Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, November 16, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 130

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Access to Services (COVID-19) Act (continued)

M. Morris

Hon. J. Whiteside

G. Kyllo

J. Sims

B. Stewart

M. Dykeman

B. Anderson

Hon. N. Cullen

H. Sandhu

Hon. D. Eby

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 23 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. K. Conroy

L. Doerkson

A. Olsen

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2021

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: I call continued second reading, Bill 20.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — ACCESS TO SERVICES

(COVID-19) ACT

(continued)

M. Morris: You know, it’s a sad day when governments are forced to introduce

legislation like this to deal with a very few number of selfish people

that overlook the rights, that overlook the safety issues, of folks that

surround them.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

To begin my remarks, I want to talk a little bit about the health

care workers and the front-line workers that we’ve had in this province

dealing with COVID, dealing with a number of emergencies that we see

have taken place here.

But I go back to the medical side, here, and the way they’ve been

treated. I think it was referenced earlier on by a government member,

that we applauded these individuals early into the process with COVID.

We were banging our pots and pans at seven o’clock every night. It has

denigrated to the point where they’ve been spit upon, and they’ve been

poorly treated by a small segment of the population.

We’ve seen crowds of protesters gather in front of our hospitals,

blocking access to health care, making it impos­sible for people

with legitimate medical needs to get in and have those medical needs

attended to. In some cases, it could prove to be fatal.

I recall dealing with a number of demonstrations over my career as

a police officer. The police end up becoming — I guess, for lack of a

better term — the meat in the sandwich.

[1:35 p.m.]

Everybody tries to find a peaceful resolution to all these kinds

of situations that we have out there. For the most part, they can; 99

percent of the time, that peaceful solution is obtained.

I often remember negotiating. You try to find who the leaders of a

certain demonstration might be, or a gathering of folks, and try and

find out what their issues are. Police play such a critical role in

downplaying things and calming things down in these kinds of situations

and trying to find the best resolution possible.

I know there are other tools, other than this bill that is before

the House here. We’ll pop the hood open on that during the committee

stage to talk about some of the different issues there, but there are

other tools out there.

Blocking highways and public access is covered under the

Transportation Act. It’s covered under the School Act. Those tools are

already there. But before those tools are utilized by police in these

kinds of circumstances, the police will try to find a way forward that

satisfies both sides, to find that win-win situation.

Oftentimes it may mean, if there’s a road blocked or if there’s a

sidewalk blocked or if there’s access to some particular area blocked,

ensuring that the people that are in charge of the demonstration or

participating in the demonstration are aware of the consequences and the

impact it’s having on public safety. Once they’re made aware of that,

then you negotiate and say: “Can you pull it down in 15 minutes or half

an hour or move to a safer location?” And oftentimes those objectives

are achieved.

But it’s becoming more apparent these days. I’ve witnessed this in

a number of situations that we see taking place, where there is a small

percentage of people that disregard all that. They think their issue is

more important than the welfare and safety of all the other people

around them. I think that’s what the intent of this legislation is

looking at. It’s to try and provide the authorities with the tools to

look after that.

The other thing that I witnessed on a fairly routine basis with

the various demonstrations is that the demonstrations are people with a

common interest and an invested interest in whatever the topic and the

situation might be. But they’re reasonable people. They’re people that

have families. They’re looking out for the best interests of their

families. They just want to participate in an event that will highlight

whatever the critical issue might be.

The problem that we see more and more these days is that there are

agitators, professional agitators. There are people that will take

advantage of these individuals to further their own agenda, their own

cause, and often will escalate the tension and the situation within

these crowds, to the point where innocent people that are partaking in a

particular demonstration may find themselves in harm’s way. They may

find themselves in a position where they would be dealt with by the

courts or by the police, which was contrary to anything that they

thought when they started getting involved in this.

I think this is well intended. I think it is designed to give the

authorities that extra tool they need to try and bring order to some of

these public places, like our hospitals, that are so critical, like our

vaccination sites and our schools. Again, I use the situation in the

North Shuswap, where the school was entered by protesters, and it

frightened the students and the teachers within that particular

institution.

None of those people that had ventured in to make their case known

had bothered to try and go through the proper channels and meet with the

school district, meet with the superintendent, meet with local

authorities to try and voice their opinion or their thoughts on using

schools for vaccination sites or whatever their particular arguments

might be. Instead, they just take matters into their own hands, and they

enter these premises, and they, quite frankly, scare the heck out of the

children, teachers and the other folks that are in there.

The School Act does provide some authority to deal with that, but

the principal has to take action to remove somebody from a school. And

if that person doesn’t cooperate, then the police are brought in and

there will be consequences to that. But this appears to be another tool

that police can use.

[1:40 p.m.]

I have to comment on this, and I know some of the other speakers

have commented on it as well. We’ve watched the Remembrance Day ceremony

in Kelowna, where a very selfish individual took it upon themselves to

infiltrate an event that was designed to memorialize the people that

have given up their lives and given up so much for the freedoms in our

country, for the freedom that allowed this individual to attend there in

the first place — but not to hijack the attendance and not to hijack the

purpose of that particular ceremony.

I find it quite despicable that we’ve got British Columbians that

resort to those kinds of tactics for their own personal gain without

keeping in mind the greater good of the public.

I know a lot of times people have argued that the Charter gives

them that particular freedom. The Charter does provide a number of

personal freedoms, but it’s overruled by the good of the public — by

public safety. A lot of these people don’t realize that. They make a

very subjective determination of what they can and can’t do. They’re

selfish in nature, the way they look at that, and they jeopardize the

health and safety of everybody around them in the process.

I think this particular bill has a sunset clause in it. I’m glad

to see that, because this is designed to deal with the specific issues

of safety of our health care workers, safety of some of the facilities

that we have, to accommodate a number of things that we need to do in

order to address COVID and eradicate COVID from our population here in

British Columbia. It’s a step in the right direction.

Again, we’ll see what takes place during the committee stage.

There are a few little things that we want to examine a little bit

closer, and I’m sure that my colleague from Abbotsford West will do a

stellar job in looking at those particular issues there, so we’ll

see.

I just wish we didn’t have to go here, but it’s the state of

affairs here in British Columbia and, quite frankly, across the country.

Quebec has initiated similar legislation itself. It’s a shame that we

have to go in that direction, but it’s a temporary thing to address this

issue, and hopefully, we will see it quelled in the short

term.

Hon. J. Whiteside: I want to thank my colleague the Attorney General for his

leadership in bringing this bill forward. Bill 20 is an unfortunately

necessary step that I think no one in this House would have thought we

would have found necessary, given the circumstances that we have been

struggling with as a province, collectively — the global pandemic — over

the last 20 months. But we find ourselves in very strange

times.

I want to start by acknowledging, as my colleague across the way

did and referred to, the banging of pots and pans, the 7 p.m. cheer for

health care workers that all of us were engaged in, in our communities,

in the early days of the pandemic.

While education workers didn’t quite have the same public

recognition, I can tell you that staff on the front lines of our

education system have been working incredibly hard, since the very

beginning of the pandemic, to ensure that kids continued to learn,

continued to have access initially, in the early days of the pandemic,

through online learning, when the decision had to be taken to shift

education to online, out of schools; and then, as we returned last year,

in 2020, to ensure that British Columbia’s children continued to have

access to in-person learning and to be supported in their schools and

communities; and continuing with online programs for those who were

unable to be present in in-person learning.

[1:45 p.m.]

I want to just say that the efforts made by educators, by

custodians, by school bus drivers, principals, vice-principals, school

leadership, district leadership, our superintendents, our boards of

education and, of course, parents and kids themselves to continue to

engage in this collective endeavour that is education have been

remarkable and deserve to be celebrated.

This is now the third school year where our K-to-12 system is

grappling with COVID. I think that we thought back to the spring with

such hope with the announcement of vaccines and the vaccine rollout that

started to occur and the approval of the vaccines for the

12-to-17-year-old group. We saw the numbers just increase and increase

and increase over the course of summer, and it gave a lot of hope that

the return to school in 2021 would be not normal but closer to normal,

certainly, than we had seen throughout the previous school

year.

All of the work that underpinned that return to work was all of

the education partners working together to ensure we had safety plans in

place to support in-person learning — supported, of course, by our

public health officials, by the BCCDC and all of those partners. The

BCSTA, the superintendents groups, the principals, the BCTF, CUPE, the

BCCPAC and, of course, FNESC, as well, have worked together

collaboratively throughout to keep schools open and keep them

safe.

I can tell you it was with great surprise and disappointment and

shock, I think, that many of us folks experienced in our communities, as

we returned to schools in September, the behaviour of some individuals

in some communities actually disrupting those incredible efforts taken

in our education system over the course of this pandemic to keep schools

open and keep them safe and mitigate the impacts of COVID. Now we had

adults interfering with children’s learning. My colleague across the way

referenced a few selfish people. In some cases, it was, frankly, more

than a few. I mean, some of these demonstrations, whether they occurred

at health care sites or in schools, were rather large.

I want to just tell you about a couple of experiences and, really,

how they impacted kids, because it’s kids that we’ve had at the centre

of all of our efforts in education throughout the pandemic. In

September, in school district 83, when protesters actually entered the

Ranchero Elementary School, the South Canoe Elementary School and the

Sullivan campus of Salmon Arm Secondary, they entered the school seeking

to speak to the principals of those schools. In addition, individuals

showed up at the school district offices. They were looking to protest

the provision of vaccines in the community to the 12- to 17-year-old

group.

This very public health tool that we have, vaccination, is such a

critical tool in the fight against COVID, in our ability to get back to

a normal state of affairs, an ability to resume our lives in full. This

very important public health tool…. This is the very issue that is being

disputed and protested by certain individuals.

That school district was required to actually have to send a

letter to parents to say that they would be placing their schools on

lockdown — on lockdown — because of individuals protesting a public

health measure that is designed, in fact, to protect people. Those

entering the school would have to phone ahead in order to be allowed

into the school.

[1:50 p.m.]

Now, I can tell you that I know that we all know in this House

just how important schools are to our communities. They are not just

places of learning. They are community hubs.

Children go to school to learn. They also receive important social

supports, important mental health supports, important socialization with

their friends and with their teachers and, in some cases, necessary meal

programs. They are places where communities gather to celebrate, to play

sports, to watch sports and to support the development of a community’s

children. And these are the very places that parents and community

members could not access during the previous school year because of

COVID, because of the risk that COVID posed.

Now, having opened up schools again to communities, they were then

again at threat, because of the actions of these individuals. In Kelowna

several weeks later, where a small group of protesters protested outside

of Rutland Middle School, rallying against the use of masks and

mandates, that was experienced as something very, very disruptive by a

grade 8 student who reported to the local press that he was not happy

about the protest location. He said: “I’m not a big fan of it. The kids

here are young. Some of them are in grade 6. They’re very young and

impressionable, and it would probably scare them a lot. It’s not very

appropriate to do it by a school.”

There, I can tell you, were many incidents across our province of

adults going into schools, protesting outside of schools, interfering

with the ability of children to learn, interfering with the ability of

staff to do their jobs and, in some cases, in fact, scaring kids. That

that should be occurring in our province in this day and age after the

collective experience we have all been through — all of us against

COVID, us as a society, us working collectively together against

COVID….

To have that social solidarity break down at this point and in

this way is shocking and very upsetting for the people who have been

involved directly in these incidents and undermines the efforts that we

need to continue to make in this phase of the pandemic to see us the

rest of the way through.

There are very many incidents at very many schools where the RCMP

have had to be called and have been involved and where principals have

been spending their time managing protesters instead of supporting their

staff, supporting kids and leading their schools through what continues

to be a challenging time for all of us in our communities and in our

schools.

So it is with considerable — not quite disbelief, because we’ve

seen it — disappointment and frustration, I think, that we’re here

debating what is fundamentally a very important step at this point to

ensure that our health care facilities will be safe and that people will

be able to continue to access our health care unimpeded and that in

education, British Columbia’s students, children, youth and staff will

be able to continue to engage in education without being

disrupted.

[1:55 p.m.]

I want to just say a word about our moral and ethical obligation.

Adults in our communities have a moral and ethical obligation to be role

models in our communities — to show kids appropriate ways of engaging in

disputes, because nobody is suggesting that the right to protest isn’t

important, isn’t valuable, isn’t a part of the foundation on which our

democracy is built. But there is a time and a place. Health care

facilities and impeding people from accessing health care and impeding

children from accessing and engaging in their education — those are not

the places.

I would implore responsible adults in all of these communities to

ensure that children are not prevented or interfered with in their

schools. It seems unbelievable that one has to say that in this place,

that adults should not interfere with children learning in their

schools, but we have to say that today.

This legislation really is about a very specific set of

activities. It’s about a very specific time. The zones that it creates

around public services that are fundamental to our communities,

fundamental to our democracy, such as health care and education…. Those

are places that we find it necessary to protect in these

times.

Much care has been taken in the drafting of this bill to ensure

that the legitimate right to protest is not — which, again, is a core, I

think, value and right of British Columbians, of Canadians…. That right

will not be interfered with. But we will ensure, going forward…. Our

government is committed to ensuring that, going forward, as we move

through the rest of this pandemic, people will not be interfered with in

their access to health care, and children will not be interfered with in

their access to education.

It’s with some, again, disappointment and disbelief that we,

frankly, have to be here, but with gratitude for the leadership of my

colleague the Attorney General in bringing this important bill

forward.

I’m proud to stand in support of this legislation in the House and

grateful for all of the support that it’s going to bring — and grateful,

frankly, for the relief that I think it will bring to educators to staff

and families and to our leadership on the front lines of our education

system, who can rest assured that their kids will continue to be able to

access their education, their schools, without impediment.

G. Kyllo: It is always a privilege to rise in this House to address concerns

of British Columbians. I’m always very proud and honoured to speak on

behalf of the hard-working men and women of the Shuswap.

Today’s a bit of a sad day, that there’s actually the necessity in

our province for Bill 20, the Access to Services (COVID-19) Act. I think

we all appreciate, and certainly value, the opportunity to have peaceful

assembly, to raise and express concerns when it comes to provincial

matters or matters that might be top of mind for many British

Columbians. But when it starts to impede the access of others — access

to health care, access to education — it is a step far too far in my

mind. I believe that society, in general, also believes that — the

overwhelming majority.

The health care workers in this province have been absolutely

amazing with the service levels that they’ve provided, tending to the

health care needs of British Columbians, regardless of whether they

choose to be vaccinated or not be vaccinated. The health care provision

in our province is non-discriminatory, and we need to uphold and

certainly pay tribute to the health care workers and all the support

staff in our hospitals and clinics and medical centres that have helped

us through this worldwide pandemic.

[2:00 p.m.]

In addition, we also need to pay respect to the teachers and the

educators and the support staff that also, under very trying times, have

done their role in providing the education to the next generation of

British Columbians.

These are some of the most valuable and respected professions in

our province.

Unfortunately, we saw the actions of a few individuals around the

province that took issue. I don’t think anybody in this House in any way

challenges the value and the opportunity that British Columbians have to

peaceful assembly and to protest and to raise concerns that they feel

are important. But when it actually impedes access to service delivery,

whether it’s the education of our youth or if it’s access to medical

treatment, it is far too far a step.

Thankfully, I think we have seen, around the province, significant

concern and outrage expressed by the large majority of British

Columbians about the manner in which some individuals chose to protest

and raise their specific concerns. Thankfully, we have not seen a

continuation of many of those protests that negatively impacted our

hospitals, our medical centres or our schools. Having said that,

government has seen the need and necessity to bring forward Bill 20,

this piece of legislation.

I might remind viewers at home that the legislative session

started on October 4. It is interesting — the timing, the delay that it

has taken for this piece of legislation to be before us. Nonetheless, it

is here, and I’m happy to be standing in this House to address the

provisions of Bill 20.

Some of the comments that were reported on in the news media with

respect to the way that patients trying to access health care centres

around the province were treated, disrespected…. They were negated their

ability to free access to receive medical treatment by many.

Many of these protesters are extremely intimidating. There was a

report of one nurse who was spat on. A protester spat in the face of a

health care provider, a nurse, who had been working — to my

understanding, just finished a 12-hour shift — to try and save the life

of an individual suffering with COVID. That is how she was treated on

her way home from work that day. Reprehensible.

So it is a sad day that government feels there is a necessity to

have further legislation to provide further protections, to provide that

protection for both health care workers and for individuals accessing

those service centres, as well as our children.

The Minister of Education, as she reported earlier…. School

district 83 is actually in the riding of Shuswap. It’s where I attended

elementary and high school and where my children attended school and now

where my grandchildren are going to school. The three schools that the

Minister of Education referenced, Ranchero, South Canoe and the Sullivan

campus, which was actually in Salmon Arm…. Protesters not only

approached the school grounds to protest, but they actually entered into

the buildings.

I’m sure that parents at home, when they send their children off

to school, have comfort and confidence that their children will be safe.

They will be able to attend classes without any level of intimidation. I

was very disappointed, disheartened and disgusted by the behaviour of

those that chose not only to bring forward their concerns but the manner

in which they undertook that.

We have school trustees that are duly elected around the province

that are more than happy…. I know many of the school district trustees

in school district 83 — hard-working, wonderful individuals who always

have an open-door policy, always willing to have that conversation.

There was, to my understanding, no effort to even engage with the duly

elected trustees, nor to even provide the sheer courtesy of a phone call

to the principals and support staff. Rather, to show up en masse…. For

that, I am truly disappointed.

[2:05 p.m.]

Having said that, we are here today to talk about Bill 20, which

provides additional protections for hospitals, medical centres and our

schools. I believe that it is a worthwhile endeavour at this particular

time.

I’m also very happy to see a sunset clause. This legislation, to

my understanding, will be expiring in July of 2023, so about a year and

a half for these further protections to be in place.

As the critic, the member for Abbotsford West, earlier today

indicated, certainly we’ll be canvassing some additional questions

through committee stage on this particular bill, seeking a bit better

clarification on some of the

definitions that are set out to ensure that

government doesn’t intend to utilize this piece of legislation in any

manner to extend and otherwise impede access or, I guess, the

opportunity to infringe on people’s rights to protest and to express

their concerns.

We’re a democratic society. I’m certainly more than happy to hear

people with differing views, and I think most British Columbians also

support that. Men and women of this province and of our country fought

valiantly, many losing their lives. Many families made many sacrifices

for many of the freedoms that we enjoy today.

As was mentioned by my colleague and friend, the member for Prince

George–Mackenzie, the protests that actually occurred during Remembrance

Day last Thursday were absolutely disgusting. I don’t know that there

are many individuals that I’ve spoken to that have much kinder words to

say about protesting at a day that is set aside annually for us to pay

our respects, to pay tribute, to commemorate in remembrance of those

that have served to provide us with the liberties and the freedoms that

we enjoy.

There is a balance to be struck. I’m certainly hoping, with Bill

20, that the government has found that balance. I guess we’ll find out

through further debate in this House, as we go through committee stage,

if that truly is the case.

Now, as we talk about what we have seen as the infringement of the

rights of others, the infringement of patients accessing hospitals,

potential infringements on the ability for children to attend classes

without fear, is that as those protests occurred in this province, many

individuals across the province saw this as a step too far. Your ability

to access health care is something that should never, ever, be

negatively impacted, and there is that balance that needs to be struck

between those that have differing views of government to be able to

express themselves.

Again, when it comes to the point that it starts to negatively

impact the access to services, in my mind — and I believe to the mind of

all colleagues and elected members of this Legislature — it is a step

too far.

As I said at the outset, it is a sad day in British Columbia that

it takes additional legislation, additional government measures, in

order to ensure that the rights of all British Columbians are not

negatively impacted by those dissenting views of a few.

J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to rise and speak in support of Bill 20,

Access to Services (COVID-19) Act.

I think the title of the bill says it all, but before I start

actually making comments on the bill, I do want to acknowledge and thank

the Attorney General for the work he has done to bring this forward.

It’s only two years ago — and I know it seems harder for us to imagine,

sometimes — that when we were thinking of COVID-19, it was like we were

at the beginning.

[2:10 p.m.]

Right at that beginning, we saw the heroic efforts of our

front-line health care workers, whether they be nurses, the

long-term-care attendants. I can remember every day, seven o’clock at

night, we would all pick up our pans and our spoons, and people would be

out there on their balconies, banging and saying thank you, and a

well-deserved thank-you. Those health care workers, day in, day out,

week in, week out, and now a year in, year out, have continued to be the

brave warriors on the front lines fighting COVID.

And during this time…. We, of course, now have a vaccine, which….

We thought, once the vaccine arrived — a few of us got it — that,

really, we would be moving on back to normal. But we have seen that the

new normal has been slow. We are not back to pre-COVID-19 days, and I’m

not sure when we will get there.

But I do know that there are some tools we had. Those tools were

to listen to the data, listen to the health workers, listen to our chief

public health officer and follow the science. The science told us to

wash our hands. The science told us to stay away from each other. The

science told us to wear a mask. And then the science told us about the

efficacy of the vaccine. People rolled up their sleeves and went and got

vaccinated.

I’m very proud of the fact that in my riding of Surrey-Panorama,

96 percent have received their first dose and 92 percent have received

their second dose, just as I am proud of British Columbians right across

the province who have rolled up their sleeves, not only for themselves

but also for their communities and their loved ones. So we’re all doing

our part. And in the midst of this, I turn on the television, which I

rarely do, and what am I seeing? People are trying to get to a hospital

in Vancouver, and all the streets…. Access to the hospital is being

blocked off by protesters.

Many of us were born, and some of us like me chose Canada as a

country we wanted to live in, a country I wanted to raise my children

and then grandchildren in. One of the reasons we came to Canada and

chose Canada: because of the freedoms that Canada provides. It is our

right to protest, and I take that right to protest very, very seriously

— the right to freedom of association and freedom to protest.

Freedom to protest — absolutely important. But freedom to protest

and stop people from getting health care that they so desperately need

is not exercising your freedom to protest in a responsible way. Yes,

protest if you don’t like the vaccine, you don’t like the lockdown

measures. Protest. But protest away from the hospitals. Protest away

from the testing centres, away from the vaccination centres. And

absolutely protest away from our schools.

Some of the language that was used — that I heard both through

media but then through individuals, when they told their stories of the

kind of things they were being yelled at — really made it imperative

that we bring forward legislation, not only for those who are trying to

get access into health care, education or the testing centres but also

for those who are working inside or trying to get to work or leave work

— for their safety.

[2:15 p.m.]

Worker after worker reported how they felt blocked. They felt

intimidated. They did not feel safe. We all heard stories of cancer

patients who had to be dropped off two or three blocks away and, in the

process, missed their appointments, or those who just couldn’t make it

to their appointments because they were too scared and their mobility

didn’t let them walk the four or five or six blocks that they might have

had to walk.

Think of a senior, or even a young kid who is sitting in the car,

being driven by their parents, and you see the yelling and screaming and

people trying to stop that car from going into the hospital because

they’re going in there for health care. How do you explain that to that

child?

This legislation is really important legislation, because it’s

actually talking about fundamental rights, two sets of rights: the right

to protest, absolutely, and then the right to go to work safely, the

right to access your health care, the right to walk into your school and

the right not to face that violence that people felt.

You know, these are the items, safe bubbles, that I hear. But this

last week, on Remembrance Day, we saw incidents where there was actually

intrusion into Remembrance Day services. Worrisome for many. I know I

talked to quite a few veterans that day that were very, very disturbed

by what had happened. It’s amazing how quickly news spreads, because the

next day was when I talked with some of these veterans who phoned my

office.

I do stand strongly in support of this legislation. I believe this

legislation has been made necessary by the behaviour of a minority, a

small group, but they’re not that small when they can shut out people

from hospitals and schools. I believe this legislation is necessary

because we have a responsibility to make sure that people can

access.

You know, I’m old enough — older than many of my colleagues on

this side of the House — that I can remember when we had to protect and

provide security for clinics performing medical procedures. This was

those who were selecting or medically having to have abortions. People

were threatened. Their houses were egged. They had things thrown at

them, receptacles thrown in, and people were blocked from going

in.

In a similar way right now, this is the time when people are

getting…. It’s been a long time, a lot of pain, a lot of changes in our

lives, a lot of frustrations, lots of people venting their frustrations.

During this time, we have to remind each other that yes, we have a right

to protest, but we also have a right to access our health care, our

education and other medical services. This is a balancing act between

those. It does not take away the right to protest. All it says is that

you can’t protest and deny access to the services that are

specified.

With those words, I would like to once again say that I want to

thank the Attorney General for bringing this forward. In many ways, it

saddened me that we needed to bring this legislation forward. We get

really excited about some legislation, like the child care stuff we’re

doing. But then, when I look at this, this is what we have to do. It’s

about safety, it’s about security, and it’s about preserving our rights

in a defined way.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing Kelowna-Mission. Sorry. Kelowna West. You haven’t

moved just yet.

[2:20 p.m.]

B. Stewart: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s good to see that we’ve been

working together for that long. I know the riding has changed names

once, but anyways….

I do want to rise and acknowledge the important aspect of Bill 20

and the limitations that it does place on British Columbians that have

different views than some of the people that are trying to provide

services within different areas such as health care. I do want to take a

second to recognize that this bill is really about making certain of

this long and difficult road that we’ve been working on with COVID-19,

in trying to ensure that people get access to essential services such as

grocery stores, gas stations and many others, and the things such as

PPE, which was a requirement when people went in there, the mask mandate

and all of these things.

There have been some people that have resisted. I know, Mr.

Speaker — yourself being very close to the Okanagan Lake Bridge — that

we’ve seen numerous protests by people, and not just one or two but

hundreds and sometimes even thousands. We’ve seen protesting in front of

city hall in the city of Kelowna. We’ve seen buildings defaced. We’ve

seen all sorts of what would normally be irrational behaviour for

something that is a health concern.

Really, nobody is forcing certain people to have to wear PPE if

they want to now get some of the essential services. I mean, it’s up to

the merchant whether they do that or not.

One of the things, I think, that’s most distressing to British

Columbians…. I hate to say that it has happened that our small community

in the Okanagan — maybe it’s not so small anymore — has now become

significantly positioned where we’ve seen protests right in front of the

main tertiary hospital for the Interior Health region. It provides

cancer care. It is the Interior heart and surgical unit. Many of the

procedures cannot be offered in all of the surrounding hospitals. We’ve

got a medical school there that’s training doctors so that they can

become helpful in delivering health care throughout British

Columbia.

The fact that we had a protest that took place on those grounds,

preventing people from…. I mean, it’s fine to express your opinion, but

they weren’t across the street, where there are regular people that do

protest different aspects of what takes place in the

hospital.

Clearly, the zone around the hospital — where people park their

cars, the access into all the entrances and where patients and their

loved ones and the health care workers come in — was blocked, and people

were shouted at, spat at. They were completely out of line, in terms of

what is respectful and of what freedom of speech and protest is meant to

be. The fact is that we do see people that are very engaged in these

things. I mean, we’ve certainly seen it with our neighbours to the

south, in some of the things that we’ve seen.

I don’t subscribe and think that British Columbia wants to get to

that state where everybody is protesting what their amendments are or

what they feel they’re entitled to. I think that’s the wrong path to go

down. But in this particular case, we not only had the hospital and the

patients — I know of particular constituents in my own riding that were

trying to get access to medical attention and care, etc. and were denied

access by these people. That’s wrong, and I don’t see any reason why

that should be allowed.

More recently…. I mean, that wasn’t just Kelowna. That happened in

Vancouver, Victoria, Prince George, Kamloops, Nanaimo and other cities.

This is an orchestrated event about people that don’t believe, during

this public health emergency, in the advice from scientific evidence….

Certain aspects do work. Whether you wear a mask, whether you are

vaccinated, they protect other people around you.

[2:25 p.m.]

You have a right to not wear a mask or not get vaccinated, but we

do know that one of the things that we are trying to do is to make

certain that the people that do believe in that can get access to the

places where people need to be tested if they happen to feel unwell.

There are COVID vaccination centres. The fact is that hospitals where

people are coming in because they actually have contracted it…. You

don’t have to ask me. I’m sure the Health Minister, who’s giving his

remarks right now, will tell you what the numbers are.

The bottom line is that there’s a high percentage of people that

have chosen that alternative care and are still being affected. They’re

filling up the hospitals. The fact that they’re denying access for

people that are regular people trying to get their everyday treatments,

whether it’s diabetes or whether it’s heart or adjustments, etc., just

simple things, emergency — the reality is that that shouldn’t happen. I

do agree that that’s one of the things about this bill.

I think that one of the more egregious things that happened…. I

have no idea how this happened, but I do know that there was an

intrusion, as we heard earlier, in the Shuswap area, from our colleague

from there. Three schools.

I’m thinking about schools. I have five grandchildren. They all go

to school, and I can’t imagine, between their ages of five and 12, them

going to school and having been confronted…. Or getting off the bus this

year. One of my grandkids just started middle school. I mean, it’s a big

step up, but the bottom line is that she was here a couple of weeks ago

at the roll signing, and I know it was a big deal to leave the comfort

and safety of her home, etc.

Can you imagine what a 12-year-old, let alone the five-year-old,

would feel if they were confronted — like the member for Shuswap and the

students throughout the spectrum of school — and what they were

confronted with and what they felt like? Then to go on lockdown. And

then you have the question about: well, what’s happening? And the

parents, I’m sure, are completely wondering what this lockdown means.

I’m sure that that’s kind of what the first media reports were. They

didn’t get the whole story, and you can imagine what other imaginations

or machinations are running through their minds.

So I do want to make certain that people understand that there are

reasons why we need to do this, and there are consequences. That’s what

Bill 20 is about. It’s about the consequences of you doing things that

you’re not allowed to do. We’re saying you can have free speech. We’re

saying that you can publicly protest. We do have parts like

that.

But to cap all of this off, last Thursday in Kelowna West, where

the cenotaph is in Kelowna, we had a mob. We had people that actually

stormed the people that were there essentially trying to remember. With

the ceremony, the 100th anniversary of the poppy and all of the things

that we talk about….

I think about my great-uncle who was one of the founders of

Stewart Brothers Nurseries in 1911 in Kelowna and was killed in

Gallipoli; my grandfather, Sidney Charles Boswell, who fought both in

the First and the Second World War, served throughout both and

fortunately was with us right to the end; my dad, Richard Stewart, who

also served in the latter part of the Second World War — all of those

people, their service and what they fought for.

It wasn’t just one war. It was two, and then we have the Korean

War. We have Afghanistan, where we’ve just recently exited. How

disrespectful is it of those people that have joined honourably to serve

our country, fight for our freedom, and to have their Remembrance Day

ceremony disparaged by these — I say mob. It really was a mob, and it

wasn’t just shouting. It was people that were taking over microphones

and using a bullhorn. Essentially, some of the video that I saw — I

think that, really, that is just uncalled for.

I don’t think that people in their regular daily lives should have

to face that. I’m a bit concerned about how these things have percolated

up and why that’s happening in places like I mentioned, in Vancouver,

Victoria. But why is it happening in Kelowna? I mean, we’ve always had

huge crowds for the cenotaph. I know the Speaker and myself and the

member for Kelowna-Mission have had the opportunity to be there. It is

with literally hundreds and hundreds of supporters, maybe even

thousands. But the bottom line is that that shouldn’t be taking

place.

I do kind of worry about the fact that…. Because of the fact that

there haven’t been any consequences, some of these people feel

emblazoned, that they should be able to do this.

[2:30 p.m.]

I have no idea what their feelings are going to be like when…. I

know that we just had briefings from EMBC earlier today, and, I mean,

this whole rainstorm and the tropical rivers, etc. But I know that we’re

already getting calls about the shortages that are cropping up in the

grocery stores, and things like that. I’m sure we’ve heard about Hope

and places like that where things have to be airlifted in.

But if we start having the mob mentality, what does that actually

mean? Are people going to start taking from one another? Are they going

to do that? I mean, I’m not saying that Bill 20 covers that type of….

But I think the fact is that there have to be consequences. I do think

that it’s unfortunate that we’ve come to that point.

I do think there are legitimate, peaceful protests that are

enshrined in Canadian law. But what we’re talking about last Thursday,

what we’re talking about that happened weeks back in the Shuswap and at

the hospitals around the province is completely unacceptable and should

not be something that we tolerate.

Currently we recognize the fact that there are places where the

administration of vaccines, testing, health care workers, schools, as we

found out…. Those people deserve to be able to go about their business

without any impediment.

I think that that’s one of the things that we’re trying to teach

younger people. We don’t want to teach them that the fact is, is that’s

it’s all right to shout and spit and bar access to different, public

facilities. That’s not the message that Canada was built on, those

freedoms that we talk about.

I think that it is important. I do want to make certain that…. I’m

glad to see that this particular bill is time limited and, secondly, it

can also be changed by regulation so that if we don’t need these types

of powers, they can be removed. I do think that the government has

recognized this and is introducing this legislation to help create

access to those zones to address these types of events. I think that

it’s thoughtful.

I look forward to the committee stage in this particular bill and

making certain that we can ask those questions that maybe are not listed

in here but, perhaps, could be added through regulation. We need to be

clear about that — what’s in, what’s not in, etc. — to make certain that

as a government that the law, or Bill 20, doesn’t cross the line and it

doesn’t do things that are unintentional and we become a government or a

state that tells everybody what to do and where they can and can’t

go.

I look forward to committee stage on this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you to the member for Kelowna West. I just want to

re-emphasize that to make sure that it was understood.

M. Dykeman: It’s a pleasure to rise today in the House to speak to this very

important and unfortunate bill, Bill 20, 2021, the Access to Services

(COVID-19) Act. I echo the words of my colleagues when they say that

it’s terribly unfortunate that this bill has had to come forward, and

the content of it should be of concern to every citizen.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

In society, we talk a lot about our rights. We talk about having

our right to do this, and you hear this a lot and the rhetoric on social

media and in the public. The problem is that there’s very rarely a

conversation about our societal obligations.

I’m thinking back, actually, to John Finch, who was a very

interesting person, a politician. Actually, he was a chairman of the

Prohibition Party. In 1882, he had some seminal work that came forward,

and he was talking about this very topic. In the discourse throughout

the book, there was a line where somebody said: “Well, is this not a

free country?” He said: “Well, yes, sir.” “Have I not the right to swing

my arm?” “Yes, but your right to swing your arm leaves off with my right

not to have my nose struck and where that begins.”

Here is where a civil government comes forward and settles. It

prevents bloodshed. It settles the just rights, settles

disputes.

[2:35 p.m.]

You can have all the rights that you’d like, but you also have

obligations. You can hold any belief you want. You have freedom of

thought. These are protected, actually, under our Charter. You have

freedom of expression. You have the freedom of speech.

But what you don’t have is the right to inflict all of those on

other people. You don’t have the right to use those as a weapon to

others.

If I want to access medical services, your right to go out and

think whatever you want can’t prevent me from accessing my medical

services. That’s where we ended up here recently — a clash of rights,

people saying: “Well, I have these rights.” But they were forgetting

that they had their societal obligations.

We have an obligation. We have a social contract to ensure that

we’re living together in some sort of harmonious way that doesn’t

prevent people from being able to live and have freedom, security and

enjoyment of their liberties.

Thinking back to my time as a trustee, this situation with schools

really concerned me. Those children have a right to go to school. They

have a right to access to school. We have people who fought for these

freedoms. So when you have a situation where people are interfering with

other people accessing those things, it’s quite concerning.

It’s also just obnoxious. You have young children. They aren’t

part of the decision-making parties. You can call your local MLA. You

can call your board, call the superintendent. But what you don’t have

the right to do is to harass young children who are just trying to go to

school.

Same with hospitals. My father recently actually had to take a

trip to the hospital. The thought of an ambulance not being able to

access the hospital because somebody’s decided to stand on the side of

the road and block it…. It’s not the place to settle your disputes.

That’s why we have these provisions.

Governments have to be limited, too. They can’t just have

unfettered ability to inflict things on the citizens of a nation, but

what they do have the ability to do is to settle these disputes. That’s

where the law comes in. It settles them. It says: “You know what? You

can’t go around this area, because our social contract doesn’t allow you

to prevent people from accessing medical services.”

Although I agree that this is unfortunate, every person does have

a right to access services. They have a right to access medical, for

instance. They have a right to access education. Unfortunately, this had

to be written into law with a bubble zone.

But there is a sunset clause, which does the important part of

balancing the potential tyranny of the majority — the tyranny of the

government. That’s an important provision to be in there, for the

protection of people. But I do just want to echo, once again, that the

fact that we’re standing in this House having this conversation is just

so unfortunate. It really is.

They say that when you argue, you’re trying to find out who is

right, but when you’re debating, you’re trying to figure out what is

right. As a society right now, that ability to debate things is breaking

down. It’s breaking down in a sense of division that I haven’t seen

since I was here….

Interjections.

M. Dykeman: It’s unfortunate that we’re seeing that today — that there’s such

little discourse.

Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, Member. If you could just….

Members, another member has the floor, so if you have loud

conversations to have, please take them out of the chamber, with respect

to your colleagues.

Please proceed. Sorry, Member.

M. Dykeman: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

As I was saying, we’ve had a breakdown in communication in

society, a breakdown of discourse and debate, and that’s really too bad.

I recognize that something like a pandemic or something like what we’ve

been dealing with, with the COVID-19 challenges is scary. It’s

concerning. People may feel that they’re having a hard time navigating

that, but we don’t sort that out in schools and in front of hospitals.

We sort that out somewhere else.

So although I share the concerns that others have raised that we

don’t want to see too much overreach by government, I’m grateful that we

have this, with a sunset clause, to protect our most vulnerable and to

protect people who have a right to access while balancing the rights of

other people.

With that, I know that other colleagues of mine would like to

speak on this, so I will take my seat and thank you for the opportunity

to speak on this important subject today.

[2:40 p.m.]

B. Anderson: I would also like to thank everyone that has stood up and spoken

on this bill. I’m grateful to see that we are all supportive of this

bill. We know how important it is to ensure people have access to health

care and to education.

A few weeks ago, while I was here at the Legislature, working for

my constituents, we had a protest outside of my office. There was a

protester with a megaphone screaming at my staff. Where the window is

and where her desk sits, they were less than a foot or two away from

each other.

That type of behaviour — it was horrible. It was traumatic for my

constituency assistants. We had to have the police there to make sure

that they were safe. People were trying to get into the office. Although

it was terrifying at that moment for them, what’s important to note is

that my office, my MLA office, which is on Josephine Street in Nelson,

is a perfectly acceptable place to protest. It is critical that we allow

people to protest in society. That is a fundamental right.

However, it is also a fundamental right that people have access to

health care and to education. I have friends with children. They were

telling me they were watching the news one night, and they were showing

the protesters that were trying to get into a school. Now the little

child looks up and goes: “Mommy, I don’t know if I want to go to school

tomorrow. Those protesters — they were making the children

scared.”

As a parent…. I’m not a parent, but as my friends tell me,

sometimes it’s hard enough to get your kids to want to go to school in

the morning. Certainly, with the pandemic, children have gone through so

much, but they are so resilient. They do not deserve to have to walk

through a protest to simply access their education on a regular basis.

That school needs to be a safe place for children.

Teachers and all of the support staff have been working overtime.

They’ve been working so hard to keep our children safe. The last thing

that they need is the mental health burden of the abusive behaviour of

these protesters.

Now, this isn’t something that’s going to last forever. I can’t

wait until the pandemic is over. As soon as we can possibly get rid of

this legislation, we will. It’s in regulations. There is a sunset

clause. This isn’t going to be forever. So for people that are worried

that we’re taking their rights and freedoms away, that is simply not our

intention. Our intention is to make sure that we have safe spaces that

are absolutely fundamental to the functioning of our society.

Now, when people access a hospital, we have to recognize that, in

some cases, that is the worst day of that person’s life. They might be

going in to visit a loved one that is taking their last breaths. They

might be themselves going in to find out if they have cancer. If they

have cancer, how bad is that cancer? Or did they get into a car

accident? They are clinging to life in that ambulance. To think that

people could then impede their right to access health care on the

hardest day of their life is simply not appropriate.

Do people need the right to protest? Absolutely, 100 percent. You

want to protest somewhere? Come to my office, Josephine Street in

Nelson, but stay away from schools and from health care centres. People

need to access those spaces.

It is critically important that people are able to access their

health care. By missing an appointment, for a chemo patient, that could

mean that their health is on the line, that they could actually get

worse, that the cancer could spread. It is critically important for a

dialysis patient to be able to go in and receive dialysis.

Dialysis patients, chemo patients — these aren’t people that are

making one trip to the hospital one time, but they’re having to go

multiple days, end on end. This is terrible for them to have to go

through, and then for them to have that extra burden and that extra

worry of if they are going to have to face protesters.

I’m not talking about…. We have protesters outside my office. I’ll

go outside and chat with them. They’re passionate about climate change

and passionate about the environment. I have fantastic conversations

with them. They’re polite, and they’re great to talk to. But I’m talking

about those protesters that are completely disrespectful, that are

trying to prevent people, sick people, from accessing hospitals and

children from accessing schools. That is not appropriate.

[2:45 p.m.]

It’s so unfortunate that we have to have this legislation today

because of a few people that have chosen something that is very, very

inappropriate during a pandemic. I mean, these people are screaming at

patients. Potentially, they have COVID themselves. They’re putting sick

people further at risk as they’re trying to access health

care.

Today none of us want to be putting this legislation forward,

except we all know that we have to.

With that, I will conclude my remarks and just say thank you again

to members of all three parties for supporting this legislation

today.

Hon. N. Cullen: I have listened to the debate this afternoon both here in the

chamber and from my office. It’s one of those moments, I think…. I’m new

here, but it seems somewhat rare in our ability to talk about what is an

important issue: freedom of speech, civility, safety of teachers and

nurses and health care workers. Also, clearly, as a legislature, as

individual representatives from around this province, we call out wrong

when we see wrong.

I represent Stikine, a beautiful and vast northern part of our

riding, rural and remote communities. I live in Smithers in Wet’suwet’en

Gidimt’en territory. One travelling folk singer many years ago — decades

ago, in fact — called us a difference of opinions surrounded by

mountains — my community. I see members who have visited and spent time

in Smithers nod.

We like our disagreements. We like to have different views. We’re

not monolithic in our thinking. Sometimes rural B.C. is cast that way,

as thinking one way entirely or another way entirely. For those not

familiar with rural British Columbia, I can let you rest assured that

that is not the case. We have many differences of views and opinions as

to how the world is, how the world ought to be. Fortunately and

unfortunately, many of those differences have been exposed this past two

years or so of difficulty.

Bill 20 speaks specifically to this, and it’s been enumerated a

number of different ways here this afternoon, so I won’t spend a great

deal of time on it. It is trying to find a way to create these bubble

zones in legislation, in law, with very serious fines and potential of

arrests associated with breaking what we are describing here today —

breaking through the bubble zones to protect our schools, to protect

hospitals, vaccine clinics.

There would be some that would say: “What a state of affairs that

we need such a law.” It seems decent, common understanding that a place

not to disrupt is a hospital, that a place not to protest is a school

where our children are attending, with all that we can do to keep those

people in particular safe — vulnerable people who are sick and our

children.

Yet here we are, because we saw these protests in my community in

Smithers, particularly at the hospital — the Bulkley Valley Hospital. It

was incredibly troubling. I spoke to a number of nurses and doctors,

people who were patients in the hospital at the time. Despite some thin

arguments from some of the protesters that they were there supporting

hospital workers, that was not at all how it was received. It was felt

as threatening. It was felt as incredibly disruptive, and we saw that it

was coordinated. It was across the province in many, many communities —

small and large.

Some of the larger ones, particularly in the city, in Vancouver

and Victoria, were so large and so energetic as to interrupt ambulance

services and to go after hospital workers, the irony of which is

incredible to me, and tragic — that the very people who have been going

to work day after day after day under incredibly difficult circumstances

were the target of animosity and, in some cases, outright hatred. The

very people that, if those people who were protesting got sick, would

take care of them without a second thought. The very people who have

refused our efforts to stay safe and get vaccinated and follow the

public health protocols to keep them and their families safe.

Those people protesting those hospital workers, if they were to

fall ill — and you are 50 times more likely, if you’re unvaccinated, to

fall ill and end up in hospital — would be cared for by those very same

people that they were protesting.

It is unfortunate — many members have spoken to this — that we

need this legislation. It has brought forward, I think, the best and

worst of us — this pandemic. I think it’s brought forward the best and

worst in our politics, which we’ve seen not so much in this place but

certainly at the federal level and, in some cases, municipal and others

— people trying to stoke fears, trying to divide and conquer, divide one

group of Canadians from another over the idea of things like science and

vaccines and mask mandates to keep us safe.

[2:50 p.m.]

That division has not won over this place, predominantly. This

Legislature, by and large — here we see another bit of evidence today —

has worked together across the aisle, across partisan interests, across

partisan lines, to say that we need to protect those who need

protection: those who are ill and those caring for those who are ill;

those attending schools, our children; and those who are educating and

helping our children be educated.

There are balancing acts, always, when talking about rights — the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In there, there are rights to

expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement. There are also

inherent responsibilities built in those: that the state, from time to

time, must seek, in keeping all of us safe, some small infringements on

those rights. You can’t scream “fire” in a movie theatre. We all know

the examples of speech, for example.

Screaming at hospital workers, spitting at them and calling them

all sorts of horrible names is a right that one does not possess in this

province. You don’t get to harass and intimidate somebody going to work.

You don’t get to go after our kids in schools. That is not right. So

we’re creating these safety zones, these bubble zones, around these

particular places.

If there is cause in future dates — if other sites, vulnerable

places, vulnerable people are targeted — Bill 20 allows, in its

legislation, to create other safety zones for those who are being

attacked. And, like I said earlier, fines, arrests by police are

possible.

I noticed there were some concerns from our Green colleagues as to

too far an encroachment on these rights. I think the understanding of

what we’re talking about here is behaviour that I hope we collectively

see as reprehensible. Clearly, the rights do not extend to that

behaviour.

I will note that in our small town of Smithers, when the hospital

protests started, it occurred to me, and particularly to my partner, my

wife, who said: “If they want to protest, they should go to your

newspaper. It was well received as an idea, because I am

elected.

We try to represent people. If someone has a problem with the way

that we are governing, if the decisions we are making in government or

in this Legislature are a problem for them, they can come and peacefully

protest in front of my office. And they do, every Friday, sometimes

Wednesdays and the odd Tuesday: a dedicated group of folks who — I will

say this somewhat parenthetically — have also found, at times, a way to,

what I would call, cross the line.

As people in my constituency know, I’m of Jewish heritage. My

father is Jewish. Recently, at some of those protests, it has become de

rigueur or the fashion to use yellow Stars of David and other symbols of

the Holocaust when protesting science, when protesting vaccines. I found

this incredibly disturbing, as this is a known part of who I am in my

community. Yet at the time, my reaction may have been unwise — to be a

little bit more vociferous in calling that behaviour out.

I saw a much better reaction from my community, which called that

behaviour out and said that invoking the Holocaust and invoking Nazi

Germany when talking about the need to put on a mask, the need to be

vaccinated to go to your yoga class, is such a reprehensible and false

equivalency that it is undermining their argument. It is so ludicrous,

it is so insensitive, it is so inflammatory to use images of the

Holocaust to describe public health orders in British Columbia and in

Canada right now that they themselves are inflicting the greatest harm

on their so-called argument as to why we shouldn’t be vaccinated despite

the evidence.

I’ve spoken to many constituents. Some are aggrieved, and they

tell me their concerns. I listen to their concerns, of course, because

we do. That’s what we do as legislators. The argument that can’t be

fought back against is when I say: “Look. Here is the evidence of what’s

going on in our community right now: that our hospital has been overrun,

that our northern region has from time to time, and still is today,

evacuating people out — medevacking them out on airplanes to hospitals

in the south — because we do not have the capacity just to handle the

COVID cases, never mind all the other emergencies that come through our

door.”

[2:55 p.m.]

I heard of an incident of a fellow in our community, just not so

long ago, who suffered a very bad fall and broke numerous bones. It was

four days before we could get him on a plane out. Every one of those

days, all the medevac spots were taken up with people who had COVID. All

of them had chosen not to be vaccinated.

To say, “It is our choice” — we have said it is your choice to get

vaccinated or not — and to suggest that that choice only affects you,

individually, is wrong. You don’t get vaccinated just to protect

yourself. You get vaccinated to protect your family and those you care

about, and to protect your community, so that we don’t overwhelm our

hospital systems, which then has the ripple effect of cancelling

surgeries, cancelling appointments, cancelling our ability to handle

anything else that happens within our community.

Watching the news of a school going into lockdown is disturbing.

Far too often, when you hear a school in lockdown, it’s often news

coming out of the U.S. There has been a shooting, there has been some

horrific threat to the school, and people are at risk. That wasn’t this,

thank god. What this was, was people deciding to demonstrate, to be

angry at a public school, a grade school, in our communities.

I think that even for those who are vaccine-hesitant, for those

who have questions, to be associated to that type of protest, to be

associated to what happened on November 11 this year in too many

communities — described by colleagues across the way as a “mob” showing

up at the cenotaph to try to take over the event….

You can’t even remind people that those brave women and men who

signed up to those wars signed up with their vaccine cards in hand at

the time, right? They weren’t concerned about the infringement on their

rights and the sacrifice to get a vaccine against polio and other things

in order to join the army — to make, in some cases, the ultimate

sacrifice in defending rights and freedoms.

The twisting of the logic is just hard sometimes. You try to find

compassion in all of this. The number of incidents of people getting

arrested in our credit union, people getting arrested in the grocery

store — intentionally provoking to the point of arrest….

This bill is very specific. It is very focused, talking about our

hospitals and schools, about impeding access to those places, about

intimidating, issuing threats. We must always keep in mind, as citizens

in this incredible province in this country, that our rights are always

coupled with responsibilities — always. The rights that we have were

fought for and won by previous generations. What rights do we pass

forward? How do we ensure that we are making this a better

place?

I want to end by saying, as this has revealed the best and the

worst of us, that I’ve also watched our community come together — across

political lines, our communities in the north and the far north; across

lines of race, Indigenous, non-Indigenous and other communities of

origin — to understand that the need for vaccination is important. It

protects us. It protects our families. The need to follow the public

health orders is important.

We have an opportunity, in each and every one of those choices, to

be good members of our community, and also to be telling our kids how to

be right in the world. Sometimes we have to take these small sacrifices:

to wear a mask, to get a vaccine, to stay home, all of those things. No

one wants them, but we understand the reason to do it. It’s putting on a

seatbelt. It’s not smoking inside. It is just basic, basic

responsibilities as a citizen.

So if it’s a little public service announcement: please get

vaccinated, if you haven’t, and you live in Stikine or anywhere else.

Please make sure you’re following the public health orders and listen to

the science. We’re trying our best. We’re doing everything we can to

support our businesses, support our health care workers, support our

teachers, to get us through this.

I do worry — and I’ll end here — that every community, every

place, has a fabric that holds us together, things that unite us. Of the

many tensions we’ve seen over the past couple of years, this has been

really, in small-town B.C., pulling at the fabric. We’ve seen death

threats issued to colleagues across the way in the north. I’ve seen the

hate directed my way, as many of us have. When we’re in elected office

we can handle quite a bit. That’s what we have signed up for.

[3:00 p.m.]

It’s not all glory and roses. People can disagree with us. They

don’t have to be disagreeable, and they certainly should not be

targeting hospitals, schools and other vulnerable places for their

so-called demonstrations. There’s a right way to protest. Some of us

have engaged in such things, in various ways, over our lives — signed

petitions and showed up at marches and rallies.

I hope, and I think this is true, that it has never occurred to

any of us that what we should do is go out and threaten a hospital,

nurses, doctors, or go after a school and scare children or threaten

teachers or custodians. That’s beyond.

Let us celebrate the things that have brought us together. Let us

be vigilant about those things that continue to threaten to tear that

fabric even more. Let’s know that one day, we’ll get out of this thing.

We should be stronger for it.

I think we’re stronger when we realize a greater sense of purpose

and responsibility. Bill 20 is in place for those that have not come to

that realization and need a little help to understand that this is

inappropriate and that after this bill passes, it will, in fact, be

illegal. I think that that’s only a good thing.

H. Sandhu: Today I rise in this Legislature to speak in favour of Bill 20,

Access to Services (COVID-19) Act.

Before I share my thoughts to support this bill, I would like to

acknowledge that I am standing on the traditional territory of the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples,

today known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

I wholeheartedly support this Bill 20 because it is so near and

dear to me, coming from a health care background and having had to work

from when COVID started until mid- or end of November last year. This

will protect the zones around schools and health care.

First of all, I would like to thank health care workers and

teachers for handling tremendous amounts of stress and doing such an

incredible job. I have kids in school. For making them feel so supported

and safe…. In health care, it was very traumatizing for many health care

workers when that protest happened all around B.C. and also in my

community and in Kelowna. Reading some comments and talking to some of

my former health care colleagues, it was a further inflicted injury to

them. It was very disrespectful, when they are already at the breaking

verge.

They’ve been working so hard. As we all know, the pandemic has

been incredibly stressful to all British Columbians, but more so to

people in the health care system and teachers in the school system.

Having these kinds of actions…. I do understand that free speech is

important, and it is a right, and there have been times that I have been

in rallies as well, advocating for different causes. But it should come

with common sense. It doesn’t allow us to spit on people.

Not only hospitals, Mr. Speaker. As you were saying, at

Remembrance Day ceremonies…. People were there in my communities and

saying very harsh words, even towards me, as well. We have talked

politely to them and said that this was not the right time and space. I

have been very open because, again — coming from a previous profession,

too — what I have learned is to listen to all sides without judging. So

we’ve given individual meetings, too.

Then when people spit on each other, as an incident happened…. My

staff member was very polite last week, even though that office…. Yes,

that’s the perfect place. Protest outside our office. But the behaviour

that was shown by individuals spitting on a polite staff member, who was

merely doing their job and respectfully asking somebody if they could

move a little bit further so they didn’t block a neighbour’s business —

spitting, during COVID times, directly on a person — is not free speech

or a freedom or right. Our veterans would have never allowed somebody to

impede in suchlike.

[3:05 p.m.]

What behaviour are we teaching? What are we showing kids in

schools? That’s why I think it’s sad that we had to come to this — that

we need this bill to establish and to keep these zones safe. But if

that’s the action, it’s very important to take, because in some

situations…. It’s sad that people don’t realize that oftentimes, outside

the hospitals, there’s a life or limb situation, and somebody could lose

their life. Time is of the essence. There are only a few

minutes.

There was an excuse being used. It’s interesting that there were

health care workers being part of those protests. What I learned later,

or many of us learned, is that scrubs were being sold out in local

thrift stores.

I cannot imagine a compassionate health care worker doing such

irresponsible acts and blocking the life-saving services or the access

to these important services. In fact, it is sad that people use these

tactics. I don’t want to take too much time, as others might want to

speak, or we want to wrap it up by three. But it is very important that

these actions don’t cause any further moral injury to any health care

workers, our teachers or even our kids who were afraid to go to school

the next day.

I believe that if we can do anything to support health care

workers, respecting the boundaries will do this. Implementing this bill

will help us to facilitate it. It’s sad that we have to do

so.

I would like to say that the other thing I’ve realized is that

people have been so inconsiderate — what they’ve been posting on social

media, too. These groups of protesters said hospitals have been empty,

that they’re not busy. For me to read it, and for my former colleagues….

We’re saying: “Which hospital is empty? Tell us. We’ll go work there.

We’ve been working 16 or 12 hours a day.”

It is disheartening. Again I would say that yes, our rights do

come with responsibility. I want to thank the people of Vernon-Monashee

for being so resilient and for proving over and over, from time to time,

by coming together and not condoning these acts, that there is way more

good left than bad in this world.

I wholeheartedly support this bill. I’ll conclude my

remarks.

Today my colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour had a conversation

with our amazing nurses, and I’m going to have another at four o’clock.

Their question was: why are we so relaxed and not taking some actions

about these protesters? Because nurses are so busy, they didn’t know

this bill was being discussed here today. I will be happy to tell them

at four o’clock that we are addressing this, that we’re not

relaxed.

As I said, it had caused so much discouragement, so much pain, so

much trauma. They are stretched to the max. They are still holding the

line, and this will reassure them. It’ll go a long way. Government and

all members of this House have their back, and we’re doing what we can

so they can do their job well. We’re here to support them.

I conclude my remarks. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for letting me

speak and share my thoughts. I appreciate it.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the Attorney General to

close second reading debate.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to all members for your thoughtful contributions in

second reading debate. Thank to the member for Vernon-Monashee for

wrapping up and for sharing that front-line account of health care

workers and the impact of some of these actions on people on the front

line.

I know that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour also shared

this experience that nurses and other health care professionals, as well

as staff in hospitals, have faced — totally unacceptable. My

appreciation, as well, to my critic, the member for Abbotsford West, for

his thoughtful contributions.

I look forward to committee stage debate. With that, hon. Speaker,

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to

be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 20, Access to Services (COVID-19) Act, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby: I call continued Committee of the Whole on Bill 23, Forests

Statutes Amendment Act.

Deputy Speaker: As it will take a little bit of adjustment, I’ll suggest that we

go into recess for about five minutes, and then we will return for the

committee stage.

The House recessed from 3:09 p.m. to 3:17 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — FORESTS STATUTES

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 23;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3:17 p.m.

The Chair: We’re here with Bill 23. This is, of course, the Forests

Statutes Amendment Act, 2021. We were on clause 14 when we last

discussed this proposed legislation.

On clause 14 (continued) .

J. Rustad: It’s good to be back, going back at this bill here today. There’s

lots, obviously, still there to be talked about — but on clause 14, in

particular.

It talks about: “If a person applies for a cutting permit…only a

portion of the land that will be subject to the permit is located inside

the forest landscape area.” I’m just wondering how the conflict is

managed between an area that might have a forest landscape plan versus

an area that still might be under a forest stewardship plan, and how

that is then, therefore, addressed under this new act.

Hon. K. Conroy: Before we start, I just would like to introduce my staff that are

with me today. I have Ariel Taylor, who is the manager of Indigenous

relations, consultation and negotiations; Tony Cheong, the senior

legislative analyst; Doug Kelly, the director of the forest tenures

branch; and Diane Nicholls, ADM and chief forester.

Thank you to the member. What this refers to is it’s just simply

if a forest stewardship plan is in place, if there’s an overlap of

cutblocks — or if there is a cutblock on either side, for instance, of

the forest stewardship plan that’s in place, or if the forest

stewardship plan is not in place — the forest landscape plan will always

trump the forest stewardship plan.

[3:20 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Maybe you could just explain. So if it’s an existing permit versus

if somebody is applying for a permit that falls across the areas, or is

that no longer…? If a landscape unit…. If a forest landscape plan — I’ll

get this eventually — is in place, does that exclude the ability, now,

to apply for a permit that might be portioning out into an existing

forest stewardship plan? Does it all have to be within one? Does it have

to be two applications put forward?

Then, of course, for existing permits that may end up being

divided by it, how are those handled?

Hon. K. Conroy: This is an administrative clause. So if the permit straddles

either side, like if it’s stewardship on one side and forest landscape

plan on the other, it gives the ability to apply outside of the

area.

Can we get a whiteboard so I can draw the picture for the member?

This would be much clearer than me trying to explain it. So it would

apply outside of the FLP, the forest landscape plan.

J. Rustad: I think I’m following what the minister is saying with that,

without having the whiteboard. It would actually be handy in a setting

like this for bills that can be so technical.

But just for clarity, if I can, if there is an area that is of

interest by a company that happens to straddle where an FLP — I’ll start

using that instead of just forest landscape plan — exists, would they

have to apply for two permits — one under the stewardship area and one

under the FLP area? Or can that be applied for as one, including, of

course, roads that may transect across?

Hon. K. Conroy: No, they wouldn’t have to apply for two permits. This enables that

to exist, so no.

Clauses 14 and 15 approved.

On clause 16.

[3:25 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Yes, I intentionally skipped clause 15.

On 16, I’m just actually curious, because this is simply just a

repeal, but when I was reading through the Forest Act, this

section

appears to be repealing the ability of the minister to declare a road to

be a forest service road. I’m just a little confused over what the

intent is of doing that and whether that’s covered off somewhere

else.

Hon. K. Conroy: This is administrative as well, and this is now captured in

sections 22 and 23.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

J. Rustad: Thanks for the clarity on clause 16. I had thought I’d seen it

elsewhere in the bill, but I just wanted to be sure.

On clause 17, this talks about, in particular under (b)…. Instead

of “industrial purpose,” it includes “natural resource development

purpose.” I’m wondering if that definition is broad enough to include

other more non-traditional types of industrial activities or natural

resource activities such as, perhaps, bear viewing, heli-skiing and

other types of things that may be happening on the landscape from a

natural resource perspective, as opposed to what we think of

traditionally in terms of industrial, which would be mining, forestry,

and those types of things.

Hon. K. Conroy: This is consequential to clause 2. It’s related to forest service

road declarations, and it allows other uses to be included. It’s defined

section 45, where it says that “natural resource development

purpose,” in relation to a road, “means use of the road for any of the

following purposes: (

a) developing a natural resource other than timber;

(

b) transporting a natural resource other than timber; (

c) transporting

equipment, materials or personnel associated with an activity referred

to in paragraph (

a) or (b).” It also allows us, by regulation, to

consider others that could be considered. It’s a fairly broad

clause.

[3:30 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Thanks for that. To confirm, those other uses, essentially, could

be sort of non-traditional uses that we think about from a forest

activity on the landscape?

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, through regulation.

Clauses 17 and 18 approved.

On clause 19.

L. Doerkson: With respect to 1(b), my question is: does this amendment refer to

all roads being deactivated?

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. K. Conroy: These are only for roads authorized under road permits. It gives

the government the ability to set dates when roads must be activated.

Right now roads are built and maintained until they are deactivated, but

there is no trigger right now to say they have to be deactivated by a

certain date.

J. Rustad: Following up with my colleague’s question about that, in

particular, when it’s setting a date for deactivation of a road, I

understand the need and the want to be able to manage through these,

given the complexity of roads that we talked about the other day that is

out on the land base. But once again, you’re in this situation where

there may be an event or some other activity that comes up after a date,

in terms of that.

Once a date is set for deactivation of a road, can that date be

altered? Can that date be delayed? Can it be transferred or cancelled so

that the road could be utilized for other purposes?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, the date can be modified by a statutory decision-maker, or

the permit holder can request for…. Might be a number of reasons why

they might request that, but they can request that the date be

modified.

J. Rustad: I’m going to do one follow-up instead of going back and forth, I

suppose.

Thank you to the minister. Thank you for that.

We talked about this in previous sections, but I want to raise it

again, which is this issue of: where you have roads that access areas,

often it opens up opportunities, whether it’s for First Nations to be

able to carry out their rights, accessing resources in particular areas,

or for others that may want access, whether that’s for tourism or other

values. Once a deactivation date has been set, at what point is

consultation required in order to be assured that there aren’t other

uses that might be of an interest to that particular road?

Hon. K. Conroy: The establishment of the date of deactivation is done through the

landscape planning process. The road permit holder has to notify

government when they intend to deactivate, and then that provides a

process for other considerations to determine if there are other needs

of the road.

[3:40 p.m.]

L. Doerkson: I guess, maybe, a bit of a follow-up on what the member just asked

and, also, on the original question that I asked. Under (1)(b), it says

they “authorize the holder to use, maintain and deactivate the road.”

Then under (1.1)(

b) it says it may do one or more of the following:

“specify the date by which the road must be deactivated.”

My question is: might some of these roads be left open, or will

they all be deactivated?

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, some will be left open. There’s actually no obligation that

all roads will be deactivated, and in further clauses — I don’t have the

number right now — it shows the process of how that is

determined.

A. Olsen: On clause 19, with respect to a 2017 special report by the Forest

Practices Board that talked about the management and improved regulation

of forestry roads, I’m wondering. Did the government give any

consideration to the Forest Practices Board 2017 special report when

drafting these recommendations?

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes.

A. Olsen: The report states: “Opportunities for review and comment on

site-specific forestry activity, such as planned cutblocks and roads,

are important for the public and for…forest tenure holders or

businesses.” This new

section does not mention access management or

public engagement. Why not?

Hon. K. Conroy: The access management plan would be done as part of the forest

landscape plan, and the board actually supports this. It’s also done to

manage expectations of the public and Indigenous nations.

[3:45 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister.

Section (1.1) refers to…. A permit may specify a date for

deactivation. Can the minister explain why, previously, the language

talks about how the permit holder “must” do something and, in this part

of the clause, it’s referring to “may”? Can the minister

maybe…?

There are a few times throughout this amendment legislation that

the word “may” is used where, perhaps, the government could have used

“must.” I’m wondering why the choice was to use “may” in

(1.1).

Hon. K. Conroy: It provides the ability to have a road permit holder use the road

without deactivation. An example of this is if the government could have

a long-term plan for road uses that flowed from the forest landscape

plan. An example of this: once the permit holder has utilized the road,

it could be obvious that this would be a good access for a remote

Indigenous nation to have access into their territory.

J. Rustad: I’m just wondering once again, in terms of this…. Perhaps, at this

point, it might be helpful if the minister could describe the types of

deactivation of roads. The reason I’m asking that question is that,

obviously, there’s a big difference between just taking up culverts and

putting a tank trap at the beginning of a road versus a complete

rehabilitation of the road, in what the potential uses are in terms of

access.

I’m just wondering if the minister could provide some information,

just for some clarity, around the various types of deactivation that

might be considered under this act or any other acts of deactivation of

a road.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: There are four different levels of deactivation. There is

deactivation to create no access, can’t be utilized. There is one to

create limited access. There is one where it’s moderate access. Then

there is almost full access, so you could drive your RV up the road.

It’s all based on risk and use, so if there is a high environmental risk

or there is risk for public safety, that’s full deactivation or debuild,

to we’re just removing a culvert so people could still access it with

their quad or walk up it so that it’s still accessible in that

way.

J. Rustad: I’m happy you put that in the record, because it’s important for

people to understand. Not everybody is going to read the various acts

and regulations associated. It’s good to have that information in the

record so that we understand what we’re talking about in terms of

roads.

It does lead to the question…. I don’t know if this is the

appropriate

section to ask about, and it may not even be appropriate to

this bill, but we had talked earlier in this debate about the number of

roads and the amount of roadation or the amount of area that is being

taken up with roads around it.

Does this act or through the forest landscape plans — I’m getting

better at it — contemplate looking at how much of an area is actually

impacted by roads in trying to reduce that amount of area in terms of, I

guess, a level 4 or a high-level deactivation, in trying to reclaim

those parts of the roads and putting them back into the working land

base?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, it allows to have the ability and to plan for it. First

Nations have raised this. The Forest Practices Board has raised this. It

better manages road density in certain areas. The forest landscape plan

is used to determine where roads should go, and also, if people want to

build more roads in a certain area, then we have to look at deactivating

roads. It’s better for the forest. It’s better for regrowth. It’s better

for the environment — lessening the environmental footprint on the

landscape if you have too many roads.

Right now we have limited ability to control that, and this will

enable us to be able to do that better.

L. Doerkson: It does seem like it was appropriate to talk a little bit about

the types of deactivation. What I had a question about…. And maybe it’s

as much a statement as it is a question. But is there anything in the

bill or anything new that I haven’t seen with respect to early warning

for these deactivations?

The reason I bring this up is that this has been very passionately

brought up in my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin with people who have had

very near misses and potential for serious harm or even a very serious

accident. I guess my question is: is there anything new to bring more

early warning to these types of deactivations, whether it’s a tank trap

or whether it’s large rocks, boulders — those types of things? I hope

it’s an appropriate time to ask.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: So with the forest landscape plans, they’re going to be fully

public. They’ll be available on the Internet. They’ll be available for

people. For instance, somebody that’s been hunting on that road for

years can follow, now, what’s happening, through the forest landscape

plan, when the potential deactivation of the road is going to

be.

They can follow it. It will be web-based. Then the road permit

holder informs government around when they’re going to deactivate that,

and it’ll be web-based so that people can access that.

J. Rustad: I just want to thank the minister for taking that question. I know

it’s not directly related to the bill, but obviously, with the level of

deactivation potentially increasing by wanting to reclaim, that could

potentially raise the risk factors in certain areas. But to that extent,

I’m actually wondering….

The level of density that’s going to be targeted — will it be

different in different areas? What sorts of factors are going to go into

that in terms of designing the landscape plans and making those

determinations about the road and the road density? Obviously, in many

areas, and coming from the area that I live in, in Nechako Lakes, any

time there is even a consideration of a road deactivation, I hear about

it in my office.

People down in the Lower Mainland probably don’t hear about that

sort of thing at all. But people, whatever little corner is open, want

to go there, and they feel it’s their right to go there to be able to

hunt and fish and do the things that they like to do in the outdoors. So

deactivation has always been a very sticky issue, especially if

deactivation happens to consider gates in terms of the

process.

So the two questions around that are how you’re going to determine

that level of road density in terms of the amount of deactivation that

you would like to see and are going to require as part of a landscape

plan and, also, with the deactivation, whether things like gates would

be considered.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, it’s different in different areas, and priority is with

public safety. The work that will be done through the forest landscape

plan will get the input to determine local values. That will be used

with respect to density in these areas.

Just so the member knows, gates tend to be utilized on private

roads or private access areas. They rarely are used on Crown land.

They’re used on Crown land if there’s an issue of safety or if there’s

an active harvesting site and they need to protect equipment while

they’re up there harvesting. Then the gates would be removed once the

active operation isn’t active anymore.

There’s also input. Local input would be from local folks, like

ranchers, guide-outfitters, hunters. They would pro­vide that

input into the forest landscape plan.

J. Rustad: I’m happy to hear that, because probably the biggest contentious

issue I’ve had on the landscape — there have been a number, but one of

them, certainly — is a gate, where it was basically an area that was set

aside. There were visual-quality objectives. It was First Nations, so a

few people had access to the gate; others did not.

It created huge, huge problems, of course, because a road is a

road, and everybody wants either access or not access. Everyone wants to

be treated equal. So I’m happy to hear that gates are not really an

option or long-term solution in terms of deactivation for

roads.

Maybe I’m just sort of fixed on this road density issue, but it’s

a pretty big issue for so many areas, so I’m trying to get a handle as

to the input that goes in. Obviously, you’ve said there will be various

stakeholders who will be working with the First Nations in terms of

developing the overall plan, but setting targets doesn’t necessarily

meet what people may be going after.

Is it going to be really done as a one-off, going through the

roads within a forest landscape plan, within that planning area, and

making the determination to meet a target, or is it going to be a target

and then looking to reduce the roads? In other words, which comes

first?

Is it looking at individual roads and making a decision as to what

should be eliminated and then determining if that drives a target, or is

it going to be like we only want 2 percent of the land base that’s taken

up for road densities and then going and looking at how you’re going to

meet those targets?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Road density can be an indicator of a problem, but how it’s dealt

with is all dependent on the forest landscape plan — the local

discussions, how the local forest landscape plan is approached. It gives

the ability to limit where roads are built as well, not just

deactivation of roads.

J. Rustad: Just for clarity for my own mind, then, I think if I’m

understanding the minister correctly, it will be…. It’s not so much

about density, but it’ll be an overall plan that will kind of look at

access and look at a whole bunch of variables and then set some

prescriptions accordingly, as opposed to sort of setting an arbitrary

target or driving a process up.

I think that is what the minister has just said, if I’ve got that

right. Maybe I’m confusing the issue. Maybe I’ll wait and see if I got

that right.

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes.

J. Rustad: I love one-word answers. If only I could ask a one-word

question.

Under (1.1)(c)…. So (1.1) talks about the road permit “may do one

or more of the following.” Then under (c), it talks about “include other

encompasses.

Hon. K. Conroy: This is actually a part of the current model. There are no changes

here. The permit just ensures that permits are consistent with forest

practices standards.

J. Rustad: Like I say, I was just checking to see. When I looked at it…. I

always kind of think if there is something else that’s being thought

about.

The last question I’ve got, just in terms of this…. It’s not so

much directly about the deactivation rule, but it’s really about land

that comes back into the land base that is deactivated. I mean, is

it…?

When I was a consultant and used to do lots of mapping and looked

at the level of a number of roads and the area associated with the

roads, obviously they became a pretty significant portion of the land

base over time — 2, 3, 5 percent, depending on how much roads are going

in and at what level those roads are.

Historically — back, at least, in the day when I used to be

involved on the forestry side — very few of those roads were ever

reforested, whether they were rehabilitated and reforested. So I’m

wondering if there will be targets associated with reforestation and

putting land back into production associated with deactivation and

landscape planning.

Hon. K. Conroy: It is again dependent on the forest landscape plan and the values

of that plan. If it is in the forest landscape plan to rehabilitate

these roads, then it needs to be done. Some areas are easier to do than

others. They are doing it right now up in the northeast part of the

province.

Clause 19 approved.

On clause 20.

[4:15 p.m.]

L. Doerkson: The question I have here is something that came up earlier. We

talked about the use of “may” and “must.” This seems to contradict —

correct me if I’m wrong — what I heard earlier, that some of these roads

may be left open. Now it does refer to prescribed circumstances, so I

would like to hear what those prescribed circumstances would

be.

But here it says “…the holder of a road permit must deactivate a

road authorized under the road permit…” and then lists a number of

things. Again, I just want to try to seek clarity around what those

prescribed circumstances might be. If I could get that.

Hon. K. Conroy: This is only for when there is an obligation on a permit holder to

deactivate a road. So this clause can relieve that. Government might

need it for other options — for instance, an alternative active road for

wildfire mitigation. So this is an enabling clause.

J. Rustad: Once again, it was…. The minister just said this is about roads

that are scheduled or will be deactivated. I’m just wondering, once

again, about that consultation process, whether that is…. I keep coming

back to this because as roads get deactivated, things happen on the land

base. There are sometimes changes in perspectives versus when an

original plan was put in place. So that process or consultation — is

that also going to be part of this sort of a process or the deactivation

of these roads?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This clause doesn’t refer to how to deactivate the road. We’ve

talked about that in an earlier clause. This is just for the obligation

where the permit holder has to deactivate. Then, in certain

circumstances, we do not want them to deactivate. That’s what this is

about.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for that clarity. Under (2)(a)(ii), it

says: “rights under the road permit that relate to the road expire or

are surrendered.” Then it says that except in prescribed circumstances,

the holder of a road permit must deactivate the road. I’m just wondering

how it is it is that the rights under the road…. Perhaps you can

describe what those rights are that would expire without the permit

expiring. I would think the two would be tied. I’m just kind of

wondering: what is meant by that?

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, this is for administrative simplicity. At times, road

permits could cover all the roads in the district. This allows us to

just pinpoint certain parts of a road.

J. Rustad: Sorry, I’m still a little confused. I’m not quite sure, like I

say, how the rights expire before the permit expires, or are we talking

about…? Maybe I should ask it from this perspective. From the minister’s

answer, is she talking about if there is a permit that covers a broad

area, but there are rights at the end of that permit for a specific

road, and those rights expire? Is that what the minister is talking

about?

The Chair: The answer is yes.

Clause 20 approved.

On clause 21.

J. Rustad: In this section, it talks about a road use permit “may include

Range Practices Act, the Wildfire Act and any regulations or standards

made under those Acts.”

I’m curious. In terms of when you’re engaging with First Nations

be issues brought forward which may not be consistent with the

underlying acts, as the acts may not have been updated to UNDRIP, or

there may be other things they have in consideration. I’m wondering how

those First Nations interests would play out in relationship to the

conditions under the other acts.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Any conditions in the permit that’s applied for must be in

alignment with the acts. First Nations interests can be included, as

long as they’re in alignment with those acts.

J. Rustad: That’s interesting. I appreciate the minister’s answer on that

because I was wondering about how the priorities would line up if there

was an interest by a First Nation that did not line up with one of the

acts and how that would be handled in terms of priority. If there is one

of those conflicts, I think, if I heard the minister right, the acts

have the final say in terms of what the priorities should be. But if

there is an issue where a First Nation’s interest may vary from what the

act requires, how would that friction or dispute be handled?

Hon. K. Conroy: That would be dealt with through the forest landscape plan and the

forest operations plan.

J. Rustad: When we get to

section 34, I think it is, we’ll be talking about

how that dispute resolution process takes place. But I’m thinking about

this not from the broad planning level, but we’re talking about specific

deactivation. I believe that in this section, it says, a road use permit

may include terms or conditions that are consistent with the various

acts.

I’m just wondering. If a First Nation comes in and says “for a

road use permit or deactivation thereof….” If there is a condition or an

interest that is not consistent with the act, does all of that then have

to be dealt with in the initial overall planning, or is there

flexibility to be able to deal with things as they come up through

various interests?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Any interests must be aligned with the acts. This is a very narrow

clause in the sense that this is only about permit content, about the

use on forest roads.

J. Rustad: Actually, I was ready to move on. But what the minister has said….

I’m just curious. So if we’re in a situation where a First Nation wants

to limit a certain type of access or allow a certain type of access to a

road, that may not be part of the conditions.

For example, they may want to say: “Well, we don’t want mining

vehicles to come down here.” But there’s no contravention of

an act that

won’t allow a mining vehicle to go down that road. How is that handled?

Or does that have to be dealt with at a different area?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Limitations on these permits will be determined by the landscape

plans. Again, this is just for industrial use on forest

roads.

Clause 21 approved.

On clause 22.

J. Rustad: May I ask for a brief recess?

The Chair: You may, and that wish will be granted. This House shall be in

recess for, let’s say, five minutes, and we’ll see you

soon.

The committee recessed from 4:33 p.m. to 4:40 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: We’re here on Bill 23, and we are currently on clause

L. Doerkson: By being able to declare a road on Crown land as a forest service

road, will the ministry be complementing this responsibility with any

new investments or more money for the maintenance of those forest

service roads?

Hon. K. Conroy: That is not identified anywhere in this bill, and that would be

dealt with in a separate budgeting process.

J. Rustad: In this section, what I’m curious about is actually declassifying

of a forest service road. In particular, does anything in this

section

help the minister or make changes to allow the minister to be able to

declassify a forest service road?

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, this allows government to declassify a forest service road if

it becomes a highway, for instance, or a road under a different permit —

for instance, oil and gas.

J. Rustad: Okay. The minister mentioned the two cases — if it becomes a

highway or a road under a different act, such as oil and gas. As part of

the densification issue — and I’m just thinking about primary forest

service roads — as companies move on, away from a particular area, the

need for a forest service road may not be required. It may be downgraded

potentially, depending on the level of activity. I’m thinking about that

particularly in terms of areas that are heavily hit by pine beetle, for

example, where companies aren’t necessarily going to be going in there

frequently, if at all, for a number of years. Through that process of

potentially deactivating or declassifying a forest service road, is that

something, then, that would be considered under a forest landscape

plan?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Potentially, based on the long-term plans for the area under the

forest landscape plan.

J. Rustad: Because there is that potential, I have to ask the question. There

are people that live in very remote areas and rely on the access of a

forest service road, in terms of being able to have that reliable

access. Of course, if a road is downgraded from a forest service road,

that means there won’t necessarily be the maintenance of the road,

whether it’s winter clearing or other types of things.

I’m wondering how the interests of individuals that may be

required to access a forest service road to be able to access their land

are considered as part of the decision-making process of the

classification or declassification of the forest service

road.

Hon. K. Conroy: There are approximately 60,000 kilometres of forest service roads

in B.C. Of that 60,000 kilometres, approximately 14,000 kilometres are

roads that provide access to communities or recreational opportunities.

We haven’t declassified any of those roads. What this is about is the

rest of the roads within that 60,000 kilometres, not the 14,000 that

communities are using to access their communities.

J. Rustad: I just wanted to say thank you to the minister for that.

Obviously, access is a big issue, and we’re going to talk some more

about that in the next

section as well. I just want to thank her for the

answer.

Clause 22 approved.

On clause 23.

J. Rustad: As I was reading through this

section of the act, one of the

questions that came up to me was this issue of private land and access

to private land. I’m curious about this particular

section and whether

or not there is any potential impact from decisions here on access to

private land.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: No. This clause just improves clarity by removing an out-of-date

reference to a designated ministry employee who is responsible for the

preparation of explanatory plans, as that practice no longer

occurs.

J. Rustad: I was looking under

section (c), I guess. Maybe I just misread it

wrong. But “enter into an agreement with an owner of land under

section

3(1) of the Expropriation Act or otherwise, that provides for the

dedication of the land, in accordance with subsection…to the government

for the use of a road.” My understanding of that, of course, is that

would be looking at private land and whether a road, a chunk of it,

could be potentially expropriated for the use of access across

areas.

But then again, when I’m looking at that, of course there is the

possibility, as we talked about in the previous thing, of the

requirement to deactivate these roads, in terms of it. So that’s why I

was asking specifically about access to land and the requirement or the

need to consider that access.

Hon. K. Conroy: We do access through private lands. We go through access to

private lands to access Crown resources. We tend to use the statutory

rights-of-way agreements with private landowners. There are two ways

that we do this: either an outright purchase or a lease. We come to

these agreements with negotiations with the private landowner. If we

can’t arrive at an agreement, in very exceptional circumstances, we

might use expropriation, but this is rarely used.

Clauses 23 to 27 inclusive approved.

On clause 28.

[4:55 p.m.]

J. Rustad: The groan goes up across as the opposition wakes up again to ask

another question. I appreciate the humour as we go through this work.

Obviously, this work can be very tedious at times in terms of going

through details and trying to understand exactly the intent behind the

bills, the various clauses of the bills. So I appreciate the opportunity

for a little chuckle as we go through these things

section by

section as

well.

In clause 28, I’m just curious as to if the minister can provide

some examples of offences that contravene

section 118.

Hon. K. Conroy: This is a new penalty for people, for instance, who were supposed

to deactivate and didn’t deactivate. In the past legislation, we had no

ability to fine people.

Clause 28 approved.

On clause 29.

Interjections.

J. Rustad: More groans? We only went through one section. Sheesh.

Okay.

section 29, the minister determines, under

section 71 of the

forest and range protection act that the person in contravention of the

act, etc., etc.

What I’m curious about with this

section is how this is

implemented if a First Nation supports or raises concerns.

Hon. K. Conroy: This is simply a clause that ensures enforcement action. So if

somebody was told they had to deactivate by a certain date and didn’t do

it, and said they weren’t going to do it, and if we had to do it as a

government, we would say: “Not only are we going to charge you for the

cost of deactivation, you’ll still get fined as well.”

J. Rustad: That’s why I was just curious in terms of…. You may end up with a

First Nations company or something else that may be in this situation

with this, which is why I’m wondering how the role of the shared

decision-making comes with something like this, or whether that’s even

relevant.

Hon. K. Conroy: This is specific to tenure holders who don’t meet the obligations

of deactivation.

Clause 29 approved.

On clause 30.

[5:00 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I want to start off…. I’m trying to understand this a little bit.

So the adding of the definition, the “area of catastrophic damage” — can

the minister provide some details on what exactly that would

encompass?

Hon. K. Conroy: An “area of catastrophic damage” is a term that’s necessary for

the effective functioning of the provisions in the Forest and Range

Practices Act for managing activities related to catastrophic damage due

to wildfire and other natural events.

J. Rustad: Are these areas defined as part of a landscape-level plan? So is

it that, if there’s a landscape that has an area that’s seeing

catastrophic damage — whether it happens to be a slide or a fire or

whatever the case may be — that then is classified as part of this?

Obviously, there could be events that happen over the ten-year life of a

plan. So those areas then would become part of that, as part of

classification of the landscape plan? Or is it that once it’s sort of in

place, it’s set from the beginning?

Hon. K. Conroy: When the forest landscape plan is being developed, if there has

been a catastrophic damage, that would be included within the forest

landscape planning. If there is a catastrophic damage — a wildfire, for

instance; a landslide, like the member referred to — within the ten-year

period after the forest landscape plan has already been established,

this gives the minister the ability to deal with the event right away so

we don’t have to go back to the drawing board with that. We can deal

with it right away and establish an area of catastrophic damage within

the forest landscape plan.

J. Rustad: Specifically, I’m thinking about landslides, in the light of

what’s just recently happened. Obviously, we’ve had some pretty

significant events. So in terms of that classification of catastrophic

damage, how would that then be handled in terms of the cut calculation

or any other sorts of impacts within a landscape plan?

Obviously, a landscape plan lays out what it’s going to be doing

over a certain area, and if you suddenly have a slide that is so

catastrophic, that could actually change significantly — whether it’s

even roads or various plans — the amount that might be available for

harvesting, etc.

[5:05 p.m.]

A landslide — given that it’s very topical, with what’s been

happening here — is considered, obviously, catastrophic damage. Maybe if

you can just talk about how that could potentially change the

plan.

Hon. K. Conroy: For instance, with what the member is referring to, if there was a

slide that took out the road work that was being done, then the minister

would have the ability to say, “There’s been catastrophic damage

caused,” and would be able to implement a decision right away to be able

to deal with it right away to make sure that it was taken into

consideration as part of the forest landscape plan and could amend that

plan appropriately.

J. Rustad: Designating an area, of course, as a catastrophic damage is one

thing. It’s obviously the prescription, or what’s going to be done

around it. That may be a question that I need to save for

section 33 of

this. But I thought I would ask the question now in terms of: what are

the proposed prescriptions — or types of recommendations, I guess you

could say — that would happen under four areas that are classified as

that or that may become classified as that during the life of a forest

landscape plan?

Hon. K. Conroy: Some of the considerations and criteria for the minister that we

would use to decide whether and where to establish an area of

catastrophic damage would include the intensity and size of a wildfire,

for instance; the number of licensees operating within the wildfire

area; and specific values such as wildlife and fish habitat, forest

health and community safety and how they were affected by the wildfire.

That’s one example, by a wildfire. You could relate the same issues to a

landslide, a flood — all of those.

J. Rustad: In terms of when you have a catastrophic event or a catastrophic

area declared because of an event such as what we have just recently

seen, where does the responsibility lie in terms of the overall plan?

What I mean by that is, obviously, if there is a forest service road

that’s taken out, does that then become the responsibility, or would

that be…? Would the responsibility be designated under a forest

landscape plan in terms of the mitigation that might be

required?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Once there’s a catastrophic issue or situation like wildfire or

slides, as the member referred to…. Establishing an area as a

catastrophic area, it alleviates following the requirements of the

forest landscape plan while there is an emergency, because we have other

emergency planning processes to deal with that, for instance, under the

Wildfire Act.

Once the emergency is dealt with. Then it goes back to the forest

landscape plan to carry on the work that needs to be done. It alleviates

those requirements under the forest landscape plan while there is a

catastrophic area that’s been identified.

J. Rustad: Just so I’ve got it clear in my mind, I believe what I heard the

minister say was…. When there’s a catastrophic event, the requirements

in the landscape plan are suspended, if you might want to say that,

until the issue is dealt with. Then once the issue is dealt with, it

comes back under the landscape plan, in terms of the requirements under

a catastrophic area.

Is that what I heard the minister just say?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This relates to the obligation, under the forest landscape plan,

to reach free-to-grow, where trees get to a certain size, while there’s

an area of catastrophic damage that’s been identified with fires. In

that process, if this happens, other emergency planning processes deal

with it, such as the Wildfire Act.

J. Rustad: Specifically, what I’m…. We had the other plans that deal with it

when you have a fire, a landslide, some sort of flooding event or some

sort of catastrophic event. Once that event is over, then I’m assuming

we’d go back to the forest landscape plan, in terms of the

requirements.

Who has the responsibility for the mitigating of the damage —

whether that be a road or whether that be an area that needs to be

reforested — or the site prep, in terms of slope stabilization and all

that kind of stuff? We’ve identified an area. I understand identifying

the area that’s a catastrophic area. But I’m unclear about that

responsibility — whether that falls under the forest landscape plan or

whether that is outside of the area. If it is outside the area, then

what is the sort of purpose for classification of this catastrophic area

under a landscape plan?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The obligation to reforest, for in­stance, remains with the

licensee, unless the minister relieves them in the case of catastrophic

damage.

J. Rustad: Maybe I should need t