Second Session, 42nd Parliament (2021)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, June 3, 2021
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 83
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Chief records officer, annual report, 2020-21 | |
Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Order-in-Council
310/2021, Minister of | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 2021
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: T. Stone.
Introductions by Members
A. Olsen: Today I want to introduce Myrna Scarff. Myrna is going to be watching us by video today. Myrna is another parent who I met with the Holding Hope group a couple of evenings ago. She shared the story of her son, who is 46 years old and has been challenged with some pretty substantial mental health and addictions issues or challenges over his life. Those challenges have definitely been on the entire family.
Myrna’s story — telling me of her son and sharing with all of the other mothers that were in the room the lack of ability to be able to get access to the safe supply that is needed as well as the types of treatment that her son needs — again resonated the real challenges that Myrna and many of the other parents are feeling when they’re trying to access supports for their sons and daughters.
I just wanted to take the time today to introduce Myrna and thank her for watching question period and the proceedings in the House today.
Hon. B. Ma: It is my honour to rise in the chamber today to make a series of introductions. There will be three of them.
My first introduction is to Ms. Jennifer Bermudez and her grade 12 Spanish class at Sutherland Secondary School. They join us today virtually from my home constituency in North Vancouver–Lonsdale. These students have been with Ms. Bermudez in the Spanish program for four years now. She tells me that she is proud to have a class made up of learners of many different levels, bringing their own cultural knowledge and talents to enrich each other’s learning. Would the House please join me in welcoming Ms. Jennifer Bermudez’s grade 12 Spanish class to the B.C. Legislature.
Also with us today is Nikayla Allen. When she was in grade 8, Nikayla travelled to Kenya to help build a school. It was there that Nikayla learned about the social problems that so many countries face, and having been through some challenging times herself, she turned her energy towards advocacy and fighting discrimination. Nikayla is graduating high school this year and hopes to attend university in pursuit of a career in social sciences.
Nikayla, thank you so much for your commitment to making life better for the people around you. I am very proud to be able to announce Sutherland Secondary School’s recipient of this year’s North Vancouver–Lonsdale MLA social justice scholarship is you.
Would the House please join me in wishing Nikayla the best of luck in her future endeavours.
The last but not least of all the introductions is another one of Ms. Bermudez’s students. A leader at their school, this student has worked hard to build community through the time of COVID. A dedicated volunteer, supporting people with autism and younger students, and an avid organizer of fundraisers, this student has a consistent track record of good citizenship throughout their high school career.
It has been a very difficult year for high school students, and peer leadership during this time is very important. That’s why I’m pleased to share with the House that this year’s special edition scholarship, the North Vancouver–Lonsdale MLA’s COVID-19 pandemic leadership award, goes to graduation council president Adam Yahav. He’s also with us virtually today. Would the House please join me in thanking Adam for his leadership during this pandemic.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
COVID-19 AND
AIR FILTRATION
TECHNOLOGY
E. Ross: We know COVID-19 spreads in different ways but mainly through liquid particles from an infected person’s nose or mouth via coughing, sneezing, speaking or just breathing. Studies have also shown that it’s not just droplets that are of concern but also the much smaller aerosols.
We as a society have tried to adapt and come to terms with this pandemic, and there is innovation that is coming out that are prime examples of ingenuity that is needed. We’re all well aware that we are more likely to get infected in an indoor setting versus an outside setting. Why? Because aerosols can remain suspended in the air for much longer than droplets can or can travel farther than one metre.
Confined spaces with older ventilation systems with minimal filtration are not going to work. If we want to open up our society sooner or even be better prepared for the next virus, we need to look at responsive technologies, because epidemics have evolved alongside humans and will continue to do so in the future.
It’s encouraging to know that a Vancouver-based company has designed a system that not only increases clean air flow in our enclosed spaces but also kills the virus and sends clean air back into the room. The new ventilation system was developed in direct response to COVID-19 but likely has many more practical applications, considering the potential of respiratory viruses that will continue to spread.
As we speak, there are many that are quickly waking up to this new technology and are making their indoor working environments much safer for their employees. As this is a brand-new application of proven filtration technology, I encourage everyone to look into this new initiative by visiting their website www.puraairpurification.com.
MISSION SENIORS CENTRE
AND HOUSING
PROJECT
P. Alexis: I would first like to acknowledge that I come to you from the unceded and ancestral territory of the Stó:lō people.
June 6 to 12 marks Seniors Week in British Columbia. It is with great pride I rise today to mark the occasion by shining a light on a massive project that has provided much-needed and dignified housing to seniors in my riding of Abbotsford-Mission. Thanks to the recently opened Boswyk centre in the district of Mission, seniors with moderate and low incomes can now enjoy 74 additional affordable homes, as well as a seniors activity centre.
This government has invested $7.4 million in the project through the Building B.C.: community housing fund, as well as an additional $8.5 million in construction financing. The province is also providing approximately $197,000 in annual operating funding.
I want to also thank the district of Mission for providing land and funds for the centre, as well as the Mission Association for Seniors Housing for their contributions to seeing this great project come to fruition.
Finally, I want to thank my colleague the member for Maple Ridge–Mission for his hard work, support and vision in seeing this project through to the end.
On a personal note, I am beyond thrilled to see this project open its doors and was delighted to tour it in person last week. I know, from talking to constituents and through my previous role with the district, how much these homes are needed in Mission.
This project is a great testament to a government that is committed to helping the vulnerable and at-risk in the valley and in this province and a strong step in addressing the housing crunch so many of our seniors face.
CHILDREN AND YOUTH IN CARE
K. Kirkpatrick: Children and youth in and from government care experience unique barriers and challenges in their daily lives. They’re often stigmatized and struggle with self-esteem, belonging and connection to community. It’s the responsibility of all of us to make sure that children and youth in care have the same right to safety and support for development and social well-being.
May 31 to June 6 is Child and Youth in Care Week in British Columbia. A group of youth in and from care advocated for this week so their siblings could grow up feeling celebrated for their diverse talents and accomplishments, surrounded by a supportive community who stands with them.
There are many reasons that a young person may go into care when they or their family are in crisis. From babies to teens, children can be removed for any number of reasons. Their parents are unable to care for them or don’t have the skills or the tools they need to care for them. Sometimes it’s just for a short while, and sometimes it can be their whole childhood.
Now, I can’t talk about children and youth this week without recognizing the impact of the residential school system on families. Indigenous youth are overrepresented in the number of youth in care. No parent wants to be a bad parent; they want to be a great parent. But we learn parenting and connection from experiencing it.
There are generations of Indigenous Peoples whose families were torn apart — children taken away and losing connection to family and community. These children haven’t seen parenting, and they have to learn it, generation after generation. The last thing that we want to do is to continue to separate Indigenous families.
The goal this week is to raise social awareness and shift negative perceptions to recognize children and youth in care, like all young people, as individuals with talents, contributions and dreams.
LANGLEY COMMUNITY MUSIC SCHOOL
AND APOLLO
INITIATIVE
A. Mercier: It is an honour to rise in this House and speak to the recent Apollo Initiative performance led by young musicians from across this province. Students from Langley Community Music School joined 350 student musicians from across B.C. to perform a brand-new composition by Juno Award–winning artist, Jordan Nobles.
The Apollo Initiative began when youth orchestra from around B.C. came together as a means to create an opportunity for B.C.’s youth to share a large and exciting musical experience, while still respecting public health restrictions. The name was inspired by Apollo, the Greek god of music and the arts and healing, among other things. The aim was to raise funds for youth mental health. This fundraiser was initiated as a response to COVID-19’s impact on the mental health of youth, many of whom looked to music as a key part of their wellness strategies.
The Langley Community School musicians were joined by students and conductors from the Coquitlam Youth Orchestra, the Greater Victoria Youth Orchestra, the Okanagan Symphony Youth Orchestra, the Surrey Youth Orchestra and the Vancouver Youth Symphony Orchestra. I had a chance to watch the live stream, and I can tell you that, among other things, it was a testament to the resilience of our young people during this time.
I am so proud of the Langley Community Music School. Langley Community Music School has provided virtual, in-person, hybrid learning opportunities throughout the pandemic, which have allowed for safe, distanced rehearsals. They’ve done this through the incredible efforts of the students and the staff, notably the principal, Carolyn Granholm, and Conductor Joel Stobbe. To top it off, they raised over $8,000 for the B.C. division of the Canadian Mental Health Association.
Will this House please join me in congratulating all the youth mentioned for raising money for mental health in this province.
PRESS FREEDOM
S. Furstenau: The last 16 months have hit home just how essential it is to have trustworthy and reliable information. As many of us watched COVID and its accompanying burden on our lives move across the globe, we listened each day and parsed the endless news stories that kept us informed of each breaking development. Imagine what this would have been like without a free press. Imagine what they have endured.
In a democracy, the press plays a vital role in keeping the public informed and keeping those who are making decisions accountable. A healthy democracy has several essential components: legislative and executive orders of government, an independent judiciary, an unfettered press and educated and informed citizens who are able to think critically and participate actively.
In 2012, Ryerson University held a two-day conference marking the 30th anniversary of the Canadian constitution, with a focus on the status of press freedom in Canada. Toronto Star editor Kathy English pointed out: “In Canada, judges still impose too many publication bans that stop journalists from reporting on public court proceedings; bureaucrats routinely block requests for public information; control-mad governments shut down access; and politicians refuse to speak to journalists, who seek to hold them to account on the public’s behalf.”
Here in B.C., journalists have filed an application with the B.C. Supreme Court, asking that their rights not be fettered by RCMP exclusion zones. This is a worrying trend in our province, particularly in relation to conflicts around resource extraction and Indigenous territories.
We may have differing opinions on those matters in here. But it is my hope and expectation that each and every one of us who are representatives of this democratic system is committed to upholding and protecting the rights of journalists to report on what happens in here and everywhere in this province.
We should fight for a free press like our democracy depends on it, because it does.
GRADUATES OF 2021 IN
VERNON-MONASHEE
AREA
H. Sandhu: As we know, in the coming weeks, our graduating young adults from across the province will be finishing a formative chapter of their lives and moving on to new and exciting challenges. I want to extend my best wishes and congratulations to the 2021 grads from Vernon-Monashee, their families and their amazing teachers.
This week, on June 11, the first of our grad classes at Kalamalka Secondary School will celebrate, and those from Charles Bloom, Clarence Fulton, VSS, W.L. Seaton and Vernon Christian School will follow throughout June.
I know how exciting and important this milestone is for every grad and their families — when the students are ready to step into the next adventure of their lives. Dear grads, I can understand that it’s been a challenging year. None of you planned on missing out on any of these milestones — prom nights, sports tournaments and school rallies. But these events do not define your schooling.
Over the course of the past 14 months, despite the pandemic, we’ve seen graduates continue to make positive changes in their communities, all while showing tremendous resilience, determination and patience. I am so proud of you. Despite the challenges, you have accomplished so much this year. I know this is just the beginning for you. All of you have already shown determination, resiliency and adaptability by continuing your education during unprecedented times in history.
You are our future and hope. It is a big world out there. Go out and seize it. Don’t let anything stop you from pursuing your goals. The sky is the limit. Please join me to commemorate this very important milestone for Vernon-Monashee 2021 grads.
Oral Questions
REOPENING OF LAND BORDER WITH U.S.
AND LIFTING OF
CRUISE SHIP BAN
S. Bond: Well, the Premier has spectacularly bungled the cruise ship file, and we saw that he was just a little bit sensitive about that yesterday. This is a very serious issue. This issue puts B.C.’s tourism-dependent businesses at risk. One of the Premier’s more memorable comments was: “I’m confident that this is just a blip along the way.”
Well, we all know how that turned out. But there is another serious issue emerging. We know that the federal cruise ship ban is in place until March of 2022. We also know that reopening plans are actively being discussed, and we recognize that the land border could open much sooner if the federal government decides to do that.
Where would that leave cruise-dependent tourism businesses in our province? Well, let’s ask the Premier that today.
Does the Premier agree that whenever the land border opens so that people can arrive in British Columbia by car, by bus or by train, they should, at the same time, be allowed to arrive on a cruise ship and that the moratorium should be lifted?
Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. Clearly, we’re in active discussions with the federal government about the borders. I mean, YVR wants to open up. We all want to know when the borders are going to be open.
Right now the laser focus is on vaccination. The member knows that. All British Columbians want to see that more vaccinations are out there so we can move the dial, as we have with our restart plan, to open up activity for tourism.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, quiet please.
Hon. M. Mark: But the member knows full well that this is the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Of course, the Premier is having active conversations along with our colleagues, because it’s not just our border. It’s the entire country’s border. So yes, we’re advocating, but we’re going to be led by the science and the data and protecting the safety of British Columbians and Canadians. Thank you to the member opposite for the question.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
S. Bond: The minister should finally move off the vaccination answer she provides. Of course this side of the House supports vaccination and have been actively doing that. That is not the question she was asked.
In fact, the last time she tried to answer a question about this, she talked about — and I quote her words, not mine — “arrogant confidence.”
Here’s a straight-up question for this minister, who continues, by the way, to completely mess up this file. We know that talks are underway to reopen the land border, but the federal cruise ship ban is in place. It is separate, and it extends well into 2022.
Cruise ships provide $2.7 billion of economic activity and 20,000 jobs in British Columbia. So to the Premier, to the minister, to somebody on that side of the House: when the land border opens, will the Premier now advocate that, at exactly the same time the marine border opens, the moratorium on cruise ships travelling up and down our coast be lifted? What has the Premier specifically done to make that argument?
Hon. M. Mark: First of all, I want to emphasize that we are a destination of choice. We’re a magnet for international visitors. We are going to be a magnet when the doors open. I know that the member opposite wants to continually ask questions in these chambers about decisions that are made at the federal level….
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Listen to the answer, please.
Hon. M. Mark: I know, hon. Speaker, the members opposite don’t want to hear the answer. They keep asking questions about federal jurisdiction. Of course we’re advocating for the borders and airports to be open. It is not our call. Does the Premier work with our colleagues? Yes, of course we are doing that advocacy. I don’t know why the members opposite keep coming into these chambers and asking for answers that they know are in the jurisdiction of the federal government.
We are going to be a destination of choice. As soon as the borders are open, we are going to have visitors here. But again, I’m going to reiterate, because when the members opposite talk about vaccination, the public wants to know that we are safe. That is the objective. We want to know that when we open up the borders, people are safe. That call is going to be made by medical officials.
M. de Jong: What we're seeking to do, what the Leader of the Opposition has sought to do, is determine to what extent this Premier and this minister are advocating on behalf of the tens of thousands of workers in British Columbia who are impacted by these decisions. If she doesn’t understand her role and her government’s role to advocate on behalf of those people, with respect to the federal government, then she’s in the wrong line of work, and that’s her problem.
The proposition here is not a complicated one, having stumbled and bumbled their way through this issue in a way, quite frankly, that has put thousands of workers and tourism jobs at risk.
Will the minister now agree that when our international land border is opened — whenever that happens — when that decision is made, presumably on the basis of sound science…. When the international land border is opened to regular traffic….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the question, please.
Member, continue.
M. de Jong: When that border is open to regular traffic — that, at that point, the federal ban on cruise ships entering B.C. ports should be lifted.
Will they take active steps today to advocate on behalf of that position?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. The answer is around a science-based approach.
We know that there are active discussions today in our country and in the United States and other parts of the world around things like vaccine passports, getting up to normal. We know that Americans are travelling far more extensively than Canadians right now. Their vaccine rates, their second dose rates, are higher. They have a different approach, one that I don’t think Canadians would, for a minute, change to the approach that we took, which was science-based.
Look, there are discussions that are happening about when the borders will be reopened. It will be based on metrics of COVID safety and science, like the decisions that have guided our government throughout this difficult pandemic year for everyone in this province.
This government supports the cruise industry. We support Americans wanting to travel to Alaska through our waters. We support the idea of technical stops, which was introduced by the two U.S. senators who sponsored the original bill.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, he’s not going to hear you, so save your breath.
Minister, continue.
Hon. R. Fleming: We look forward to the industry opening up in British Columbia again when it is safe to do so. That will be a decision based on science. We are not there yet today to reopen our borders, as the member well knows. But he also understands that the Prime Minister is talking with our American counterparts about when that day will come and what the metrics of safety will look like in terms of having vaccinated Americans once again be able to visit Canada and to have Canadians visit their friends and neighbors Stateside.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.
M. de Jong: Well, different minister, same non-answer. And, quite frankly, the same attempt at revisionist history. Look, if this government had been advocating on behalf of technical stops, as we suggested and urged them to do so, that piece of legislation in Washington that the Premier said would never pass, wouldn’t have passed unanimously. So let’s not try to engage in more revisionist history, as the minister has just tried to do.
All over the world, cruise ships are resuming operations — including, by the way, on the Alaska coast, on the trip up to Alaska, where vaccination requirements are being put in place by the operators. The people in B.C. who depend on tourism dollars that arrive with visiting cruise ship passengers want to know this. They need to know this. They need the plan.
I thought that that’s what the point of the restart program was: to allow people to plan. They want to know that when people are permitted to enter B.C. at the land border, when they are permitted to enter B.C. by bus, when they are permitted to enter B.C. by train, whether it is this government’s position that when that happens, when it can be determined to occur safely, people will be permitted to enter B.C. through marine ports of entry.
It’s not a complicated question, and it is deserving of a straightforward answer from this government.
Hon. R. Fleming: You know, it’s interesting. It’s almost like the member for Abbotsford West forgets that at the very beginning of the pandemic…. What were the images that the entire world saw? People trapped, unable to disembark on cruise ships, major outbreaks, centres of transmission of a virus that then entered into a number of countries. That is what the pandemic looked like, and that is why the cruise ship industry, working with the CDC and working with others, has to have a safe conditional sailing program, which is not finalized at this point in time. They’re working on that.
He’s incorrect that the cruise ship industry is up and running around the world. Medical scientists are going to be extra careful with the cruise ship industry. This is what we call a congregate setting. It’s a different type of tourism product than just opening up the borders and staying at a hotel. It is.
If the member wants to diminish the complexity of this, if he wants to ascribe B.C. of having a role in deciding policy on our coast, which is absolutely incorrect, then that’s his prerogative. He can troll in those falsehoods if he wishes. We are waiting for the Prime Minister and the government of Canada to provide additional direction, on or about June 21. That is known. They will be doing that. That is based on…
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Member.
Hon. R. Fleming: …high-level engagements with the Americans right now. But what we look forward to is international cruise ship industries coming back to our ports when it is safe to do so. And they will do so. We’ve heard that loud and clear from the industry. This is a huge economic generator for them. This is a hugely important tourism product for us as British Columbians, and we will welcome them back on a science-based opening date that will be determined in the very near future.
Mr. Speaker: Members, before the Chair recognizes the next person, I want to remind people that no electronic devices are to be used in question period.
ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND
REGULATION OF
COUNSELLING THERAPISTS
S. Furstenau: Everyone deserves access to mental health care, not just those who can afford it. The gaps in our current system could be partially met by expanding to a broader range of mental health professionals. Unfortunately, unlike most of the rest of Canada, counsellors and therapists are unregulated in this province. Immediately regulating counselling therapists is a step to meeting the demand for mental health services in B.C.
When the Federation of Associations for Counselling Therapists in B.C. applied to be regulated this February, the Minister of Health said no. In the midst of a growing mental health crisis, the opportunity to provide better care was rejected. Regulation of counsellors would protect the public. It would make sure people are receiving qualified and competent care, and it would open the door for more mental health care professionals to be covered under health insurance and MSP, ultimately removing the financial barrier that exists for far too many people in B.C. right now.
My question is to the Minister of Health. Why was this application by the Federation of Associations for Counselling Therapists in B.C. rejected?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, there are a number of things the member left out. The member will recall that she and myself and the Member for Kelowna–Lake Country have provided a report and a recommendation for changes to the way we regulate health professions in British Columbia, including means to allow new professions to become regulated. It’s not just counsellors. She will know, because she saw the same thousands of briefs that I did and took part in the same unanimous report that we put together, that other professions are looking to be regulated as well.
We have presented, and we’ll be putting in place, the most extensive reform of health professional regulation in the country, one that will improve health regulation across jurisdictions. To make significant changes based on the current process when all of us, including the member, have proposed significant changes, I think, is not the right approach.
We are making changes recommended by the member, by the official opposition, and by myself, changes that will make it easier for new professions to become regulated and will increase standards, increase public transparency, increase accountability of health professional organizations and make the whole process more efficient and better for the public interest. That’s what we’re doing. That’s what we are putting in place.
The member, of course, knows this because she was part of it. She played a very important role in that. She advocated in that period, for example, on issues around social workers that were reflected in her bill that she introduced yesterday as well.
This is an area the government is taking action on, but we’re not doing it in the old way. We’re doing it by working with the member and with the official opposition to bring fundamental change that will improve health regulation in B.C. I’m very proud of those efforts, and I hope the member is as well.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.
S. Furstenau: Indeed, I am also very proud of those efforts, which were an example of the kind of collaboration that we need to see more of in this Legislature.
Unfortunately, what the minister is speaking of…. And I agree that the modernization of health regulation around health professionals, as recommended by the collaborative efforts of the three parties, needs to go forward. But at the same time, we are in a global pandemic that has behind it, and already unfolding now, another pandemic, and that is a mental health pandemic.
So just as we were nimble in responding to COVID-19 in this House over a year ago, I think we need to be nimble in responding to the growing need for people to have access to mental health care when they need it and for that health care to be trustworthy, to have accountability and to ensure that public safety is incorporated into that.
The most effective and direct route to do that is to ensure that we have regulation of counsellors and counselling therapists in British Columbia, which currently we do not, which means that anybody can call themselves a counsellor. There’s no regulatory body that the public can check in with and say: “Is this accurate? Can I trust this person?” I think we all agree that we need to expand mental health care to everybody in this province.
What I’m asking the minister is that just as he’s had to be incredibly nimble for the last 16 months responding to the pandemic of COVID-19…. I think it’s time to be nimble to respond to the pandemic of mental health crises that we have in British Columbia.
My question is: can we expect to see the urgency and the nimbleness that we need to see and see the regulation of counsellors in this province happen immediately?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, I think you see that urgency in the actions of my colleague the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions every day, the efforts of the government to expand mental health and addictions services every day, efforts that I think we all support in this House, and we’re all working together in this House.
The reason that we undertook a fundamental review of health professional regulations…. One of the reasons was the challenge that many professions — not just counsellors, but many professions — were having in being regulated and the proliferation of health professional bodies that were not sufficiently affected. We came together to put in place a fundamental change, and it’s one we’re proceeding on and implementing.
The member, I think, understands very well because, again, she saw the same thousands of briefs. We spent hours together working on these issues and coming up with the unanimous recommendations on the very issues she’s asking questions about. I think the pathway forward here is to implement those changes, which will allow much more quick recognition of new professional bodies within the six recommended health professional bodies we’ve recommended in that document. That’s the way forward.
The creation of health professional bodies is not a matter of ministerial fiat, but one that requires us to go step by step in the creation of self-regulating bodies that make sense. This is particularly true in the area of counsellors, which, as the member will know — again, because we saw the same mini-briefs — represent a whole bunch of different professions with people with different qualifications who call themselves counsellors, making it much more challenging than, say, the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
That said, we are working forward, we are moving forward with urgency on these questions, and we will continue to do so.
ANCHOR ATTRACTIONS PROGRAM
AND COVID-19 RESPONSE
FOR TOURISM INDUSTRY
T. Wat: The Premier announced a major attractions program with great fanfare, and all we got was more bungling from this Premier.
Major attractions like Barkerville, Point Ellice House, Kilby Historic Site, Yale Historic Site and Hat Creek Ranch are being underfunded by the NDP’s two-tier grant system, which is based on a line the Premier drew on a map. These heritage sites have written to this government asking for more funding, because it’s not enough.
Will the Premier give these attractions the funding they need?
Hon. M. Mark: I feel like it’s déjà vu from the opposition.
I guess the first thing I want to say is that that $50 million was a significant announcement, and I’m proud of that announcement. It was a call to action from the sector. They said they needed relief for some of those major attractions, not just in Vancouver, not just in the Lower Mainland but in other communities across B.C. — the rural and urban — and the tour operators.
We got advice and counsel to industry experts. They gave us the advice on what to do to provide relief to a sector that we know had been deeply hit. It’s targeted funding. It was a call to action. It’s a good announcement. The deadline is on June 7, and we encourage people across the province to apply. So far, we’ve had 17 completed applications. Two hundred operators have asked us for applications. To me, that’s success, Member.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond North Centre on a supplemental.
T. Wat: The minister can be proud and be arrogant responding to questions, but this government does not go and pick and choose which ones to be qualified.
Historic sites are not the only ones being impacted by the Premier’s bungling. We are also hearing from disappointed fairs and community events that have been blocked from applying to the anchor attractions program. They are being told that they need to be open for 60 days in order to qualify for funding. Well, the PNE fair only runs for two weeks, but the Premier claims it is still getting funding.
Will the Premier, instead of the minister, explain why some fairs are eligible for the anchor attractions grant but not others?
Hon. M. Mark: I’m going to go down the path of history. The Tourism Task Force gave us recommendations. The first thing we did was respond to their call to action, which was providing small and medium tourism operators grants, not loans. That was a call to action, and 3,600 operators across this province have received over $100 million in relief.
The $50 million for the anchor attractions was also another call to action. We also responded to the safety certificate. The member opposite is coming in here, asking what we are doing. She talks about arrogance. I’m advocating. I’m advocating on behalf of a sector that we know has been deeply hit.
Last week we had a restart plan. We announced we’re opening things up. Things are getting greater, with more people vaccinated. Just this week we heard that the PNE is opening on June 11. Good news is coming the more we work together.
L. Doerkson: I would like to walk you down the path of history as well.
When we asked about anchor attractions in our communities qualifying for funding, the Minister of Tourism said: “Please encourage your organizations to apply….” Organizations like the Williams Lake Stampede, the IPE, Billy Barker Days and the North Thompson Fall Fair did reach out to this office. Here’s the response that they received. “As noted in the program guidelines, festivals and events are ineligible.”
This is another bungled program.
Can the Premier explain why his minister gave the anchor attractions in our communities false hope about getting funding that they so desperately need and tell us how this will be fixed by Monday?
Hon. M. Mark: The bungling line is getting a bit old, but let’s go back to the facts.
The facts are that money went out the door for the tourism operators — grants, not loans. Money has gone out for the anchor attractions. It is targeted funding to provide relief for a targeted group. There has been money that has gone out from our government to help with events and festivals and venues that have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Everyone has been impacted one way or another because of the pandemic. Gaming funding has gone out. Agriculture funding has gone out. The B.C. Arts Council has provided funding. The Creative B.C. sector has provided funding. Amplify B.C. has provided funding. And $400 million is on the table from the federal government. I’m going to advocate to make sure that B.C. gets its fair share of money for events and festivals.
We are going to continue working with the sector. I have a tourism advisory table providing government advice, and we’re going to continue doing what we’ve done from day one, and that is to be responsive.
Mr. Speaker: No electronic devices during question period, please.
COVID-19 RELIEF GRANT ELIGIBILITY
FOR ROYAL CANADIAN
LEGION BRANCHES
AND ANAVETS CLUB
B. Banman: Well, it took too long, far too many questions needed to be asked from the opposition, but the government finally showed our veterans the respect they deserve. But only as the Premier can, he stumbled and bungled it again. In announcing that the legions, which the government had blocked from receiving the circuit breaker funding, would finally receive support, they managed to forget the 18 Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans units that operate in B.C.
We scoured the resources. So did the ANAVETS. There were zero mention of the ANAVETS in the announcement. There were two, Mr. Speaker — two: the legions and the ANAVETS. These veterans deserve the same treatment and respect. We asked specifically about the legions and the ANAVETS funding in this chamber several times.
The question: can the Premier tell us why he chose to only provide assistance to some veterans?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. As the member will know, about a month ago we got a letter from the legions about concerns that they had regarding the circuit breaker, given that they serve alcohol, serve food — and with the new restrictions, were not able to do that and support their members.
The Premier had directed us at that time to find solutions. We worked closely with the federal government, of course — the branch for veteran affairs, the ministry responsible for veterans affairs. They notified us that they had provided millions of dollars — close to, I believe, $20 million — to support all the organizations.
We felt that it was important to support more organizations here within B.C. The federal government provided $9,000 for every legion branch, and we provided an additional $10,000 for every legion branch.
Of course, we’re continuing to have conversations with Veterans Affairs Canada about how they can play a greater role in supporting all the organizations here in B.C.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford South, supplemental.
B. Banman: Well, it’s great for the minister to say that, but on May 21, he got a letter from the Matsqui Unit 315 of the ANAVETS, and the message was clear to the Premier: “We are very disappointed to be advised that our unit would not qualify for this relief.”
Furthermore, I have a letter from the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada Command that I will table after question period that says that they are disheartened that they were not included. They note that the Premier was….
What does the Premier do with all of this? He disrespects the men and women of ANAVETS in only providing funding to one of the two groups — one of the two groups, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Premier do the right thing? Will this minister do the right thing and show these veterans the respect they deserve and provide the ANAVETS with equal funding as the legion?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s an important opportunity for us to remind the member and everyone in the chamber that we have provided the highest per-capita support for businesses and people in B.C. That has well positioned us for a strong economic recovery in B.C.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, come to order.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate that those facts are hard for the opposition to hear.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Minister will continue.
Hon. R. Kahlon: If they don’t want to hear the answer, hon. Speaker, they can continue to make noise. But the facts are the facts. We received a letter from the legion, and the Premier had asked us to find ways to support them. We continue to work with Veterans Affairs Canada, which is responsible for providing supports for the veterans organizations across British Columbia.
We saw an opportunity to provide additional supports, and we’re proud of those supports. We’re going to continue to work with organizations, whatever sector they come from, to provide as much support as we can.
I want to thank the member for his question.
[End of question period.]
Reports from Committees
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
M. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the second session of the 42nd parliament, titled Summary of Activities 2020-21.
I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
M. Bernier: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
M. Bernier: I move adoption of the report. In doing so, I would like to make a few brief comments.
This report describes the work of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts from December 16, 2020, to March 31, 2021. As a committee, we play an important role in promoting public sector oversight, through our review and consideration of the reports issued by the Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia.
The committee’s work included the members’ review of audited reports that examined information technology asset management within selected government ministries, as well as oversight of international education programs. Committee members also reviewed the Auditor General’s report that summarized COVID-19 pandemic funding allocations, as well as the financial statement audit coverage plan, which details the Auditor General’s approach for auditing the financial statements of government entities over the next three fiscal years.
On behalf of the committee members, I’d like to thank our Auditor General, Michael Pickup, and his team for the valuable work that they do in serving the people of British Columbia. I’d also like to thank the comptroller general and the senior public servants who appeared before our committee and who continue to deliver government programs and services for the people of British Columbia.
I’d like to express my appreciation to the Deputy Chair, the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam, and all the members of this committee for their dedication and collaboration as we’ve worked through all of these programs as a committee.
Finally, a sincere thank you goes to the Clerk of our committee, Jennifer Arril, for all of her support and advice, and Ron Wall, Lisa Hill, and all of our support staff with the committee who do an incredible job working with us.
R. Glumac: I echo the words of the member for Peace River South.
I want to thank the Auditor General and his team for the excellent work they are doing in providing oversight for government services and programs. I really appreciate the great support that we’re receiving from the staff in supporting the committee. I look forward to continuing this collaborative work that we’re undertaking with all the members from all sides of the House.
I look forward to the good work ahead.
Motion approved.
Tabling Documents
Hon. L. Beare: I have the honour to present the annual report of the chief records officer.
Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the report under the COVID-19 Related Measures Act.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call for third reading of Bill 4 in this chamber. In the Douglas Fir Room, I will be calling the continued estimates for the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. In Section C, the Birch Room, I’ll be calling the Ministry of Agriculture estimates.
Third Reading of Bills
BILL 4 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT,
2021
Bill 4, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2021, read a third time and passed.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued committee stage on Bill 6, Accessible British Columbia Act.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 6 — ACCESSIBLE
BRITISH COLUMBIA
ACT
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 6; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:02 a.m.
On clause 13.
The Chair: Any comments, Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction?
Hon. N. Simons: I’m really pleased to be able to continue with the debate in committee stage, here, on Bill 6. I look forward to the questions from my colleagues in the House.
S. Cadieux: Good morning, Minister. Looking at clause 13, the first thing that stuck out to me: “The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting the identification, removal or prevention of barriers.” Can the minister explain why, in this case, the drafters have chosen the word “may” versus “must”?
Hon. N. Simons: To the member: it’s apparently drafting convention to use language like this when referring to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister. I’m sure that doesn’t provide a ton of comfort to those waiting for the ultimate changes that will come as a result of this act, as we hope. Of course, the language, “may….”
I understand the prerogative always rests with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. However, in this circumstance, certainly given that the whole act is nothing without regulations, it’s a bit confusing for those reading the act. Thankfully the minister is, I believe, willing to commit that there will indeed be some regulations coming from the act.
This government has embedded gender-based analysis into its work. Can the minister discuss, as it relates to standards, how gender-based analysis will be applied?
Hon. N. Simons: I thank the member for the question.
I recognize that in the response to the previous question, the member tried her best to seek comfort with the language as it refers to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I know legislative drafting language is not always designed to be comforting or, in fact, completely understandable to everyone. But I do think — and I respect the fact — that sometimes this process provides an opportunity for explaining or clarifying. It gives me a good opportunity to do that.
With respect to the intersectional lens that we’ve committed to in this legislation, I think the legislation itself builds in those strengths. In addition, our government has an expectation and, in fact, a requirement that every ministry proposal be analyzed through gender-based analysis as well. I think that the two sections, section 2 and section 17 in particular, address that particular issue. Our government does promote that in everything that we do.
S. Cadieux: Here we’re talking about the standards and the types of regulations we make under different areas being developed. Can the minister explain…?
Has government contemplated adopting existing standards of other provinces, jurisdictions or the federal standards agency, which have been developed with the Accessible Canada Act and that have already put a lot of work into standards around the same issue or same sections, the same areas of concern around accessibility and inclusion? Certainly, they too are looking to start with and embrace these types of policies within the federal government, within a government proper.
Why has government decided here to start from scratch, or have they, indeed? And is there a plan to adopt existing standards to align the work and align what people can expect across jurisdictions?
Hon. N. Simons: I’m glad that the member was holding out some hope that, in fact, we could take advantage of the work that’s been done in other jurisdictions. Indeed, we do maintain the ability to incorporate standards, because we’re also interested in a type of harmonization and consistency. That would be helpful for everyone’s understanding and, I think, leads to better outcomes as well.
Yes, indeed, we do have that ability, pointing out, as well, at the same time, that we do have high standards and the expectations of the standards that we create here for British Columbians here. But yes, indeed. The answer is yes.
S. Cadieux: Thank you to the minister. I’m glad to hear that, because, certainly, many of the federal standards that have been developed and are being developed are significantly stronger than what exists in British Columbia today. For example, [audio interrupted] the built environment through the CSA are stronger than what currently exists largely in British Columbia. Work has gone on there at a faster pace, I guess, than provincially looking at updating old laws.
Hopefully, we can look to the committee and the minister to try to align as much as possible with federal standards that have already been developed and also to speed things up.
We also know there won’t be perfection in many cases. We will not satisfy everyone’s personal perspective. We don’t want this process to be unnecessarily cumbersome or long. We know we’ll have to review and revise, I would expect on a fairly regular basis, many of the standards as we learn from experience — from the experience of people with disabilities and people and institutions that are subject to the act, as they learn as well. As things change, we will likely need to do that as well. I’m hopeful that the minister and the committee will be alive to that.
One of those things, for example, that we know is that technology is changing all the time. We are using it more in all aspects of our lives. We’re using it more now in this aspect of our lives and our work, and it has both benefits and challenges.
But one of the things clause 13…. The list does not include technology. I will anticipate that the minister will tell me this is not meant to be an exhaustive list. However, it seems that technology has been left out. Can the minister explain how or where technology will be expressly included?
Hon. N. Simons: I just got a description of some of the discussions that took place around this issue, and it was a conscious decision to ensure that everyone understands that technology could be embedded in each one of these. It could be embedded in information, communications, transportation or health, and by setting it as a stand-alone, it could imply that it wasn’t part of the other areas.
We made it clear that technology is part of all areas of society, in fact — employment, delivery of services, the built environment, information, etc. Technology is embedded in those, so we did not deem it necessary to make it separate on the list.
S. Cadieux: That’s clarified. Agreed. It does definitely fall within those things to think…. Again, we’re just trying to make sure we ask the questions that are necessary to ensure that nothing gets missed. To have the minister on the record in lieu of many of these things being codified in the act does provide a level of comfort.
I guess my next question…. They obviously all somewhat relate. How will the standards for the various pieces — built environment, employment, delivery of services, all of these pieces — relate to other standards across government, like the building code, like education policy for students with special needs?
The reason I ask this is because we have seen that in Ontario, for example, with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, there are standards within the Ontarians with Disabilities Act around accessibility and the built environment that do not mesh with their building code. So builders are left in a difficult situation. They can build to the standard, or they can build to the code. I anticipate we may have similar challenges arise.
How will we ensure through this that those kinds of issues don’t become a hurdle for us to move accessibility forward?
Hon. N. Simons: I just want to share with the member that I appreciate these questions. I think that it is fundamentally an important part of this process that I go on the record with answers to the questions, for the benefit of the members and for the benefit of the public, who are hopeful and who are not always convinced that government will be as fast as they would like and not always sure that government has the same particular interests as they may have.
So this question-and-answer process, I hope, alleviates concerns that some may have. Yes, this is obviously going to be an issue that will come up in terms of standards maybe conflicting or not coinciding or having different measurements or what have you — with other codes, with other standards, with other ministerial expectations, I suppose. So we’re conscious of that, obviously, as a part of this process.
I would point to a couple of sections that particularly refer to the communications that need to occur in the development of the standards. I refer to different sections that we’ll get to.
Section 16 requires consultation between ministries to ensure there aren’t those kinds of conflicts that the member rightfully points out as, potentially, an issue. As well, clause 18 also refers to the consideration of other relevant laws in the province. Not warning, but the foreshadowing of the potential issues that might come up between different codes or different jurisdictions even…. We will seek to ensure that they are harmonized, one with the other.
S. Cadieux: Yeah. I think that that, in and of itself, is part of the challenge.
We know that many of the standards that exist today in legislation or in bylaws in municipalities don’t provide access. So those will be consulted, but if that means they win in the circumstance, then we aren’t making progress. I would hope that this act will precede this in those cases.
Hon. N. Simons: I just want to ask the member to rephrase the question. I’m not sure I heard it correctly. I was thinking that the member was asking for a commitment of some kind. I didn’t quite get the full…. I didn’t want to commit to something I didn’t hear her say.
S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister. Fair enough.
We know that the standards that exist today, for example in the building code, don’t provide the level of access that, likely, the committee would seek to ensure for the built environment. Consulting with the ministry responsible for the building code, only to find out, “Thank you very much, but we’re not changing the building code,” would present a problem, because then we have an accessibility committee that is not able to present a standard that is strong enough or a situation where they present a standard that then is in conflict with the building code.
Can the minister confirm that this act and the greater standard of access will win when there is a conflict?
Hon. N. Simons: I want to not remind but just start by saying that really, this whole process is about increasing accessibility. It’s about removing the barriers. I hope that it is the catalyst for the change that happens, not just in the standards that we develop but in the broader community as well.
Nothing precludes organizations to start with their processes. At the same time, we want to make sure that…. Obviously, a part of the legislative drafting process is that we not create conflict between legislation and regulations. The way we’ve formalized the process of standards development should prevent such situations from occurring. Ultimately, if what we discover in our work could result in better laws or better standards in other areas, then good. We’ll be the catalyst for change that we would like to be.
S. Cadieux: I’ve got some more on that, but I think we’ll leave it for another section. If we could move, please, to clause 14.
Clause 13 approved.
On clause 14.
S. Cadieux: In clause 10, we understand that the accessibility committee is subject to the direction of the minister. Their work is subject to the direction of the minister. The minister has said that it will be up to the committee as to which standards, regulations or sections they want to approach first.
However, it will be up to the minister to direct the committee to start work on a standard. It says in clause 14: “If the minister directs….” What will be the first standard requested by the minister, and why?
Hon. N. Simons: Indeed, the minister does make the decision. That is correct. I’m such a collaborative individual, as the member opposite knows, that it’s hard for me to refuse the advice of those entrusted with providing me that good advice. But in fact the provincial advisory committee will be the ones that will make the recommendations, will put forward the case for the establishment of this area or that area.
I would say to the member that I would welcome her input on the decision. I look forward to that.
S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister. I do appreciate the intent of the minister on this. I guess, for clarity, if the committee decided to embark on more than one area of work at once, will the minister support that effort?
Hon. N. Simons: The answer is yes.
S. Cadieux: I would be happy to move to clause 16.
Clauses 14 and 15 approved.
On clause 16.
S. Cadieux: In this section on consultations, of course this is where the meat and the difficulty and the time…. I think this will be the most time-consuming part of the process of developing standards. At least, certainly it has proved to be in other jurisdictions. This is where we see the competing needs and challenges come up, the competing priorities. Certainly there are a lot of groups to consult with in order to do this properly. Understandably, this is difficult.
Now, if the committee and/or the technical committees that might be appointed to support this work develop a standard that is in opposition to recommendations or comments by the community, by the disability community, by advocates….
For example, the government did a consultation before they removed disabled parking from the building code, but they didn’t take the advice of the disability community and the advocates that contributed to that discussion. They took the advice only of the subject matter experts within the ministry. That, understandably, was best for government, perhaps. It is not best for outcomes for people with disabilities. We’re seeing that play out across the province.
If standards are developed in opposition to the recommendations of the community, how will that be both communicated to the public and defended by the minister?
Hon. N. Simons: Thanks for the question. In fact, we’re going to get to section 20, which deals with that. I don’t know how much time we’re going to have.
The minister must publish accessibility standards developed and submitted under section 14. Section 20(b) says: “after making any changes to the proposed accessibility standard that the minister considers necessary or advisable, recommend to the Lieutenant Governor in Council that a regulation based on that standard be enacted….”
So there’s a lot of opportunity. We know we want to make this, obviously, as collaborative and as consensus-based as possible. But I can’t ever rule out the possibility that there will be conflicts of opinion, because that happens. There are different ways of approaching this or that. But the transparency is also built into the act.
S. Cadieux: How long does the minister anticipate the consultation process will take on each standard? I understand there might be differences depending on the standards and depending on what’s being worked on. However, is there sort of a ballpark, an anticipated timeline for that process, based on the experience, for example, in other jurisdictions to date?
Hon. N. Simons: I misunderstood the question, but it was clarified to me in my discussion.
What other jurisdictions did was limit the amount of public consultation time. I think it varied between 40 and 60 days for public input. But our perspective and our approach is to ensure that we had as much consultation as necessary for the particular standard. That time frame might, in fact, have to be longer than that, depending on what’s already occurred in terms of development of standard, what other jurisdictions we’ll be looking at in terms of modelling or what have you.
That’s the reason we didn’t put in specific timelines like that, simply because of not being entirely sure of the length of time it would take to create that standard.
Noting the time, I move that the committee rise and report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. N. Simons moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.
The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MENTAL HEALTH
AND ADDICTIONS
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 11:10 a.m.
On Vote 37: ministry operations, $12,735,000 (continued).
Hon. S. Malcolmson: When we were called to the vote yesterday, I was just about to answer a question from the opposition on care for seniors above and beyond…. What kinds of mental health and addictions support services are available to all British Columbians of any age? So I’m going to run through a list just to give people an idea of, regionally, what sorts of specialized services are particularly aimed towards seniors.
I also note…. I believe I gave in my answer at the very end of the day yesterday that we do recognize that the online services that have been bumped out, in particular, through the COVID-19 pandemic, when physical distancing requirements meant people couldn’t necessarily get services in person, don’t work for everybody.
That’s why we’re particularly pleased to have partnered with the United Way and other service providers on the 211 phone-line service and do encourage any British Columbian, any age…. So 211 is a great way to navigate government services. We have particularly focused it on older people, some of whom do not have computers or work online.
One service that’s been particularly important to stand up in recent years — this a long-standing relationship — is with the Alzheimer Society of British Columbia. The previous government and this government have carried on that funding relationship with the Provincial Health Services Authority, PHSA.
The Alzheimer Society operates the First Link program, which is a referral to help newly diagnosed people with dementia to get the help that they need as soon as possible. That’s also a very important service provision for the families who are working in support of those seniors.
The Interior Health Authority. Their particular focus program in this area, for seniors mental health and substance use services, offers specialized assessments, treatment, case management, community support as well as caregiver support. This health authority operates 20 psychogeriatric-care beds.
The Fraser Health Authority provides mental health and substance use services to seniors through its older adult community mental health program. That includes consultation, assessment, psychiatric treatment and support. Fraser Health operates 97 psychogeriatric-care beds.
The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority has an interdisciplinary outreach team, the geriatric psychiatric outreach team, treating older adults with psychiatric problems who are living in community. This team collaborates with acute and community resources in the delivery of services that include initial assessment with treatment recommendations, case management, liaison with family doctors and other specialists, second medical opinion, neuropsychological evaluation, follow-up therapy, recommendations for community services, family education and support. VCHA operates 51 psychogeriatric-care beds.
The Vancouver Island Health Authority supports seniors in this area through seniors outpatient clinics. They have teams that are made up of geriatric and psychiatry specialists who provide assessments and recommend treatment plans. These seniors outreach clinics also support family physicians and community health care providers when a senior needs further assessment and treatment. VIHA operates 58 psychogeriatric-care beds.
Then to finish, the Northern Health Authority. Its specialized services for seniors include assessment and consultative services for seniors with emergent or chronic mental health issues being complicated by aging, dementia or substance use issues; consultation to outlying areas regarding case management and treatment planning; interprofessional teams with nursing, clinicians, psychiatry and GPs on sessions; education servicing the elderly population; and then, finally, operating 14 psychogeriatric-care beds.
T. Halford: Thank you to the minister for the answer. Just moving to a different topic, can the minister tell me the last time she spoke to Carrier-Sekani Family Services about their proposed 60-bed facility? The question is: when has the minister herself last spoken to Carrier-Sekani Family Services about their proposed beds?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: My memory of my last conversation with the Carrier-Sekani Chief was March 19, as a direct conversation. It was a personal call between me and her. If that date turns out not to be exactly right, then I can certainly update that.
T. Halford: Can the minister tell us the details of that conversation she had with the Chief? I assume it would be about the proposed 60-bed facility.
Hon. S. Malcolmson: I don’t have my notes of what happened in that exact conversation. This is my memory. Again, I’m not meaning to withhold anything here at all.
This conversation was a follow-up to our meeting of March 9, where we talked in more detail. My follow-up, as I recall, on March 19, was to reiterate our government’s financial commitment to the project through the First Nations Health Authority. That’s a matter of record that the province of B.C. has put $20 million through the First Nations Health Authority.
Then First Nations Health Authority, as do other health authorities, determines where the need is the greatest, and it is our expectation that the Carrier-Sekani Family Services project is one of those projects that the First Nations Health Authority is funding.
We were following up on what was possible to happen in the wake of the Agricultural Land Commission having denied the non-farm-use application put forward by Carrier-Sekani Family Services. My conversation on March 19 with the Chief was to convey my confidence that there was work happening through Agriculture and other ministries to find a new way to apply to the ALC.
Oh, and another update at that time was that we had just got confirmation through the regional district that it was, itself, willing to advance the application to the ALC for an exclusion. That was the advice that we’ve had — that that may be a better way to have the use be able to carry out as Carrier-Sekani Family Services wished on the site, still recognizing and respecting the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission. That call was intended to both convey to the Chief our continued support for the project and also my confidence that, with a follow-up application to the ALC, we had a better chance of success.
Maybe a final piece, which is still ongoing work of our government, is that the experience of Carrier-Sekani Family Services had indicated that, as a government, we could do a better job of anticipating challenges in the process of navigating local government, Agricultural Land Commission, recognizing we very much want to see this service delivered. And I was going to continue to be a champion at a process level for making sure that future applications by other First Nations governments didn’t run into the same confusing sets of approvals that had happened here.
T. Halford: Thank you to the minister for the answer. Just to clarify, when the minister spoke to the Chief post the outcome from the ALC…. I think the minister was just quoted saying that she expressed — she didn’t use the word “confidence,” so I don’t want to say that — optimism that another application might be successful.
I just want to be very careful because, obviously, we’ve canvassed this in question period, and the minister and the Premier have both spoken about the independence of the ALC in terms of managing expectations for this very important facility.
Is it safe to say that the minister is confident of a successful application from the ALC? It seems that that’s what she’s conveyed to the Chief. If so, is she able to put that on the record today?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thanks to the member for giving me an opportunity to clarify, because this is, as he understands…. We have two imperatives at the same time. I certainly restated to Chief Corrina Leween the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission and also acknowledgment that if we had done, as a government…. Where in government should this fit to do better advanced planning and help with advice on the best way to apply?
I know a lot of people in British Columbia are frustrated by the process leading up to an application to the Agricultural Land Commission. So in this case, the advice that we got was that, from the outset, if the application had been for an exclusion from the ALR, that might have had a better prospect of success. Instead, Carrier-Sekani Family Services had applied for a non-farm use.
Intuitively, for me — the Chair well knows from both of us, our time in local government on Vancouver Island — I would have myself thought a non-farm use was an easier hurdle to overcome than an exclusion application. In any case, for this part of the province and for more expert advice, it turned out, after the fact, that if we had done the preapplication work in a more coordinated way, then we might have got the applicant on a more direct path.
That’s a very long way of saying, to the member’s question, yes, the Agricultural Land Commission remains independent. At the same time, what I conveyed to the Chief is that I took the responsibility on behalf of the government for making sure that applicants get the most helpful advice up front.
It may be that, for our ministry, being such strong advocates for First Nations building, designing and operating healing centres and addiction treatment centres, as in this case…. We’re funding $20 million toward the rebuild and another $29 million for Indigenous-led addiction healing and mental health supports and then, in this budget that we are debating here today, an additional $14 million for other Indigenous-led solutions to the overdose crisis and the mental health crisis that’s upon us.
We are re-examining how we best support those projects to make it easiest on the applicants on moving through the approvals process.
T. Halford: Thank you to the minister. Can the minister confirm if she, or her staff in the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, had any conversations with either the Minister of Agriculture or the Ministry of Agriculture at a deputy or staff level regarding this potential application before it was denied?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: I can confirm to the member’s question that there were no conversations between ministries before the Agricultural Land Commission’s decision. That’s part of the problem that I was identifying.
T. Halford: I just find it a little bit troubling that on an application as important as this, when we’re talking about treatment specifically for First Nations, supported by First Nations, in an area which they support…. And I understand. We saw the numbers and how alarming they are, specifically when dealing with First Nations and overdose and addictions and mental health.
I would think and I would hope that the ministers sitting together at a cabinet table would have been able to have these conversations prior, on such an important issue. The fact that that has somewhat failed to happen — I find that quite alarming, because here we sit today with a delay. I know my colleague is upstairs canvassing the Minister of Agriculture on the same issue, I believe, today.
I find it quite alarming that we are in a situation where these ministers have failed to communicate and ministries have failed to communicate, and it has resulted now in a last-minute scramble to help this important First Nation get such an important treatment centre off the ground. I just would like the minister’s comments on that.
Hon. S. Malcolmson: I agree with the member’s characterization. We have learned from what Carrier-Sekani Family Services has told us about their experience, which is why after the Agricultural Land Commission denied the application, we started working together at a multiministry level and are working, not on this application alone, but on a process to be able to avoid further delays like this.
The member is quite right. The disproportionate impact on Indigenous People of the overdose crisis, the disproportionate impact particularly in the north, the longstanding lack of services in remote areas…. Our commitment as a government to work with First Nations leadership, Indigenous leadership to design mental health and addictions, substance use supports for and by Indigenous People requires us to work at a multiministry level. That is work that began as soon as I had the meeting with the Chief on March 9.
T. Halford: Does the minister have any plan, communication…? I believe the last time — the date may fluctuate, and I take that at the minister’s word — they communicated was March 19. Does the minister have anything scheduled specifically with the Carrier-Sekani Family Services in the future in calendar to discuss the treatment centre?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Our ministry staff have been continually engaged with all of the relevant ministries, First Nations Health Authority, Carrier-Sekani Family Services as the service provider and the federal government. I have still on my to-do list the update that I committed to give to Chief Leween.
I committed to talking with Indigenous Services Minister, federal minister, Marc Miller, encouraging the federal government to come into funding partnership under the terms of our memorandum of understanding around rebuilding these healing centres and building two additional healing centres. The federal government isn’t yet a funding partner in these projects.
I’ve met with the minister, the federal minister, and I had committed to update Chief Leween on that. That’s still something that I intend to do, and we will have further meetings ahead of us, I imagine, after the ALC has made its decision.
T. Halford: Is the minister or the ministry aware of any outstanding requests by any member of the Carrier-Sekani Family Services to meet directly or have a conversation directly with the minister or ministry staff post their March 19 conversation?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: We have a copy of a letter that was written to the Premier. April 9, I believe, is the date. So that would follow the last verbal conversation that the member cites that I had with the Chief. Scanning it quickly, I didn’t see a meeting request in that, but our ministry has absolutely, at a staff level, the most senior staff level, been continually engaged with Carrier-Sekani Family Services and First Nations Health Authority about doing everything we can to make sure that this project advances.
As soon as we have some news through the ALC, then I would love to meet with the Chief again. I will, regardless of whether she seeks it or not. I’ll certainly look forward to sitting down with her and her team once we have the go-ahead from the ALC.
T. Halford: Just to clarify the minister’s comments. Is the reason the minister — and I fully respect it — is waiting for the ALC decision…? I get that that is completely out of cabinet’s hands for that decision. Is the reason the minister is waiting to have further conversations to respect the independence of the ALC and the process they’re going through right now?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: I guess the way I would say it is I haven’t initiated a meeting with the Chief since our March 9 meeting, because I don’t have any new news to deliver, but again, our ministry staff have been continuing to connect and coordinate well.
The Chief and I have each other’s cell phone number, so maybe this is a reminder just to pick up the phone informally and keep in touch. I certainly enjoyed our last conversation. I hope to have some good news to deliver her, whether that’s on the federal funding front or on the ALC decision front. That would be, to me, an indicator of a time to have a next meeting at a political level.
T. Halford: I just want to be very, very clear here in my next line of questioning for the minister in terms of that communication with members that are supporting this important treatment centre. Does the minister know — and we can continue to canvass this, I think, post-lunch — or has she been communicated by her conversations with the chief or other members how long this delay will impact the timelines for the completion of this important centre?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: The denial by the Agricultural Land Commission, which I believe was the end of February or first week of March, certainly is a setback on the timeline. It may be a setback of an order of two months. This does depend what the Agricultural Land Commission decides next. I can say to the member, in response to his question, that our ministry staff have continued to work to remove other barriers — to advocate for more funding from the federal level, for example. This is a really large project, a 60-bed facility.
There are other hurdles beyond just the ALC approval, and we are determined, as supporters of the project and investors in the project, to see it advance.
Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Chair: This committee stands adjourned until one o’clock this afternoon.
The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND
FISHERIES
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); D. Coulter in the chair.
The committee met at 11:08 a.m.
On Vote 13: ministry operations, $81,636,000.
The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?
Hon. L. Popham: Yes. Thank you, Chair. I’ll just keep it brief, because I know we’re only allotted a certain amount of hours for this very important ministry. I always look forward to the interactions with the opposition — with their questions that they’re bringing forward around the budget.
I just would like to recognize that I have a huge support team that is helping me through the next two days as we look at the budget. My deputy minister, Tom Ethier, is here with me in the room.
I also have, connected by teleconference, Arif Lalani, my assistant deputy minister; Jennifer McGuire, assistant deputy minister. I have Wes Boyd, my assistant deputy minister of corporate services, natural resource sector. I also have Kim Grout, the CEO of the Agricultural Land Commission.
I also have a lot of support staff within my minister’s office, including my senior advisor, Sam Godfrey.
I just would like to start out by saying that the last year has really brought a spotlight onto food security in British Columbia. I’d like to thank the farmers, the fishers, the food producers, the consumers, the health authorities, the post-secondary institutions and all the incredible volunteers around the province that all brought food security to a heightened level of awareness.
I believe we’re in very good shape in British Columbia as we continue to build a strong domestic sector which will support our international trade as soon as we’re able to recover fully from the pandemic. We’ve seen incredible examples of resilience, and I couldn’t be more proud to be the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.
I’m going to leave it at that. I know that the opposition has a lot of questions waiting for us.
The Chair: I now recognize the member for Abbotsford West.
Would you like to make opening remarks?
M. de Jong: No, except to thank the minister and the very capable staff and officials that will be with her to assist us through this and to thank my colleague the critic and the member for Delta South for the opportunity to impose myself in the proceedings. For reasons that the minister has already alluded to, I’ll get right to it.
I wanted to explore a little bit about the Agricultural Land Commission, its operations, its mandate and the application of that mandate. Maybe I’ll start there and ask the minister to confirm…. When seeking to discern the legal mandate within which the Agricultural Land Commission must operate and must abide by, am I correct when I point myself and others to section 6 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act?
Hon. L. Popham: The entire act sets out the authority for the Agricultural Land Commission.
M. de Jong: I certainly recognize that the act must be considered as a whole. When we, though…. When the minister has, in the past, spoken about the specific mandate that the commission is charged with applying….
In fact, when the commission itself renders decisions and speaks to the legal considerations that it must bring to bear in rendering decisions, it refers to section 6. What I’m merely asking the minister to confirm is that, for the purpose of determining the mandate that the ALC is charged with applying — it does so, of course, taking into account all of the powers, authorities and procedures set out in the act, in its entirety — we look to section 6. Is that correct?
Hon. L. Popham: From what we understand the question to be, the answer would be yes.
M. de Jong: I don’t know if the minister and the team have section 6 available to them. I have an extra copy. If that’s helpful, I’m happy to provide it to the minister.
What I’d like to, in a general way…. The minister will appreciate that members are fairly regularly confronted by constituents who either own land or wish to own land within the ALR and have ideas about what they would like to do with that land. Applications are filed and brought. It strikes me that it would be useful, insofar as it does represent a significant portion of the minister’s ministerial responsibility, to just have the benefit of her views on the nature of that purpose, mandate — if we can use those words.
I’m not going to read this section into the record, but at the outset, of course, the purposes of the commission are “(a) to preserve the agricultural land reserve; (b) to encourage farming….” If we go down to sub (2), “The commission, to fulfill its purposes under subsection (1), must give priority to protecting and enhancing all of the following in exercising its powers and performing its duties under this Act…(b) the use of the agricultural land reserve for farm use.”
It strikes me that what the act is intending to do is to create that singular priority, not a ranking. It defines definitively that the commission “must” — the word, I expect, was purposeful — give priority to protecting the use of the agricultural land for farm use. In the day-to-day workings of the commission, that is a significant legislative direction. I won’t use the word “constraint” — although some people would use that word — but that is a significant, purposeful and pointed legislative direction. Are those fair comments on my part?
Hon. L. Popham: I think the answer is yes. The member did ask for my views on it, and I stand behind that legislation.
M. de Jong: The reason I ask is…. Again, the minister will know, both from her time as minister and, in advance of that, as a long-standing member of the Legislative Assembly, that members are confronted by constituents and agencies that bring applications — I am now speaking purely in the general sense — where, for example, an argument is made that the need in a community for more industrial lands outweighs the impact that an exclusion to facilitate that objective…. That need outweighs the impact that might be had on agricultural lands. I have heard that. I think the minister has heard that.
What I say to people is that my reading and understanding of the act is that, unfortunately from their perspective, that is not a consideration — that the ALC is obliged to apply itself to and apply itself in a way that is consistent with section 6, which establishes, as its priority, the protection of farmland.
Again, is that a reasonably fair statement on my part?
Hon. L. Popham: The member is correct. The Agricultural Land Commission is guided by section 6. We do have a process that’s in place that could see an application, for example, put forward for an exclusion from the agricultural land reserve. But yes, section 6 guides them.
M. de Jong: Right. My only point in pursuing this short line of questioning is to establish…. I appreciate, from the minister, her agreement. It’s not available to the ALC, or it would be beyond their legislative capacity or authority, to engage in a balancing of societal considerations along the sort of what I just described — that is, the relative value of more industrial land outweighing the impact on agricultural land or the societal value of building a new arena on a piece of agricultural property, as laudable an objective as that might be.
The ALC, pursuant to section 6, is obliged as a priority to assess and make its decisions based on its priority of protecting agricultural land. That leads, necessarily, to decisions that sometimes frustrate people, but that is the mandate that the ALC has.
Hon. L. Popham: That’s correct.
M. de Jong: I guess the final…. Well, not the final but the…. What I wanted to confirm with the minister is….
We’ve had this brief discussion about the ALC mandate and purpose as they exist in section 6 today. The minister will agree that hasn’t always been the case. What we see before us today is the product of at least two specific amendments that she, as minister, has brought before the House, had passed and are now incorporated into the act.
Prior to those amendments…. Again, maybe it’s helpful if I pass…. Under the now repealed former section 4.3, the ALC did have some broader discretionary authority relating to considerations for economic, cultural and social values. Those don’t exist today. They did exist previously. Is that correct?
Hon. L. Popham: We have strengthened the protections around the agricultural land reserve with our legislation. That’s something that our government is very proud of.
Before we get to the next question, I’m just wondering, Chair, if we’re debating the ALC act or we’re talking about budget estimates.
M. de Jong: As I indicated at the outset, the operation of the Agricultural Land Commission composes a significant part of the budget. Beginning by understanding what its mandate is, I would suggest, is an entirely appropriate function of this committee.
I am going to move on to more specific…. I just wanted to be clear…. The minister has offered her views to the committee about the steps that the government has taken. I merely want to establish, on the record, that prior to the amendments introduced by the minister and her government, the commission, under…. The now repealed provision of the act allowed for it, in rendering decisions to preserve agricultural land, to take into account economic and cultural and social values. That is no longer the case. That’s all I’m trying to establish.
Hon. L. Popham: The ALC still has that discretion.
M. de Jong: Where would that exist in the act?
Hon. L. Popham: The answer is that the ALC does have discretion. They look at each application individually, and they are able to use their discretion to decide whether or not that’s an appropriate way to go.
That being said, the Agricultural Land Commission, as the member knows, is independent. They work within the legislation that they have. Built into that is discretion for them to look at applications individually.
M. de Jong: Is that discretion limitless?
Hon. L. Popham: They are guided by the legislation. The legislation is the law. Within that, they have discretion when they look at individual applications. It’s built in. They have that discretion, because they have a commission that reviews applications.
They, of course, have a priority to protect agricultural land, to encourage farming. When an application comes forward that has other considerations to be had, they have the discretion to look at that.
M. de Jong: I am a bit confused now. Did the discretion…? Well, let me ask this. Did the amendments and changes that the minister has brought to the act change in any way the discretion that the ALC has in rendering decisions pursuant to the act?
Hon. L. Popham: I think I’ve answered the question. I have said that they have legislation, and they have regulations that they’re guided by.
When an application comes in, their first priority is to look at the agricultural land base to protect that land, to encourage farming, to make sure that there’s continuity in the agricultural landscape. When an application comes in, for example, for an exclusion application, a non-agricultural use, they do have the discretion to look at what the community needs are. And they’ve exercised that in the past under the prior government and under our government.
M. de Jong: Look, I’m not trying to be quarrelsome here. The minister has indicated today and in the past that she and her government introduced changes that at one time, she described as “fundamental changes” to the purpose and mandate of the ALC.
I’m asking simply for her to confirm today that the considerations and the mandate and the purpose that guide the ALC’s conduct today are different than it was four years ago. I pointed to what I think were pretty straightforward indications of why an entire section was eliminated that explicitly provided the ALC with the authority to take certain things into account — economic, cultural and social values. Those no longer exist in the act.
So the question to the minister is…. Either the changes that she introduced had an impact or didn’t. She just, moments ago, tried to say that nothing has changed. They either had an impact and changed something, or they didn’t. And if they did change something, what is that?
Hon. L. Popham: I think the answer that I should give the member is that there were changes that happened under our government, under his government. There were two different zones in the agricultural land reserve. I think what he’s referring to were regulations that pertained specifically to zone 2.
We know that we strengthened the agricultural land reserve and made sure that agricultural land protections and encouraging farming are more of a priority than they were in the past. We know that, because we just look at the net change in the number of hectares that have been removed from the agricultural land reserve under our leadership and under the former government.
So I know that those changes have strengthened it, but that being said, the Agricultural Land Commission continues to have discretion when looking at individual applications. Those are the facts.
M. de Jong: I am not here to quarrel with the minister’s views or commitment to the value of the changes that she and her government have advanced and sponsored. I am merely trying to confirm that there have been changes. With the greatest respect to the minister, she talked about regulations. The section of the act that she repealed — 4.3 — was not a regulation. It was connected directly to section 6, and I would characterize, it stipulated an expanded level of considerations. It enunciated in clear form.
Now, I presume the minister disagreed with that. That’s why she repealed it, and that’s fine. I mean, I understand that. But let us not stand here and go through the charade of suggesting that the repeal of section 4.3 didn’t impact the mandate of the commission. I thought that’s why the government did it, and I’m merely asking the minister to confirm on the record that that is so and what she believes the consequence of that repeal was and is going forward.
Hon. L. Popham: I’m definitely not trying to be argumentative with the member, but I think it’s pretty clear that the previous government and our government had different values when it came to the agricultural land reserve.
We believe wholeheartedly that the agricultural land should be protected and be used for agriculture. That doesn’t always work in some circumstances, and there are reasons why there’s a process to exclude agricultural land or have applications approved where farming is not happening. It’s a non-agricultural use. We understand that. It’s a reasonable approach.
The previous government put in two different zones. What we had was two different types of farmers who are allowed to do two different types of things. We created one zone to make sure that agricultural land protection and encouraging farming was the priority right across the province.
Not every area of the province is the same. I heard that over and over again. There had to be local government participation when it came to input for certain applications. We get it. There are different areas of the province that have vast amounts of land. Then there are parts of the province that have small amounts of agricultural land reserve parcels.
We made one zone. We made sure that protecting agriculture was a priority, that encouraging agriculture was a priority, but also, we gave a reasonable approach: that the Agricultural Land Commission, with their panel, had the discretion to look individually at applications. That’s what they do. Sometimes applications are approved that don’t have anything to do with agriculture. That’s reasonable.
M. de Jong: It was always my impression — and it has been reinforced by what the minister has said today — that part of what motivated the minister and the government to introduce the amendments she did was to make it more difficult to remove land from the ALR. Is that a fair assumption on my part?
Hon. L. Popham: I don’t think it is reasonable. I think what we did was we made sure that agriculture was a priority.
M. de Jong: I’d like to ask the minister now about a particular matter that has been the subject of some public commentary and debate within the Legislative Assembly. That is the application that was brought — I’ll give the number; application 61143 — by Carrier-Sekani Family Services, regarding the establishment of a treatment facility in their traditional territory. Is the minister familiar with that application?
Hon. L. Popham: I am aware of the application. It was put forward through the regional district, and it is with the commission right now.
The Chair: Member, just before I recognize you, maybe you can get one last question in, and the minister can answer it after lunch.
M. de Jong: Well, maybe rather than even a question, then, I will alert the minister and her staff to the fact that I have some detailed questions around that whole exercise.
Where I want to begin is with the original application. When the minister said that there’s an application before the commission, I think that is a subsequent application. When I related the application number 61143, that was an original application that, I take it, has now given birth to a subsequent application. When we resume proceedings after the break, we can pick it up there.
Hon. L. Popham: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.