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 office.” So I said so. I said so on social media; I said so to our 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 in 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.

There are different levels of accessibility.

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 terms and conditions.” I’m just curious what that 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 terms and conditions that are consistent with this Act, the Forest and 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 and having the conversation around the terms and conditions, there may 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 22.

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.

In 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 to ask this question, I guess, then, which is: is an area that’s defined under catastrophic damage, whether it be a flood, a slide or…? I suppose there are other types of catastrophic events other than those and fires. Unless the minister relieves…. The responsibility is still with the licensee or within an area, but I’m assuming that’s only if there is an existing permit in an area, whether that would be a road permit or whether that would be some sort of area responsibility.

The question is in terms of the responsibility for managing the crisis. Obviously, it’s in the moment of the crisis of the catastrophic event. But beyond that, then, there becomes this management issue, particularly in an area that’s volume-based as opposed to area-based in terms of management, both for reforestation as well as for things like roads, and that side of things.

How does that relationship work, then, under this classification, or does that change at all, because of this plan in place and this classification in place?

The minister looks confused. If you need me to try to clarify, I can.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to clarify that this clause only applies to wildfire right now. The obligation hasn’t changed for the licensee, unless they’re relieved by the minister. I would think this will be clearer when we get to clause 79, because it’s part of clause 79.

J. Rustad: Okay. Clause 79 is a long ways away in terms of the other section, about silviculture.

That still leaves me wondering, in terms of this classification. We were talking about other types of disasters. Is this now limited in terms of a…? If I’m hearing what the minister just said, the area of catastrophic damage is limited to wildfires only in terms of an area. Even though you may have a very broad event that may happen from a slide or something like that, I think the minister just said this area of catastrophic damage is limited just to wildfires. Perhaps I can ask the minister to confirm that.

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s wildfires or other prescribed natural events.

J. Rustad: Thank you, Minister. But I have to ask — the other prescribed natural events.

Hon. K. Conroy: Those will be in regulation.

J. Rustad: Okay. I guess I can wait for the regulations. It’s going to be like Christmas. We’ll open up the present and find out what’s included and what’s not included.

Then I’ll ask the question around area of catastrophic damage. It’s an area designated under 108.2, as an area of catastrophic damage. I’m curious, then — the purpose of designating an area under a forest landscape plan.

[5:30 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This specifically relieves a licensee of their obligation to reforest under either forest landscape plans or a forest operations plan if there is a catastrophic event.

Not just obligations to reforest. Just obligations.

J. Rustad: She anticipated my question, but I’ll ask just for clarity on that in terms of obligations. Obviously, there are obligations for roads, obligations for deck, obligations for reforestation, etc. So is that the wide range of obligations that would be potentially impacted by a licensee?

Hon. K. Conroy: These are all obligations to establish a free-growing stand, and this will become clearer when we get to clause 79.

J. Rustad: Okay, I think I’ve got that understood. It doesn’t involve access or these types of things associated with it.

Moving on to the second definition, a forest landscape area. I’m just wondering. It says: “‘forest landscape area,’ in relation to a forest landscape plan, means the area of land specified in the plan as a forest landscape area.”

I think I started off in some of the early questions, before we got into going clause by clause, around what a landscape plan could cover in terms of areas and the various types. Is it going to be timber supply areas? Is it going to be broken down into smaller areas? Could it be aggregate of areas? How will that be determined in terms of the forest landscape area?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to clarify — a head nod will suffice — that the member is referring to forest landscape area. Yes. Good. Okay. Excellent.

The intent is to do this at a timber service area or a tree farm licence area, but there may be areas where we need to split them or amalgamate them if the areas are too large, or we’ll split them if they’re too small. We might need to amalgamate some. This will be determined at the time of the forest landscape planning process with Indigenous communities and stakeholders that are involved with the planning process.

J. Rustad: The reason I’m asking questions around the forest landscape area is that obviously — maybe not obviously — where the planning units or the landscape units become smaller, they use less flexibility in terms of adjacency rules and other issues associated within a supply area when you’re talking about free-to-grow and this type of thing, which actually extends rotation periods and reduces the amount of volume that is available within a timber supply area on an annual basis. There’s a concern of the fragmentation of the landscape that can create those problems.

I’m asking specifically about the area this time. Obviously, we’ve got some areas in the province where, in a landscape unit, you might have 20 or 30 First Nation interests, and they may not want to get along with another in terms of planning. They may want to have other areas separated by a watershed, or it may be by smaller units that they want to do things, and there are potential impacts to that.

That’s why I’m asking about the definition of the area and how it will be defined: whether or not there’s going to be overall guidance, whether or not there are going to be minimal requirements on it, or whether it is really going to be just a case-by-case definition, and it could be of a wide range of sizes and shapes.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, the intent is to do this at the timber service area or the tree farm licence area, and it’s done with support of the individual nations and on their traditional territory.

J. Rustad: Okay. That certainly raises a few concerns for me just in terms of the size and potential fragmentation that you could end up with. I know and I trust the chief forester’s office will do the best they can in terms of minimizing what some of those fragmentations will be. But obviously some of those discussions with individual nations could be challenging, particularly when you’ve got a situation in my riding, for example, where you might have Yekooche that may want an area, or surrounding nations like Lake Babine Nation or others that may not want Yekooche included in an area.

You’re going to end up with these friction points that are going to happen as you have these discussions. Somebody, ultimately, is going to have to make a decision, when you have these friction points, as to where a landscape level plan should be applied. So that’s why I’m asking specifically about the areas and what could be included.

In some areas of the province, there are rather large community forests. In some areas they’re not that large. Could things like a community forest be considered a landscape level area?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The intent is to include community forests with timber supply areas, although smaller ones could be excluded, and the actual size will be coming up in a coming clause. Stay tuned.

J. Rustad: Okay, we’ll have to wait for those sort of things on committee. The other thing I was just thinking about, in terms of landscape areas…. I’m sorry for carrying on about this, but this is at the heart of what we’re trying to design here, in terms of the landscape plans. I’m trying to understand. Timber supply areas, for the most part, follow things like high lands and water and various types of terrain. In some cases, of course, those divisions can be pretty arbitrary.

I’m thinking about, for example, the Morice TSA and the Nadina TSA — two areas where one area has often talked about combining the two areas, because it’s volume-based, and some areas have said: “No, we don’t want them combined.” So there is lots of contention between companies and communities around the size of an area that may be considered under what used to be the called the timber supply area, but now that would be considered under a forest landscape area.

Because of those concerns of the potential size of inclusions of other areas…. You might have, for example, First Nations that span across multiple current supply areas in terms of their traditional territory that may want them combined.

How do you deal with these sort of friction points that may come up between what a First Nation may want in terms of combined or separation versus communities’ interests in terms of what that is, versus, quite frankly, forest management, in terms of the best size for managing the needs of the forest and the various restrictions that come as part of it?

I’m trying to understand how all of these pieces come together to define what will end up being a forest landscape area.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We are overlapped with First Nation values. They will be implemented in any of the forest landscape plans that are developed. Those will be worked out at that table. Again, the intent is to maintain timber supply areas or timber forest licence areas.

J. Rustad: Maybe this is a question better for one of the other sections, but this is going to be a government-to-government discussion between the chief forester’s office and First Nations, in terms of defining these areas. At what point do community interests or others have an opportunity to be able to provide their perspective and potentially influence…? And with how much weight will those other perspectives come into play, in terms of the decisions?

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, it’s a government-to-government plan but with input gathered from local communities and stakeholders. It’s actually the chief forester’s job to ensure that local values are considered and to make sure that those values are reflected and with the local stakeholders as well. This is actually in clause 33.

J. Rustad: There may be some other questions from some of my colleagues, but I’ve got one last question sort of rattling around in my mind on the forest landscape area.

If I remember correctly, one of the things that will go into the forest landscape plans is to be able to manage for reducing wildfire risks and other types of catastrophic events, wildfire in particular. There are, obviously, areas beside current areas or within certain areas such as parks and other types of designations on the landscape that may make sense to be included in terms of some of the management strategies that might want to be considered for things like wildfire reduction.

I’m wondering whether landscape areas will include encumbered land, such as parks, for the potential for management strategies.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: No. This is used for Crown land that is being utilized for forest management.

J. Rustad: Parks and other types of areas encumbered, obviously, also could be Crown land — and are, in most cases, Crown land. Private land, obviously, would be excluded. Title land — obviously, there’d be a question around that. I’m wondering about that.

If things like parks and other encumbered areas are excluded, that’s unfortunate, because I think there is an opportunity in terms of being able to mitigate some of the potential risks. A line in the forest doesn’t necessarily mean that beetles, fire or other things will stay on one side of the line and not go across to the other side of the line, in terms of management of landscape units.

I guess one other question…. If I’m wrong about that, let me know. I think that’s what I’m hearing the minister say, in terms of those sorts of things. I’m also wondering, just in terms of First Nations interests — whether it’s defined title or it’s through land that’s transferred by agreement — whether or not those would be included as part of a landscape planning area, or whether those would need to be excluded.

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, this is land used for forest management. Where there are treaty lands or lands that are under agreements, it’s up to the First Nation to choose. They may choose to be part of the forest landscape plan.

L. Doerkson: I can certainly appreciate how the definitions all sort of tie into each other. My questions, I guess, are around the scope of the project. Now, I can understand and appreciate that we’re going to develop new forest landscape plans. I’m just wondering: how many of them will there be? Will they be by region? How will that come down? Or will there just simply be one for the province?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: No, there will not be one forest landscape plan for the province. The intent is to reflect forest supply areas and tree farm licence areas. Right now in the province, there are 37 timber supply areas and there are 34 tree farm licences.

L. Doerkson: I anticipated that there wouldn’t be one. I guess my next question is to the scope of that. Is there a timeline to have these plans in place?

Hon. K. Conroy: The transition from forest stewardship plans to forest landscape plans is estimated to take roughly ten years to complete. Forest landscape plans will be initiated where and when they are needed, prioritized by the province in consultation with Indigenous nations and, eventually, put in place across the whole province on the applicable management units.

While this is ongoing, the forest stewardship plans will remain in place so that they won’t not have management of the land.

L. Doerkson: I’m glad to hear that, of course.

The next question I have is specific to catastrophic damage. Will there be any new plans introduced with respect specifically to wildfires as far as how the ministry will react to the planting of grasses and those types of things? Is there anything under catastrophic damage with respect to the plans for that?

Hon. K. Conroy: Clause 79 allows for reforestation in areas that are affected by catastrophic damage.

A. Olsen: I’ve been doing my best to follow all of the questions and answers with respect to the forest landscape area. I just have two questions here. What I’m hoping to do is just kind of capture, perhaps in one answer, the scope of the answers that the minister has provided to my colleagues in the official opposition.

Can the minister provide or clarify the intention and rationale for forest landscape areas and, particularly, how they relate to the existing landscape units?

Hon. K. Conroy: This is for administrative efficiencies.

[6:05 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I guess where, perhaps, I’ve been having some challenges…. In many of the responses there have been direct references to Indigenous nations or Indigenous people. My understanding is that this is just generally applicable and doesn’t necessarily apply to Indigenous nations.

Can the minister provide some detail on the forest landscape areas? For example, is there a specific size requirement? Will there be biophysical factors, a timber supply? Are there any specific conditions that apply here?

Hon. K. Conroy: The sizes would be variable based on the sizes of the timber service supply areas and the tree farm licence areas. The rest of the member’s question could actually be canvassed under clause 33.

J. Rustad: Most of the rest of the definitions are fine in terms of going through. I think I’ve understood in terms of the definition stuff.

Under (c), where it talks about the planning guide­line…. We’ll get to that when we get into section 2.28 under 33, but I’m curious about the trail-based recreation plan. I’m curious about why that is being defined in here and why that is being part of the landscape plan.

Hon. K. Conroy: The definition is not specific to forest landscape plans. The new designation will be used when it makes sense to manage a more concentrated network of trails as a broad area, rather than an individual trail, which is the current legislation. Trail networks are dynamic and continually evolving as new trails are built and other trails are decommissioned.

Previously these networks were managed recreation sites, a designation meant for campsites and other small area-based sites that don’t really change much. They pretty well stay the same.

This new designation will enable more effective and appropriate management of these important areas, integrated with other natural resource values — for example, mountain bike areas, which are quite popular of late, or dirt bike trails, things that are starting, new things that are coming up.

[6:10 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Maybe this is better to be asked in section 33, but I’ll ask it because I’m curious in terms of the definition, seeing it added in here.

As the minister has noted, there are obviously a lot of other interests on the landscape, that there are definitions that are already in the Forest and Range Practices Act or in other acts. Maybe I could ask the question from this perspective. I’m assuming all those other interests are also things that would be considered as part of this process of forest landscape planning, and the fact that recreation trails have been added here is just simply to be able to group that. Is that correct?

What I’m saying is that there are many interests out there. Obviously, they’re going to be…. Not obviously. I’m asking if they’re all going to be considered as part of the process for forest landscape planning. But when I see trails mentioned in here, it made me wonder whether or not that had some higher designation or concern as opposed to other values that we utilize our landscape for.

Hon. K. Conroy: These definitions apply to the entire act. They’re not specific to just the forest landscape plan.

Clause 30 approved.

On clause 31.

J. Rustad: I’m curious here in terms of 2.01(1), where it says: “For the purposes of this Act, a forest landscape plan applies to a forest operations plan if any portion of the forest operations area is within the forest landscape….” Clearly, you could have a situation — or at least I think you could have a situation — where you could have multiple…. We haven’t got to talking about forest operation plans yet. You could potentially have a forest operation plan that overlaps with multiple forest landscape plans.

This says that a forest landscape plan applies to a forest operations plan if any portion of the forest operation area is within a forest landscape area. So if you have a plan that happens to go across multiple areas, how do you deter­mine if…? Do the rules of both apply to both sides, or is one applied to one side? It just was confusing to me when I looked at it. This seems to imply that a forest landscape plan will apply to an entire forest operation plan if any portion of it is in there. But it could be in multiple plans. That’s why I’m just wondering how this plays out where you may have that situation.

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I need the whiteboard again. If you have a forest landscape plan here and a forest landscape plan here and you have the forest operations plan that covers both of them, that portion of the forest operations plan is governed by this forest landscape plan, and this portion of the operations plan is covered by this forest landscape plan.

The Chair: I think the minister did really well without the whiteboard.

J. Rustad: Maybe we’ll have the technology so we have this on our desks so we could start drawing and pointing and have it displayed, heads up. I mean, who knows? Maybe that technology will be there next term. Come to think of it, I actually think they have some of that type of technology in other jurisdictions already. But I’m sure we don’t have the budget to retrofit the Legislature at the moment. But, sorry, that’s a side tangent.

The reason, like I say, for asking this is that if “a forest landscape plan applies to a forest operations plan if any portion of the forest operations area is within the forest landscape area….” Just for clarity. I had read it differently. I had read it that if a portion was in one plan, that plan would apply to the entire operation plan. But it’s not. It’s individual plans. Thank you for the clarification on that.

I see the minister nodding. Good. That’s it for that section for me. Thank you.

Clauses 31 and 32 approved.

On clause 33.

J. Rustad: We’re finally to the main event. I just want to start out by asking a question right up front.

Need to move around staff? Okay. I’ll take a while to ask my first question then.

Actually, the first question is pretty straightforward. Obviously, in terms of looking at and developing forest landscape plans, there is a lot of time that’s going to be involved in it. There are a lot of resources that are going to need to be involved in doing this over a ten-year period, with probably 150, 160 nations that have a forest interest — maybe 165. Whatever that number is around the province, there will be a lot of work that goes into this, both on the First Nations’ side as well as on the chief forester’s side.

The one thing that is not in here and I did not see in the estimates of the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations was a budget to actually undertake this work. The first question I’ve got around this is: will there be a supplemental budget coming in so this work can start right away? Or is this something that once this bill passes — assuming it passes — won’t be implemented until the next fiscal year?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We can use internal existing resources, prioritized for this work, for the remainder of this fiscal year. We’ve been working on this for a while. We’ve known that this is a priority. This is actually legislation that was discussed back in 2019 under my predecessor, Doug Donaldson, and that didn’t actually come to the House. So this has been an ongoing discussion for some time.

We know this has been prioritized for the remainder of this year, for the work. As we are creating the regulations, which will be a process that takes place over the next year, we will be able to identify if more resources are required. Then we would obviously go through the budgetary process that we have to go through, to make sure that we have the resources in place to be able to carry out the work that needs to be done, because this is of critical importance.

It’s something that has been part of my mandate letter: as we move forward, to ensure that we are updating the legislation. As it hasn’t been updated for many, many years, we’ve got to bring the legislation into the 21st century. This is what we will do.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the answer from the minister on that. I agree. Obviously, this is going to be a process. I’m just trying to get an understanding of how this will unfold. The minister just mentioned that regulations will be created through this over the next year, and then that will drive some of the needs. That raises the question about how much of this work will actually get started as part of the 2022-2023 fiscal year, let alone the work that will get started in this fiscal year.

Perhaps, if the minister could provide the House with — I guess I don’t want to call it a timeline — just an outline of how this work will start proceeding in gearing up for it, developing the regulations, getting out and actually starting the process of working with First Nations. I’m just trying to get an understanding of how this will end up rolling out, from a fiscal perspective as well as from a timeline perspective.

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: As I said, we feel it’ll take about ten years to fully implement the plans across the province. Right now we currently have four pilot projects that are working on forest landscape planning, and we are going to be rolling out more forest landscape plans on a priority basis in the coming year.

Again, these will be covered and taken care of within this year’s fiscal framework. We feel confident that we’ll be able to do that. We feel that each forest landscape plan will take about two to three years to complete. That’s why we have the ten-year time frame. This isn’t something that can be rushed. It has to be done right.

We have to ensure that we have all the proper consultation — those government-to-government discussions — in place and then ensure that we are reaching out to communities and stakeholders so that they’re done properly. For now, that’s the two to three years for completion of each plan.

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

The Chair: Just a reminder to members: they can only vote if they’re sitting at their chairs.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. N. Simons moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:29 p.m.