Second Session, 42nd Parliament (2021)

OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 18, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 132

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.


CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

N. Letnick

G. Lore

G. Kyllo

A. Singh

A. Olsen

M. Starchuk

Oral Questions

S. Bond

Hon. M. Farnworth

T. Stone

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Dean

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Dean

M. de Jong

Hon. M. Farnworth

J. Rustad

Hon. K. Conroy

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

J. Rustad

Hon. K. Conroy

L. Doerkson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

T. Stone

Hon. L. Beare


THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2021

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: A. Singh.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Dean: It’s my honour today to welcome to the precinct — although not everybody has managed to make it just yet — Tana Millner, executive director of the Child Development Society of Fort St. John; Karen Dickenson Smith, executive director of Fraser Valley Child Development Centre; Dominic Rockall, executive director of Nanaimo Child Development Centre; Lynn Mathiesen, executive director of Quesnel Child Development Centre; Joshua Myers, executive director of the B.C. Centre for Ability; and Jason Gordon, provincial advocate from the B.C. Association for Child Development and Intervention.

They’re all member agencies of the B.C. Association for Child Development and Intervention. We have a meeting later today, but I’d like to take this opportunity to thank them all so much for all of the work that they do for vulnerable children and youth across the whole of the prov­ince of British Columbia every single day.

Would everybody please make them very welcome.

J. Rustad: It’s a real pleasure today to introduce a few guests in the Legislature. These are hard-working indivi­duals from our forest sector. They’re very proud of what they do. They’re very proud of their forest sector.

I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce Bob Brash, who’s the executive director of the Truck Loggers Association. The Truck Loggers Association has been around for 75 years now and represents contractors and individuals and suppliers right across the province, but especially on the Island. As well, with Bob is Tim McGonigle, who is a director for the town of Lake Cowichan. Travelling down from up on the north end of the Island, we have Tamara Meggitt as well, who is a mum and a wife of a contractor very involved in the forest sector.

Would the House please make these people welcome.

G. Lore: I am beyond thrilled to make a couple of introductions today.

First, I see Jade Ashbourne and Britt Flamank, who both support the gender equity office and the Minister of Finance, and I’m so thrilled they’re here today.

Also in the gallery are my incredible kids and my amazing in-laws. My son Asher is resilient and creative and loves learning about animals. I’m sure he also wants you to know he belongs in Slytherin house. My daughter Eve is seven, and I am so lucky to be her mom. She is funny and leans into a dramatic flare for life and is very good at math.

[10:10 a.m.]

My in-laws, Bill and Louise Parker, are here. They are rocks in my family, and without them, I don’t think that I would be in this job or, frankly, have survived the last year. Bill also worked in the public service for decades, serving governments of all colours, including with the Leader of the Official Opposition and former Minister of Advanced Education.

I am just so happy to have them here today. Will the House please help me make them welcome.

S. Bond: How wonderful to have family in the Legislature today. To the member, we continue to think about you and your family.

I am delighted to join my colleague in introducing several members from the forest sector who are here today. Obviously, it is critically important they hear about the work that is going on in the Legislature and the pending impacts.

I’m delighted to welcome Nancy Ponting — she is with Ponting Contracting; she is a representative of the B.C. Forestry Alliance — and, of course, Mark Ponting, who is also with Ponting Contracting. I would ask members to make them welcome today.

N. Sharma: It’s with great pleasure that I welcome Patricia Mamic, public and government affairs director for Salvation Army British Columbia, and Maj. Sheldon Feener, area commander for social mission at the Salvation Army British Columbia.

They will be launching their annual kettle campaign later today, and all MLAs are invited, just at the library steps at 12:10 p.m. Please join me in welcoming them to the House today.

Hon. S. Robinson: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Jade Ashbourne, one of my senior ministerial advi­sors, who is joining us here in the House today. Jade joined my team back when I was Minister for Municipal Affairs and Housing, and she uses she/they pronouns. She has transitioned during her time working with me.

Jade brings her intelligence, problem-solving skills and incredible communication skills every day to the team at Finance. She has a talent for finding just the right word at just the right time. I’m grateful for all of her contributions.

Over her time working with me, I’ve come to really ap­preciate and value her integrity, her work ethic, her sense of humour and, I do have to say, watching her smile grow every single day.

But not only does she bring her talents; she has a son who is almost five years old, who has been a frequent visitor to my office, and her son and I have been known to build a fort or two out of the coach pillows.

Would everyone please welcome Jade Ashbourne to the House.

K. Greene: I rise to wish my constituent Robert Walters, known to most as Bob, a very happy 100th birthday. He’s watching today with his family at home.

Bob is a retired French professor, born in Ohio on October 20, 1921. He pursued an academic career, earning a PhD at Princeton. In 1949, he won a Fulbright scholarship that led to the first of many long stays in Paris and a life­long involvement with France and French culture.

He came to Canada in 1951 to teach French literature and was happy to become a full professor at Western University in 1962, complete with a move to London, Ontario with his wife and three stepchildren. He became a citizen in 1985 and is a proud Canadian.

He enjoys travel, especially to Paris, but moved to north Steveston in 2006 to be close to his loving daughter, son-in-law and two grandsons. Bob takes art classes and walks every day.

He told me he was especially excited to get his vaccine card so he could get back to going to restaurants and thea­tres with his friends. He says the key to staying young is having friends much younger than you.

Will the House please join me in wishing him a very happy 100th birthday.

Hon. J. Whiteside: We’re going to go right to the other end of the age scale for this next introduction. I want to say that today is a very special day for our family. It’s Abigail Margaret Zekosky’s birthday, and she’s watching from home today with her parents.

Abby is my great-niece and my goddaughter. She came into the world a year ago today in the midst of so much tumult but pretty much right on time and, thankfully, oblivious to all of the complications of a global pandemic.

She brings unbounded joy to her parents, my niece Bran­die and her husband Dan, and so much light and love to our whole family. Who knows? She just might find her way to a seat in this House one day.

[10:15 a.m.]

Would the House please join me in wishing our dear Abby a very happy first birthday.

A. Olsen: Today I want to just pause and acknowledge that it’s our 15th anniversary. Emily and I were married 15 years ago today for the second time. That was because in August of the same year, the Leader of the Third Party’s mother fake-married us for the first time. That was before I had met the Leader of the Third Party, ironically enough. Nonetheless, we knew her mother for quite some time before that.

I want to raise my hands in gratitude to my loving partner and wife, Emily, who does so much in order to allow me to do this work and to take the time to do this work — hopefully, well. I also acknowledge and raise my hands in gratitude to the work she’s doing in our community at the W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Secondary School as an EA — as well, as an advocate for mental health and wellness in our community in an event she hosts annually called the Connection Project.

I know she’s not watching today, but hopefully, she will watch the video later when I post it on my YouTube channel. Would the members of this House please thank Emily, along with me, for spending so many years. To many years into the future.

T. Shypitka: I’m absolutely honoured today to make two introductions — both from the forest sector, which is critically important to my riding, as it is to the rest of the province.

The first is Jeff Bromley, who’s a longtime Cranbrook resi­dent, a friend of mine, a hockey dad just like myself. I thought we’d lost Jeff to the Lower Mainland here a couple of years ago, but I’m happy to say he’s still retained in Kootenay East. He is the Wood Council chair for the United Steelworkers. He’s in the precinct here somewhere today. And Brian Butler is the president of the United Steelworkers Local 1-1937.

Would the House please welcome both Jeff and Brian.

Hon. K. Chen: I’m so grateful to have the opportunity to wish happy birthday to my senior administrative assistant, Cherie Wilson, for her 34th birthday tomorrow. Cherie has been with our team since day one of the Childcare B.C. team and our plan. She’s an incredible, courageous young woman with three kids, who I’ve learned so much from over the years, and she supports the work I do every single day in this House.

I just want to wish Cherie a happy birthday. Thank you so much for the opportunity.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

TRANSGENDER DAY OF REMEMBRANCE

N. Letnick: On November 20, 1999, transgender advo­cate Gwendolyn Ann Smith organized a vigil to honour the memory of Rita Hester, a transgender woman who was killed in 1998. Since then the annual vigil has not only honoured Rita’s memory but also commemorated all transgender people who have lost their lives to violence and began an important tradition that has become known as the annual Transgender Day of Remembrance.

November 20 is more than a vigil to honour and commemorate the lives lost to transphobia and transgender violence. It is a day to reignite the conversation on transgender health and help grow public awareness of the in­credible social challenges that transgender people and members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community continue to face every day, both within Canada and around the world.

Transgender people face a disproportionate amount of sexism, racism, discrimination, physical and sexual vio­lence. Many are ostracized from workplaces and communities and experience homelessness, drug addiction and challenges to their mental health. These are the barriers that incredible organizations like the Canadian Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity and countless advocacy groups across B.C. try to break down every day through education, action and love.

The Transgender Day of Remembrance is about more than raising awareness of the challenges that transgender people face. It is a day for us to empower our gender- and sexually diverse communities through education, research and advocacy so that we, as British Columbians, can better ally ourselves with the 2SLGBTQIA+ communities and create a province free of social barriers and discrimination, where every British Columbian has the same opportunities, regardless of personal identity or sexual orientation.

[10:20 a.m.]

Together let’s all take up the message and mission of the Transgender Day of Remembrance and do our part to forward the mission of people like Rita and Gwendolyn and build a better B.C., Canada and world for all.

TRANSGENDER AWARENESS WEEK

G. Lore: Thank you to the member for Kelowna–Lake Country.

I also rise today to recognize Trans Awareness Week, a time to celebrate and honour two-spirit, trans, non-binary and gender-diverse people here in our province. I recognize trans friends and neighbours who serve as community builders, leaders and organizers, academics, business owners, health care providers and public servants.

I recognize the incredible work of organizations by, for and with trans folks, including QMUNITY, Rainbow Refugee, Trans Care B.C. and Pride societies around the province. Under the leadership of Dr. Aaron Devor, the Transgender Archives at the University of Victoria is celebrating their ten-year anniversary committed to the preservation of the history of activists and leaders.

Two-spirit, trans and non-binary people are amazing, and I am proud to stand in this House as an ally. To the trans kids in our province: I see you, you matter, and you belong here.

The week ends with Transgender Day of Remembrance. While we take steps together towards safety and inclusivity, there is still violence against trans people. There are still barriers and exclusions, and there is still transphobia. Around the world, including here in Canada, laws that target trans individuals’ right to life, safety, dignity and respect continue to be introduced, debated and passed.

Yet in the face of these attacks, we see great resilience in the 2SLGBTQ+ community. While we should all celebrate that resilience, it is also our responsibility to do the work, to create a province and a world that is more inclusive of and safer for trans people.

I pause this week to remember the lives lost and to stand vigilant against the ongoing threat to my trans colleagues, peers, friends and neighbours and to celebrate the difference they make in every corner of our province.

KNUD THOMSEN

G. Kyllo: I’m extremely proud to stand in the House today and to recognize a wonderful man in my riding of Shuswap, Knud Alfred Thomsen, a true gentleman in every sense of the word: kind, considerate, polite, generous yet humble, trusting and positive.

Born in Denmark on June 21, 1936, although trained as a bricklayer, Knud joined the army in the spring of 1955 and was assigned to the artillery division and later served in Gaza as part of the United Nations peacekeeping mission in 1958 and ’59. Knud immigrated to Canada in 1964, took up homesteading in Donald, just outside of Golden, commencing logging operations and setting up a small sawmill. In 1977, Knud looked to the marine industry, with the acquisition of a small marina and houseboat operation in Sicamous, and weathered many economic storms through the years.

Always a fierce job creator with a huge heart, well res­pected and admired by many, Knud supported his family, trusting them to take the reins of the operation in 1987, and supported their efforts to grow the business, expanding first into manufacturing, with the development of the cruise craft line of luxury houseboats, and excelling to become Canada’s largest houseboat company. Further diversification of manufacturing operations led to the creation of TA Structures and TA Modular, along with the design and development of the larger freshwater marina in western Canada.

Two minutes is hardly enough time to comment on the life and contributions of such an amazing guy, but I wanted to take the opportunity to acknowledge the enor­mously positive, loving and motivating impact this man has had on my life and that of my entire family.

A loyal friend to many, lovingly called bedstefar by his grandchildren — that’s “grandpa” in Danish — but I know him best, simply, as my dad.

[10:25 a.m.]

GURU NANAK

A. Singh: I was born in a medieval town called Sultanpur Lodhi. It’s a small town now, but it has an incredible history.

In the 1400s and 1500s, it was a booming metropolis and an important trading post in the northern Punjab in northern India. Its streets and lanes are vibrant with stories of Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh spiritual movement and faith, and the first ten gurus, teachers. I spent many summers there as a child, and as you traverse the streets or turn a corner, there are numerable gurdwaras and reminders of Guru Nanak.

Guru Nanak was blessed with an insight, intellect and depth of understanding that only a few have. In a time of religious orthodoxy, caste, class and gender violence and persecution, his ideas represented a revolutionary antagonism to the cultural norm. He was a fierce advocate of the ideas of equality and justice, and his poems, teachings and writings reflect that. You heard some of that this morning. Those enlightened words speak repeatedly of the universality of humankind, of human and women’s rights and the tie of love that binds us all together.

Ėko pavaṇ mātī sabẖ ekā sabẖ ekā joṯ sabā▫ī▫ā. There is only one breath; all are made of the same clay; the light within all is the same.

He imbued Sikhi with a strong sense of justice and equality. Its most potent and visible representation is in the concept of langar, where all, regardless of their present place in society, come together to prepare, serve and eat. We saw this spirit just in the last few days, with gurdwaras and organizations preparing thousands of meals for those of our British Columbians stranded and left without homes.

He was a prolific traveller, and between his late 20s and mid-50s, spent 24 years travelling, learning and spreading his teachings of love and courage — mostly by foot. He travelled south through most of the Indian subcontinent, all the way to Sri Lanka and north through Kashmir and Tibet, then east all the way to the holy Islamic city of Mecca.

There is a fantastic exhibition curated by the international organization, United Sikhs, on Guru Nanak’s life be­ing held at the gurdwara on No. 5 Road in Richmond that runs until this Sunday. I urge all members of the House, if they are in Richmond by any chance, please visit that exhibition.

Tomorrow millions of Sikhs and other admirers of Guru Nanak will celebrate his day of birth. I ask that this House join me commemorating this important day.

ROBERT HAMPTON GRAY

A. Olsen: This August I had the honour of attending the unveiling and dedication of a memorial at the British Columbia Aviation Museum at the Victoria airport.

Last week we paused to remember the courage and sacrifice of Canadian service people.

I stand today to recognize one of those individuals who displayed incredible bravery and selflessness. Lieutenant Robert Hampton “Hammy” Gray is one of only two members of the Royal Navy’s fleet air arm to receive the Victoria Cross for his valour as a Canadian naval pilot.

Born in Trail, B.C., in 1917, Hammy grew up in Nelson. After receiving his bachelor of arts from the University of British Columbia, he joined the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve. Lieutenant Gray received his pilot training in England and in Kingston, Ontario. Hammy flew the Hawker Hurricane in Africa before being stationed on HMS Formidable,where he flew the Corsair in both Norway and the Japanese theatre.

Lieutenant Gray’s Victoria Cross was awarded for great valour in leading an attack on a Japanese destroyer in Ona­gawa, Japan on the 9th of August, 1945: “In the face of fire from shore batteries and a heavy concentration of fire from five warships, Lieutenant Gray pressed home his attack, flying very low in order to ensure success. Although he was hit and his aircraft was in flames, he obtained at least one direct hit, sinking the destroyer. Lieutenant Gray has consistently shown a brilliant fighting spirit and most inspiring leadership.”

Lieutenant Gray was a remarkable young man who did not return from war. He was one of the last Canadians to perish in World War II and the second-last Canadian to be awarded the Victoria Cross.

I encourage all British Columbians to visit the beautiful memorial at the British Columbia Aviation Museum.

I raise my hands to Terry Milne, Stan Brygadyr, Gerry Pash, Joe Buczkowski, museum president Dave Jackson, their volunteers, board of directors and donors for bringing this important project to fruition.

CLOVERDALE CHRISTMAS HAMPER PROGRAM

M. Starchuk: There is an awesome organization whose various services touch many people in my riding. The Cloverdale Christmas hamper program is celebrating their 30th year, and the Cloverdale Community Kitchen has been managing the program for the last eight years. This year they expect to deliver 650 hampers to those in need in Cloverdale, White Rock and Langley, with a focus on seniors and families, but also individual adults.

[10:30 a.m.]

To do this, you need a small army of volunteers. That they do. Upwards of 500 people in total over the course of a week will be stocking shelves and then packing them into the hampers. Last year and again this year, the volunteers will be delivering the hampers directly to the homes rather than hosting a day for pickup, as has been done in the previous years. These homes range from seniors to families of four to eight people in those households.

Before you can even imagine putting a program like this together, you need to have items to fill those hampers to make the Christmas season a happy time for those who might otherwise be unable to enjoy this time of year. Food, toys and gift cards are donated by individuals and groups in the community. As well, there are businesses that hold hamper drives for the program.

They also have some individuals and businesses that donate money, which is used to purchase items that the hamper program didn’t get donated. With regard to seniors, they will ask individual seniors for a gift idea, and then they will purchase it from the hamper program if they don’t have it in stock. Often, they need to purchase items for teens, because they don’t fit into a category that receive enough gifts for them.

The hamper program’s needs this year, specifically, is for new, unused toys and gift cards that can be used in the hampers. For more information go to mycck.ca.

The generous donations made from businesses and individuals in the Cloverdale area help make Christmas a little brighter for many families, individuals and seniors in our community.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO
SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS

S. Bond: The NDP continually display a cavalier attitude when it comes to extreme events in our province and the challenges British Columbians might face. During the heat dome alone, almost 600 frail, elderly British Columbians died. What did the Premier say? “Fatalities happen.”

When British Columbians were getting swamped over the weekend, the government didn’t do anything again. The Premier’s response was disappointing. “It gets wet in November,” he said, as if his government had absolutely no clue what was happening in our province.

Well, Washington state certainly did, and in fact, Alberta did. Guess what they did as a result of that. They told their residents. They actually warned them. But not in British Columbia.

Can the minister stand up today and explain exactly why this government continually fails to warn British Columbians when they are potentially in imminent danger?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I can tell the member that there was significant work on the weekend of the storm that came through. An un­precedented storm, the likes of which we have never seen in this province, dropping more than a month’s worth of rain in a space of 24 to 48 hours. I can tell you that DriveBC, for example, was updated on a regular basis — notifications about stream flow advisories provided to local communities, flood warnings issued, the highway signs about weather conditions.

At the same time, crews were out dealing with the po­tential trouble areas, in terms of local communities but also on our provincial highways. We were in contact — I was in contact — with Bill Blair when the scope of the challenges that we were seeing, in terms of the slides that occurred — in many cases, in areas that had never experienced them before…. The Joint Rescue Co-Ordination Centre came into action to get the Cormorant helicopters. Search and rescue crews were motivated. There was a lot of work done.

Obviously, an event after this, there will be lessons learned. As I told the House on a number of occasions, there is work in terms of legislation to ensure that as we experience more of these climate change–related events, we have an even better ability to deal with them.

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

[10:35 a.m.]

S. Bond: Let’s be perfectly clear. This isn’t about the men and women who are working tirelessly, hour after hour, day after day, out on our roads across British Columbia, trying to keep people, property and communities safe. It is not about them, and the minister knows it. This is about leadership. This is about the need for British Columbians to have information. The minister knows where that’s supposed to start. It’s supposed to start at the top.

At the end of June, almost 600 frail, elderly British Columbians lost their lives in a heatwave while the government was, to use the Premier’s words again, “a bit giddy, a bit jolly.” The minister can shake her head all she wants. That is what the Premier of British Columbia said to British Columbians. Those families are still grieving their loss and waiting for answers from this government.

Then, as wildfires ravaged our province, the government was nowhere to be found. They had to be shamed into calling a state of emergency in British Columbia. Now, as storms lashed our province, despite what the minister outlined the NDP were nowhere to be seen for days. People didn’t know the risk. The minister can tout the use of DriveBC. There were thousands of British Columbians who needed information from this minister and this government, and they got nothing.

Can the minister stand up and tell us specifically why he and his government failed to give British Columbians adequate notice about the risk they were facing?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her question. I want to address a number of points that she raised in her question because, as I’ve said, there is significant work underway that was undertaken during an unprecedented storm that was far more severe than even the experts expected.

I can tell you that, as I’ve outlined already, whether it is search and rescue, whether it is EMBC kicking into action, all those levels of government were, in fact, on the job, doing what they were supposed to do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Let’s listen to the answer, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Whether it is EMBC, whether it was crews on transportation and highways…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …whether it is ensuring that local governments are supplied with the information that they need, that was taking place.

The member also mentions issues around states of emergency. She will also know that states of emergency are put in place. I take the advice….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: They’re put in place on advice of the experts who are dealing with the situation.

The member stands up and asks, in all seriousness, a question, and I am trying to give her a serious answer. She may want to heckle. She may not want to hear that. But I know that many British Columbians do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. We heard the question. Now it’s time for the answer.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Please stay quiet while the answer is given.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And a state of emergency, as I said, based on advice that I receive from my ministry and other ministries on what is required to deal with the situation. I know that that member knows and I know that other members on that side of House know that a state of emergency does not prevent or give you any additional resources at that time.

The key element it does is it allows you to deal with situations going forward, such as what we are facing with the rebuilding of a lot of the infrastructure. As we announced yesterday, there will be orders coming from that and flowing from that decision to put in place that state of emergency.

T. Stone: The members of the official opposition are not questioning the incredible work of first responders, local government officials, EMBC, the Ministry of Transportation and others. We’re not questioning their leadership. With all due respect to this minister, we’re questioning the leadership — the lack of leadership — on the part of this minister and the part of this government in keeping British Columbians safe in the face of a disaster.

[10:40 a.m.]

Now, whether we’re talking about hospitalizations or talking about road hazards, this government is failing when it comes to sharing critical information with British Columbians during an impending emergency. Yesterday we saw the Premier shrug and say that it gets wet in November, as if no one could see this disaster coming. Except they did see it, with all due respect to the minister. They did see it in Alberta, and they saw it in Washington state.

Washington state declared a severe weather state of emergency on Monday. British Columbia took an additional two days to declare a state of emergency in our province. This meant that folks only a couple of kilometres south of the U.S. border, south of Abbotsford, had 48 hours more warning than the people of British Columbia did.

That’s unacceptable. That’s why shelves are empty in stores across this province. This is why there are long line­ups at gas stations.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Order, please.

T. Stone: British Columbians are scared, they’re worried, they’re nervous, and it all dovetails back to this government’s failure to provide adequate advance notice.

The question to the minister is this. Can the minister explain why he refuses to use all of the tools that he has in his toolbox, like the Alert Ready warning system, so that British Columbians are given the advanced warning that they need, that they deserve, to best prepare themselves and their families and their livelihoods from pending disaster?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll tell that member this. Every tool in the toolbox is being used to deal with this situation. We are working closely with the Retail Council, the trucking sector, transportation, in order to ensure that the goods and services that people require are there for them.

The situation around food, for example. The suppliers tell us there is lots of supply. They are rejigging their transportation routes to ensure those areas that are impacted are able to get the supplies they need.

As the member well knows, in many parts of this prov­ince, the transportation routes are not affected. From Kamloops, for example, where that member represents, the rail line operates all the way to the east. In the city of Prince George, where the Leader of the Opposition represents, the transportation corridors are open all the way to points east, and trucking and transportation are doing everything they can to get the goods there.

The most important thing that all of us can do, including the opposition, is to let their constituents know that hoarding is not helpful; that the best thing to do is to be patient and to recognize, as the private sector is making clear, those supply chains and those supplies are there. That’s what’s taking place. This government is doing everything it can and will continue to do everything we can to….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And your response just demonstrates why you guys are still sitting over there.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–South Thompson, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, if this minister actually left this building and actually went up to the Interior, if he actually did an aerial tour, if the Minister of Transportation wasn’t sitting and doing House duty through this week here and in the little House, maybe he would see exactly what’s happening out there. They would see the long lines at gas stations. They would see the fact that grocery store shelves are empty all over British Columbia.

For this minister to sit here and say that it has anything to do other than his lack of leadership and his government’s failure is…. I say shame on all of them. Shame on all of them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[10:45 a.m.]

T. Stone: B.C.’s emergency warning systems are not meeting the challenges of today’s natural disasters. That’s on this government. All other provinces are using the Alert Ready system. They’re using it for tornadoes. They’re using it for wildfires. They’re using it for a range of other natural disasters. We’re not using it here.

Did the government use the alert system for the 2008 devastating wildfires? No, they didn’t. Did they use the alert system for the heat dome this summer that killed nearly 600 British Columbians? No, they didn’t. Did they use the alert system for the wildfires this summer? No, they didn’t. Did they use the alert system for these floods? No, they didn’t — the only province in the country not to use this advance warning system.

Let’s talk about the Coquihalla Highway for a moment. This past Sunday the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and I, as we often do, were heading to Victoria. We drove down the Coquihalla. We missed the slides on the Coquihalla by just a couple hours.

I can tell you that the variable speed signs hadn’t been changed. The speed was still 120 kilometres per hour. All that was on the overhead message boards was a notice to watch for pooling water on the road, which is a very common message that we see on those signs very often. There were no crews that we drove past, contrary to what the minister just said in a previous answer.

Surely the minister doesn’t expect British Columbians to rely on DriveBC’s Twitter page. Surely he doesn’t expect them to rely on Facebook posts while they’re at the wheel, while they’re driving.

Here’s the thing. The province is the only jurisdiction that can send a mandatory warning via tailored text messages to everyone that overrides their cell phones. Not local governments. Only the provincial government can do this.

My question to the minister again is this. When will the government actually use the warning systems that it has at its disposal that other jurisdictions are using to better prevent extreme weather disasters from putting the safety of British Columbians at grave risk?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The province is going to be using and does use all of the tools at its disposal. But the member…. He raises the Alert Ready system, and that is an important potential tool. It is one that we have the ability to use in certain circumstances right now, just as in 2016, when they had an opportunity. And did you? No, you did not.

Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And what I’ve also said in this House is that we will have in place the Alert Ready system, and we’ve committed to doing that for next spring. We also have the ability, and as we worked with local communities to ensure that…. If it’s needed in a particular area, as in Abbotsford the other night, we worked with them and had a text ready to hit send and to send it out.

But what that member consistently, consistently forgets in his question…. The impression he wants to give is that somehow this is a magic solution. It’s not. It requires cell phone towers, which in many cases, as he knows….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, order. Order.

Minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And working with local communities who also have their alert systems that they use to make sure, one, that there’s no duplication and second, that they’re used in a way that also doesn’t cause panic by working with first responders and the emergency coordination on the ground on the appropriate time to do it.

Hon. Member, we will be using next spring, next summer, the Alert Ready system, starting in the central Interior. But we’re going to make sure that it’s done right.

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
MINISTRY RELATIONSHIP WITH
INDIGENOUS FAMILIES

A. Olsen: My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Does the minister recognize that the ugly history between MCFD and Indigenous children and families is rooted in harm and mistrust and that this scarred relationship remains to this day?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. We do recognize that for many, many decades, there has been an overintrusion of government into Indigenous families and Indigenous communities. Our government is taking steps to address that.

We’ve changed the provincial law that enables MCFD staff to be able to work closely with Indigenous communities. When there’s a concern about an Indigenous child, social workers are able to actually approach Indigenous communities, ask if there’s somebody there — an auntie or a relative — who is able to offer a safe home for that child so that children and youth can stay connected to their family, to their community and to their culture.

We’ve also increased the rate for out-of-care carers so they receive the same financial support as foster carers. We’ve seen a significant increase in the number of Indigenous children that are in out-of-care placements rather than being brought into the government child welfare system. But there is a lot more to do. Even with the federal act coming into power, we know that there is a lot more to do. We are absolutely committed to doing that work with Indigenous communities.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE
FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS
AND SERVICES FOR INDIGENOUS CHILDREN

A. Olsen: I appreciate the response. I think the minister needs to check in within the ministry to see if the changes that have been put in place are actually being implemented on the ground. But I am challenged with the minister’s res­ponse and how it can be squared with subjecting neurodiverse Indigenous children to her proposed MCFD-run hubs.

The proposal will, arguably, deepen access barriers for Indigenous and racialized people, who are disproportionately targeted by MCFD. Their families are frequently ripped apart by the consequences of systemic racism within that ministry. This system will further disadvantage Indigenous and racialized children. It creates new and deeper barriers within a system that is, by its very nature, focused on individualized and diverse community service opportunities and possibilities.

Further, by moving to an MCFD-controlled and centralized hub model, the opportunities for culturally appropriate services are further reduced.

Through you to the Minister of Children and Family Development, does she expect neurodiverse Indigenous children and families to feel safe accessing an MCFD-run hub?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the op­portunity of explaining to members here that services for children and youth with support needs will be delivered by community, in community and in response to the needs of the community.

We actually have an advisory circle, an Indigenous circle, advising us on how we move forward to ensure that not only are we able to create Indigenous-led services but that all services are culturally safe and properly informed and that all staff have the appropriate training, knowledge, experience and expertise to make sure that all services delivered in community are culturally safe and accessible.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform the member that these services will be delivered by community agencies and by Indigenous agencies. They will have multidisciplinary teams and have multiple points of access. Our expectation as the ministry will be that community agencies will step up in collaboration and partnership with local communities, local Nations and local agencies.

The work the ministry has done over the last four years has been significant. There has been a significant change in our approach to working with Indigenous communities. We have changed provincial legislation. We have changed policy and practice. Currently we have the lowest number of Indigenous children and youth in care in 20 years.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO SEVERE
WEATHER AND FLOODING OF FARMLAND
IN ABBOTSFORD AREA

M. de Jong: We have all seen the devastation that has wrought Sumas Prairie, in Abbotsford. I want to remind the government and the Minister of Agriculture that in the 48 hours — the crucial 48 hours — leading up to the tragic events that befell that area Tuesday and Wednesday, here is what was happening two kilometres away, across the border in Washington state.

[10:55 a.m.]

On the Sunday morning, American officials issued an emergency proclamation for flood risks, based on the weather projections that they had at the time. On Sunday afternoon, at 3:40, American officials issued a flood warning specifically for the Nooksack River. By Monday morning, the Americans were broadcasting record levels on the Nooksack, and shortly thereafter, the flood alert sirens in Sumas were sounding.

On Monday afternoon, at 3:30, the Americans confirmed the Nooksack was at flood stage, and the Washington state governor issued a severe weather emergency proclamation directing implementation of the state’s comprehensive emergency management plan.

Today and tomorrow the farmers on Sumas Prairie are returning to clean up the carcasses of thousands upon thou­sands upon thousands of dead animals. I hope everyone understands what they’re saying. As they do that work, because they’re resilient, they’re saying to themselves: “If I had had a little more time. That 48 hours would have been crucial in allowing me to save some of these animals.” They didn’t get that warning.

The minister posted about a fundraiser and a kale recipe but nothing of a warning. Why didn’t the minister perform what is her statutory duty and provide the same warning, the same notice to the farmers on Sumas Prairie that farmers two kilometres away got in Washington state?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I fully appreciate the question from the member opposite. As he knows, I contacted him about the situation that was unfolding in Abbotsford.

What I can also tell him is that on that weekend, on that Sunday, not only were flood warnings — the flood situations and the stream flow advisories — going out to local communities…. The local communities were monitoring the situation that was developing, but as he knows, that rain that came down so torrentially, in a way that we have never seen before, was such a dramatic event. The rivers rose incredibly quickly, and floodwaters rose incredibly quickly.

When he talks about Sumas, for example, just across the line…. The city hall of Sumas, Washington, was engulfed by five feet of water during that very same period.

The reality is this. The event that happened was of an unprecedented nature. Flood warnings and stream flow advisories did go out.

Obviously, from this disaster, lessons will be learned. It’s one of the reasons why we’re doing the complete overhaul of the Emergency Program Act — to recognize events like this so that we are better prepared in the future to deal with these situations.

FOREST POLICY CHANGES
AND SUPPORT FOR FOREST WORKERS

J. Rustad: Today we’ve been talking about natural disasters and the effects of that. But there’s another disaster that’s unfolding, and unfortunately, this is a planned disaster that is happening by this NDP government.

In the gallery today, we’ve got hard-working members of our forest sector, including people like Brian Butler, the president of the United Steelworkers Local 1-1937. People like Brian are sitting. They’re waiting, amid confusion and uncertainty from this minister, to find out if they’ll have jobs this Christmas. The minister has admitted that thousands of jobs will be lost.

[11:00 a.m.]

People like Mark and Nancy Ponting of Ponting Contracting have poured their lives, have poured their hearts and souls into their business and supporting their employees. They and all the guests in the gallery have survived the softwood lumber battles that this government has ignored. They have survived the great recession. They have survived COVID.

These good folks are fighters. They’re proud of the forest sector. They’re proud of what they do for a profession in this province. They have provided jobs and revenue to this province for decades. They have survived so much, and now they’re receiving a gut punch from this government.

Will this minister please stand up and explain why the minister and her government are hell bent on attacking these hard-working families across this province?

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to thank the member for the question, but I, too, want to welcome Bob, Jeff, Brian and all the members who are here in the gallery watching this discussion today. I’m really glad you’re here so that I can clarify the misinformation that you’re hearing.

I understand your concerns. I lived through the downturn in the forest industry, when 30,000 people lost their jobs in the forest industry. I understand, because there was no support for workers, there were no supports for our families, and there were no supports for communities.

I’m happy to say that even though our analysis shows there is a potential — a potential — of 4,500 people potentially losing their jobs when we implement the deferrals for the old-growth strategy, this is a preliminary estimate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. K. Conroy: Unlike what happened when 30,000 people lost their jobs, we will have supports in place. We will work with communities, we will work with unions, and we will work with industry to ensure there are supports in place.

Again, the 4,500 jobs that we have estimated are only if there are deferrals made in January. That is not going to happen. We will have time to work together. I am saying today that I want to reach out to you. I want to work with you. We have said that before, and I will say it again. We want to work with you to ensure that we will have a sustainable, resilient forest industry for generations to come.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage, Bill 23, Forests Statutes Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call continued committee on Bill 22, the FOIPPA amendment act.

[11:05 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — FORESTS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 23; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:07 a.m.

On clause 33 (continued).

J. Rustad: I’m taking it that the minister, when she gets a chance, will want to introduce the staff again.

When we last left off on this story, which was a couple of days ago, we were talking about section 33, and we were talking about the costs associated with implementation of this act and, in particular, the costs associated with implementing the forest landscape plans. See, I’m getting much better at using that language now.

I’m just curious if the minister could provide this House an estimate of what she thinks the cost will be, both internally through the chief forester’s office but also in terms of the support that will be required for First Nations to be able to fully engage in this process and any other expenses associated with it.

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Before we start, I wanted to introduce the staff that are here with me today. Ariel Taylor is the manager of Indigenous consultation and negotiation. Tony Cheong is our senior legislative analyst. Doug Kelly is the director of the forest tenures branch, and Diane Nicholls is our assistant deputy minister and chief forester.

Thank you for the question. As we have said initially and throughout this process, we have the staffing in place, through our existing budget, to cover all the costs for our existing pilots that we have, and also if there are a few more that are initiated before fiscal year-end. Then once these regulations are accepted, we’ll enter into the new budgetary process for additional needs.

With the First Nations capacity, we have existing government-to-government agreements in place, with a supplemental budgetary process, if required. Again, once regulations are in, if there is any additional funding that’s required, we will enter into the new budgetary process.

J. Rustad: To the minister: thank you for that information. I was hoping I might hear a number associated with it.

Obviously, I’m a little surprised to hear pilots are underway before the legislation is in place. I guess that’s interesting. There’ll be more pilots, apparently, that’ll be started before the year-end, before regulations come in place. I believe the minister talked about it taking, potentially, up to a year to bring the regulations into place for this, when I first asked about budgetary concerns. Perhaps the minister could clarify that as well.

I’m hoping the minister will be able to provide some estimate in terms of a number. The reason for that is, obviously, having engaged with so many First Nations over the years, in terms of the work that is being done…. The capacity for First Nations is always stretched. There are so many priorities. There are so many things they’re working on, and they will need additional support to be able to fully engage in this process in a meaningful way. With 204 nations around the province — with two-thirds of those, roughly, engaged in forestry — that’s a pretty big price tag over a period of time.

I’m just wondering if you have an estimate of that. Obviously, there’s going to be an ask that’ll come out of the budgetary process going into the next year. I’m curious, if the ministry has done that work, in terms of that budgetary estimate, what the implementation of a bill like this would be.

Hon. K. Conroy: No, we don’t have an exact number. Numbers change based on the First Nations we are working with. Some Indigenous nations have more capacity than others. We fully recognize supports are needed, and those supports will be in place using the budgetary processes that are used.

[11:15 a.m.]

L. Doerkson: I can appreciate that you might not have it right down to the last dime. How will budgeting go forward if there hasn’t been some sort of a number assigned to it? I just wonder, maybe one last time, if we could ask if there is a number that you’ll be using for budgets.

Hon. K. Conroy: Costs will be covered.

L. Doerkson: My first question today is with respect to 2.21(1)(b). It refers to…. The chief forester may be able to order established forest landscape plans on private land. I just wanted to get a bit of expansion, I guess, on that statement. What private lands might be considered under this, and will the owner of those private lands have the opportunity to consult in the early part of that plan?

Hon. K. Conroy: As it says in the bill, “private land that is subject to an agreement under the Forest Act.” That is where the “chief forester may, by order, establish a forest land­scape plan for the following land.” So it’s private land that is subject to an agreement under the Forest Act.

L. Doerkson: Thank you very much, Minister.

Okay. Fair enough. I guess the second part of my question was: will they be part of the consultation process?

Hon. K. Conroy: Any forest landscape plan has to be fully consulted. So if the private land is subject to an agreement under the Forest Act, as it states in the act, they will be part of the process of the forest landscape plan.

L. Doerkson: Maybe I’ll try to be a little bit more specific. I think the First Nations will be involved in the early part of the process. That is my understanding. Then after that consultation, forest service plans will be able for the public to comment, etc.

What I’m wondering, specifically in the case of private land: where will the owner of the land be in that consultation process? Will it be at the beginning with First Nations communities, or will it be after that consultation has taken place?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: As we have been saying, if the private land is subject to an agreement under the Forest Act, and it is part of a forest landscape plan, they will be involved from start to finish with First Nations, to the end of the establishment of the forest landscape plan, as part of the whole process.

L. Doerkson: I appreciate that the private landowner, then, will be involved from the very start of the process, not after the 60-day consultation period. So that’s fine.

My next question. In the development of the forest service plan, there may be things mandated against a private landowner. In other words, things they may have to do on their own lands. Will that be mandated for the private landowner to do at their cost? Will there be penalties for not complying? Can you speak to that a little bit?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: To clarify for the member, less than 1 percent of the area that we’re talking about is actually private land, so less than 1 percent across the province. The private landowner, if that area is part of the forest landscape plan, will, of course, be included on it.

Just so the member knows, this is actually in the existing legislation under FRPA. So this is not a change. The private landowner is subject to obligations under FRPA as it exists.

L. Doerkson: I’m aware that this is existing legislation, but this bill introduces new forest landscape plans. That is the way I understand it, and those plans will be part of a consultation process. Your ministry has introduced new definitions under this plan with respect to catastrophic damage and all of those types of things. I can appreciate that it is only 1 percent of the land mass of British Columbia, which is a pretty big land mass. I think we would all agree on that.

So I’m very concerned that under the new bill, there might be other impacts to private landowners. If there are not, then I can certainly move on to the next question. But I would like to know that there will be no other impacts under this new legislation that will be different from the old one.

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, the private lands that are subject to an agreement under the Forest Act already have undertaken stewardship planning — anything that is under the FRPA that they have already done. If there are any changes, it would be under….

If there are values within the forest landscape plan that are established, for instance, there’s opportunity for more consultation with people. But it’s about the values of the forest landscape plan and how that is undertaken.

[11:30 a.m.]

L. Doerkson: I appreciate what the minister is trying to say. Perhaps I’m not being clear. The new act has new definitions, new things that may be done on the landscape. In fact, under 2.22, it talks about “preventing, mitigating and adapting to impacts caused by significant disturbances.” So there are new items under this act.

Again, like I said in the last question, if there’s no change to what might affect a private land owner as far as cost or rules or things that they may be mandated to do under 2.21…. As I said before, “the chief forester may, by order, establish a forest landscape plan.”

I understand that we have a framework in place now. I’m just trying to confirm that nothing will change under the new framework.

Hon. K. Conroy: Well, it’s impossible to confirm what the member is trying to get out of me. It will be determined by the values of the forest landscape plan. That’s what my answer will keep being. That’s what will determine — I’m not quite finished, sorry — what the changes will be.

L. Doerkson: I’ll ask maybe in a different way. There’s a consultation process for a new forest landscape plan. We already agreed that the First Nations would be a part of it right at the beginning and that the private land owner will be a part of that consultation. There may be decisions made to go forward in that plan.

If a private land owner does not agree, can you mandate things that might be mandatory for that private land owner to comply with?

The Chair: Through the Chair, of course.

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, the private lands that are subject to the agreement under the Forest Act currently need to abide by all the regulations in the FRPA. What will happen, though, is the private land owner will be part of the discussions as the forest landscape planning is undertaken. So they’ll be part of the process.

L. Doerkson: Is there an avenue for the private land owner to disagree? Can he…? Again, can things be mandated against…? I shouldn’t say “he,” I suppose. Can things be mandated against a private land owner’s wish if he doesn’t agree with the consultation that’s happened with the parties that are involved in the consultation?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: As with the existing FRPA legislation, private land owners, he or she, can request to have their private land withdrawn from the agreement.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for that.

I don’t know why I rose. I heard…. My colleague said that he had a question as well.

The Chair: Thank you for that.

Member for Nechako Lakes.

J. Rustad: Sorry about taking some time away from here. I’m happy my colleague was able to get a chance to ask some questions. I just had to meet, obviously, with the folks that were here that are concerned about their future in the forest sector. I needed to have a little bit of time to do that. Unfortunately, we were stuck here with this bill at that time, but that’s okay.

I also wanted to ask about the private managed forest land. Maybe I’ll start with this question as well. I hope it hasn’t already been asked. I tried to get a brief Coles Notes in terms of what my colleague has asked about it.

Is the plan to have a forest landscape plan over top of the private managed forest lands? Is it planned to be put over top of each of these individually? Is it to be part of it as a group? Or is there a consideration for inclusion? I’m just kind of wondering how they will be drawn out as you develop a forest landscape plan.

Hon. K. Conroy: Private managed forest land is voluntary. It does not apply to the forest landscape planning or FRPA. It’s only if a portion of a private land is within an area. Then, as I said…. The member may have missed this. We’re saying less than 1 percent of the land that would be covered by the forest landscape plan is actually private, less than 1 percent in the province.

As we’ve said, this is no different from the existing legislation. Private land owners who are part of the existing system and who would be covered under this forest landscape plan would be part of the consultation process, would have input. One difference is…. Under stewardship, there was no consultation. Under landscape planning, there will be consultation.

As I did say, private land owners — he or she — could apply for an exemption to have their private land exempted from the forest landscape planned area. We are talking about less than 1 percent of the private land in the pro­vince that would be included.

J. Rustad: I appreciate that the minister may have gone over some additional material a couple of times on that.

The reason I’m asking these questions…. As the minister knows, there’s a significant amount of private managed forest lands in her area and down in the Kootenays. There is a very large portion on Vancouver Island, with the E and N grant, going up the heart of the Island. Obviously, Mosaic is a large operator in those areas.

Just for some clarity, if the minister can confirm that those types of lands will not be included in a forest landscape plan.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: There’s no change. Private managed land is governed by the Private Managed Forest Land Act, and the FLP won’t apply.

J. Rustad: That’s interesting. Okay. Obviously, there are these significant tracts of private managed lands. They’re big issues, particularly on Vancouver Island, but I know down in the Kootenays as well. The big issue is in terms of access. There is land that might be beyond the private managed land that may end up having a landscape management plan on and access in terms of roads and road deactivation.

I’m just wondering: how will that work, technically, in terms of landscape planning when you’ve got a large chunk that may be taken out of the middle of the landscape plan, potentially, or that isolate on a landscape plan?

Hon. K. Conroy: Private land that is subject to an agreement under the Forest Act is the only land that we are talking about in this bill.

J. Rustad: Okay. That didn’t really answer the question. I’m wondering if I should ask the question again. Just in terms of what that interaction is between private managed forest lands such as the E and N grant and how landscape planning will work, whether that’s landscape that may go across both sides or on either side…. I’m just wondering how technically that works?

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, private land outside of the For­est Act will not be covered by an FLP.

J. Rustad: The question I’m asking…. The reason for asking this question, obviously…. I’m trying to understand how these plans will be implemented and how they’ll be undertaken on the landscape where we’ve seen cases of access issues, whether it be through deferrals or other types of agreements with First Nations or others. So if there is a landscape plan that is beyond private land that is not part of the landscape plan, and that’s contingent upon road access or contingent upon other types of issues…. I’m trying to understand how those two pieces work together.

[11:45 a.m.]

I understand the private managed forest land is separate and is not included as part of this, but I’m just wondering. Obviously, it’s a big landscape, and there are lots of issues that interact. I’m wondering if, maybe, when you’re developing these plans, you don’t have an answer to that because you don’t know how these plans will actually interact at this point. I’m wondering if that’s been thought about and what the considerations are.

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, we have thought of this. We don’t foresee the need for any changes from the current practices that are in place.

J. Rustad: Okay. Well, that’s good to know.

I seem to be a little confused about this 1 percent of the land that may be…. Can the minister give examples — or an example or multiple examples — of private land that is subject to the agreement under the Forest Act that might be included in forest landscape planning?

Hon. K. Conroy: The private land we’re talking about within tree farm licences — there are 19,704 hectares of 5,132,290 hectares. Community forest agreements — there are 4,152 hectares of 1,882,790 hectares.

J. Rustad: I’m very pleased the minister has some very exact numbers on that but couldn’t put a number towards the budget, of course, in terms of what the cost of all this will be. But that’s okay. That’s a subject not necessarily for more further debate in this committee stage.

Community forests and any private land associated with community forests, tree farm licences and any private land associated with tree farm licence are potential to be subject to a forest landscape plan. I think that’s what I just heard the minister say, if she could just confirm that.

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes.

J. Rustad: I love one-word answers. Sorry, I don’t have any one-word questions.

[11:50 a.m.]

As we’re looking at developing these forest landscape plans, is there a requirement for them to be contiguous? Could they be split up? Could they be covering multiple areas or different areas without having adjoining boundaries, or are they required to be one contiguous unit of land?

Hon. K. Conroy: Our intention is to keep this consistent with timber supply areas and tree farm licence areas.

J. Rustad: I’m taking it from that answer that it is possible that they could be non-contiguous. In all efforts, I suspect, it will be contiguous because of the suppliers.

I have a reason for asking that. Sometimes you’ve got…. I can’t remember on the Island if this exists or not, but you obviously could have a watershed on a supply area that has a chunk of private land that goes through it that would be excluded. That’s why I’m wondering. You might end up with a forest landscape plan on a very small portion and a forest landscape plan on a larger portion, as opposed to being grouped together.

I’m just wondering. That’s why I was thinking whether that scenario was possible and the reason for asking that question.

Hon. Chair, there is an awful lot to go into, I think, in this section. This might be a good time to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. K. Conroy moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.


PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 22 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND
PROTECTION OF PRIVACY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 22; R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 11:11 a.m.

On clause 17.

T. Stone: I’m pleased to be here with my colleague from Abbotsford to continue committee stage on Bill 22.

We ended — I can’t remember; a few weeks ago, I think it was — on section 17, so that’s where we are at this point. I wanted to ask a few questions relating to the engagement that the minister has spoken to, both in her second reading comments, I think, in some of the earlier committee stage — a discussion that we’ve had — but also in some media reports as well.

The minister has talked about the public survey that was done, and during Bill 22 debate on Thursday, October 28, the minister said: “On June 15, we launched our public survey on information access and privacy. That’s to the general public. The engagement occurred from June 15 to July 15, 2021.”

My first question in relation to this public survey would be this. If, as the minister says, a decision was made to end data residency because the act was failing British Columbians, why was this question of data residency not included as part of the public survey?

Hon. L. Beare: Data residency was canvassed in the survey. There was a question put about…. I’ll read the question, then, into the record for the member. It is available publicly, and I know the member is referencing it when he’s asking these questions.

[11:15 a.m.]

“When thinking about accessing government services and information, what is most important to you?” The options listed were that government services for the public are available online; government can use and build on the latest technology from around the world; government data is hosted/stored in Canada; government services and priorities are delivered quickly; government data has the most up-to-date security protocols; and government spends less to provide services.

T. Stone: I think in the high-level survey results that have been made available or that have been pushed out there, there was a strong indication that British Columbians certainly view data residency as a very important consideration. Certainly, the view keeping this information safe and secure and in British Columbia is part of that, from a data-residency perspective, as an important consideration.

My question to the minister would be: recognizing the strong public support that there is in this survey and, just more broadly, for maintaining data residency here in British Columbia, why, in the face of that public opinion, that public support for maintaining the status quo — and, if anything, building upon, enhancing, strengthening data residency here in British Columbia — is the minister and the government going in the opposite direction to what the public would clearly like to see happen on this?

Hon. L. Beare: I think I’m going to just back up, because it has been a little bit of time. We were on a break week here in the Legislature. I’ll just remind everyone of what the full engagement was that we did on this bill.

We built on the engagement that had been previously started in 2018 and ’19. That was, at that time, to identify stakeholder concerns and priority issues. A number of engagement pieces happened through that, which are well outlined already, canvassed in this House.

Now, building on these consultations, between April and August 2021, we re-engaged with many of the same groups, including government ministries, the broader public sector, public bodies, municipalities, Indigenous leaders, communities, the tech sector, the Privacy Commissioner and the general public.

[11:20 a.m.]

That was everything from ADM and DM committees, round tables that I hosted with education, tech, health, communities. It’s the feedback we received through two surveys online. The member is referring to one survey. There was a second survey that showed different results as well.

So two surveys received online, as well as questionnaires that were put out. In it, absolutely, there’s an overwhelming desire to see that privacy and personal security throughout all our conversations remain a top priority, and our government is committed to that. We are committed to ensuring that people’s personal information is protected. We’re committed to ensuring that government information is protected and that we’re maintaining privacy.

What we have before us is a culmination, in this bill, of that engagement. It’s something that our public bodies have been asking for. This is going to be a very important change. I have a quote here from the University of British Columbia: “UBC welcomes these proposed amendments. They will substantially increase the privacy and security of personal data with more robust and resilient services by allowing us to select the most secure and effective solutions.”

T. Stone: So I really want to focus in on this survey that the minister has talked about. Again, as I said in a previous question, this public engagement occurred from June 15 to July 15, 2021. That’s what the minister said. If those dates are not correct or if I’m not getting that quite right, I obviously would appreciate being clarified on that or having that clarified for me.

But again, I come back to the high-level survey results that indicate concern on the part of British Columbians and ending the data residency. So I really want to ask the minister again, why, in the face of the public expressing pretty strongly in this survey, this 2021 survey, concerns with data residency ending, that clearly wasn’t taken into account or certainly didn’t influence the end result, insofar as the government making the decision to move forward in ending data residency in British Columbia.

Hon. L. Beare: For the member, yes, the dates are correct. We’re all in alignment here. We have two polls, as well, as part of our consultation, which have different results in them. The member is referencing one. There’s a sec­ond poll that has different results.

[11:25 a.m.]

There is the feedback we received through our consultation and through our round tables, and it’s our job to balance all of that information together. That’s reflected in the bill we have before us today.

We heard loudly and clearly from our public bodies, from our tech sector, from our businesses that the current data residency restrictions were out of date and were pre­venting our businesses and our public bodies from accessing more secure tools, from being competitive and from providing British Columbians the services that they’ve come to count on during COVID-19.

We talk about being able to access your doctor on FaceTime or, for your classroom, to be able to use Google Classroom. These are services that are currently only pro­vided through a ministerial order which allows the exemption for data to travel across the borders. These are important services that people need. We know that from the pandemic. We’ve learned that, and we want to make sure that we’re providing and continue to provide services that people count on.

We continue to hear from our public bodies, from our communities and from our businesses how important this truly is. I want to read out a quote from Jill Tipping, who’s the president and CEO of the B.C. Tech Association. “This is a positive development from government that B.C.’s tech industry welcomes. Changes to B.C.’s data residency requirements will allow local companies to leverage cutting-edge technology and help B.C.’s public sector deliver the modern tools that citizens expect, with the privacy protections they need.”

T. Stone: Again, this survey, which was from June of 2021 — the minister and I have confirmed the dates: June 15 to July 15, 2021 — had, amongst a whole series of other questions, a question on data residency. It asked a series of questions about what’s important to you in considering changes to how data is managed in British Columbia.

The specific question that I’m referring to was this. “When thinking about accessing government services and information, what is most important to you?” Pretty clear question. The public responded with a 58.8 percent affirmation of the following statement: “Government data is hosted or stored in Canada.” So 58.8 percent of the respondents to the survey clearly feel, or felt at the time, that storing this data in Canada is very important.

We will get to the other round tables and other discussions, engagements and consultations that the minister has referred to in a few moments. But with respect to the public in this survey, ultimately, these are the people that we represent. It’s the public’s data, a lot of personal information. I would suggest that their perspective on this, their view on this, is equal to if not greater than the view of anyone at the University of British Columbia or many of the other quotes that the minister has thrown out there.

Again to the minister, what does she have to say to the 58.8 percent of public respondents to this survey who made it very, very clear that they value, as a very important principle moving forward, that government data be hosted and stored in Canada?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: Public policy development does need a broad and inclusive balance of needs. We considered many voices, as we’ve talked about in this room and before, not just one survey. We can pull up the other survey as well, the Ipsos survey, which the member will well know and has in front of him as part of that same report, where 17 percent of British Columbians answered that government data is hosted or stored in Canada as their top priority.

The top priority in that survey listed was that government services be available for the public online. Another set of respondents — the second choice being that government has the most up-to-date security protocols.

What I’m hearing from British Columbians is the desire and the need to make sure their information is safe, and I want to assure all British Columbians — and we’ve canvassed this a number of times in the House — that the legislation before us and these changes to data residency are going to help us. We’re going to ensure that people’s information is safe. It’s going to provide access to security tools that weren’t available before. We’re amending and strengthening our privacy impact assessment to ensure that data, no matter where it’s stored, is kept safe.

We are listening to British Columbians, and we’re going to make sure that we’re providing the best services that they’ve come to count on during COVID-19, and we’re going to do everything through this legislation to keep their information safe.

[11:35 a.m.]

T. Stone: Considering that the government has a 2-to-1 vote margin on the opposition, I think there’s a certain degree of reality here that these changes are likely to make their way through this committee and become the law in British Columbia, which is why, when the minister makes statements around protecting people’s privacy and security and stuff, I mean, there’s no quibble with the importance of that from our side, at all. I completely agree that central to this entire discussion around data residency is the protection of data, the protection of personal information.

The 2021 consultation, the information access and privacy survey that the Ministry of Citizens’ Services, for which the minister is responsible, did, again, provide some pretty clear insights into the respondents, the many people that took the time to actually participate in this survey.

In my previous question, I mentioned how, in answer to the question, “When thinking about accessing government services and information, what is most important to you,” 58.8 percent responded that it’s important to them that government data be hosted and stored in Canada.

Interestingly, in that same question, the other answers were as follows: 9.96 percent said government services for the public are available online, that that was the most important thing. I find that interesting. I find it equally interesting that only 1.3 percent of respondents responded to this question of what is most important to you is that government can use and build on the latest technology from around the world. So 4.53 percent responded that government services and priorities are delivered quickly, and 1.7 percent responded that government spends less to provide services.

The overwhelming choice of the respondents was that government data be hosted and stored in Canada. Again, 58.8 percent. The second-largest response was 23.49 percent of respondents, who said that it’s important to them that government data has the most up-to-date security protocols. I think there’s a direct linkage between the two there.

Again, in light of the significant emphasis that res­pondents to the minister’s own survey — the survey from June and July of this previous summer, so only a matter of months ago — why did the minister, in the face of this significant concern, make the decision to press forward with the changes to data residency that are contained within Bill 22 and provided, in part, through this clause 17 that we’re discussing, when clearly, the overwhelming view of the public, as reflected in this survey, was to have this data continue to be stored and accessed here in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Beare: I’ve answered that question three times now for the member, and I’m happily going to answer again, because public policy development does need that broad and inclusive set of voices and consultation. We considered many aspects and many voices when we were considering the proposed changes we have before us today.

The member and I have talked about, over the hours that him and I have been discussing that bill, how we’ve been operating safely this way for the past 20 months here in British Columbia through the ministerial order and how other jurisdictions across Canada have been operating safely this way for years.

[11:40 a.m.]

The member read out the one survey. I’ll read out the second survey so it’s in the record.

“When thinking about accessing government services and information, what’s most important to you; please rank”: 33 percent, “Government services for the public are available online”; 25 percent, “Government data has the most up-to-date security protocols”; 17 percent, “Government data is hosted, stored in Canada”; 16 percent, “Government services and priorities are delivered quickly”; 4 percent, “Government can use and build on the latest technology from around the world”; and 5 percent, “Government spends less to provide services.”

Through our consultations and through our round tables, I’ve been hearing a number of voices. What I’m hearing loudly and clearly is that our current data restrictions are out of date, and they’re not allowing our public bodies to be competitive or to provide the services that they want to be able to provide to British Columbians.

I’m going to read a quote from the city of Kelowna for the members. “Local governments are being asked to deliver services effectively and efficiently with the best citizen experience possible. With changes to the data residency policy, this will allow organizations to meet the needs of our customers while still protecting our digital assets.”

I think that’s very important. In all of my answers that I’ve given, I’ve said it, and I will say it again. Protecting people’s information, protecting privacy and protecting our data is a priority for us, and it’s reflected here in this legislation.

T. Stone: A couple other results from this survey, and then we’ll move on. In question 7, in section 2 of the survey, it says: “When it comes to security, the more sensitive a piece of information or data is, the more strongly we should protect it. Reflecting on what is most important to you, how would you rank the sensitivity of the following personal information or data types?”

So 34.79 percent said their health information — for example, lab results, immunization history, prescriptions and the like. And 46.9 percent indicated financial information — for example, student loan balances, social insurance numbers, personal tax history and the like. The next-largest response was way down at 6.54 percent. It was for the social services–type information — child protection records, income assistance, child support information, and so forth.

The point I’m trying to make here…. There is a height­ened degree of concern. When you ask British Columbians, in the context of the security and the confidentiality of their personal information — whether it relates to financial information, health information or other — and you indicate that that information is currently stored here in Canada but that the government is making changes to potentially store it outside of Canada…. There is obvious concern that British Columbians have with that, as I think has been very well reflected, very strongly reflected in the minister’s own survey.

I would add that this government doesn’t have a terrific track record when it comes to PIAs, when you take, as one example, the speculation tax and the collection of information on the speculation tax before a PIA was completed.

I guess the question to the minister would be this. In the context of, or in light of, the fact that the record is a bit shaky when it comes to these privacy assessments when the data is stored here in Canada, how can the minister look British Columbians in the eyes and say to British Columbians: “Don’t worry. We’re going to have a better track record with our privacy information assessments. We’re going to do a better job of that when your data is hosted in foreign jurisdictions”?

[11:45 a.m.]

How will the minister, frankly, be able to look British Columbians in the eyes and pass along that message to them if their information is taken out of British Columbia and stored in foreign jurisdictions?

Hon. L. Beare: I just want to let the member know that our government has an excellent track report on PIAs. In fact, we process over 1,000 PIAs every year.

The member and I canvassed very thoroughly in our last session together that we are not removing any of the protections that are in legislation. In fact, we’re strengthening them. We’re strengthening our PIAs and increasing those privacy impact assessments. I think it’s very important for British Columbians to know that through this legislation, we are increasing protections to make sure that their information and that data is safe.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.