Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, June 3, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 83

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)

COVID-19 and air filtration technology

E. Ross

Mission seniors centre and housing project

P. Alexis

Children and youth in care

K. Kirkpatrick

Langley Community Music School and Apollo Initiative

A. Mercier

Press freedom

S. Furstenau

Graduates of 2021 in Vernon-Monashee area

H. Sandhu

Oral Questions

Reopening of land border with U.S. and lifting of cruise ship ban

S. Bond

Hon. M. Mark

M. de Jong

Hon. R. Fleming

Access to mental health services and regulation of counselling therapists

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Anchor attractions program and COVID-19 response for tourism industry

T. Wat

Hon. M. Mark

L. Doerkson

COVID-19 relief grant eligibility for Royal Canadian Legion branches and ANAVETS club

B. Banman

Hon. R. Kahlon

Reports from Committees

Public Accounts Committee,

summary of activities,

2020-21

M. Bernier

R. Glumac

Tabling Documents

Chief records officer, annual report, 2020-21

Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Order-in-Council

310/2021, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor

General

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2021

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Accessible British Columbia Act (continued)

Hon. N. Simons

S. Cadieux

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions (continued)

Hon. S. Malcolmson

T. Halford

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

Hon. L. Popham

M. de Jong

THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 2021

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: T. Stone.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: Today I want to introduce Myrna Scarff. Myrna is going to be watching

us by video today. Myrna is another parent who I met with the Holding Hope

group a couple of evenings ago. She shared the story of her son, who is 46

years old and has been challenged with some pretty substantial mental health

and addictions issues or challenges over his life. Those challenges have

definitely been on the entire family.

Myrna’s story — telling me of her son and sharing with all of the

other mothers that were in the room the lack of ability to be able to get

access to the safe supply that is needed as well as the types of treatment

that her son needs — again resonated the real challenges that Myrna and many

of the other parents are feeling when they’re trying to access supports for

their sons and daughters.

I just wanted to take the time today to introduce Myrna and thank her

for watching question period and the proceedings in the House

today.

Hon. B. Ma: It is my honour to rise in the chamber today to make a series of

introductions. There will be three of them.

My first introduction is to Ms. Jennifer Bermudez and her grade 12

Spanish class at Sutherland Secondary School. They join us today virtually

from my home constituency in North Vancouver–Lonsdale. These students have

been with Ms. Bermudez in the Spanish program for four years now. She tells

me that she is proud to have a class made up of learners of many different

levels, bringing their own cultural knowledge and talents to enrich each

other’s learning. Would the House please join me in welcoming Ms. Jennifer

Bermudez’s grade 12 Spanish class to the B.C. Legislature.

Also with us today is Nikayla Allen. When she was in grade 8, Nikayla

travelled to Kenya to help build a school. It was there that Nikayla learned

about the social problems that so many countries face, and having been

through some challenging times herself, she turned her energy towards

advocacy and fighting discrimination. Nikayla is graduating high school this

year and hopes to attend university in pursuit of a career in social

sciences.

Nikayla, thank you so much for your commitment to making life better

for the people around you. I am very proud to be able to announce Sutherland

Secondary School’s recipient of this year’s North Vancouver–Lonsdale MLA

social justice scholarship is you.

Would the House please join me in wishing Nikayla the best of luck in

her future endeavours.

The last but not least of all the introductions is another one of Ms.

Bermudez’s students. A leader at their school, this student has worked hard

to build community through the time of COVID. A dedicated volunteer,

supporting people with autism and younger students, and an avid organizer of

fundraisers, this student has a consistent track record of good citizenship

throughout their high school career.

It has been a very difficult year for high school students, and peer

leadership during this time is very important. That’s why I’m pleased to

share with the House that this year’s special edition scholarship, the North

Vancouver–​Lonsdale MLA’s COVID-19 pandemic leadership award, goes to

graduation council president Adam Yahav. He’s also with us virtually today.

Would the House please join me in thanking Adam for his leadership during

this pandemic.

[10:10 a.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

COVID-19 AND

AIR FILTRATION

TECHNOLOGY

E. Ross: We know COVID-19 spreads in different ways but mainly through

liquid particles from an infected person’s nose or mouth via coughing,

sneezing, speaking or just breathing. Studies have also shown that it’s

not just droplets that are of concern but also the much smaller

aerosols.

We as a society have tried to adapt and come to terms with this

pandemic, and there is innovation that is coming out that are prime

examples of ingenuity that is needed. We’re all well aware that we are

more likely to get infected in an indoor setting versus an outside

setting. Why? Be­cause aerosols can remain suspended in the air

for much longer than droplets can or can travel farther than one

metre.

Confined spaces with older ventilation systems with minimal

filtration are not going to work. If we want to open up our society

sooner or even be better prepared for the next virus, we need to look at

responsive technologies, because epidemics have evolved alongside humans

and will continue to do so in the future.

It’s encouraging to know that a Vancouver-based company has

designed a system that not only increases clean air flow in our enclosed

spaces but also kills the virus and sends clean air back into the room.

The new ventilation system was developed in direct response to COVID-19

but likely has many more practical applications, considering the

potential of respiratory viruses that will continue to

spread.

As we speak, there are many that are quickly waking up to this new

technology and are making their indoor working environments much safer

for their employees. As this is a brand-new application of proven

filtration technology, I encourage everyone to look into this new

initiative by visiting their website

www.puraairpurification.com.

MISSION SENIORS CENTRE

AND HOUSING

PROJECT

P. Alexis: I would first like to acknowledge that I come to you from the

unceded and ancestral territory of the Stó:lō people.

June 6 to 12 marks Seniors Week in British Columbia. It is with

great pride I rise today to mark the occasion by shining a light on a

massive project that has provided much-needed and dignified housing to

seniors in my riding of Abbotsford-Mission. Thanks to the recently

opened Boswyk centre in the district of Mission, seniors with moderate

and low incomes can now enjoy 74 additional affordable homes, as well as

a seniors activity centre.

This government has invested $7.4 million in the project through

the Building B.C.: community housing fund, as well as an additional $8.5

million in construction financing. The province is also providing

approximately $197,000 in annual operating funding.

I want to also thank the district of Mission for providing land

and funds for the centre, as well as the Mission Association for Seniors

Housing for their contributions to seeing this great project come to

fruition.

Finally, I want to thank my colleague the member for Maple

Ridge–Mission for his hard work, support and vision in seeing this

project through to the end.

On a personal note, I am beyond thrilled to see this project open

its doors and was delighted to tour it in person last week. I know, from

talking to constituents and through my previous role with the district,

how much these homes are needed in Mission.

This project is a great testament to a government that is

committed to helping the vulnerable and at-risk in the valley and in

this province and a strong step in addressing the housing crunch so many

of our seniors face.

CHILDREN AND YOUTH IN CARE

K. Kirkpatrick: Children and youth in and from government care experience unique

barriers and challenges in their daily lives. They’re often stigmatized

and struggle with self-esteem, belonging and connection to

commun­ity. It’s the responsibility of all of us to make sure that

children and youth in care have the same right to safety and support for

development and social well-being.

May 31 to June 6 is Child and Youth in Care Week in British

Columbia. A group of youth in and from care advocated for this week so

their siblings could grow up feeling celebrated for their diverse

talents and accomplish­ments, surrounded by a supportive community

who sta­nds with them.

There are many reasons that a young person may go into care when

they or their family are in crisis. From babies to teens, children can

be removed for any number of reasons. Their parents are unable to care

for them or don’t have the skills or the tools they need to care for

them. Sometimes it’s just for a short while, and sometimes it can be

their whole childhood.

[10:15 a.m.]

Now, I can’t talk about children and youth this week without

recognizing the impact of the residential school system on families.

Indigenous youth are overrepresented in the number of youth in care. No

parent wants to be a bad parent; they want to be a great parent. But we

learn parenting and connection from experiencing it.

There are generations of Indigenous Peoples whose families were

torn apart — children taken away and losing connection to family and

community. These children haven’t seen parenting, and they have to learn

it, generation after generation. The last thing that we want to do is to

continue to separate Indigenous families.

The goal this week is to raise social awareness and shift negative

perceptions to recognize children and youth in care, like all young

people, as individuals with talents, contributions and

dreams.

LANGLEY COMMUNITY MUSIC SCHOOL

AND APOLLO

INITIATIVE

A. Mercier: It is an honour to rise in this House and speak to the recent

Apollo Initiative performance led by young musicians from across this

province. Students from Langley Community Music School joined 350

student musicians from across B.C. to perform a brand-new composition by

Juno Award–winning artist, Jordan Nobles.

The Apollo Initiative began when youth orchestra from around B.C.

came together as a means to create an opportunity for B.C.’s youth to

share a large and exciting musical experience, while still respecting

public health restrictions. The name was inspired by Apollo, the Greek

god of music and the arts and healing, among other things. The aim was

to raise funds for youth mental health. This fundraiser was initiated as

a response to COVID-19’s impact on the mental health of youth, many of

whom looked to music as a key part of their wellness

strategies.

The Langley Community School musicians were joined by students and

conductors from the Coquitlam Youth Orchestra, the Greater Victoria

Youth Orchestra, the Oka­nagan Symphony Youth Orchestra, the

Surrey Youth Orchestra and the Vancouver Youth Symphony Orchestra. I had

a chance to watch the live stream, and I can tell you that, among other

things, it was a testament to the resilience of our young people during

this time.

I am so proud of the Langley Community Music School. Langley

Community Music School has provided virtual, in-person, hybrid learning

opportunities throughout the pandemic, which have allowed for safe,

distanced rehearsals. They’ve done this through the incredible efforts

of the students and the staff, notably the principal, Carolyn Granholm,

and Conductor Joel Stobbe.

To top it off, they raised over $8,000 for the B.C. division of

the Canadian Mental Health Association.

Will this House please join me

in congratulating all the youth mentioned for raising money for mental

health in this province.

PRESS FREEDOM

S. Furstenau: The last 16 months have hit home just how essential it is to have

trustworthy and reliable information. As many of us watched COVID and

its accompanying burden on our lives move across the globe, we listened

each day and parsed the endless news stories that kept us informed of

each breaking development. Imagine what this would have been like

without a free press. Imagine what they have endured.

In a democracy, the press plays a vital role in keeping the public

informed and keeping those who are making decisions accountable. A

healthy democracy has several essential components: legislative and

executive orders of government, an independent judiciary, an unfettered

press and educated and informed citizens who are able to think

critically and participate actively.

In 2012, Ryerson University held a two-day conference marking the

30th anniversary of the Canadian constitution, with a focus on the

status of press freedom in Canada. Toronto Star editor Kathy

publication bans that stop journalists from reporting on public court

proceedings; bureaucrats routinely block requests for public

information; control-mad governments shut down access; and politicians

refuse to speak to journalists, who seek to hold them to account on the

public’s behalf.”

Here in B.C., journalists have filed an application with the B.C.

Supreme Court, asking that their rights not be fettered by RCMP

exclusion zones. This is a worrying trend in our province, particularly

in relation to conflicts around resource extraction and Indigenous

territories.

[10:20 a.m.]

We may have differing opinions on those matters in here. But it is

my hope and expectation that each and every one of us who are

representatives of this democratic system is committed to upholding and

protecting the rights of journalists to report on what happens in here

and everywhere in this province.

We should fight for a free press like our democracy de­pends

on it, because it does.

GRADUATES OF 2021 IN

VERNON-MONASHEE

AREA

H. Sandhu: As we know, in the coming weeks, our graduating young adults from

across the province will be finishing a formative

chapter of their lives

and moving on to new and exciting challenges. I want to extend my best

wishes and congratulations to the 2021 grads from Vernon-Monashee, their

families and their amazing teachers.

This week, on June 11, the first of our grad classes at

Kal­amalka Secondary School will celebrate, and those from Charles

Bloom, Clarence Fulton, VSS, W.L. Seaton and Vernon Christian School

will follow throughout June.

I know how exciting and important this milestone is for every grad

and their families — when the students are ready to step into the next

adventure of their lives. Dear grads, I can understand that it’s been a

challenging year. None of you planned on missing out on any of these

milestones — prom nights, sports tournaments and school rallies. But

these events do not define your schooling.

Over the course of the past 14 months, despite the pandemic, we’ve

seen graduates continue to make positive changes in their communities,

all while showing tremendous resilience, determination and patience. I

am so proud of you. Despite the challenges, you have accomplished so

much this year. I know this is just the beginning for you. All of you

have already shown determination, resiliency and adaptability by

continuing your education during unprecedented times in

history.

You are our future and hope. It is a big world out there. Go out

and seize it. Don’t let anything stop you from pursuing your goals. The

sky is the limit. Please join me to commemorate this very important

milestone for Vernon-Monashee 2021 grads.

Oral Questions

REOPENING OF LAND BORDER WITH U.S.

AND LIFTING OF

CRUISE SHIP BAN

S. Bond: Well, the Premier has spectacularly bungled the cruise ship file,

and we saw that he was just a little bit sensitive about that yesterday.

This is a very serious issue. This issue puts B.C.’s tourism-dependent

businesses at risk. One of the Premier’s more memorable comments was:

“I’m confident that this is just a blip along the way.”

Well, we all know how that turned out. But there is an­other

serious issue emerging. We know that the federal cruise ship ban is in

place until March of 2022. We also know that reopening plans are

actively being discussed, and we recognize that the land border could

open much sooner if the federal government decides to do

that.

Where would that leave cruise-dependent tourism businesses in our

province? Well, let’s ask the Premier that today.

Does the Premier agree that whenever the land border opens so that

people can arrive in British Columbia by car, by bus or by train, they

should, at the same time, be allowed to arrive on a cruise ship and that

the moratorium should be lifted?

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. Clearly, we’re

in active discussions with the federal government about the borders. I

mean, YVR wants to open up. We all want to know when the borders are

going to be open.

Right now the laser focus is on vaccination. The member knows

that. All British Columbians want to see that more vaccinations are out

there so we can move the dial, as we have with our restart plan, to open

up activity for tourism.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, quiet please.

Hon. M. Mark: But the member knows full well that this is the jurisdiction of

the federal government.

[10:25 a.m.]

Of course, the Premier is having active conversations along with

our colleagues, because it’s not just our border. It’s the entire

country’s border. So yes, we’re advocating, but we’re going to be led by

the science and the data and protecting the safety of British Columbians

and Canadians. Thank you to the member opposite for the

question.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: The minister should finally move off the vaccination answer she

provides. Of course this side of the House supports vaccination and have

been actively doing that. That is not the question she was

asked.

In fact, the last time she tried to answer a question about this,

she talked about — and I quote her words, not mine — “arrogant

confidence.”

Here’s a straight-up question for this minister, who continues, by

the way, to completely mess up this file. We know that talks are

underway to reopen the land border, but the federal cruise ship ban is

in place. It is separate, and it extends well into 2022.

Cruise ships provide $2.7 billion of economic activity and 20,000

jobs in British Columbia. So to the Premier, to the minister, to

somebody on that side of the House: when the land border opens, will the

Premier now advocate that, at exactly the same time the marine border

opens, the moratorium on cruise ships travelling up and down our coast

be lifted? What has the Premier specifically done to make that

argument?

Hon. M. Mark: First of all, I want to emphasize that we are a destination of

choice. We’re a magnet for international visitors. We are going to be a

magnet when the doors open. I know that the member opposite wants to

continually ask questions in these chambers about decisions that are

made at the federal level….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Listen to the answer, please.

Hon. M. Mark: I know, hon. Speaker, the members op­posite don’t want to

hear the answer. They keep asking questions about federal jurisdiction.

Of course we’re ad­vocating for the borders and airports to be

open. It is not our call. Does the Premier work with our colleagues?

Yes, of course we are doing that advocacy. I don’t know why the members

opposite keep coming into these chambers and asking for answers that

they know are in the jurisdiction of the federal government.

We are going to be a destination of choice. As soon as the borders

are open, we are going to have visitors here. But again, I’m going to

reiterate, because when the members opposite talk about vaccination, the

public wants to know that we are safe. That is the objective. We want to

know that when we open up the borders, people are safe. That call is

going to be made by medical officials.

M. de Jong: What we're seeking to do, what the Lead­er of the Opposition

has sought to do, is determine to what extent this Premier and this

minister are advocating on behalf of the tens of thousands of workers in

British Columbia who are impacted by these decisions. If she doesn’t

understand her role and her government’s role to advocate on behalf of

those people, with respect to the federal government, then she’s in the

wrong line of work, and that’s her problem.

The proposition here is not a complicated one, having stumbled and

bumbled their way through this issue in a way, quite frankly, that has

put thousands of workers and tourism jobs at risk.

Will the minister now agree that when our international land

border is opened — whenever that happens — when that decision is made,

presumably on the basis of sound science…. When the international land

border is opened to regular traffic….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the question, please.

Member, continue.

M. de Jong: When that border is open to regular traffic — that, at that point,

the federal ban on cruise ships entering B.C. ports should be

lifted.

Will they take active steps today to advocate on behalf of that

position?

[10:30 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. The answer is around a

science-based ap­proach.

We know that there are active discussions today in our country and

in the United States and other parts of the world around things like

vaccine passports, getting up to normal. We know that Americans are

travelling far more extensively than Canadians right now. Their vaccine

rates, their second dose rates, are higher. They have a different

approach, one that I don’t think Canadians would, for a minute, change

to the approach that we took, which was science-based.

Look, there are discussions that are happening about when the

borders will be reopened. It will be based on metrics of COVID safety

and science, like the decisions that have guided our government

throughout this difficult pandemic year for everyone in this

province.

This government supports the cruise industry. We support Americans

wanting to travel to Alaska through our waters. We support the idea of

technical stops, which was introduced by the two U.S. senators who

sponsored the original bill.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, he’s not going to hear you, so save your

breath.

Minister, continue.

Hon. R. Fleming: We look forward to the industry ope­ning up in British

Columbia again when it is safe to do so. That will be a decision based

on science. We are not there yet today to reopen our borders, as the

member well knows. But he also understands that the Prime Minister is

talking with our American counterparts about when that day will come and

what the metrics of safety will look like in terms of having vaccinated

Americans once again be able to visit Canada and to have Canadians visit

their friends and neighbors Stateside.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: Well, different minister, same non-answer. And, quite frankly, the

same attempt at revisionist history. Look, if this government had been

advocating on behalf of technical stops, as we suggested and urged them

to do so, that piece of legislation in Washington that the Premier said

would never pass, wouldn’t have passed unanimously. So let’s not try to

engage in more revisionist history, as the minister has just tried to

do.

All over the world, cruise ships are resuming operations —

including, by the way, on the Alaska coast, on the trip up to Alaska,

where vaccination requirements are being put in place by the operators.

The people in B.C. who depend on tourism dollars that arrive with

visiting cruise ship passengers want to know this. They need to know

this. They need the plan.

I thought that that’s what the point of the restart program was:

to allow people to plan. They want to know that when people are

permitted to enter B.C. at the land border, when they are permitted to

enter B.C. by bus, when they are permitted to enter B.C. by train,

whether it is this government’s position that when that happens, when it

can be determined to occur safely, people will be permitted to enter

B.C. through marine ports of entry.

It’s not a complicated question, and it is deserving of a

straightforward answer from this government.

Hon. R. Fleming: You know, it’s interesting. It’s almost like the member for

Abbotsford West forgets that at the very beginning of the pandemic….

What were the images that the entire world saw? People trapped, unable

to disembark on cruise ships, major outbreaks, centres of transmission

of a virus that then entered into a number of countries. That is what

the pandemic looked like, and that is why the cruise ship industry,

working with the CDC and working with others, has to have a safe

conditional sailing program, which is not finalized at this point in

time. They’re working on that.

He’s incorrect that the cruise ship industry is up and running

around the world. Medical scientists are going to be extra careful with

the cruise ship industry. This is what we call a congregate setting.

It’s a different type of tourism product than just opening up the

borders and staying at a hotel. It is.

[10:35 a.m.]

If the member wants to diminish the complexity of this, if he

wants to ascribe B.C. of having a role in deciding policy on our coast,

which is absolutely incorrect, then that’s his prerogative. He can troll

in those falsehoods if he wishes. We are waiting for the Prime Minister

about June 21. That is known. They will be doing that. That is based

on…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. R. Fleming: …high-level engagements with the Americans right now. But what we

look forward to is international cruise ship industries coming back to

our ports when it is safe to do so. And they will do so. We’ve heard

that loud and clear from the industry. This is a huge economic generator

for them. This is a hugely important tourism product for us as British

Columbians, and we will welcome them back on a science-based opening

date that will be determined in the very near future.

Mr. Speaker: Members, before the Chair recognizes the next person, I want to

remind people that no electronic devices are to be used in question

period.

ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND

REGULATION OF

COUNSELLING THERAPISTS

S. Furstenau: Everyone deserves access to mental health care, not just those who

can afford it. The gaps in our current system could be partially met by

expanding to a broader range of mental health professionals.

Unfortunately, unlike most of the rest of Canada, counsellors and

therapists are unregulated in this province. Immediately regulating

counselling therapists is a step to meeting the demand for mental health

services in B.C.

When the Federation of Associations for Counselling Therapists in

B.C. applied to be regulated this February, the Minister of Health said

no. In the midst of a growing mental health crisis, the opportunity to

provide better care was rejected. Regulation of counsellors would

protect the public. It would make sure people are receiving qualified

and competent care, and it would open the door for more mental health

care professionals to be covered under health insurance and MSP,

ultimately removing the financial barrier that exists for far too many

people in B.C. right now.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Why was this application

by the Federation of Associations for Counselling Therapists in B.C.

rejected?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, there are a number of things the member left out. The member

will recall that she and my­self and the Member for Kelowna–Lake

Country have provided a report and a recommendation for changes to the

way we regulate health professions in British Columbia, including means

to allow new professions to become regulated. It’s not just counsellors.

She will know, because she saw the same thousands of briefs that I did

and took

part in the same unanimous report that we put together, that

other professions are looking to be regulated as well.

We have presented, and we’ll be putting in place, the most

extensive reform of health professional regulation in the country, one

that will improve health regulation across jurisdictions. To make

significant changes based on the current process when all of us,

including the member, have proposed significant changes, I think, is not

the right approach.

We are making changes recommended by the member, by the official

opposition, and by myself, changes that will make it easier for new

professions to become regulated and will increase standards, increase

public transparency, increase accountability of health professional

organizations and make the whole process more efficient and better for

the public interest. That’s what we’re doing. That’s what we are putting

in place.

The member, of course, knows this because she was part of it. She

played a very important role in that. She advocated in that period, for

example, on issues around social workers that were reflected in her bill

that she introduced yesterday as well.

This is an area the government is taking action on, but we’re not

doing it in the old way. We’re doing it by working with the member and

with the official opposition to bring fundamental change that will

improve health regulation in B.C. I’m very proud of those efforts, and I

hope the member is as well.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: Indeed, I am also very proud of those efforts, which were an

example of the kind of collaboration that we need to see more of in this

Legislature.

Unfortunately, what the minister is speaking of…. And I agree that

the modernization of health regulation around health professionals, as

recommended by the collaborative efforts of the three parties, needs to

go forward. But at the same time, we are in a global pandemic that has

behind it, and already unfolding now, another pandemic, and that is a

mental health pandemic.

[10:40 a.m.]

So just as we were nimble in responding to COVID-19 in this House

over a year ago, I think we need to be nimble in responding to the

growing need for people to have access to mental health care when they

need it and for that health care to be trustworthy, to have

accountability and to ensure that public safety is incorporated into

that.

The most effective and direct route to do that is to ensure that

we have regulation of counsellors and counselling therapists in British

Columbia, which currently we do not, which means that anybody can call

themselves a counsellor. There’s no regulatory body that the public can

check in with and say: “Is this accurate? Can I trust this person?” I

think we all agree that we need to expand mental health care to

everybody in this province.

What I’m asking the minister is that just as he’s had to be

incredibly nimble for the last 16 months responding to the pandemic of

COVID-19…. I think it’s time to be nimble to respond to the pandemic of

mental health crises that we have in British Columbia.

My question is: can we expect to see the urgency and the

nimbleness that we need to see and see the regulation of counsellors in

this province happen immediately?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, I think you see that urgency in the actions of my colleague

the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions every day, the efforts of

the government to expand mental health and addictions services every

day, efforts that I think we all support in this House, and we’re all

working together in this House.

The reason that we undertook a fundamental review of health

professional regulations…. One of the reasons was the challenge that

many professions — not just counsellors, but many professions — were

having in being regulated and the proliferation of health professional

bodies that were not sufficiently affected. We came together to put in

place a fundamental change, and it’s one we’re proceeding on and

implementing.

The member, I think, understands very well because, again, she saw

the same thousands of briefs. We spent hours together working on these

issues and coming up with the unanimous recommendations on the very

issues she’s asking questions about. I think the pathway forward here is

to implement those changes, which will allow much more quick recognition

of new professional bodies within the six recommended health

professional bodies we’ve recommended in that document. That’s the way

forward.

The creation of health professional bodies is not a matter of

ministerial fiat, but one that requires us to go step by step in the

creation of self-regulating bodies that make sense. This is particularly

true in the area of counsellors, which, as the member will know — again,

because we saw the same mini-briefs — represent a whole bunch of

different professions with people with different qualifications who call

themselves counsellors, making it much more challenging than, say, the

College of Physicians and Surgeons.

That said, we are working forward, we are moving forward with

urgency on these questions, and we will continue to do so.

ANCHOR ATTRACTIONS PROGRAM

AND COVID-19 RESPONSE

FOR TOURISM INDUSTRY

T. Wat: The Premier announced a major attractions program with great

fanfare, and all we got was more bung­ling from this

Premier.

Major attractions like Barkerville, Point Ellice House, Kilby

Historic Site, Yale Historic Site and Hat Creek Ranch are being

underfunded by the NDP’s two-tier grant system, which is based on a line

the Premier drew on a map. These heritage sites have written to this

government asking for more funding, because it’s not enough.

Will the Premier give these attractions the funding they

need?

Hon. M. Mark: I feel like it’s déjà vu from the opposition.

I guess the first thing I want to say is that that $50 million was

a significant announcement, and I’m proud of that announcement. It was a

call to action from the sector. They said they needed relief for some of

those major attractions, not just in Vancouver, not just in the Lower

Mainland but in other communities across B.C. — the rural and urban —

and the tour operators.

[10:45 a.m.]

We got advice and counsel to industry experts. They gave us the

advice on what to do to provide relief to a sector that we know had been

deeply hit. It’s targeted funding. It was a call to action. It’s a good

announcement. The deadline is on June 7, and we encourage people across

the province to apply. So far, we’ve had 17 completed applications. Two

hundred operators have asked us for applications. To me, that’s success,

Member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond North Centre on a supplemental.

T. Wat: The minister can be proud and be arrogant res­ponding to

questions, but this government does not go and pick and choose which

ones to be qualified.

Historic sites are not the only ones being impacted by the

Premier’s bungling. We are also hearing from disappointed fairs and

community events that have been block­ed from applying to the

anchor attractions program. They are being told that they need to be

open for 60 days in order to qualify for funding. Well, the PNE fair

only runs for two weeks, but the Premier claims it is still getting

funding.

Will the Premier, instead of the minister, explain why some fairs

are eligible for the anchor attractions grant but not others?

Hon. M. Mark: I’m going to go down the path of history. The Tourism Task Force

gave us recommendations. The first thing we did was respond to their

call to action, which was providing small and medium tourism operators

grants, not loans. That was a call to action, and 3,600 operators across

this province have received over $100 million in relief.

The $50 million for the anchor attractions was also an­other

call to action. We also responded to the safety certificate. The member

opposite is coming in here, asking what we are doing. She talks about

arrogance. I’m advocating. I’m advocating on behalf of a sector that we

know has been deeply hit.

Last week we had a restart plan. We announced we’re opening things

up. Things are getting greater, with more people vaccinated. Just this

week we heard that the PNE is opening on June 11. Good news is coming

the more we work together.

L. Doerkson: I would like to walk you down the path of history as

well.

When we asked about anchor attractions in our communities

qualifying for funding, the Minister of Tourism said: “Please encourage

your organizations to apply….” Organizations like the Williams Lake

Stampede, the IPE, Billy Barker Days and the North Thompson Fall Fair

did reach out to this office. Here’s the response that they received.

“As noted in the program guidelines, festivals and events are

ineligible.”

This is another bungled program.

Can the Premier explain why his minister gave the an­chor

attractions in our communities false hope about getting funding that

they so desperately need and tell us how this will be fixed by

Monday?

Hon. M. Mark: The bungling line is getting a bit old, but let’s go back to the

facts.

The facts are that money went out the door for the tourism

operators — grants, not loans. Money has gone out for the anchor

attractions. It is targeted funding to provide relief for a targeted

group. There has been money that has gone out from our government to

help with events and festivals and venues that have been impacted by the

COVID-19 pandemic.

Everyone has been impacted one way or another be­cause of

the pandemic. Gaming funding has gone out. Agriculture funding has gone

out. The B.C. Arts Council has provided funding. The Creative B.C.

sector has pro­vided funding. Amplify B.C. has provided funding.

And $400 million is on the table from the federal government. I’m going

to advocate to make sure that B.C. gets its fair share of money for

events and festivals.

We are going to continue working with the sector. I have a tourism

advisory table providing government advice, and we’re going to continue

doing what we’ve done from day one, and that is to be

responsive.

Mr. Speaker: No electronic devices during question period, please.

[10:50 a.m.]

COVID-19 RELIEF GRANT ELIGIBILITY

FOR ROYAL CANADIAN

LEGION BRANCHES

AND ANAVETS CLUB

B. Banman: Well, it took too long, far too many questions needed to be asked

from the opposition, but the government finally showed our veterans the

respect they deserve. But only as the Premier can, he stumbled and

bungled it again. In announcing that the legions, which the government

had blocked from receiving the circuit breaker funding, would finally

receive support, they managed to forget the 18 Army, Navy and Air Force

Veterans units that operate in B.C.

We scoured the resources. So did the ANAVETS. There were zero

mention of the ANAVETS in the announcement. There were two, Mr. Speaker

— two: the legions and the ANAVETS. These veterans deserve the same

treatment and respect. We asked specifically about the legions and the

ANAVETS funding in this chamber several times.

The question: can the Premier tell us why he chose to only provide

assistance to some veterans?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. As the member will know,

about a month ago we got a letter from the legions about concerns that

they had regarding the circuit breaker, given that they serve alcohol,

serve food — and with the new restrictions, were not able to do that and

support their members.

The Premier had directed us at that time to find solutions. We

worked closely with the federal government, of course — the branch for

veteran affairs, the ministry responsible for veterans affairs. They

notified us that they had provided millions of dollars — close to, I

believe, $20 million — to support all the organizations.

We felt that it was important to support more organizations here

within B.C. The federal government provided $9,000 for every legion

branch, and we provided an additional $10,000 for every legion

branch.

Of course, we’re continuing to have conversations with Veterans

Affairs Canada about how they can play a greater role in supporting all

the organizations here in B.C.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford South, supplemental.

B. Banman: Well, it’s great for the minister to say that, but on May 21, he

got a letter from the Matsqui Unit 315 of the ANAVETS, and the message

was clear to the Premier: “We are very disappointed to be advised that

our unit would not qualify for this relief.”

Furthermore, I have a letter from the Army, Navy and Air Force

Veterans in Canada Command that I will table after question period that

says that they are disheartened that they were not included. They note

that the Premier was….

What does the Premier do with all of this? He disrespects the men

and women of ANAVETS in only providing funding to one of the two groups

— one of the two groups, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier do the right thing? Will this minister do the

right thing and show these veterans the respect they deserve and provide

the ANAVETS with equal funding as the legion?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s an important opportunity for us to remind the member

and everyone in the chamber that we have provided the highest per-capita

support for businesses and people in B.C. That has well positioned us

for a strong economic recovery in B.C.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate that those facts are hard for the opposition to

hear.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Minister will continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: If they don’t want to hear the answer, hon. Speaker, they can

continue to make noise. But the facts are the facts. We received a

letter from the legion, and the Premier had asked us to find ways to

support them. We continue to work with Veterans Affairs Canada, which is

responsible for providing supports for the veterans organizations across

British Columbia.

We saw an opportunity to provide additional supports, and we’re

proud of those supports. We’re going to continue to work with

organizations, whatever sector they come from, to provide as much

support as we can.

I want to thank the member for his question.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

M. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the

Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the second session of

the 42nd parliament, titled

Summary of Activities

2020-21 .

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

[10:55 a.m.]

M. Bernier: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

M. Bernier: I move adoption of the report. In doing so, I would like to make a

few brief comments.

This report describes the work of the Select Standing Committee on

Public Accounts from December 16, 2020, to March 31, 2021. As a

committee, we play an important role in promoting public sector

oversight, through our review and consideration of the reports issued by

the Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia.

The committee’s work included the members’ review of audited

reports that examined information technology asset management within

selected government ministries, as well as oversight of international

education programs. Committee members also reviewed the Auditor

General’s report that summarized COVID-19 pandemic funding allocations,

as well as the financial statement audit coverage plan, which details

the Auditor General’s approach for auditing the financial statements of

government entities over the next three fiscal years.

On behalf of the committee members, I’d like to thank our Auditor

General, Michael Pickup, and his team for the valuable work that they do

in serving the people of British Columbia. I’d also like to thank the

comptroller general and the senior public servants who appeared before

our committee and who continue to deliver government programs and

services for the people of British Columbia.

I’d like to express my appreciation to the Deputy Chair, the

member for Port Moody–Coquitlam, and all the members of this committee

for their dedication and collaboration as we’ve worked through all of

these programs as a committee.

Finally, a sincere thank you goes to the Clerk of our committee,

Jennifer Arril, for all of her support and advice, and Ron Wall, Lisa

Hill, and all of our support staff with the committee who do an

incredible job working with us.

R. Glumac: I echo the words of the member for Peace River South.

I want to thank the Auditor General and his team for the excellent

work they are doing in providing oversight for government services and

programs. I really appreciate the great support that we’re receiving

from the staff in supporting the committee. I look forward to continuing

this collaborative work that we’re undertaking with all the members from

all sides of the House.

I look forward to the good work ahead.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. L. Beare: I have the honour to present the annual report of the chief records

officer.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the report under the COVID-19

Related Measures Act.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call for third reading of Bill 4 in this chamber. In the Douglas Fir

Room, I will be calling the continued estimates for the Ministry of Mental

Health and Addictions. In

Section C, the Birch Room, I’ll be calling the

Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT,

Bill 4, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2021, read a third time

and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee stage on Bill 6,

Accessible British Columbia Act.

[11:00 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — ACCESSIBLE

BRITISH COLUMBIA

ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 6;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:02 a.m.

On clause 13.

The Chair: Any comments, Minister of Social Development and Poverty

Reduction?

Hon. N. Simons: I’m really pleased to be able to continue with the debate in

committee stage, here, on Bill 6. I look forward to the questions from

my colleagues in the House.

S. Cadieux: Good morning, Minister. Looking at clause 13, the first thing that

stuck out to me: “The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make

regulations respecting the identification, removal or prevention of

barriers.” Can the minister explain why, in this case, the drafters have

chosen the word “may” versus “must”?

Hon. N. Simons: To the member: it’s apparently drafting convention to use language

like this when referring to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister. I’m sure that doesn’t provide a ton of

comfort to those waiting for the ultimate changes that will come as a

result of this act, as we hope. Of course, the language,

“may….”

[11:05 a.m.]

I understand the prerogative always rests with the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. However, in this circumstance, certainly

given that the whole act is nothing without

regulations, it’s a bit confusing for those

reading the act. Thankfully the minister is, I believe, willing to

commit that there will indeed be some regulations coming from the

act.

This government has embedded gender-based analysis into its work.

Can the minister discuss, as it relates to standards, how gender-based

analysis will be applied?

Hon. N. Simons: I thank the member for the question.

I recognize that in the response to the previous question, the

member tried her best to seek comfort with the language as it refers to

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I know legislative drafting language

is not always designed to be comforting or, in fact, completely

understandable to everyone. But I do think — and I respect the fact —

that sometimes this process provides an opportunity for explaining or

clarifying. It gives me a good opportunity to do that.

With respect to the intersectional lens that we’ve committed to in

this legislation, I think the legislation itself builds in those

strengths. In addition, our government has an expectation and, in fact,

a requirement that every ministry proposal be analyzed through

gender-based analysis as well. I think that the two sections,

section 2

and

section 17 in particular, address that particular issue. Our

government does promote that in everything that we do.

S. Cadieux: Here we’re talking about the standards and the types of

regulations we make under different areas be­ing developed. Can

the minister explain…?

[11:10 a.m.]

Has government contemplated adopting existing standards of other

provinces, jurisdictions or the federal standards agency, which have

been developed with the Accessible Canada Act and that have already put

a lot of work into standards around the same issue or same sections, the

they too are looking to start with and embrace these types of policies

within the federal government, within a government proper.

Why has government decided here to start from scratch, or have

they, indeed? And is there a plan to adopt existing standards to align

the work and align what people can expect across

jurisdictions?

Hon. N. Simons: I’m glad that the member was holding out some hope that, in fact,

we could take advantage of the work that’s been done in other

jurisdictions. Indeed, we do maintain the ability to incorporate

standards, because we’re also interested in a type of harmonization and

consistency. That would be helpful for everyone’s understanding and, I

think, leads to better outcomes as well.

Yes, indeed, we do have that ability, pointing out, as well, at

the same time, that we do have high standards and the expectations of

the standards that we create here for British Columbians here. But yes,

indeed. The answer is yes.

S. Cadieux: Thank you to the minister. I’m glad to hear that, because,

certainly, many of the federal standards that have been developed and

are being developed are significantly stronger than what exists in

British Columbia today. For example, [audio interrupted] the built

environment through the CSA are stronger than what currently exists

largely in British Columbia. Work has gone on there at a faster pace, I

guess, than provincially looking at updating old laws.

Hopefully, we can look to the committee and the minister to try to

align as much as possible with federal standards that have already been

developed and also to speed things up.

We also know there won’t be perfection in many cases. We will not

satisfy everyone’s personal perspective. We don’t want this process to

be unnecessarily cumbersome or long. We know we’ll have to review and

revise, I would expect on a fairly regular basis, many of the standards

as we learn from experience — from the experience of people with

disabilities and people and institutions that are subject to the act, as

they learn as well. As things change, we will likely need to do that as

well. I’m hopeful that the minister and the committee will be alive to

that.

[11:15 a.m.]

One of those things, for example, that we know is that technology

is changing all the time. We are using it more in all aspects of our

lives. We’re using it more now in this aspect of our lives and our work,

and it has both benefits and challenges.

But one of the things clause 13…. The list does not include

technology. I will anticipate that the minister will tell me this is not

meant to be an exhaustive list. However, it seems that technology has

been left out. Can the minister explain how or where technology will be

expressly included?

Hon. N. Simons: I just got a description of some of the discussions that took

place around this issue, and it was a conscious decision to ensure that

everyone understands that technology could be embedded in each one of

these. It could be embedded in information, communications,

transportation or health, and by setting it as a stand-alone, it could

imply that it wasn’t part of the other areas.

We made it clear that technology is part of all areas of society,

in fact — employment, delivery of services, the built environment,

information, etc. Technology is embedded in those, so we did not deem it

necessary to make it separate on the list.

S. Cadieux: That’s clarified. Agreed. It does definitely fall within those

things to think…. Again, we’re just trying to make sure we ask the

questions that are necessary to ensure that nothing gets missed. To have

the minister on the record in lieu of many of these things being

codified in the act does provide a level of comfort.

I guess my next question…. They obviously all somewhat relate. How

will the standards for the various pieces — built environment,

employment, delivery of services, all of these pieces — relate to other

standards across government, like the building code, like education

policy for students with special needs?

The reason I ask this is because we have seen that in Ontario, for

example, with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, there are standards

built environment that do not mesh with their building code. So builders

are left in a difficult situation. They can build to the standard, or

they can build to the code. I anticipate we may have similar challenges

arise.

[11:20 a.m.]

How will we ensure through this that those kinds of is­sues

Hon. N. Simons: I just want to share with the member that I appreciate these

questions. I think that it is fundamentally an important part of this

process that I go on the record with answers to the questions, for the

benefit of the members and for the benefit of the public, who are

hopeful and who are not always convinced that government will be as fast

as they would like and not always sure that government has the same

particular interests as they may have.

So this question-and-answer process, I hope, alleviates concerns

that some may have. Yes, this is obviously going to be an issue that

will come up in terms of standards maybe conflicting or not coinciding

or having different measurements or what have you — with other codes,

with other standards, with other ministerial expectations, I suppose. So

we’re conscious of that, obviously, as a part of this

process.

I would point to a couple of sections that particularly refer to

the communications that need to occur in the de­velopment of the

standards. I refer to different sections that we’ll get to.

Section 16 requires consultation between ministries to ensure

there aren’t those kinds of conflicts that the member rightfully points

out as, potentially, an issue. As well, clause 18 also refers to the

consideration of other relevant laws in the province. Not warning, but

the foreshadowing of the potential issues that might come up between

different codes or different jurisdictions even…. We will seek to ensure

that they are harmonized, one with the other.

S. Cadieux: Yeah. I think that that, in and of itself, is part of the

challenge.

[11:25 a.m.]

We know that many of the standards that exist today in legislation

or in bylaws in municipalities don’t provide access. So those will be

consulted, but if that means they win in the circumstance, then we

aren’t making progress. I would hope that this act will precede this in

those cases.

Hon. N. Simons: I just want to ask the member to rephrase the question. I’m not

sure I heard it correctly. I was thinking that the member was asking for

a commitment of some kind. I didn’t quite get the full…. I didn’t want

to commit to something I didn’t hear her say.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister. Fair enough.

We know that the standards that exist today, for example in the

building code, don’t provide the level of access that, likely, the

committee would seek to ensure for the built environment. Consulting

with the ministry responsible for the building code, only to find out,

“Thank you very much, but we’re not changing the building code,” would

is not able to present a standard that is strong enough or a situation

where they present a standard that then is in conflict with the building

code.

Can the minister confirm that this act and the greater standard of

access will win when there is a conflict?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. N. Simons: I want to not remind but just start by saying that really, this

barriers. I hope that it is the catalyst for the change that happens,

not just in the standards that we develop but in the broader community

as well.

Nothing precludes organizations to start with their processes. At

the same time, we want to make sure that…. Obviously, a part of the

legislative drafting process is that we not create conflict between

legislation and regulations. The way we’ve formalized the process of

standards development should prevent such situations from occurring.

Ultimately, if what we discover in our work could result in better laws

or better standards in other areas, then good. We’ll be the catalyst for

change that we would like to be.

S. Cadieux: I’ve got some more on that, but I think we’ll leave it for another

section. If we could move, please, to clause 14.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

subject to the direction of the minister. Their work is subject to the

direction of the minister. The minister has said that it will be up to

the committee as to which standards, regulations or sections they want

to approach first.

[11:35 a.m.]

However, it will be up to the minister to direct the committee to

start work on a standard. It says in clause 14: “If the minister

directs….” What will be the first standard requested by the minister,

and why?

Hon. N. Simons: Indeed, the minister does make the decision. That is correct. I’m

such a collaborative individual, as the member opposite knows, that it’s

hard for me to refuse the advice of those entrusted with providing me

that good advice. But in fact the provincial advisory committee will be

the ones that will make the recommendations, will put forward the case

for the establishment of this area or that area.

I would say to the member that I would welcome her input on the

decision. I look forward to that.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister. I do appreciate the in­tent of the

minister on this. I guess, for clarity, if the committee decided to

embark on more than one area of work at once, will the minister support

that effort?

Hon. N. Simons: The answer is yes.

S. Cadieux: I would be happy to move to clause 16.

Clauses 14 and 15 approved.

On clause 16.

[11:40 a.m.]

S. Cadieux: In this

section on consultations, of course this is where the meat

and the difficulty and the time…. I think this will be the most

time-consuming part of the process of developing standards. At least,

certainly it has proved to be in other jurisdictions. This is where we

see the competing needs and challenges come up, the competing

priorities. Certainly there are a lot of groups to consult with in order

to do this properly. Understandably, this is difficult.

Now, if the committee and/or the technical committees that might

be appointed to support this work develop a standard that is in

opposition to recommendations or comments by the community, by the

disability community, by advocates….

For example, the government did a consultation before they removed

disabled parking from the building code, but they didn’t take the advice

of the disability community and the advocates that contributed to that

discussion. They took the advice only of the subject matter experts

within the ministry. That, understandably, was best for government,

perhaps. It is not best for outcomes for people with disabilities. We’re

seeing that play out across the province.

If standards are developed in opposition to the recommendations of

the community, how will that be both communicated to the public and

defended by the minister?

Hon. N. Simons: Thanks for the question. In fact, we’re going to get to

section

20, which deals with that. I don’t know how much time we’re going to

have.

[11:45 a.m.]

and submitted under

section

Section 20(

b) says: “after making any

considers necessary or advisable, recommend to the Lieutenant Governor

in Council that a regulation based on that standard be

enacted….”

So there’s a lot of opportunity. We know we want to make this,

obviously, as collaborative and as consensus-based as possible. But I

can’t ever rule out the possibility that there will be conflicts of

opinion, because that happens. There are different ways of approaching

this or that. But the transparency is also built into the

act.

S. Cadieux: How long does the minister anticipate the consultation process

will take on each standard? I understand there might be differences

depending on the standards and depending on what’s being worked on.

However, is there sort of a ballpark, an anticipated timeline for that

process, based on the experience, for example, in other jurisdictions to

date?

Hon. N. Simons: I misunderstood the question, but it was clarified to me in my

discussion.

What other jurisdictions did was limit the amount of public

consultation time. I think it varied between 40 and 60 days for public

input. But our perspective and our ap­proach is to ensure that we

had as much consultation as necessary for the particular standard. That

time frame might, in fact, have to be longer than that, depending on

what’s already occurred in terms of development of standard, what other

jurisdictions we’ll be looking at in terms of modelling or what have

you.

That’s the reason we didn’t put in specific timelines like that,

simply because of not being entirely sure of the length of time it would

take to create that standard.

Noting the time, I move that the committee rise and report

progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:50 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 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. N. Simons moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MENTAL HEALTH

AND ADDICTIONS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Leonard in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:10 a.m.

On Vote 37: ministry operations, $12,735,000

(continued).

Hon. S. Malcolmson: When we were called to the vote yesterday, I was just about to

answer a question from the opposition on care for seniors above and

beyond…. What kinds of mental health and addictions support services are

available to all British Columbians of any age? So I’m going to run

through a list just to give people an idea of, regionally, what sorts of

specialized services are particularly aimed towards seniors.

I also note…. I believe I gave in my answer at the very end of the

day yesterday that we do recognize that the online services that have

been bumped out, in particular, through the COVID-19 pandemic, when

physical distancing requirements meant people couldn’t necessarily get

services in person, don’t work for everybody.

That’s why we’re particularly pleased to have partnered with the

United Way and other service providers on the 211 phone-line service and

do encourage any British Columbian, any age…. So 211 is a great way to

navigate government services. We have particularly focused it on older

people, some of whom do not have computers or work online.

One service that’s been particularly important to stand up in

recent years — this a long-standing relationship — is with the Alzheimer

Society of British Columbia. The previous government and this government

have carried on that funding relationship with the Provincial Health

Services Authority, PHSA.

The Alzheimer Society operates the First Link program, which is a

referral to help newly diagnosed people with dementia to get the help

that they need as soon as possible. That’s also a very important service

provision for the families who are working in support of those

seniors.

The Interior Health Authority. Their particular focus program in

this area, for seniors mental health and substance use services, offers

specialized assessments, treatment, case management, community support

as well as caregiver support. This health authority operates 20

psychogeriatric-care beds.

The Fraser Health Authority provides mental health and substance

use services to seniors through its older adult community mental health

program. That includes consultation, assessment, psychiatric treatment

and support. Fraser Health operates 97 psychogeriatric-care

beds.

The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority has an interdisciplinary

outreach team, the geriatric psychiatric outreach team, treating older

adults with psychiatric problems who are living in community. This team

collaborates with acute and community resources in the delivery of

services that include initial assessment with treatment recommendations,

case management, liaison with family doctors and other specialists,

second medical opinion, neuropsychological evaluation, follow-up

therapy, recommendations for community services, family education and

support. VCHA operates 51 psychogeriatric-care beds.

The Vancouver Island Health Authority supports seniors in this

area through seniors outpatient clinics. They have teams that are made

up of geriatric and psychiatry specialists who provide assessments and

recommend treat­ment plans. These seniors outreach clinics also

support family physicians and community health care providers when a

senior needs further assessment and treatment. VIHA operates 58

psychogeriatric-care beds.

[11:15 a.m.]

Then to finish, the Northern Health Authority. Its specialized

services for seniors include assessment and consultative services for

seniors with emergent or chro­nic mental health issues being

complicated by aging, dementia or substance use issues; consultation to

outlying areas regarding case management and treatment planning;

in­terprofessional teams with nursing, clinicians, psychiatry and

GPs on sessions; education servicing the elderly population; and then,

finally, operating 14 psychogeriatric-care beds.

T. Halford: Thank you to the minister for the answer. Just moving to a

different topic, can the minister tell me the last time she spoke to

Carrier-Sekani Family Services about their proposed 60-bed facility? The

question is: when has the minister herself last spoken to Carrier-Sekani

Family Services about their proposed beds?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: My memory of my last conversation with the Carrier-Sekani Chief

was March 19, as a direct conversation. It was a personal call between

me and her. If that date turns out not to be exactly right, then I can

certainly update that.

T. Halford: Can the minister tell us the details of that conversation she had

with the Chief? I assume it would be about the proposed 60-bed

facility.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I don’t have my notes of what happened in that exact conversation.

This is my memory. Again, I’m not meaning to withhold anything here at

all.

[11:20 a.m.]

This conversation was a follow-up to our meeting of March 9, where

we talked in more detail. My follow-up, as I recall, on March 19, was to

reiterate our government’s financial commitment to the project through

the First Nations Health Authority. That’s a matter of record that the

province of B.C. has put $20 million through the First Nations Health

Authority.

Then First Nations Health Authority, as do other health

authorities, determines where the need is the greatest, and it is our

expectation that the Carrier-Sekani Family Services project is one of

those projects that the First Nations Health Authority is

funding.

We were following up on what was possible to happen in the wake of

the Agricultural Land Commission having denied the non-farm-use

application put forward by Carrier-Sekani Family Services. My

conversation on March 19 with the Chief was to convey my confidence that

there was work happening through Agriculture and other ministries to

find a new way to apply to the ALC.

Oh, and another update at that time was that we had just got

confirmation through the regional district that it was, itself, willing

to advance the application to the ALC for an exclusion. That was the

advice that we’ve had — that that may be a better way to have the use be

able to carry out as Carrier-Sekani Family Services wished on the site,

still recognizing and respecting the independence of the Agricultural

Land Commission. That call was intended to both convey to the Chief our

continued support for the project and also my confidence that, with a

follow-up application to the ALC, we had a better chance of

success.

Maybe a final piece, which is still ongoing work of our

government, is that the experience of Carrier-Sekani Family Services had

indicated that, as a government, we could do a better job of

anticipating challenges in the process of navigating local government,

Agricultural Land Commission, recognizing we very much want to see this

service delivered. And I was going to continue to be a champion at a

process level for making sure that future applications by other First

Nations governments didn’t run into the same confusing sets of approvals

that had happened here.

T. Halford: Thank you to the minister for the answer. Just to clarify, when

the minister spoke to the Chief post the outcome from the ALC…. I think

the minister was just quoted saying that she expressed — she didn’t use

the word “confidence,” so I don’t want to say that — optimism that

another application might be successful.

I just want to be very careful because, obviously, we’ve canvassed

this in question period, and the minister and the Premier have both

spoken about the independence of the ALC in terms of managing

expectations for this very important facility.

Is it safe to say that the minister is confident of a successful

application from the ALC? It seems that that’s what she’s conveyed to

the Chief. If so, is she able to put that on the record

today?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thanks to the member for giving me an opportunity to clarify,

because this is, as he understands…. We have two imperatives at the same

time. I certainly restated to Chief Corrina Leween the independence of

the Agricultural Land Commission and also acknowledgment that if we had

done, as a government…. Where in government should this fit to do better

advanced planning and help with advice on the best way to

apply?

[11:25 a.m.]

I know a lot of people in British Columbia are frustrated by the

process leading up to an application to the Agricultural Land

Commission. So in this case, the advice that we got was that, from the

outset, if the application had been for an exclusion from the ALR, that

might have had a better prospect of success. Instead, Carrier-Sekani

Family Services had applied for a non-farm use.

Intuitively, for me — the Chair well knows from both of us, our

time in local government on Vancouver Island — I would have myself

thought a non-farm use was an easier hurdle to overcome than an

exclusion application. In any case, for this part of the province and

for more expert advice, it turned out, after the fact, that if we had

done the preapplication work in a more coordinated way, then we might

have got the applicant on a more direct path.

That’s a very long way of saying, to the member’s question, yes,

the Agricultural Land Commission remains in­dependent. At the same

time, what I conveyed to the Chief is that I took the responsibility on

behalf of the government for making sure that applicants get the most

helpful advice up front.

It may be that, for our ministry, being such strong

ad­vocates for First Nations building, designing and operating

healing centres and addiction treatment centres, as in this case…. We’re

funding $20 million toward the rebuild and another $29 million for

Indigenous-led addiction healing and mental health supports and then, in

this budget that we are debating here today, an additional $14 million

for other Indigenous-led solutions to the overdose crisis and the mental

health crisis that’s upon us.

We are re-examining how we best support those projects to make it

easiest on the applicants on moving through the approvals

process.

T. Halford: Thank you to the minister. Can the minister confirm if she, or her

staff in the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, had any

conversations with either the Minister of Agriculture or the Ministry of

Agriculture at a deputy or staff level regarding this potential

application before it was denied?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I can confirm to the member’s question that there were no

conversations between ministries before the Agricultural Land

Commission’s decision. That’s part of the problem that I was

identifying.

T. Halford: I just find it a little bit troubling that on an application as

important as this, when we’re talking about treatment specifically for

First Nations, supported by First Nations, in an area which they

support…. And I understand. We saw the numbers and how alarming they

are, specifically when dealing with First Nations and overdose and

addictions and mental health.

I would think and I would hope that the ministers sitting together

at a cabinet table would have been able to have these conversations

prior, on such an important issue. The fact that that has somewhat

failed to happen — I find that quite alarming, because here we sit today

with a delay. I know my colleague is upstairs canvassing the Minister of

Agriculture on the same issue, I believe, today.

[11:30 a.m.]

I find it quite alarming that we are in a situation where these

ministers have failed to communicate and ministries have failed to

communicate, and it has resulted now in a last-minute scramble to help

this important First Nation get such an important treatment centre off

the ground. I just would like the minister’s comments on

that.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I agree with the member’s characterization. We have learned from

what Carrier-Sekani Family Services has told us about their experience,

which is why after the Agricultural Land Commission denied the

application, we started working together at a multiministry level and

are working, not on this application alone, but on a process to be able

to avoid further delays like this.

The member is quite right. The disproportionate impact on

Indigenous People of the overdose crisis, the disproportionate impact

particularly in the north, the longstanding lack of services in remote

areas…. Our commitment as a government to work with First Nations

leadership, Indigenous leadership to design mental health and

addictions, substance use supports for and by Indigenous People requires

us to work at a multiministry level. That is work that began as soon as

I had the meeting with the Chief on March 9.

T. Halford: Does the minister have any plan, communication…? I believe the

last time — the date may fluctuate, and I take that at the minister’s

word — they communicated was March 19. Does the minister have anything

scheduled specifically with the Carrier-Sekani Family Services in the

future in calendar to discuss the treatment centre?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Our ministry staff have been continually engaged with all of the

relevant ministries, First Nations Health Authority, Carrier-Sekani

Family Services as the service provider and the federal government. I

have still on my to-do list the update that I committed to give to Chief

Leween.

I committed to talking with Indigenous Services Minister, federal

minister, Marc Miller, encouraging the federal government to come into

funding partnership under the terms of our memorandum of understanding

around rebuilding these healing centres and building two additional

healing centres. The federal government isn’t yet a funding partner in

these projects.

[11:35 a.m.]

I’ve met with the minister, the federal minister, and I had

committed to update Chief Leween on that. That’s still something that I

intend to do, and we will have further meetings ahead of us, I imagine,

after the ALC has made its decision.

T. Halford: Is the minister or the ministry aware of any outstanding requests

by any member of the Carrier-Sekani Family Services to meet directly or

have a conversation directly with the minister or ministry staff post

their March 19 conversation?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: We have a copy of a letter that was written to the Premier. April

9, I believe, is the date. So that would follow the last verbal

conversation that the member cites that I had with the Chief. Scanning

it quickly, I didn’t see a meeting request in that, but our ministry has

absolutely, at a staff level, the most senior staff level, been

continually engaged with Carrier-Sekani Family Services and First

Nations Health Authority about doing everything we can to make sure that

this project advances.

As soon as we have some news through the ALC, then I would love to

meet with the Chief again. I will, regardless of whether she seeks it or

not. I’ll certainly look forward to sitting down with her and her team

once we have the go-ahead from the ALC.

T. Halford: Just to clarify the minister’s comments. Is the reason the

minister — and I fully respect it — is waiting for the ALC decision…? I

get that that is completely out of cabinet’s hands for that decision. Is

the reason the minister is waiting to have further conversations to

respect the independence of the ALC and the process they’re going

through right now?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I guess the way I would say it is I haven’t initiated a meeting

with the Chief since our March 9 meeting, because I don’t have any new

news to deliver, but again, our ministry staff have been continuing to

connect and coordinate well.

[11:40 a.m.]

The Chief and I have each other’s cell phone number, so maybe this

is a reminder just to pick up the phone informally and keep in touch. I

certainly enjoyed our last conversation. I hope to have some good news

to deliver her, whether that’s on the federal funding front or on the

ALC decision front. That would be, to me, an indicator of a time to have

a next meeting at a political level.

T. Halford: I just want to be very, very clear here in my next line of

questioning for the minister in terms of that communication with members

that are supporting this important treatment centre. Does the minister

know — and we can continue to canvass this, I think, post-lunch — or has

she been communicated by her conversations with the chief or other

members how long this delay will impact the timelines for the completion

of this important centre?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The denial by the Agricultural Land Commission, which I believe

was the end of February or first week of March, certainly is a setback

on the timeline. It may be a setback of an order of two months. This

does depend what the Agricultural Land Commission decides next. I can

say to the member, in response to his question, that our ministry staff

have continued to work to remove other barriers — to advocate for more

funding from the federal level, for example. This is a really large

project, a 60-bed facility.

There are other hurdles beyond just the ALC approval, and we are

determined, as supporters of the project and investors in the project,

to see it advance.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise and report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned until one o’clock this

afternoon.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND

FISHERIES

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); D. Coulter in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:08 a.m.

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $81,636,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. L. Popham: Yes. Thank you, Chair. I’ll just keep it brief, because I know

we’re only allotted a certain amount of hours for this very important

ministry. I always look forward to the interactions with the opposition

— with their questions that they’re bringing forward around the

budget.

I just would like to recognize that I have a huge support team

that is helping me through the next two days as we look at the budget.

My deputy minister, Tom Ethier, is here with me in the room.

I also have, connected by teleconference, Arif Lalani, my

assistant deputy minister; Jennifer McGuire, assistant deputy minister.

I have Wes Boyd, my assistant deputy minister of corporate services,

natural resource sector. I also have Kim Grout, the CEO of the

Agricultural Land Commission.

I also have a lot of support staff within my minister’s office,

including my senior advisor, Sam Godfrey.

[11:10 a.m.]

I just would like to start out by saying that the last year has

really brought a spotlight onto food security in British Columbia. I’d

like to thank the farmers, the fishers, the food producers, the

consumers, the health authorities, the post-secondary institutions and

all the incredible volunteers around the province that all brought food

security to a heightened level of awareness.

I believe we’re in very good shape in British Columbia as we

continue to build a strong domestic sector which will support our

international trade as soon as we’re able to recover fully from the

pandemic. We’ve seen incredible examples of resilience, and I couldn’t

be more proud to be the Minister of Agriculture, Food and

Fisheries.

I’m going to leave it at that. I know that the opposition has a

lot of questions waiting for us.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Abbotsford West.

Would you like to make opening remarks?

M. de Jong: No, except to thank the minister and the very capable staff and

officials that will be with her to assist us through this and to thank

my colleague the critic and the member for Delta South for the

opportunity to impose myself in the proceedings. For reasons that the

minister has already alluded to, I’ll get right to it.

I wanted to explore a little bit about the Agricultural Land

Commission, its operations, its mandate and the application of that

mandate. Maybe I’ll start there and ask the minister to confirm…. When

seeking to discern the legal mandate within which the Agricultural Land

Commission must operate and must abide by, am I correct when I point

myself and others to

section 6 of the Agricultural Land Commission

Act?

Hon. L. Popham: The entire act sets out the authority for the Agricultural Land

Commission.

M. de Jong: I certainly recognize that the act must be considered as a whole.

When we, though…. When the minister has, in the past, spoken about the

specific mandate that the commission is charged with

applying….

[11:15 a.m.]

In fact, when the commission itself renders decisions and speaks

to the legal considerations that it must bring to bear in rendering

decisions, it refers to

section 6. What I’m merely asking the minister

to confirm is that, for the purpose of determining the mandate that the

ALC is charged with applying — it does so, of course, taking into

account all of the powers, authorities and procedures set out in the

act, in its entirety — we look to

section 6. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Popham: From what we understand the question to be, the answer would be

yes.

M. de Jong: I don’t know if the minister and the team have

section 6 available

to them. I have an extra copy. If that’s helpful, I’m happy to provide

it to the minister.

What I’d like to, in a general way…. The minister will appreciate

that members are fairly regularly confronted by constituents who either

own land or wish to own land within the ALR and have ideas about what

they would like to do with that land. Applications are filed and

brought. It strikes me that it would be useful, insofar as it does

represent a significant portion of the minister’s ministerial

responsibility, to just have the benefit of her views on the nature of

that purpose, mandate — if we can use those words.

I’m not going to read this

section into the record, but at the

outset, of course, the purposes of the commission are “(

a) to preserve

the agricultural land reserve; (

b) to en­courage farming….” If we

go down to sub (2), “The commission, to fulfill its purposes under

subsection (1), must give priority to protecting and enhancing all of

the following in exercising its powers and performing its duties under

this Act…(

b) the use of the agricultural land reserve for farm

use.”

It strikes me that what the act is intending to do is to create

that singular priority, not a ranking. It defines definitively that the

commission “must” — the word, I expect, was purposeful — give priority

to protecting the use of the agricultural land for farm use. In the

day-to-day workings of the commission, that is a significant legislative

direction. I won’t use the word “constraint” — although some people

would use that word — but that is a significant, purposeful and pointed

legislative direction. Are those fair comments on my part?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I think the answer is yes. The member did ask for my views on it,

and I stand behind that legislation.

M. de Jong: The reason I ask is…. Again, the minister will know, both from her

time as minister and, in advance of that, as a long-standing member of

the Legislative Assembly, that members are confronted by constituents

and agencies that bring applications — I am now speaking purely in the

general sense — where, for example, an argument is made that the need in

a community for more industrial lands outweighs the impact that an

exclusion to facilitate that objective…. That need outweighs the impact

that might be had on agricultural lands. I have heard that. I think the

minister has heard that.

What I say to people is that my reading and understanding of the

act is that, unfortunately from their perspective, that is not a

consideration — that the ALC is obliged to apply itself to and apply

itself in a way that is consistent with

section 6, which establishes, as

its priority, the protection of farmland.

Again, is that a reasonably fair statement on my part?

Hon. L. Popham: The member is correct. The Agricultural Land Commission is guided

section 6. We do have a process that’s in place that could see an

application, for example, put forward for an exclusion from the

agricultural land reserve. But yes,

section 6 guides them.

M. de Jong: Right. My only point in pursuing this short line of questioning is

to establish…. I appreciate, from the minister, her agreement. It’s not

available to the ALC, or it would be beyond their legislative capacity

or authority, to engage in a balancing of societal considerations along

the sort of what I just described — that is, the relative value of more

industrial land outweighing the impact on agricultural land or the

societal value of building a new arena on a piece of agricultural

property, as laudable an objective as that might be.

[11:25 a.m.]

The ALC, pursuant to

section 6, is obliged as a priority to assess

and make its decisions based on its priority of protecting agricultural

land. That leads, necessarily, to decisions that sometimes frustrate

people, but that is the mandate that the ALC has.

Hon. L. Popham: That’s correct.

M. de Jong: I guess the final…. Well, not the final but the…. What I wanted to

confirm with the minister is….

We’ve had this brief discussion about the ALC mandate and purpose

as they exist in

section 6 today. The minister will agree that hasn’t

always been the case. What we see before us today is the product of at

least two specific amendments that she, as minister, has brought before

the House, had passed and are now incorporated into the act.

Prior to those amendments…. Again, maybe it’s helpful if I pass….

Under the now repealed former

section 4.3, the ALC did have some broader

discretionary authority relating to considerations for economic,

cultural and social values. Those don’t exist today. They did exist

previously. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Popham: We have strengthened the protections around the agricultural land

reserve with our legislation. That’s something that our government is

very proud of.

Before we get to the next question, I’m just wondering, Chair, if

we’re debating the ALC act or we’re talking about budget

estimates.

M. de Jong: As I indicated at the outset, the operation of the Agricultural

Land Commission composes a significant part of the budget. Beginning by

understanding what its mandate is, I would suggest, is an entirely

appropriate function of this committee.

I am going to move on to more specific…. I just wanted to be

clear…. The minister has offered her views to the committee about the

steps that the government has taken. I merely want to establish, on the

record, that prior to the amendments introduced by the minister and her

government, the commission, under…. The now repealed provision of the

act allowed for it, in rendering decisions to preserve agricultural

land, to take into account economic and cultural and social values. That

is no longer the case. That’s all I’m trying to establish.

Hon. L. Popham: The ALC still has that discretion.

M. de Jong: Where would that exist in the act?

Hon. L. Popham: The answer is that the ALC does have discretion. They look at each

application individually, and they are able to use their discretion to

decide whether or not that’s an appropriate way to go.

[11:30 a.m.]

That being said, the Agricultural Land Commission, as the member

knows, is independent. They work within the legislation that they have.

Built into that is discretion for them to look at applications

individually.

M. de Jong: Is that discretion limitless?

Hon. L. Popham: They are guided by the legislation. The legislation is the law.

Within that, they have discretion when they look at individual

applications. It’s built in. They have that discretion, because they

have a commission that reviews applications.

They, of course, have a priority to protect agricultural land, to

encourage farming. When an application comes forward that has other

considerations to be had, they have the discretion to look at

that.

M. de Jong: I am a bit confused now. Did the discretion…? Well, let me ask

this. Did the amendments and changes that the minister has brought to

the act change in any way the discretion that the ALC has in rendering

decisions pursuant to the act?

Hon. L. Popham: I think I’ve answered the question. I have said that they have

legislation, and they have regulations that they’re guided

by.

When an application comes in, their first priority is to look at

the agricultural land base to protect that land, to encourage farming,

to make sure that there’s continuity in the agricultural landscape. When

an application comes in, for example, for an exclusion application, a

non-agricultural use, they do have the discretion to look at what the

community needs are. And they’ve exercised that in the past under the

prior government and under our government.

M. de Jong: Look, I’m not trying to be quarrelsome here. The minister has

indicated today and in the past that she and her government introduced

changes that at one time, she described as “fundamental changes” to the

purpose and mandate of the ALC.

I’m asking simply for her to confirm today that the considerations

and the mandate and the purpose that guide the ALC’s conduct today are

different than it was four years ago. I pointed to what I think were

pretty straightforward indications of why an entire

section was

eliminated that explicitly provided the ALC with the authority to take

certain things into account — economic, cultural and social values.

Those no longer exist in the act.

So the question to the minister is…. Either the changes that she

introduced had an impact or didn’t. She just, moments ago, tried to say

that nothing has changed. They either had an impact and changed

something, or they didn’t. And if they did change something, what is

that?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I think the answer that I should give the member is that there

were changes that happened under our government, under his government.

There were two different zones in the agricultural land reserve. I think

what he’s referring to were regulations that pertained specifically to

zone 2.

We know that we strengthened the agricultural land reserve and

made sure that agricultural land protections and encouraging farming are

more of a priority than they were in the past. We know that, because we

just look at the net change in the number of hectares that have been

removed from the agricultural land reserve under our leadership and

under the former government.

So I know that those changes have strengthened it, but that being

said, the Agricultural Land Commission continues to have discretion when

looking at individual applications. Those are the facts.

M. de Jong: I am not here to quarrel with the minister’s views or commitment

to the value of the changes that she and her government have advanced

and sponsored. I am merely trying to confirm that there have been

changes. With the greatest respect to the minister, she talked about

regulations. The

section of the act that she repealed — 4.3 — was not a

regulation. It was connected directly to

section 6, and I would

characterize, it stipulated an expanded level of considerations. It

enunciated in clear form.

Now, I presume the minister disagreed with that. That’s why she

repealed it, and that’s fine. I mean, I understand that. But let us not

stand here and go through the charade of suggesting that the repeal of

section 4.3 didn’t impact the mandate of the commission. I thought

that’s why the government did it, and I’m merely asking the minister to

confirm on the record that that is so and what she believes the

consequence of that repeal was and is going forward.

Hon. L. Popham: I’m definitely not trying to be argumentative with the member, but

I think it’s pretty clear that the previous government and our

government had different values when it came to the agricultural land

reserve.

We believe wholeheartedly that the agricultural land should be

protected and be used for agriculture. That doesn’t always work in some

circumstances, and there are reasons why there’s a process to exclude

agricultural land or have applications approved where farming is not

happening. It’s a non-agricultural use. We understand that. It’s a

reasonable approach.

The previous government put in two different zones. What we had

was two different types of farmers who are allowed to do two different

types of things. We created one zone to make sure that agricultural land

protection and encouraging farming was the priority right across the

province.

Not every area of the province is the same. I heard that over and

over again. There had to be local government participation when it came

to input for certain applications. We get it. There are different areas

of the province that have vast amounts of land. Then there are parts of

the province that have small amounts of agricultural land reserve

parcels.

[11:40 a.m.]

We made one zone. We made sure that protecting agriculture was a

priority, that encouraging agriculture was a priority, but also, we gave

a reasonable approach: that the Agricultural Land Commission, with their

panel, had the discretion to look individually at applications. That’s

what they do. Sometimes applications are approved that don’t have

anything to do with agriculture. That’s reasonable.

M. de Jong: It was always my impression — and it has been reinforced by what

the minister has said today — that part of what motivated the minister

and the government to introduce the amendments she did was to make it

more difficult to remove land from the ALR. Is that a fair assumption on

my part?

Hon. L. Popham: I don’t think it is reasonable. I think what we did was we made

sure that agriculture was a priority.

M. de Jong: I’d like to ask the minister now about a particular matter that

has been the subject of some public commentary and debate within the

Legislative Assembly. That is the application that was brought — I’ll

give the number; application 61143 — by Carrier-Sekani Family Services,

regarding the establishment of a treatment facility in their traditional

territory. Is the minister familiar with that application?

Hon. L. Popham: I am aware of the application. It was put forward through the

regional district, and it is with the commission right now.

The Chair: Member, just before I recognize you, maybe you can get one

last question in, and the minister can answer it after

lunch.

M. de Jong: Well, maybe rather than even a question, then, I will alert the

minister and her staff to the fact that I have some detailed questions

around that whole exercise.

Where I want to begin is with the original application. When the

minister said that there’s an application before the commission, I think

that is a subsequent application. When I related the application number

61143, that was an original application that, I take it, has now given

birth to a subsequent application. When we resume proceedings after the

break, we can pick it up there.

Hon. L. Popham: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask for leave

to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.