British Columbia Hansard — 20160317pm Hansard v35n9

20160317pm-Hansard-v35n9

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fift h Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Th ursday, March 17, 2016 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 35, Number 9

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Fifth Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Minister Responsible for TransLink ................ Hon. Peter Fassbender Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Mike Bernier Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ........................................................................................... Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Suzanne Anton Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................................................. Hon.

Mike Morris Minister of Small Business and Red Tape Reduction and Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch ........................................................................................................ Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon.

Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon. Todd Stone Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness .................................................................................................................... Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................. Richard T. Lee Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ............................................................................................................................................ Pat Pimm Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Hon. Mike (BC Liberal) ......................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm.

Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ............................................................. Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr.

Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon. Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Comox Valley Mark, Melanie (NDP) ...........................................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Hon. Mike (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon. Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon.

Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................

Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon. John (BC Liberal) ................................................

Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Hon. Michelle (BC Liberal)............................... Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wickens, Jodie (NDP) ..........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Wilkinson, Hon.

Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon. Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim .......................................................................... Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...................................................................

Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T. Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon.

Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke .................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .......................................................Jodie Wickens Coquitlam-Maillardville...........................................................

Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm. Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon.

Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon.

Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ...........................................................................

Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon. John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ...............................................................................

Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon.

Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ..................................................................Hon. Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast .................................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ....................................................Hon. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon. Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands ....................................................

Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................ Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon.

Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon. Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon.

Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley.............................................................................. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................................

Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 35; Independent 2

CONTENTS Th ursday, March 17, 2016 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ................................................................................................................................................... 11619 Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................................................................ 11619 Bill 2 — Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act (continued) R. Fleming M. Dalton A. Weaver D. Donaldson D. Routley Hon. S.

Th omson Bill 4 — Fire Safety Act Hon. T. Stone Hon. N. Y amamoto M. Farnworth D. Plecas D. Donaldson Hon. M. Morris S. Chandra Herbert M. Hunt Hon. T. Stone Committee of the Whole House .......................................................................................................................................... 11642 Bill 3 — Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016 M. Mungall Hon.

Michelle Stilwell Report and Th ird Reading of Bills ....................................................................................................................................... 11647 Bill 3 — Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016 Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................................................................ 11647 Bill 15 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2016 Hon. M. Polak G.

Heyman Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................................................................ 11650 Estimates: Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development (continued) S. Robinson Hon. P . Fassbender M. Mungall D. Eby S. Chandra Herbert

THURSDAY , MARCH 17, 2016 Th e House met at 1:32 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Guy Dauncey, who’s in the gallery today. Guy was re- cently elected a fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. Th e Royal Society of Arts is a London-based British or- ganization committed to fi nding practical solutions for social changes.

Th eir mission is “21st century enlighten- ment, enriching society through ideas and action. ” Guy joins a worldwide network of innovators who have received this prestigious award. The royal soci- ety was founded in 1754 in Covent Garden, London, based on the belief that the creativity of ideas could en- rich social progress. He is in good company, along with Charles Dickens, Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin, John Diefenbaker and Stephen Hawking. Guy is an author, speaker, organizer and consultant who specializes in developing a positive vision of a sus- tainable future and translating that vision into action.

Guy epitomizes the aim of the RSA to bring about posi- tive social change. He has worked tirelessly since the 1970s towards achieving a brighter future and a sustain- able planet. Please join me in welcoming Guy Dauncey to the House today, in recognition of this incredible honour he has received. Orders of the Day Hon. M. Polak: I call continued second reading de- bate on Bill 2, and in

Section A, continuing the esti- mates for the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Minister Responsible for TransLink. Second Reading of Bills BILL 2 — GREAT BEAR RAINFOREST (FOREST MANAGEMENT) ACT (continued) R. Fleming: I appreciate the opportunity to continue remarks on Bill 2, which I began before noon. [R.

Lee in the chair.] I think that at that time, I was getting into a bit of the history of what may make up what you could call an unlikely story in terms of the Great Bear Rainforest as- sembly — how it was born out of confl ict that was inter- national in its scope and dimensions and, of course, the confl ict that it generated within the province. [1335] Th at’s why I think that members of both sides of the House in this debate…. Many of their remarks could be diffi cult to distinguish from one another because we’re talking about something that is a success for British Columbia.

In this case, we have created something that will last forever, for future generations. It has been an ac- complishment of both parties, beginning with one gov- ernment and successfully being…. Instead of a complete reversal, we have seen a continuation of momentum to- wards higher levels of protection and better systems of management — ecosystem-based management — in the six million hectares or so that encompass the GBR.

I talked a little bit about what was going on in the 1990s in this province, which, of course, fl owed from the 1980s — very bitter decades where forestry, instead of being a source of pride and wealth that would be shared with every British Columbian, became a bitterly div- isive sector of the economy that pitted conservationists and environmentalists against forest workers and forest companies. Th at was something that had to be solved.

In fact, one of the things that the incoming Harcourt administration both campaigned on and pledged to create processes to overcome was the phenomenon of the war in the woods in British Columbia, the valley-by-valley struggles that plagued our province, that were divisive and disrupt- ive to communities. It also was the beginning, really, of a debate and a massive shift in thinking about forestry, about resource management and about ecosystem pro- tection in B.C. All of that was going on, and I spoke to that briefl y al- ready.

Th ere were some things that were happening at a higher scale that I think are important to this discussion, to this understanding of why we have Bill 2 before us to- day. Th at was that in 1992 Canada became the fi rst indus- trialized country in the world to ratify the United Nations convention on biological diversity. Th at was a commit- ment that was made by our country before that inter- national body, following that. It was not universally loved by all parts of the country, all provincial leaderships.

By 1994, in fact, there was a consensus, and the text of the UN charter on biodiversity was endorsed and rati- fi ed by legislatures throughout Canada, like ours. So you had an international pledge by Canada to protect areas of the land base, to set aside pristine areas, and you had provincial endorsement of that. And then we had areas of British Columbia that had been identifi ed but were still the source of confl ict around conservation proposals. Th e Great Bear Rainforest. It’s interesting…. First of all, the moniker, of course, for this region now rolls off the tongue very easily.

It’s terminology that all British 11619

British Columbia Debates11620 Thursday, March 17, 2016 Columbians understand. They know where the geog- raphy is, and they know of its importance. It was actually a creation of environmental campaign- ers who wished to convey the signifi cance of this area of British Columbia that had been largely untouched by industrial development, was unique in terms of its bio- logical diversity and was incredibly substantial in terms of the size of the area. I think the number of watersheds contained inside what became known as the Great Bear Rainforest….

Th at was what the campaign was about, by Greenpeace and other organizations, both domestic and international environmental campaigners. Th e credit really goes to those who, I think, were able to raise an incredible amount of awareness about the unique values, natural values, the idea of having a land use process that resulted in what the GBR was all about. For a long time, you couldn’t get everybody to sit at the same table in British Columbia. [1340] Th e government had, I think, very good intentions and brought science-based information and advice.

Ultimately, that was part of the decision-making under the Harcourt administration around land use planning and processes, which was the precursor that led to the GBR. But for many, many years, as I was saying, we couldn’t get everyone at the table. First Nations started to appear. We had a brand-new treaty-making process in British Columbia as well. Th at was an engagement that many First Nations began to participate in.

But the environmental groups — many of them felt that if they gave up the valley-by-valley campaigning approach, which had been successful for them on many, many occasions, they would be sitting at a table while ecosystems they were trying to protect from logging would be logged off . Th ere was suspicion. I have to say that I don’t have a full appreciation of the entire story about how some of these areas of mistrust were managed and eventually overcome.

I think there are a lot of individuals who come from government and from business and from the environmental community that, through sheer force of personality and reason and relationship-building, were able to contribute to moving in the direction towards this conservation area. It took a long, long time. I think that in terms of one of the benefi ts that Premier Campbell expressed in the years following 2001 — when it was made clear that he had no intention to reverse the directions set by Premiers Harcourt and Clark — there was this desire to create a new relationship.

So the GBR had a lot of details fi lled in. One of them was that there would be some logging activity that would continue there. Th ey’ d be in identifi able management areas. Th ese have been skirmishes and disputes right up until the point that we’re discussing this today. Th ere’s no ques- tion about it. But there were a lot of details added into the conservation area as we went. One of the principles that was put in there around this new relationship was that First Nations people were go- ing to have access to timber and jobs. Th at was incred- ibly signifi cant.

Th at was essentially a major reform of the tenure system, if you like, that was fi nally being inclusive to economic development opportunities for First Nations. We now have something like 70 percent of the old- growth and forest canopied areas in the GBR absolutely protected. We have working forest areas that are select- ively logged using ecosystem-based management tech- niques, light logging techniques, in the remainder of the lands. We have industry leaders that have been able to con- clude these decisions with their counterparts in the en- vironmental sector — organizations like the Sierra Club and others.

Th ey have agreed — using the same scientists, looking at the same information — about where the sig- nifi cant conservation areas are within the GBR and how best to manage them. We have had a lot of discussions about bringing more integrity and strength to the species-at-risk legislation that the province of British Columbia has, to comple- ment what the intentions of the GBR are. Th ose haven’t been concluded by any stretch.

We continue to have an incredible need in the province of British Columbia for more conservation offi cers and conservation eff orts and, once species at risk have been identifi ed, creating rescue and recovery plans for species that could go extinct, in- cluding in the GBR. Th ose are all real live issues that continue. But we do have a listing process for these systems. We do have legis- lation that has been reviewed in British Columbia.

We have federal and provincial laws now. [1345] Many will argue — and I think I’m sympathetic to it —that that legislation needs to be improved so that we are, in fact, doing what’s most important, which is hav- ing strong land base decisions to protect the habitat that supports the species at risk. Th at is the greatest risk to biodiversity in British Columbia.

I mentioned earlier in my remarks that British Columbia has a signifi cant onus internationally and on this continent to be a leader and be eff ective at preserv- ing biodiversity, because we have the greatest amount of biodiversity of any jurisdiction in North America. Habitat loss is the greatest threat to B.C. ’s biodiversity. Something like 86 percent of species at risk in British Columbia are aff ected by loss of habitat.

Th at speaks to why the Great Bear Rainforest is so critically important and why other areas in the province of B.C. ought to have the similar attention of government — this one and the next one — to identify and to protect habitat areas. One can think of four risk areas where habitat loss is a real and present issue in British Columbia. Y ou’ve got right here, on southern Vancouver Island, a habitat loss that is threatening the viability of species diversity. Th e

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 17, 2016 11621 Lower Mainland of southwestern B.C., of course, and parts of the Rocky Mountain Trench have been identi- fi ed as areas that need higher levels of protection and management. One that I’m familiar with and I think is very interest- ing is the Okanagan Valley — interesting because it con- tains one of Canada’s only desert ecosystems. Th ere is an active live proposal there by Parks Canada to create a na- tional park in the Similkameen area of the Okanagan, and there would be tremendous benefi ts from there. Th is is a well-studied proposal.

I know the province has currently walked away from the process on this, but we have a new government in Ottawa, and I think there is interest there in working with people who live in that region, where it is well supported, to see if that national park proposal can be revived again. Obviously, tremendous benefi ts there — in terms of habitat loss, a national park would off er the highest level of protection possible.

Again, in terms of First Nations and local communities deriving economic benefits, which is a feature of the Great Bear Rainforest agreement, a national park in that part of the southern Okanagan would also help create jobs for First Nations people and incredible tourism potential. Don’t take my word for it. Just look at the benefi ts that have accrued to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Since they have had signifi cant national park investments in that jurisdiction and marketed it eff ectively, they’ve had a massive increase in tourism visitation there and all of the good things that fl ow from that in terms of growth in GDP and jobs and opportunities for small business.

Th at’s the interesting thing about conservation and about environmental protection: to get to this agreement, people had to get past the idea that there is a zero-sum game of doing things the old way, in terms of the logging practices that previously went on in this area, or embra- cing a new approach, the ecosystem-based management approach, which is at the heart of this agreement. Th at was a debate we couldn’t get past for a long time.

I think the proof, now, of its success is that we do have economic activity, resource harvesting, happening in the GBR at the same time that we have created a bind- ing, legal framework around how that land is managed, on the basis of a process that involved everyone and, in British Columbia, created that rarest of situations where there was an actual consensus of all of the stakehold- ers and people involved in the development of that deal. Th at’s something we should bear in mind for other op- portunities that present themselves in British Columbia. Th e importance of conserving areas of B.C. that are viable….

Th e forested area that we’re talking about in the GBR is a signifi cant carbon mitigation benefi t to the province of British Columbia. [1350] Th ere are others in B.C. that are going to be critical to a climate action strategy that works — that can account for emissions and can store carbon and prevent it from being released into the atmosphere. Th at’s what countries around the world have put their minds to do. Th at’s what the recent summit, again, created an international dec- laration to do. Right here in British Columbia, there are additional opportunities to do just that.

We need to look no further for inspiration on that than the GBR. There are other parts of British Columbia where a similar benefi t could accrue to our jurisdiction around conservation. Th ey also provide…. I want to stress this again. Environmental protection is not an anathema to economic development. In fact, it goes hand in hand with it. I’ve given some examples of that today. I think the GBR is an exemplary one. Th e contents of Bill 2, in terms of what amendments, what additions to the Great Bear Rainforest….

Th e legislation that governs activity in the Great Bear Rainforest helps to build further upon that. I will just conclude by speaking to what I expect will be unanimously passed in this House. Again, to just re- fl ect upon what an incredible and unlikely positive out- come based on, at the outset, a bitter, divisive confl ict in B.C. — a requirement to change the mindsets by all of the diff erent actors in our economy and in communities around B.C., which was a source of contention and even hostility in parts of B.C. over many years.

People were committed to getting an outcome that was good for jobs, that was good for conservation, good for the environment, good for biodiversity and all of the commitments that we made internationally, which sometimes we pay lip service to and fail to put concrete- ly into action. It’s a tremendous, tremendous success story to see the Great Bear Rainforest internationally recognized in this day and age by jurisdictions all over the world. We did it here in British Columbia. We overcame great adversity. Th ere are so many people that played pivotal roles, who are unsung.

Th ey come from industry; they come from the environmental sector; they come from local govern- ment; they come from the provincial ministries — people with incredible skills who had the patience to try and build a consensus. Here we are, in the year 2016, having made giant steps in 1999 and 2000, further steps in 2001. Th e measures were taken in 2006 around further definition of eco- system-based management and logging restrictions. In 2009 — again, the amendments.

And in Bill 2, we’re re- visiting what has been a tremendous work in progress but one that was not obvious at all in terms of the con- clusions that we reached. I look forward to hearing discussions on some of the details of the bill, between the critic on the oppos- ition side and the minister. Here at the second-reading stage, I’m very pleased to have added my voice to mem- bers on all sides of the House about this tremendous source of pride, the Great Bear Rainforest, for all British Columbians.

British Columbia Debates11622 Thursday, March 17, 2016 M. Dalton: It’s a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in favour of Bill 2, the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act. Just to begin with, B.C. has one of the highest percent- ages of parkland and conservation areas anywhere in the world. It’s something that we as British Columbians are proud of. It’s not something that’s done willy-nilly.

Th ere’s a lot of engagement with the public, with First Nations and with interested parties, and this has been evident as we’ve gone forward over the years with the Great Bear Rainforest. [1355] Th is is truly a global treasure. Our province has dif- ferent monikers, including what’s on our licence plate — “Beautiful British Columbia, ” “Super, natural B.C. ” Th is rainforest, the Great Bear Rainforest, certainly epitom- izes this. A few months ago I was in Maui, and I was talking with some Hawaiian residents who had visited British Columbia. Th ey just went on and on about the beauty of British Columbia.

Th at’s something that wherever you go in the world, when you meet people who have visited our province, you hear the same thing: how enamoured they are with the nature, with the beauty, with the greenery of British Columbia. Th e Great Bear Rainforest covers an area of about 400 miles in length, from north of Vancouver Island, on the mainland, going up to the Alaska panhandle. It’s cover- ing about 32,000 square kilometres, which is about the size of Switzerland. Th e Great Bear Rainforest makes up about one-quarter of the world’s coastal temperate rain- forests.

It’s one of the most pristine wilderness environ- ments in the world. Quoting from Hello B.C., it says that it’s “a vibrant and diverse ecosystem…a place where the waters teem with an abundance of marine life, including whales, sea otters, dolphins and sea lions. Lush forests rise from the water’s edge and carpet the landscape in green.

It’s a labyrinth of fj ords stretching inland to the glacier-capped Coast Mountains, and towering granite cliff s give way to the fertile estuaries where bears and eagles gorge on salmon that have returned to their natal streams. ” I spent a number of years growing up across the wat- ers from the Great Bear Rainforest, on the north tip of Vancouver Island. Dad was in the military and lived in Canadian Forces Station Holberg. Dense, lush vegetation — there are ferns, towering Douglas fi rs and lots and lots of rain. For footwear, normally we wore, as kids, rubber boots, because it rained so much.

One of my fondest memories was with my dad. I think the fi rst time I went there was 1968, when I was eight years old. We went to San Josef Bay. It was a four-hour hike at that time along corduroy roads that the Danish settlers had set up years earlier. Th ere was a colony that was set up that, aft er the First World War, disbanded be- cause it was so remote. When you get to San Josef Bay, it’s just beautiful — very sandy beaches, similar to Long Beach with the high breakers. Or you could have gone up to Cape Scott. Th at was about a 12-hour hike at that time. Now it’s a lot shorter.

Th e reason I’m bringing this up is that a number of years aft er we moved from that base to Canadian Forces Station Chibougamau, in Quebec, this area was made into a provincial park. Th e old-growth forest remained there. It was extended years later, and you have the North Coast Trail, which is similar to the West Coast Trail that we have in the southern part of Vancouver Island. I know that, as a child and looking back, it was one of the most serene and meaningful places, actually, that I can think of — that area, up in the Cape Scott area.

I’m very thankful that the province has preserved this area for British Columbians, some 50 years aft er I fi rst went up there with my father and gained a real appreciation for the outdoors. We’re doing something similar in the Great Bear Rainforest. I remember, in the time living up in north Vancouver Island, that there were tracts of land that were cut, and I was disappointed, as a youth, seeing the areas cut. Having gone back there aft erwards and over the dec- ades, the untrained eye would not even know that there has been cuts.

I’m happy that there’s a park there but that, at the same time, there’s room for logging and for our economic well-being. Th at’s, again, similar to what is happening with the Great Bear Rainforest.

National Geographic hails the Great Bear Rainforest as “one of its best trips. ” Th is was done a couple of years ago, in 2013. “It’s a place that draws the serious adventurer, the casual explorer and travellers seeking to connect with nature and experience a cultural, spiritual and sensory journey. ” [1400] We’ve gone through a long, thorough process to reach the place where we’re at today, one of collaboration by many diverse groups. It’s our responsibility to make sure that we leave our province better off for the next gen- eration, and this forest management agreement does just that.

This is a monumental agreement acknow- ledged around the world for its signifi cance. Th is agree- ment preserves the pristine wilderness of the Great Bear Rainforest while also continuing the ancient tradition of making a living off of the land. Th is act will create special forest management areas where commercial timber-harvesting activities will be prohibited. Th is agreement promises to protect 85 per- cent of the regions of the old-growth forests, with logging in the remaining 15 percent.

Th e ecosystem-based management in the Great Bear Rainforest is a collaboration between 26 First Nations, the province, forest companies and environmental groups. It’s a remarkable achievement. Th ese key stakeholders and First Nations partners collaborated with the government to create the policy framework for the proposed legislation.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 17, 2016 11623 Th e environmental groups and forest companies include, from industry, the Coast Forest Conservation Initiative, B.C. Timber Sales, Catalyst Paper, Howe Sound Pulp and Paper and Western Forest Products. From environ- mental groups, we have the Rainforest Solutions Project, ForestEthics Solutions, Greenpeace and Sierra Club of B.C. When it comes to commercial logging in the region, the amount of protected old-growth forest in the area will increase from 50 percent to 70 percent. It will include eight new areas set aside for logging.

This act will establish new timber supply areas and reconfi gure existing ones in order to better refl ect the boundaries of the Great Bear Rainforest. For coastal for- est companies operating in the area, they will benefi t from certainty that will come from having a secure land base. Forest companies will have a defi ned forest manage- ment area of 15 percent where logging can occur. Th e act will create a stable land base that will support an allow- able annual cut of 2.5 million cubic metres over the next ten years.

Th is is a decrease of the existing allowable an- nual cut, or AAC, of about 3.2 million cubic metres per year. Th is will provide certainty for jobs, investment and the markets. Th e chief forester was involved in the forest analysis that contributed to the recommended AAC, and he also participated in discussions for the Great Bear forest range management area during the ten-year allowable annual cut adjustment period. Th is agreement recognizes aboriginal rights to share decision-making and improves economic opportunities for 26 First Nations that reside in the area.

Th e protection of 85 percent of the old growth and second forest growth preserves land and cultural, ecological and spiritual ties, which are so vitally important to the people who have lived there for millennia. It also includes more protected areas for freshwater ecosystems and the diverse species that live in the region. Th e remaining 15 percent of the region will help support coastal logging and economic opportunities for the First Nations who live in the region. Th ey can continue their an- cient tradition of making a sustainable living off the land.

First Nations will now have signifi cantly increased par- ticipation in the forest sector, providing economic oppor- tunities and jobs for their communities. Th is agreement not only leaves the great treasure of preserving the Great Bear Rainforest, but it also is the result of collaboration between First Nations, industry, government and NGOs. Th at’s the big success. I want to congratulate everyone who was involved in this process over the years. Th eir hard work and dedica- tion have paid off , and we now have this great beauty of our province protected. A.

Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise with my colleagues on both sides of this House to support, as well, Bill 2, the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act.

Th is is truly a remarkable event when we fi nd 26 First Nations, the province of British Columbia, several — in fact, numerous — non-governmental organizations and forest companies coming together to reach an agreement in terms of what can be logged, what will be logged, what should not be logged and how logging should be done in an area on the west coast of our province known as the Great Bear Rainforest. [1405] Th e bill before us, Bill 2 — let’s be clear that this bill is really a bill about what can be logged, what can be cut.

It leaves a lot, as we’re seeing from other bills, up to regula- tions that will be put forward through order-in-council at some point in the future. I don’t want to diminish the importance of this bill, of course, but again, I want it to be very clear that what we are debating is what can be cut in the Great Bear Rainforest, rather than, in some sense, the ways in which we do cut or the overall ecosystem-based approach to forestry that’s being taken. Let me also acknowledge that, as with any bill or any agreement, there will be those who think that govern- ment gave away too much.

Th ere will be those who think that government didn’t give away enough. Th ere will be those environmental groups that think this was a sellout. Th ere will be those environmental groups that think this is a great success. Th is is true of every agreement that is made. But what’s important to recognize is that we were not at the table. Who was at the table? Well, 26 First Nations, a number of environmental groups and a number of forest compan- ies. To get agreement on this is truly an important event. G. Heyman: With respect to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted. Introductions by Members G. Heyman: Th ank you very much, and thank you to the member. Joining us in the gallery above me today is a grade 5 class. In fact, the class is split in two from Talmud Torah School in Vancouver-Fairview. I met them at the door. Th ey’re accompanied by teachers Lisa Romalis, Becky Chan and Nicole Andersen. Th is is almost a school within a school. Th ere are 75 grade 5 students. We had a very brief discussion about the bill that we’re debating right now, and they’re pretty excited about being here for such a momentous occasion.

I hope the House will make them very, very welcome. Debate Continued A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to sit down and allow the member for Vancouver-Fairview to introduce

British Columbia Debates11624 Thursday, March 17, 2016 a class, because it is so incredibly important that we en- gage our youth in our democracy. Th ank you to the member, and thank you to the class for being here, even though I can’t see you up there. On to the agreement that we’re debating, Bill 2, Great Bear Rainforest Act. I’m sure that each and every young person in that class is going to go home riveted to the screen and watch all debates today and make sure that they study this, because there will be a test on Friday next week on what you have learned about the Great Bear Rainforest. I’m just joking.

Interjections. A. Weaver: Th ere’s no test. I’m only joking. Interjection. A. Weaver: Oh, it’s Good Friday, of course. It’s a holi- day. Coming back to the agreement, as I mentioned, there will be some who don’t think enough was given. Th ere will be some who think too much was given. But I say to those people and to those groups: “Y ou were not present at the table.

I was not present at the table. ” Th ose who were present at the table — 26 First Nations, the prov- ince, non-government organizations, forest companies — came to an agreement, a monumental agreement, that protects vast areas of our Great Bear Rainforest. Now, the issue of protection is a complex one. As we know, the forests make up more than half of the Great Bear Rainforest — a total of 3.7 million hectares, or 9.1 million acres.

Th e land use orders in this bill identify 1.36 million acres of managed forest that will support a sus- tainable harvest, which creates stability for First Nations, workers, communities, investors and customers alike. One-third of the Great Bear Rainforest is fully protect- ed in parks and conservation areas, and about 9 percent of the total — that’s about 15 percent of the forested area — is available for timber harvesting in the managed forest.

Th e managed forest comprises 550,000 hectares, or about 1.36 million acres, where harvesting of old growth and second growth is guided by ecosystem-based management. [1410] We’ll explore at committee stage what this govern- ment’s

interpretation of ecosystem-based management is, but I would like to outline the subtle diff erences between the various land use zones. It is complex, and it is some- thing that I think that not all will appreciate. Hon. Speaker, 471 hectares are fully protected in what are known as parks and protected areas. Now, protected areas generally have one or more existing or proposed activities that are not usually allowed in a park — i.e., perhaps a proposed industrial road, pipeline, transmis- sion line or communications site.

Allowable activities and management direction are determined by specifi c provi- sions and special conditions when the area is established as well as relevant sections of the Park Act and the Park, Conservancy and Recreation Area Regulation, as identi- fi ed in the order-in-council. Conservancies are also being used. Now, 1.5 million hectares, or about 3.7 million acres, are in a designation that protects ecological values and recognizes the import- ance of specifi c areas for First Nations. What are conservancies? Well, conservancies are slightly diff erent, again, from the protected areas.

Th ey are Crown land set aside for four things: “(

a) the protec- tion and maintenance of their biological diversity and natural environments; (

b) the preservation and main- tenance of social, ceremonial and cultural uses of First Nations; (

c) the protection and maintenance of their rec- reational values; and (

d) the development or use of nat- ural resources in a manner consistent with (a), (

b) or (c). ” As I say, conservancies are a designation that protects ecological values but that recognizes the importance of specifi c areas to First Nations. Hon. Speaker, 764,000 acres are being designated biodiversity, mining and tourism areas. Th ese are areas where the primary use is biodiversity conservation and protection of ecological and cultural values, but commer- cial forestry and hydroelectric generation linked to the power grid are not allowed. Th en there are the special forest management areas, 675,000 acres of which are preserved.

Th ese are areas where hydroelectric generation, mining and tourism development are allowed as long as they maintain eco- logical integrity. Commercial forestry is not allowed. It is expected that some of these will become biodiversity, mining and tourism areas or conservancies over time. So the land plan and the land use zones are quite complex and lead to a rather beautifully coloured map — which I’m not allowed to show, as it would be considered a prop — which we have to consider when we look at the Great Bear Rainforest.

When I quote a couple of leading voices on this agree- ment, I think it’s important to recognize that there is widespread support. Vicky Husband, as we all know, one of B.C. ’s leading environmental voices: “‘It is impressive that environmental negotiators were able to get so much when government wanted to give so little. ’ But she is dis- mayed the deal has allowed the government to cast itself as green, when it is still allowing ancient forests to be logged and grizzly bears to be shot. ” So there is support, but qualifi ed support.

Rick Slaco, who chairs a group representing the log- ging companies in the region, stated: “What we’re getting for it is a dedicated land base, a defi ned amount of har- vest, a harvest that is confl ict-free, a harvest we can plan our business around. It comes with a social licence. ” He also noted: “Th e signifi cant part of this agreement for the forest industry is that we’re still going to cut trees down. We’re going to cut down less of them” — he should have

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 17, 2016 11625 said “fewer of them” — “and cut them down in a diff er- ent way. ” Interjection. A. Weaver: I’m glad that the class has now left . I was just correcting the grammar for them there. I should add a [sic] for Hansard there. “We didn’t do this to go out of business, ” he says. We have qualifi ed support from Vicky Husband, a well-known name.

Frankly, to get qualifi ed support from her is quite a sign that this is a deal that has got wide- spread support in the province — and from the forest in- dustry, as well, when so much land is preserved, is also quite a signifi cant coup that we have. I do caution some temperance on the rhetoric that we’re hearing from the government.

I recognize that the government is proud to bring this to us today, as we are all proud in British Columbia to be able to support this. [1415] However, statements like, “We’re green world leaders; this is our gift to the planet, ” are a little tough to take from a government that’s purporting to develop an industry that the rest of the world is either moving away from or already has a glut of supply in. Let’s not forget, too, that in fact, the deal that saved the Great Bear Rainforest has actually been announced some- thing like 15 times already over the past number of years.

While an oft en-cited announcement, it is important to recognize that it is this government and this Legislature that has the honour of being able to prove it today. While I do caution the temperance, government doesn’t need to oversell this. Th is sells itself. Th ere’s no need for rhetoric to say how great government is in do- ing this. Th is sells itself. We will praise this agreement on this side of the House as much as anybody. So I suggest that in some sense, credibility is lost a little bit if govern- ment touts its own success.

Let others tout this success, because this is a success, and we are here to actually sup- port government on this. But it is not the thing that makes B.C., in giving a gift to the entire world, green leaders of the world. It’s an import- ant step, an important conservation step, a historic agree- ment that puts the rights of First Nations front and centre, the rights of ecological systems there front and centre. We’ll explore this in more detail at committee stage.

As I mentioned, this bill really is about very specifi c details focused on determining the allowable annual cut and forest licences, tree farm licences that will be aff ect- ed. It’s not light reading for grade 5 elementary students who may attend it here. Th e summaries are much easier to grapple with.

As the government has suggested, this bill will “enable implementation of unique ecosystem- based management rules to the Great Bear Rainforest that move beyond current legislation while ensuring nor- mal rules under the Forest Act still apply. ” Th is is import- ant, but we need to explore what government is thinking ecosystem-based management means. Government also is suggesting that this will “legally es- tablish a Great Bear Rainforest area and assign an initial allowable cut of 2.5 million cubic metres per year for ten years for the entire area.

Aft er ten years, the allowable an- nual cut would be determined by the chief forester under

section 8 of the Forest Act, as is the case in other manage- ment units” — again, something that needs exploration at committee stage as to what government is thinking here in the longer term. Th e government says this agreement will “establish new timber supply areas and reconfi gure existing ones to better refl ect the boundaries of the Great Bear Rainforest” — again, something that we’ll explore further at commit- tee stage with respect to what the boundaries are, and how they are defi ned, of the Great Bear Rainforest.

Th e government also says this bill will “provide for the designation of new special forest management areas that prohibit commercial timber-harvesting areas. ” Again, here we’ll seek information further as to what commer- cial means in this regard and how the diff erent land use zones come into play. Government says that it plans to “enable regulations to specify where forest practices may diff er from those under the Forest and Range Practices Act and regula- tions. ” Again, this needs to be explored more compre- hensively in the committee stage.

Finally, this bill, government states, will “allow the minister to set ‘partitions’ at the licence level, where par- titions can be set to ensure a certain portion of a licen- see’s annual cut is directed in a particular geographic area or restricted to a particular tree species” — again, a topic that I think needs to be explored further at com- mittee stage. In conclusion, I, like the rest of my colleagues in this chamber, am delighted to stand and support this histor- ic agreement.

I look forward to committee stage, to ex- plore some of the thinking of government as we move towards a discussion of what it has in mind with respect to the regulations that it is empowering in the introduc- tion of this bill. [1420] I leave government with a fi nal note. Let us celebrate your successes well. It is far better than when govern- ment touts its own successes too much, because people don’t actually value and appreciate the success when it is done that way. It is better when others call you world- class. It is better when others congratulate you.

When one congratulates oneself or one calls oneself world-class, it makes one wonder if you are world-class or whether we should be congratulating you. D. Donaldson: I rise to take

part in the second read- ing debate of this bill, the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act. It’s

an act that establishes the forest

British Columbia Debates11626 Thursday, March 17, 2016 management area for the Great Bear Rainforest and gives authorization to cabinet to make decisions about forest harvesting in the aff ected region. It also authorizes the minister to grant relief from penalties under the Forest Act for contravening cut control limits if actions taken under this act contributed to those contraventions. It’s an area of the province that actually spans over three million hectares.

Th e very northern part touches on and is part of the constituency I represent, Stikine, the part of the Great Bear Rainforest that abuts the Alaskan Tongass rainforest. I’m quite familiar with the area from the land perspective — not as much from the marine perspective. What this act does is it speaks to forest management. Under the proposed bill here, 15 percent of that over three million hectares will be open to logging, which amounts to about 550,000 hectares that the forest indus- try has to work with.

Th e other 85 percent of coastal tem- perate rainforest is in various forms of protection from industrial activity, but mainly from logging. As many of the speakers on our side have pointed out, this act been a long time in coming. It’s based on an agreement and quite a process involving many diff erent perspectives and many diff erent stakeholders and many diff erent world views. I recall Rick Jeff ery, when he was one of the chief ne- gotiators for forest companies when the work was being done to come to a consensus on what should happen on the land base, having a certain perspective.

Now he’s the CEO of the Coast Forest Products Association, and he says, of this agreement and this act: “It provides a cer- tainty. ” Th at’s important, because it provides certainty around access, and that certainty around access provides certainty around investment as well. Th e ecological in- tegrity will be protected under this act, and human well- being will be taken care of as well. It is the largest tract of intact temperate rainforest in the world. I think, oft entimes, when you live in an area like that, like I do, it’s hard to appreciate how signifi cant your own backyard is.

If you look around the world, this is very signifi cant. It’s very signifi cant for current genera- tions but also for future generations, when we’re dealing with issues of enhanced climate change, issues of bio- diversity and all of those kinds of issues. Y ou know, we have a bit of an idea — many people have an idea — that we know everything about the natural world that needs to be known. And yet we fi nd new dis- coveries every day in the natural world.

Th e discoveries are only able to be found when we deal with intact ecosystems. [1425] All of the products and the various medicines and the various solutions that we have to challenges we face today are based in the natural world. If we eliminate large tracts without knowing exactly what the future worth could be in areas like medicine and others, then we are limiting fu- ture generations’ ability to fi nd solutions and to overcome future challenges.

It is important, what we’re talking about here today, and it is important that we are ensuring that over three million hectares are going to be kept relatively intact, based on ecosystem-based management principles. Th e creation of this area that’s described under the Great Bear Rainforest Act, this bill, goes back a long ways. I actually had some involvement. I was working, in late 2000 and early 2001, on the joint solutions project, which my colleague has described in his two-hour address to this bill.

It was one of the ways that the diff erent stake- holders were trying to come together to arrive at some common ground on what the future of this land and coast should be. My role was a community economic develop- ment lens on what human well-being could be derived from this intact land and coastline. CED, community economic development, principles are principles where local people should have the largest say over what happens in their own backyards, from an economic development perspective, and should be the principal drivers of that economic development.

CED principles are principles of justice and equality and that power is shared. Y ou know, what we’ve seen as coming out of the agreement and the Great Bear Rainforest Act is that some of these CED principles have infi ltrated into what’s happening on the land base. I think of Rick Jeff ery talking about how it provides a certainty, this agreement and this act, for the forest in- dustry, but it also provides certainty for other econom- ic generators for communities on the coast. I think of the bear-viewing industry that has expanded incredibly along the coast.

Th at’s resulted in tens of millions of dol- lars being spent and distributed in local communities. We had a presentation night hosted by many of those companies that are focused on the Knight Inlet. Again, it’s the CED principles that were part of this agreement and around ecosystem-based management that allows for non-extractive economic uses of the land base as well. G. Heyman: With respect to my colleague from Stikine, I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members G. Heyman: Again, thank you to my colleague from Stikine.

Joining us in the gallery above is the second group of students from the Talmud Torah school, grade 5 students from the school in Vancouver-Fairview. Th ey’re joined by teachers Lisa Romalis, Becky Chan and Nicole Anderson. Th ey are having a quick but exciting tour of the Legislature. They were asking me earlier who would be in the House. Th ey’ d heard about the Great Bear Rainforest and I think are happy to be able to witness a small piece of the debate on this historic achievement.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 17, 2016 11627 I hope that my colleagues will join me in making the students very, very welcome. Debate Continued D.

Donaldson: Th ose days when I was involved with the joint solutions project, back in late 2000, early 2001, were very, very intense days. [1430] Th ere was a lot of disagreement amongst the stake- holders, the various people who had an interest in this Great Bear Rainforest land base — whether it was large forest companies, whether it was people in smaller com- munities who were dependent on logging, whether it was First Nations, whether it was other people in commun- ities along that coast who had an interest in intact eco- systems. Th e provincial government was at the table as well.

Th ese were very, very intense times. As I said, forest companies and environmental groups were represented. But people remained at the table. In 2001…. Th is was the year that I left working on the joint solutions project. It was around this time that the forest companies agreed to suspend logging in the area and environmental groups agreed to suspend their boy- cott activities of the forest companies that were operating in that area. At the same time, indigenous leaders became engaged by the provincial government.

Although this had been going on for a while and there were confl icts, by 2006, an agreement was in place around ecosystem-based management on the area known as the Great Bear Rainforest. Now we have, ten years later, the actual act that will govern the logging activities and where they can occur in the Great Bear Rainforest. Th is was, I guess, what could you say is an ultimate example of a consensus-based approach. Its genesis was out of confl ict around diff erent world views and diff er- ent perspectives on how the resources in the Great Bear Rainforest could be used or observed or not used.

But over time and over incredible dedication on pretty well everybody’s behalf who sat around the table, a consensus and agreement was reached in 2006. A lot of that grew out of relationship-building. Again, my colleague has talked about that. Over the years, people at the table came to know each other as human beings, really, not as people who were representative of a single point of view. Like most people, there are complexities, and there is a spectrum of values. Y ou can hold one value and an- other value, and they might not combine oft en.

But by people getting to know each other around the table over a number of years and in oft entimes high-pressure circum- stances, an agreement was reached in 2006. Th is bill, ten years later, puts meat on the agreement that was reached from the forest activities point of view. Many First Nations traditional territories are covered in the Great Bear Rainforest, and they’ve become signa- tories to the agreements and supporters of this act as well. Th e supporters of this bill are quite diverse. We have organizations such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and ForestEthics.

We also have the Coastal First Nations and forest companies led by the Coast Forest Products Association that Rick Jeff ery now heads. A pretty wide spectrum of interests there represented who are sup- portive of this bill. As Richard Brooks, the campaign coordinator for Greenpeace Canada, points out, this agreement — and now this act and this bill that we’re considering today — holds out hope for other areas currently in confl ict to move towards collaboration.

I want to talk a little bit more about that in relation to this bill, because I think there are some lessons to be learned that need to be ap- plied more widely. It’s still going to take eyes on the ground.

I have no doubt, with the interest that we’ve seen over the last 16, 17 years, that there will be a lot of interest and eyes on the ground. [1435] Th e ecosystem-based management approach is not just about logging — we’re seeing this Bill 2 deal with the logging part of it — but other industrial uses of the land base, as well, like mining and energy production, and also the non-consumptive uses of the land, such as the bear- viewing industry that I referred to before.

Th ere’s going to be a lot of need for eyes on the ground to ensure that the intent of this bill, Bill 2 that’s in front of us, is actually carried out. I look forward to the com- mittee stage and to hearing from the minister, from a provincial perspective and from his ministry’s perspec- tive — or her ministry’s perspective, depending on who’s going to be actually responsible for eyes on the ground — how that’s going to transpire, because that’s defi nitely something that’s going to be needed.

As we know, there’s going to be a ten-year review aft er this bill is passed — that’ll be in 2026 — so again, import- ant to hear more detail on how that review will be con- ducted and how it relates to the amount of logging and where it can occur, because things do change over time. I want to get back to what I think are the really inter- esting and signifi cant parts of Bill 2 and what it repre- sents.

It represents that certainty aspect that Rick Jeff ery talked about from the forest industry perspective and the ability to reduce current confl ict and move towards a more collaborative approach that Richard Brooks from Greenpeace Canada talked about in relation to this bill and this agreement. I think what this bill gets at is that it’s not an either-or approach. It’s not: either we have industry with jobs, or we have concern about the environment and no jobs. It’s not an either-or. Oft entimes these kinds of confl icts over the land base are presented as that.

Really, what this bill, and the agreement it’s based on, typifi es is a sharing of the land base and how, sometimes, competing activities

British Columbia Debates11628 Thursday, March 17, 2016 can occur on the land base. Sometimes there are activities that are mutually exclusive, but in this case, we’re talking about how the land base can be shared. It reminds me of the land and resource management plans that were initiated in the 1990s that were exactly about that. Th ey were initiated by the NDP government in the 1990s to try to overcome confl icting uses of the land base and confl icting views about how the land base was managed. Primarily, in those days, it was around in- dustrial logging activities.

I, as well, in 1991 and 1992, worked on land and re- source management plans in the Morice forest district, in the Bulkley forest district and in the Kispiox forest dis- trict as an independent consultant. Th ose were extremely worthwhile enterprises, worthwhile processes initiated by the NDP government of the day. Th ose documents are still worthwhile today. I mean, they get updated now and then, but they are the basis of how we operate on the land base. Again, though, they pri- marily focused on forestry. One that I was involved with specifi cally….

Generally, I was involved with the Morice, Bulkley and Kispiox LRMP when it came to public con- sultation around the forestry aspect. Th e one in Kispiox, also, an off shoot of that, was the land use plan that cre- ated the Babine River corridor. [1440] Th at is an incredibly important corridor for grizzly bears. Th ey come from miles and miles away. Just like the bears in the Great Bear Rainforest are integral to that agreement, the Babine River corridor grizzly bears come from hundreds of miles away to use the Babine River cor- ridor area during salmon spawning.

It’s an important, ob- viously critical, part of the grizzly bear diet. Th at process was around how we get to the fact that we need to have industrial logging activities to support hu- man well-being, as Rick Jeff ery put it. But we also recog- nize that there’s a need for continued biodiversity — with the grizzly bears. Th at was what that process was about. It worked quite well. Now we have the Babine River cor- ridor, we have the Babine River trust, and we have lots of eyes on the ground in that area as well.

Th e issue that gets back to Bill 2 is that this was a pro- cess initiated by the government of the day, the NDP government, to try to reduce confl ict and try to work out how we shared the land base. Many of those land and resource management plans did not have a very rigorous component to other activ- ities on the land base. Th ey had a lot of focus on forestry, just like we have in Bill 2 — and the bill we’re considering today is, really, a forest management act.

But the LRMP process did not have as much rigour when it came to sharing the land base around mining activities, for in- stance, or, what’s become even more prominent in the last fi ve or six years, energy production. Th at was not even a topic, really, under the LRMP process back in the ’90s because a lot of the alternative sources of ener- gy hadn’t been well-thought-out or well-planned-out at that point. Th ere is still a need to revisit land and resource man- agement plans just the same as in Bill 2. We’ll be revisiting Bill 2 in ten years.

It’s in recognition that priorities change and techniques change and things change over time. Th e LRMPs, although focused on forestry to try to reduce confl ict, did not have a lot to say about mining, energy production. Water use is becoming a very important topic these days. We know what’s happened in California, and with enhanced climate change, we know that this can be an issue into the future. It’s an issue now.

Th ose kinds of land and resource management plans that were initiated in the ’90s are similar to what we’re looking at today with the Great Bear Rainforest agree- ment and now the Great Bear Rainforest Act. What I would like to see is that the LRMPs that laid the foun- dation for trying to reduce confl ict on the land base…. I would like to see this government be more interested in updating them to include more of the land uses that we see becoming more prominent these days. It’s not something that is unknown to this government. We have this Bill 2 in front of us now, which is a bill that I will be supporting.

It’s a demonstration of consensus, it’s a demonstration of sharing of the land base, and it’s a demonstration of adding certainty and reducing confl ict. Th is government, and I will give them credit for this, also undertook the Atlin-Taku land use plan. Th at’s an area of almost three million hectares as well, so a similar size to the Great Bear Rainforest. It’s an area in Stikine, in the northwest corner of the province, on the tradition- al territories of the Taku River Tlingit. Th e commun- ity of Atlin is also within the land use plans boundaries.

Th erefore, it’s called the Atlin-Taku, and the Taku River is representative of that — again, three million hectares. [1445] Similarly to Bill 2, it was an initiative to try to come to an agreement over competing resource extraction ac- tivities on the land base and competing uses of the land base, as a way to reduce confl ict and increase consen- sus. Th at land use plan was completed in 2011. I gave the government of the day — this government — credit back in 2011. Th at was fi ve years ago. I gave them cred- it for fi nalizing that plan.

It had taken probably around eight years, so it went back quite a ways, to actually get in place. It’s similar to what we see under the Great Bear Rainforest agreement in 2006, and now this Bill 2, this act, ten years later. Th e Atlin-Taku land use plan — LUP , as the short form is — took about eight years. Th e initial four years was the space and time given to the Taku River Tlingit to actual- ly write down and quantify their traditional ecological knowledge — TEK, it’s called. Similarly, in Bill 2, the Coastal First Nations are sup- porting this bill. No doubt they’re in support of Bill 2 be-

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 17, 2016 11629 cause their traditional ecological knowledge, which has been 10,000 years in the making, was considered in the Great Bear Rainforest agreement and is considered now under the Great Bear Rainforest Act. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Again, the Atlin-Taku land use plan that came into ef- fect in 2011 and started eight years earlier….

About the fi rst four years was when the Taku River Tlingit were really able to survey their oral history with elders and quantify and describe the traditional ecological know- ledge that needed to be considered, on an equal footing with western scientifi c knowledge, when decisions were made around the land use plan. In about 2008, the provincial government came on board in a more signifi cant way with stakeholders. One of the stakeholders was the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C.

Similarly, in Bill 2, under the Great Bear Rainforest Act, we had diff erent stakeholders com- ing together, facilitated by government, to try to come up with a consensus that reduces confl ict and increases certainty for access and use on the land base. In the Atlin-Taku plan, the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. came forward and was part of that table too. A lot of the competing interests on the land base…. Just like in Bill 2, where the competing interest on the land base is industrial forestry activity, in the Atlin-Taku land use plan, it was mining.

I’m talking a lot about the Atlin-Taku land use plan in relation to this bill, Bill 2. I’m giving credit to the provin- cial government for following through on commitments and signing the land use plan off with local First Nations and industry stakeholders in 2011. Th at was fi ve years ago. Now, we have not seen any signifi cant initiative from the current government when it comes to land use planning.

Again, Bill 2, we have people — who one would think would be at opposite ends of perspective — like Rick Jeff ery, from the Coast Forest Products Association, say- ing Bill 2 is an example of providing certainty, and we have Richard Brooks, the campaign coordinator for Greenpeace Canada, saying it’s an example of hope, to reduce areas that are currently in confl ict as we move toward collaboration. [1450] Unfortunately, there has been no work on land use planning by this government since the Atlin-Taku land use plan.

Instead, the current approach that I’ve wit- nessed is one-off deals, where industry stakeholders are left to do deal by deal with First Nations, where this gov- ernment does one-off deals with First Nations instead of a comprehensive approach. I think Bill 2 and the Great Bear Rainforest agreement was a comprehensive ap- proach. Th at’s what we need more of. I see my time in this second reading is coming to a close.

I will be supporting this act, but what I say is that we need more encouragement for land use plans in this province in order to create that certainty, to create that consensus and to create a reduction in confl ict. I haven’t seen that in recent years from this government. I think that is something that will bode well for all users of the land base, First Nations and non–First Nations alike.

Rather than having just one-off agreements and one-off deals, we should be looking at these kinds of comprehensive agreements on land use and sharing the land base, like the Great Bear Rainforest agreement was in 2006, which led to Bill 2, this act. D. Routley: I rise to speak to Bill 2, the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act. As previous speak- ers have indicated, the NDP , the official opposition, will be supporting this bill.

We feel proud as British Columbians of a consensus-based agreement around probably the most contentious industrial issue that British Columbia has faced over many, many decades. We feel pride in having been a part of the beginning of this process and having implemented many of the tools that were necessary for this agreement to fi nally be for- malized today. Although this agreement was concluded ten years ago, it is only now, today, being formalized in legislation. A little bit of a refresher on the Great Bear Rainforest.

It’s an area of mostly undisturbed temperate rainforest that stretches approximately 400 miles, from northern Vancouver Island up to the U.S. Alaska panhandle. It is an area of over three million hectares of temperate rain- forest — that’s almost eight million acres — and 1.6 mil- lion acres of that will remain active logging areas. Th is huge area represents one-quarter of the world’s intact temperate rainforests. Th is is a contribution from British Columbia to the global eff ort to stem climate change.

It is also a recog- nition of the heritage that we have been blessed to in- herit, fi rstly from the First Nations who have cooperated and acted in the best of faith in negotiation with logging companies, with the B.C. government, with the many non-governmental organizations, the environmental or- ganizations that have a stake or involvement in this area. It represents something that I think is signifi cant in many ways. Now 15 percent of the Great Bear Rainforest will remain active logging areas. Th at includes 550,000 hectares of land, so it’s going to be a very signifi cant eco- nomic contributor as well.

Th ere were 26 First Nations involved in this negotiation — absolutely a wonderful eff ort on their part. In British Columbia, the forests are such an integral part of our history, economically and socially. In my own life, my work life in early days, working in this province, was all related to the forest industry — planting trees, log- ging, working in sawmills, building houses. [1455] Th e wood of the province has been an important part of my life and a crucial part of the B.C. economy. It re-

British Columbia Debates11630 Thursday, March 17, 2016 mains the number one export value in British Columbia. Over $12½ billion last year of forest-related products were exported. It remains such a vital element of our eco- nomic well-being. But the history of it is a source of great confl ict. We have seen the war in the woods in the ’90s. It was recon- ciled by the declaration of protected areas, the declara- tion that B.C. would see 12 percent of its land base made into parks.

Th at was another example of negotiation be- tween environmental groups, industry and government in this province that led to a peace that allowed the in- dustry to continue. Th e industry. It was a source of such great pride and strength in this province, but it had been dragged into a place of confl ict and negativity. Th e pride that British Columbians felt who were loggers and forest workers was very much damaged by a sense that they weren’t acting in the best interests of the province. We now know, with a more mature view of this entire issue, that that is as far from the case as it possibly could be.

Forestry is our only natural resource industry that is absolutely renewable. It is the ultimate renewable indus- try. Managed properly, our healthy forests are the lungs of the planet and the heart of our thriving economy. Th is is something that we’ve, I think, always recognized as British Columbians. But we’ve been cast into periods of confl ict and unwillingness to sit at the same table with each other on this issue for a very long time.

What I think is signifi cant is that this agreement repre- sents an opportunity to build a pattern for the future in negotiations around the forest industry and around pro- tection of habitat and protection of endangered species. Th ere are, obviously, some issues that will remain con- tentious around this subject but also around this issue: the determination of what areas can be logged, what areas can’t be logged, will be logged or won’t be logged. Th at will continue to be an ongoing negotiation that, I’m sure, will have its diffi cult points and stressful moments.

Th e allowable activities on the land base will be de- cided case by case, through eco-based management processes that have been agreed upon by all sides. Th e many diff erent values of the forest will be respected: the ecotourism values, the bear-viewing values, kayaking opportunities — these activities on the land base that are non-impactful and, in fact, create a greater sense of connection to our forest land base and show the world exactly how beautiful and how strong the natural back- bone of our province is.

Aft er a long period of unwillingness to sit at the same table, a mistrust had developed, and that mistrust, in this case, has been overcome by negotiation and years and years of relationship-building that has respected the his- torical legacy of the province — both First Nations legacy and the forest industry legacy of the province, the com- munities that were built on this resource industry. Th ey are being recognized and protected. We will see some logging in these designated manage- ment areas. It will be selective logging.

Light logging tech- niques will be used, and all parties will have input into exactly how those things are achieved and carried out. [1500] One of the issues that is also impacted by this agree- ment is that the habitat of many endangered species will now be protected. One of the things that this side of the House has pushed for, for some years now, through pri- vate members’ legislation and continued calls to govern- ment, is the enactment of endangered species legislation.

Th at is an accompanying piece to this agreement that we have great hope will eventually be materialized, if not by this government, certainly by ours when we are elected. We recognize that endangered species legislation must include as one of its primary elements the protection of habitat. In fact, when we recognize that such a complex land base has many diff erent elements, some more sensi- tive than others, some more resilient than others, and more available to industry without great impact…. As we understand this, we can have a much more mature and thoughtful debate around these issues in British Columbia.

It would no longer have to be one or the other. It no longer has to be a war between the forest in- dustry and environmentalists. We should all be on the same page. It is the most environmentally renewable in- dustry on the planet, and it is the strongest industry in our province. I think such an unfortunate history has developed, where the interests of working British Columbians have been pitted against the interests of every British Columbian that cares about the environment. I think that was one of the most unfortunate periods of our province.

It began, in fact, at the beginning of the province, when you look at the forest management issues, even of the day of B.C. entering Confederation. Concerns around log ex- ports and other issues that impact the environment were strongly debated even at that time. We come from a history, in the province, of a sense of inextinguishable resources, unending resources.

Y ou can imagine that when these communities were developing more than 100 years ago, they looked at the mountains of this province and the valleys and the carpets and end- less expanse of timber and thought that no matter what we did, we could never run out. In fact, over the years, it became more and more clear and evident that that was indeed not the case. We can do harm to this environment that will take many, many generations to recover from.

Over the years, I think we’ve all come to recognize that we need to invest in our land base, to restore the land base, to invest heavily in planting trees and taking care of the land base. Our side of the House has signifi - cant issues and diff erences between the government side of the House on how that should be done and how much investment should be made in renewal of forests. Th ose things are points of debate that will continue.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 17, 2016 11631 All of those potential sources of confl ict are positive- ly impacted by the positive nature of this agreement. I think British Columbia owes it to our natural history, our biodiversity, our role on the globe environmentally. We owe it to protect our environment.

We owe it to our economy to harvest responsibly, to capitalize the natural resources of our province, but in a way that is sustain- able and renewable. [1505] Th is agreement begins to point the way, at least, to mechanisms where we can discuss, where we can come to agreement, and through consensus, arrive at a place where there is not only protection for the environment but also certainty for industry operating in these regions, operating in these natural resource sectors. Th at allows us to….

Instead of arguing over this zero-sum game of either-or, we can begin to have a conversation about how much and where and when — and respect all the values that are at play. This is a significant turning point. It began in the 1990s with the land use planning process. Th e land and resource management plans that were brought in and established by the NDP government of the ’90s. Th is process led to several agreements and, in fact, form the foundation of this agreement. I think we all need to recognize that the people at the table, over these many decades, have shift ed. Governments have changed.

Leadership in First Nations has changed. Leadership in the forest industry has changed. Corporate roles in the forest industry have changed. And yet, still, over all this time, we’ve managed to come to some kind of agreement — against, perhaps, all odds. We’re proud that this achievement has been realized here. But we need to remember that so much credit will go to so many unrecognized faces. Leadership in those labour organizations, unions. Leadership in government. Leadership in First Nations. Leadership in environmental organizations.

So many people have contributed to this agreement who will never really be adequately recog- nized. I think as parliamentarians here we owe it to re- mind ourselves of the goodwill that has been extended by so many British Columbians to help realize this goal. I would like to personally pay my respect and tribute to those people and recognize that they have contributed to a signifi cant development of our province — not just an economic development but a social, environmental and natural justice accomplishment.

One of the things that we have become increasingly aware of is the human impact on the environment as represented by climate and through climate change. We can see in B.C. the eff ects of climate change in the pine beetle epidemic, the spruce beetle and the challenges that our salmon habitat and salmon fi sheries face. Now we recognize, also, that our healthy forests are more than just simply protected natural areas but also play a signifi cant role as carbon sinks, absorbing carbon from an atmosphere increasingly impacted by carbon increases.

What we’re doing is providing a protection, a cushion, a sink, for carbon. We should never underestimate the global signifi cance of the role we can play in the fi ght against climate change — not simply by the things that we do in our daily lives in managing our energy use and managing our emissions and controlling those but also protecting our forests so that we allow our habitat to play its natural role in miti- gating and reducing the impacts of climate change.

As we go forward, of course we need to recognize that all of these issues have been such an unfortunate source of confl ict in the province, and even confrontation. We still see such standoff s and clashes in other areas where such a consensus-based approach hasn’t been prevalent but could be very fruitful. [1510] When we look at the challenges we face even here on Vancouver Island with the logging of old-growth timber and the protection of habitat, the challenge of raw log ex- ports versus value-added industry…. All of these things will benefi t from a similar consensus-based approach.

I would encourage government and industry and labour and environmentalists to extend the same kind of good- will and positive energy to that struggle to fi nd a solu- tion for those issues. At the same time that we speak of the signifi cance of this agreement, we need to remember that we are not starting on a blank page. We have signifi cant issues still to deal with in terms of public policy that impact our environment.

At the same time that the government claims to be green leaders of the world because of this agreement, they pursue non-renewable energy projects without adequate consideration for the emissions and the impact of those. Y es, we need to congratulate everyone involved in reaching this agreement. But also yes, we need to remind ourselves that we have a long way to go.

I’m thinking right now of the legislation controlling the emissions of the po- tential LNG industry where, you know, we also congratu- lated ourselves, at least the government did, and promised the cleanest LNG industry on the planet but then exclud- ed 70 to 80 percent of the emissions in that process. We can’t simply have the hubris or even arrogance to claim such stupendous accomplishment without also ac- knowledging our failure and the challenges that remain.

We need to recognize that we in this province have legis- lated climate change targets, carbon emission targets, and at this point, we have no hope of reaching those, particu- larly if the current government’s plans for non-renewable energy industries realize any fraction of the promise that they’ve made. Th at does not diminish this accomplishment. Th is ac- complishment by itself does not elevate us away from those failures, but those failures do not really reduce the signifi cance of this agreement either. We must remind

British Columbia Debates11632 Thursday, March 17, 2016 ourselves and express some degree of humility, even while we congratulate ourselves for this consensus. Even as both sides of the House agree, we need to recognize the challenges that remain. We all need to recognize that what was done in the past is probably no longer acceptable in so many ways. We look at the practices of industry on the land base. Th e demands for change have been answered with environ- mental regulations and eff orts by industry to reduce its impact.

Pulp mills in my constituency use 90 percent less energy and water than they did a couple of decades ago. Th at’s a signifi cant gain in reducing their impact. In so many ways, what we did before is no longer acceptable. We can all look back at the history of these issues, in- cluding this side of the House in our time in govern- ment.

We have to acknowledge that there were things that we should have done and didn’t do, that we per- haps shouldn’t have done and did do, that challenges re- main, that we all need to learn and we all need to apply the best of goodwill and the best of the energy of British Columbia to reform the way we do business, to reform the way we manage relationships, to reform the way we deal with indigenous rights and recognize that our past, while it is a proud history, is also marked by failure. [1515] Even today, when we look at some of the issues that are happening in our province that are impacting our en- vironment, we need to recognize that we continue to fail and fall down in our obligation to protect the environ- ment, to develop our economy, and to do all of that in a sustainable way — not simply sustainable in terms of environment or resources but also in a sustainable way in terms of social and natural justice.

When we reach these agreements, if we have forgot- ten to pay respect and involve and engage and partner with indigenous peoples, then we have failed. If we reach these agreements and fail to recognize the social impacts of rural resource communities in British Columbia, then we will have failed. I think that is what sets this apart — that it is much more of a balance of environment, econ- omy and social justice. Th is is a template that we should strive to apply to all of the challenges in this province.

It is something that was a long time coming, which took several decades to com- plete, which was in fact agreed to ten years ago and that is now being enshrined in legislation. We need to thank all of the people involved for what they’ve done.

Th is act will be reviewed in ten years, in 2026, and hopefully, through all these processes of negotiation and environmentally and culturally sensitive management of this area, that review in 2026 will be one that says that this was a good foundation, that we have pursued these values and extended them to other challenges in this province and that we’ll recognize what challenges and diffi culties and failings we have yet to encounter, even inside this agreement and inside this land base.

If we are not willing to examine our actions not only with a view to promote our success but also to squarely face our failure to acknowledge the challenges that we have and we have created for ourselves, if we refuse to recognize our own role when we do not meet the stan- dard of these values that are represented here, if we are not prepared to acknowledge fault, then we will have failed ourselves, this agreement and our province. Th is political battleground is an important struggle between diff erent points of view, diff erent world views, when it comes to economy and justice and social issues.

Th is is the place where these contentions are brought and fought. Mr. George MacMinn, who was Clerk or Deputy Clerk of this House for over 52 years, once said something to a student that I brought here on job-shad- owing. He said that question period is a place very dif- ferent from the community where we raise our children to work together in a civil way, to respect each other and to collaborate. Th at is indeed what we should try to achieve here. Th ere’s also an important role for this place in manag- ing confl ict.

He said that there are anger and passion in this chamber so that there isn’t blood on the streets, so that when people have these issues and a complaint or grievance against their government and a sense that jus- tice hasn’t been achieved, this is the place where we re- lease that pressure and take action, hopefully, to resolve those kinds of issues. [1520] Th ere will always be that political and partisan confl ict here, but it has an important, positive role. People oft en complain of it, but it’s like complaining that someone else is having an argument.

If you are in an argument, then it’s a very important thing; to someone else, not so much. Th is will continue to be a place of contention and con- fl ict, inside this chamber, in a healthy way. At the same time, when it results in agreements that are admirable and public policy that is positive, then we need to cele- brate that and recognize that. I’ve spent a lot of time rec- ognizing what I see as the failures of this government.

So perhaps it’s refreshing to be able to say that I congratu- late the government on its current role in a long-stand- ing process, and I will be very proud to support this bill when it comes to vote. Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the min- ister closes the debate. Hon. S. Th omson: I’m very pleased to stand and close debate on the bill. I certainly appreciate all of the support for the bill from all members, both sides of the House, who’ve spoken to the bill and indicated their recognition and their support of the signifi cant achievement that we have with this agreement and with this legislation.

Some of the comments and some of the submissions, I think, were a little bit of revisionist history. It was enjoy-

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 17, 2016 11633 able listening to some. I was trying to think, in my closing comments, how I might bring Father Pandosy into the closing here and my family’s journey into the Okanagan in the 1890s shortly aft er Father Pandosy came to the Okanagan. I don’t think they came through the Great Bear Rainforest to get there, over Mount Waddington or up that way. It was a stretch to try and fi gure out how to get that into the closing comments, so I won’t even try to revise history and do that. Th is is a signifi cant achievement. I just want to make a couple of comments.

Th e member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head said: “Don’t take too much credit for this. ” We cer- tainly don’t. I don’t want to diminish at all the very, very signifi cant contributions of everybody who has been in- volved in this from the beginning and all the way through the process — the environmental organizations, the in- dustry and the First Nations that have all been part of it. Th e member said that we need to do that because we weren’t at the table. Th at’s not quite correct. In this clos- ing part of this agreement, government was very much at the table.

Th e completion of the process and the hu- man well-being component of it with First Nations were dealt with on a government-to-government basis. Our government, our side of the Legislature here, played a very, very important role in completing that human well- being component of the agreement that brought us to this day, to where we are here today with the agreement and the legislation. Th e members who’ve made comments have acknow- ledged the leadership of very, very many people who have contributed to this. From the industry — Rick Jeff ery and Rick Slaco.

From the environmental organizations — Valerie Langer, Jody Holmes, Jens Wieting and Eduardo Sousa. Th e First Nations leadership that have contribut- ed so much — Dallas Smith; Art Sterritt; Marilyn Slett; and with the Coastal First Nations, Garry Wouters. I ac- knowledge the contribution of a number of people within our ministry who played a very signifi cant role — Rory Annett, Craig Sutherland, Dorthe Jakobsen. [1525] There was one name that wasn’t mentioned, and I just want to bring that into the record.

My deputy, Tim Sheldan, needs recognition and needs to be acknow- ledged on the very important role that he played in the fi nal stages of the agreements, the agreements with First Nations and all the work that got us to that fi nal agree- ment and to be able to bring the legislation forward. So I just want to acknowledge that and bring that into the record. Th ere was also some commentary around — I’m not sure of the exact wording — that this is an incredible but unlikely outcome. I think there were doubters out there as to whether we could actually get this done.

I’m opti- mistic and try to stay positive in all this. I recognize the timelines that it took and that this was a long process. I can recall many, many late-night conver- sations and calls with key principals in this, with discus- sions, with meetings around “are you going to be able to get this done?” and worries, as timelines slipped some- what as we were going through the process. We would indicate that we think we can get it done by this time. Th en that would slip a little bit, because it was a very com- plex set of negotiations and agreements.

I can recall being on a teleconference with the inter- national community, telling them: “We will achieve this. We will get it done. Just be patient. We’ll get there. ” To the credit of everybody, they stayed at the table. As I said, timelines slipped a little bit. But everybody stayed there, and here we are. We’re in the Legislature with the legislation, with the agreement to be able to complete the process. I have listened carefully to all of the submissions. I recognize some of the comments and questions that have been raised that we’ll be dealing with in committee stage.

I look forward to those discussions because this legisla- tion is part of it. Th ere are elements that I know form part of the commentary that members opposite will want to address during the committee stage. I look forward to doing that when we get to committee stage. Mostly, I’m really pleased to see the support for the legislation. I think we all recognize the meaning, the signifi cance, the historical nature of this agreement and the legislation. I’m proud, as others have said, to be in the Legislature having this debate, coming to this stage of this long history.

It is, and will continue to be, something to celebrate. We all need to recognize and celebrate collectively on this with all of the people who’ve contributed to this over all of that period of time. I’ll look forward to the committee stage. I’ll look forward to the completion of the process. With that, I move second reading of Bill 2. Motion approved. Hon. S. Th omson: I move that the act be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House aft er today.

Bill 2, Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Hon. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 4, the Fire Safety Act. BILL 4 — FIRE SAFETY ACT Hon. T. Stone: I want to start off by thanking the op- position. Actually, I guess I have to move that the bill be now read a second time — do that fi rst.

British Columbia Debates11634 Thursday, March 17, 2016 I’ d like to start off by thanking the Opposition House Leader for his indulgence here. I’m just going to speak for literally a minute. Th en I’m going to cede my spot to the Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness. [1530] It gives me a great deal of pleasure to work with the Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness.

We’re the only province in the country that actually has not one but two ministers who work very closely, hand in hand, to do all that we can to make sure that the province is as best prepared as possible for the variety of diff erent types of emergencies that can beset our province. Th e new Fire Safety Act aims to modernize fi re safety regulations here in British Columbia. As the son of a fi re- fi ghter myself — and a fi re investigator with the offi ce of the fi re commissioner — I’m very proud of the changes that we are proposing here through this legislation.

In fact, this is a piece of legislation that has not seen a substantial revision since 1979. It will improve fi re code compliance monitoring, enable local authorities to appoint fi re safety personnel to carry out fi re inspec- tions, establish an administrative enforcement model to address non-compliance issues and shift to more of a risk-based approach for compliance monitoring in the municipalities. I’m going to leave my comments there. I will now take my seat.

I look forward to my colleague the Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness, who is doing a terrifi c job on all of our behalf to ensure that British Columbians are as prepared as possible. Hon. N. Y amamoto: I am pleased to speak to the second reading of the Fire Safety Act. In my mandate letter, the Premier noted the import- ance of ensuring that the citizens of our province and other governments, local and otherwise, are prepared for emergencies and disasters. Part of my role as Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness is to work with the of- fi ce of the fi re commissioner.

Whether it’s improving the fire safety of British Columbians or helping to improve the regulatory frame- work they work in, currently represented by the Fire Services Act, this legislation really hasn’t seen substan- tial updates since the late 1970s. Th e safety of all British Columbians is something extremely important to us on both sides of the House. Our government wants to modernize the regulatory framework for fi re safety in this province. Th e new act will replace the existing Fire Services Act and will include changes that will improve the fi re code compliance monitoring by making it risk-based.

It will enable local authorities to appoint fi re safety personnel to carry out fi re inspections, investigations and evacua- tions, and it will establish an out-of-court administrative enforcement model to address non-compliance issues in a more timely and eff ective manner. Why do we need this legislation? Well, during con- sultations with a number of key stakeholder groups across the province, we heard about the importance of proposing these changes.

As was noted off the top, the Fire Services Act has not seen any substantial update or change since 1979, and in the 3½ decades since, the na- ture of fi re safety and prevention has changed substan- tially. Naturally, as part of our responsibilities, we need to look at modernizing the regulatory framework for fire safety in British Columbia. Now, that was heard loud and clear as we sought the input and guidance of the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C., the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Local Government Management Association of B.C., the B.C.

Fire Training Officers Association, the Fire Prevention Offi cers Association of B.C., the Volunteer Firefi ghters Association of B.C., the B.C. Professional Firefi ghters Association and, fi nally, the B.C. Wildfi re Service.

Th rough our most recent consultations and work done in considering legislative changes in the years leading up to the tabling of this new Fire Safety Act, we are putting forward provisions that will benefi t our province in a piece of legislation that would replace the Fire Services Act and, ultimately, that will help to modernize the legis- lation and improve fi re safety throughout the province. How does this work, and what do the changes actually mean?

We are improving fi re code compliance monitor- ing of public buildings by making the key change of re- placing the current requirement for municipalities to use a regular system of inspections of public buildings with a new risk-based compliance monitoring model. Th is is a model where condition and use of the buildings will de- termine the level and the frequency of inspections.

Th e proposed compliance monitoring model will also provide fl exibility by providing for the ability to allow the use of self-assessment in place of inspections for low-risk public buildings, with a lens towards a more eff ective use of local government resources, leading to an improved culture of safety and preparedness. [1535] It would enable local authorities to directly manage fi re safety resources by authorizing them to appoint quali- fi ed fi re inspectors and investigators. Th is would more appropriately place the control of such appointments in the hands of those who know their communities best.

It would replace the current model whereby local gov- ernments request that the provincial fi re commissioner make these appointments, thus reducing a layer of red tape in the process. Th e new Fire Safety Act would also provide the neces- sary authority for eff ective inspections and investigations. Th is would include the right to enter onto or into prop- erty to make examinations, to collect evidence, to con- duct tests, to require production of documents, to obtain and inspect under warrant and to issue orders pursuant

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 17, 2016 11635 to the act. Local authorities and their fi re chiefs will also have the authority to direct evacuations where a fi re haz- ard poses immediate or serious threats to life. Another proposed change under this legislation would be to make enforcement under the act more timely and eff ective. To accomplish this, we propose establishing an administrative penalty scheme as a primary way of en- suring compliance with the act.

Under the proposed ad- ministrative enforcement model, the fi re commissioner will have authority to impose administrative penalties for non-compliance with the orders made under the act. Th e current legislation only provides for in-court prosecu- tions of off ences, which is generally a time-consuming and ineff ective instrument of enforcement. In closing, I want to emphasize that these amend- ments serve to improve fi re safety in British Columbia. Th e legislation will help us to modernize the regulatory framework for fi re safety in the province.

I’m pleased to support the second reading of the Fire Safety Act, Bill 4. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to rise and to support Bill 4, the Fire Safety Act. It is, as the minister has stated, an important piece of legislation. It replaces the existing Fire Services Act, which has basically been in place since 1979. Th is is a signifi cant and important update, and it makes some important and signifi cant changes. I think the best way to describe those changes is….

In essence, what is happening is we are moving from a standardized system of inspection done by the fi re com- missioner to one of a risk-based assessment done at the local level by local municipalities. At the same time, the commissioner will continue to set the standards that are required. Th e inspections will be carried out by inspect- ors who will be appointed by local government and who meet standards set by the commissioner. No longer will it be that municipalities have no say in the appointment of the inspectors, and that’s an important improvement.

Th ere are a number of issues we are concerned about that we want clarifi cation on and that we will deal with in committee stage. We are going to be supporting this legislation. I want to talk for a minute about why it’s important that we’re moving to a risk-based assessment system from the current more standardized approach. Th e clue to that is in the minister’s remarks about the act last being up- dated in 1979.

Th e reality is that the world has changed signifi cantly since 1979 in terms of construction and construction materials, the types of materials used, the technology that is used in building, our understanding of the nature of risk in terms of its relationship to fi re. I think just the need to recognize that…. Y ou may have a building that is solid, up to code. Its use has no inherent risk in terms of catching fi re, for example. It’s inspected once a year.

Y ou may have another building that has multiple uses, for example, that may have diff er- ent types of activities taking place that may involve the use of hazardous materials, for example. It may have been built at a signifi cantl

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20160317pm-Hansard-v35n9
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20160317pm Hansard v35n9
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	00b2b70f2bb60683f9cbff5148b87738c6860f1b

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).