welcome to pursue that in another set of estimates.
In terms of our primary stakeholders and those we work with, the port authorities were our primary organizations that we were working with on the issue around the American request around the feasibility of a science-based approach in Canada that may provide an opportunity to amend the federal government decision that imposed the port closure to cruise ships until February 28 of 2022.
M. Lee: Well, I certainly note the letter dated April 28 to the minister’s colleague. As the minister indicated, if Minister Mark was the lead with the cruise ship industry, perhaps that’s where the breakdown in communication might have occurred.
But I presume the minister is aware of statements made in this letter, which was copied to the Premier and the Minister of Health here in this province, as well as to numerous other port authorities — Vancouver-Fraser Port Authority, Greater Victoria Harbour Authority, Nanaimo Port Authority, Prince Rupert Port Authority. All of the stakeholders that the ministry deals with were copied on this letter as well.
The letter, of course, clearly indicates, again, the consideration, the urging from the industry of putting in place technical stops where passengers and crew would not get off the ships. I appreciate that over the last number of weeks, in answer to questions from the opposition, particularly since March 23, there’s been a lot of deflecting onto other considerations. But to be clear, what was being asked for by the Alaska delegation back on February 12 was, effectively, technical stops without passengers getting off the vessels.
The reason why we’re pursuing this, of course, is that the letter also indicates that when the cruise ship industry had also brought this to the attention of Public Health of Canada as well as Transport Canada, they made clear that they were operating under considerable deference to the views of the B.C. government and the provincial health officer. So clearly, the federal government, to the extent that they were getting the same sort of request being put to them, was turning it back to the province.
Let me ask the minister: what assessment did the Ministry of Transportation do in terms of the impact of the elimination of the requirement for foreign port stops under the PVSA?
Hon. R. Fleming: I think the member is quoting from another letter written to the Prime Minister, so I’ll do my best, not having been directly written to, in this case or in the case of the U.S. senators. What we have suggested, in conversations and meetings that I’ve had with the Minister of Transportation, is that the substance of the request, which later became a bill in the House of Representatives, was one that we felt that B.C. could work with, that our public health officer would work with as well.
I should say, though, that the Minister of Transportation had a number of requests to consider back in February of 2021, including a demand from Premier Ford in Ontario to close the Pearson Airport. While we were talking about hypothetical scenarios, at a time when about 2 percent of Canadians were vaccinated with a first dose and 0.1 percent of Canadians with a second dose, about whether a summer cruise industry could be rescued in Canada, there were other provinces making it difficult for the federal government, in fairness, to take a pan-Canadian approach. Also, their order to extend the port closure was only made on February 5, 2021.
We have had, as I mentioned, a working group of public health officials and the BCCDC that has helped guide the reopening of workplaces and businesses across the province. They have made it known that they are of service to Canada as it considers the border reopening. There is an announcement pending, from the Prime Minister, on June 21.
Certainly, B.C. is getting ready and in better position every day that goes by, in terms of where we are with the pandemic. Yesterday was a significant announcement on stage 2 reopening. Stage 3 is around Canada Day, and stage 4, which is almost a resumption of normalcy, pending on the Labour Day weekend.
I think it’s fair to say that the Prime Minister’s, the government of Canada’s, original order, extending all the way to February 28 of 2022 — looking at it from where we are today, not, necessarily, back in February — could be viewed as excessive.
If there’s a science-led approach, both by Dr. Tam and Dr. Henry and other provincial health officers, on border reopening, which deals with the land border in question, which deals with ports, which deals with airports, we could be in a situation…. Certainly, this is being worked on right now by the government of Canada. They’ve solicited our views. We’ve given our views. We’ve made our views known to them. That could provide an amendment to the order that was made on February 5, 2021.
It’s interesting to note, though, that in the letter I quoted earlier in question period, from the CEO of the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority, Mr. Robertson made a request to the Prime Minister that said, at the very least, all we’re asking for is to indicate that there will be no further port closures beyond February 2022. So I think the idea that there might be an opportunity to have B.C. ports participate, potentially, in a fall cruise season — not a summer one, at this point in time; I don’t think Canadians would support that — is something that may be possible. It’s a federal decision.
We gave them our opinion on technical stops. Subsequent events and opinions from the U.S. customs and border patrol suggested that they didn’t feel that technical stops satisfied the PVSA, but that was what we were requested to review.
We made our opinion known that we felt we could accommodate it, that it would be safe to do so, as long as American passengers didn’t disembark onto Canadian soil while they were tied up in our ports. That was the correspondence. I’ve offered to table the letter to the member.
I would note that we’re now about 3½ hours into estimates, and he’s yet to ask me a single question about the budget and service plan before him on the Ministry of Transportation.
M. Lee: We’re actually about just under two hours. It may seem like 3½ hours that we’ve been at this discussion, but with respect, I want to get clarity on the numerous documents in front of me. It’s all over the map.
The discussion that I’m hearing back…. I’m talking about specific dates to get an understanding of how we got to this point. There’s a lot of noise that’s been created around this issue, and the reason for that is we have a complete lack of clarity.
I appreciate that the minister just said, on May 21…. For the first time, he said — if I hear him correctly — that the government of British Columbia said that we are comfortable with technical stops, provided that the passengers don’t get off the ship. Thank you. It’s taken an hour and 55 minutes to get to this point.
Interjection.
M. Lee: Excuse me. The minister said — the transcript says — in answer to my question, did the letter…? What was the purpose of the letter? Was it still talking about technical stops? The answer was: “There are points in there about technical stops.”
In terms of what we’re trying to get to and understand, it’s the fact that back in February, the Alaska delegation was asking for some cooperation, collaboration, and it wasn’t until May 21 that we see the government of British Columbia, at least from the Transportation side, making a direct statement about that, as far as we can understand.
The letter I’m referring to at the end of April — April 28 — was not addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada. It was addressed to the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport of this province and copied to the Premier and to the Health Minister.
I would have expected that this letter was shared with the minister, and perhaps I could ask: is that the case? At what time was the minister briefed on this letter? Did the minister respond, in any manner, to the Cruise Lines International Association–North West and Canada branch of that association in response to their concerns about technical stops?
Hon. R. Fleming: I have a copy of the letter now, and it’s a letter that I was not cc’d on. So what I can say — and say it again, because we’ve been at this for some time now — is that I had direct conversations with the Minister of Transportation, the Hon. Marc Garneau. In 2020 and 2021, I have had conversations on a number of occasions with Minister Omar Alghabra, the current Minister of Transport in Ottawa, about borders, about transportation issues that cross our borders, about the port closures.
The letter I sent on May 21 was essentially a recap of some conversations that we had. Our position was made known to Minister Alghabra around technical stops. The letter, which the member will receive a copy of, also references the development of a set of safe sailing guidelines by the United States Centers for Disease Control, and brings to his attention — because he’d requested any information from our provincial health officer about whether there was a science-based opinion on safely reopening ports in advance of the government of Canada’s decision to keep them closed until February of 2022.
It references the work that has been done by our scientific public health community, including organizations like WorkSafeBC. That was the purpose of the correspondence: to reiterate our position that we thought we could accommodate technical stops and that our medical health community was ready to work with federal officials that could help them influence their deliberations on a comprehensive border reopening — one which, by the way, is expected to be made public next week, in about six days’ time.
The Premier has been on the record saying that the Prime Minister, at the same time as he considers reopening the land border, should deal with airports and should deal with ports and have a comprehensive announcement. We hope and expect that that will be the case next week, and certainly appreciate the government of Canada’s willingness to work with us.
I would also note again, because I noted this yesterday, that all of the Premiers of the provinces and territories are having an additional meeting with the Prime Minister when he returns from the G7 this week, about exactly this — about the border reopening.
Any additional suggestions and advice, I presume, are part of the discussion that the Premiers of the country intend to have with the Prime Minister, following up on what I expect has been a considerable amount of work from public health officials and federal officials on a very difficult and complex question about how to arrive at when it’s safe to reopen the border.
What are the risks? How can they be managed? All of the sorts of science-based questions that one would expect and, certainly, that we have expected and received, to great effect, from our own provincial health office here in B.C. to guide us through a number of tricky questions, including — if the minister cares to ask transportation-related questions that are attached to the service plan — guidelines that have allowed the safe operation of the trucking industry, guidelines that have allowed for the movement of goods through our major trade corridors and guidelines that have kept transit operators and public transit employees safe.
TransLink and B.C. Transit are Crown corporations that serve 130 communities. So we would expect the same approach from Ottawa that we’ve taken provincially to keep workers and to keep passengers safe in the transportation sector. That’s what I fully expect will be announced by the Prime Minister next week. The Premier will have an opportunity to additionally engage with his counterparts provincially, from all provinces and territories, this week, when the Prime Minister returns from the G7.
M. Lee: Just to recap, in answer to a question that I had asked I think two questions ago, I didn’t hear an answer in terms of whether there’d been any assessment done from the Minister of Transportation in terms of the potential impact of what is now the temporary measure under the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act.
If that’s the case, the minister also just said that the letter of May 21 to his counterpart reiterated the government’s view. That is what we discussed yesterday, the way the minister described it — that it’s the view of the government that technical stops would be considered by the province. And now we’re hearing that the province was comfortable with that on May 21.
For the record, here, when the minister says “reiterate,” when else was that communicated to the federal government, in terms of the government’s view?
Hon. R. Fleming: That was asked and answered yesterday. We’ve been through this. I’ve told him, to the best of my ability, the numbers of conversations I’ve had with two successive Transport Ministers in Ottawa. I’ve told him, to the best of my ability, the conversations I’ve had with the industry and CEOs of port authorities in British Columbia.
I’ve indulged the member here. We’ve just been through question period. He had an opportunity to ask. Estimates process is not an extension of question period. He hasn’t asked a single question that is linked to a single line in the budget for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, and we’re hours into the process.
So my patience is thinning a bit for the abuse of this legislative process. I would ask him to…. I’ve offered to table him a letter. He will receive a copy of that later today. I look forward to questions that are related to the ministry’s budget and service plan.
M. Lee: Well, again, I had expected, of course, to deal with this issue yesterday. The reason why we’re into today is that I didn’t get the complete clarity I was looking for yesterday. That’s the reason why we’re still continuing with this discussion today.
Let me say this, then. In terms of the industry itself, there have been statements made by this government about the cruise ship industry in terms of the state. Can I ask: what’s the overall view of the provincial government in terms of the activity in the cruise ship sector around the world? What is the current number, say, of passengers that have travelled on cruise ships since last summer?
Hon. R. Fleming: It’s a bizarre question, completely unrelated to the estimates, but I believe the number is about 100,000 passengers around the world. It’s resumed in very, very recent months. There have been some issues around outbreaks and transmission that are concerning, but I think the industry is gaining confidence that it can do this safely, just as the air travel industry is gaining confidence that it can do it safely as well.
There’s active discussion by many jurisdictions, ours included, as it relates to our American neighbours on what vaccine passports might look like. I know that the United States was actually one of the latter countries that has resumed, or intends to resume, the cruise ship industry’s activities. The Centers for Disease Control in the United States only completed their significant draft about safe sailing guidelines about six weeks ago. I believe it was May 6. I referenced that and brought that to the attention of Minister Alghabra in my letter. The member will receive a copy of that.
Again, I look forward to a question that relates to — I don’t know — the Broadway subway line, which will create thousands and thousands of construction jobs in his constituency, open up economic opportunities to build affordable housing, animate what is already one of North America’s strongest job corridors on this continent. I don’t know, something like that, or maybe even ask about a different part of the province.
He may even want to ask about how it was that our ports were able to expand trade during the middle of a pandemic and serve the supply chain and logistics of this country so well — a burden that falls to us in British Columbia, of course, because we have the No. 1 port in the country by a long shot. We are close to surpassing the Port of Montreal to have the No. 2 port, through Prince Rupert. Our government has used the pandemic to advance grants to create jobs and expand capacity to get Canadian goods to market and to get other goods from around the world into the Canadian and American economies.
Questions like that I look forward to the member asking.
M. Lee: Well, the minister, in a previous response to my previous question, talked about an abuse of process. Again, with respect, now the minister’s talking about other questions that I’m yet to ask. I appreciate the minister’s suggestion, but in response to my questions yesterday, for an hour and 40 minutes, he could not stay on the time period that I was referring to.
The reason why I asked the question, “Is this government understanding how many passengers have travelled on cruise ships in this world since the summer of 2020…?” It’s not 100,000; it’s over 500,000. It’s been happening on a slow stage, careful health protocols, in Europe, Asia, Australia, other countries.
The minister does refer to the United States. It has been reported, of course, that Alaska has gone from the destination least likely to host cruise ships in 2021 to the first destination to welcome cruise ships from U.S. ports.
This is all about Alaska. I only raise the cruise ship industry generally, globally, because this government, including the Premier and this minister, seems to lack a real appreciation and understanding. Perhaps if they talked to the cruise ship industry directly, as opposed to this general answer I received, they would understand that.
We see, certainly, that cruise ship sailings through us to Alaska are commencing in summer of 2021, with the Serenade of the Seas on July 19. There are numerous sailings that are happening from Seattle directly to Alaska — Skagway, Ketchikan, Juneau — going directly, bypassing British Columbia. This will be occurring from the middle of July all the way up to the middle of October.
Why is that occurring? It’s because this government couldn’t get in place technical stops that the Alaska delegation was asking for in the middle of February, technical stops which this government seems to appear to have been comfortable with on May 21, two days before President Biden signed that act into law. Well, that’s too little, too late.
Is the minister aware of all the cruise ships that are bypassing British Columbia, from Seattle to Alaska, this summer? Is he concerned about the damage that that will do to our cruise ship industry and the tourism sector in this province?
The Chair: Noting the hour, as we’re approaching our lunch hour, I ask the minister to move the motion.
Hon. R. Fleming: Okay. Very well, hon. Chair.
I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.