Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, April 9, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 108

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — International Commercial Arbitration

Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 6 — Employment Standards Amendment Act,

Hon. H. Bains

Ministerial Statements

Mourning for victims of accident involving Humboldt

Broncos hockey team

Hon. J. Horgan

A. Wilkinson

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Cancer awareness and Daffodil Month

R. Glumac

Humboldt Broncos hockey team

M. Stilwell

Peter Furstenau

S. Furstenau

Vimy Ridge battle site and monument

M. de Jong

Retirement of North Vancouver mayors

B. Ma

Cancer awareness and Daffodil Month

S. Bond

Oral Questions

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain

pipeline

J. Johal

Hon. J. Horgan

T. Redies

LNG development and greenhouse gas emission

targets

A. Weaver

Hon. J. Horgan

Response of Environment Minister to anti-pipeline

activities

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Horgan

Trans Mountain pipeline and transport of oil by

rail

M. Bernier

Hon. J. Horgan

Dispute with Alberta on Trans Mountain

pipeline

M. Lee

Hon. J. Horgan

S. Bond

M. Polak

A. Wilkinson

Tabling Documents

Forest Appeals Commission, annual report, 2017

Correspondence from the Canadian Council of the Blind

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural

Resource Operations and Rural Development (continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. D. Donaldson

I. Paton

L. Larson

D. Ashton

M. Bernier

D. Barnett

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy (continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

D. Ashton

M. de Jong

MONDAY, APRIL 9, 2018

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: Wow. It’s been a busy couple of weeks. I feel like sitting down right now,

actually.

As you know, hon. Speaker, and members on all sides of the House will know,

prostate cancer is an important issue for men and families in B.C. It’s the most

commonly diagnosed cancer amongst Canadian men.

Earlier today I met with Dr. Stuart Edmonds, who is Prostate Cancer

Canada’s vice-president of research, to discuss screening and treatment

strategies. I wish everyone in the House to make him welcome.

I have more. As well, as everyone knows and as all members of the House

know, because of the daffodils we’re wearing, April is Daffodil Month for the

Canadian Cancer Society. The daffodil is a symbol of strength and courage in the

fight against cancer. Held every April, Daffodil Month is an opportunity to raise

awareness and funds to help change and save lives. Everybody in the House

understands the importance of this because it has affected directly members of the

House and, certainly, their families and friends and communities.

I want all members of the House to welcome a group from the Canadian Cancer

Society today — Khairun Jivani, Arabella Young, Desiree Young, Andrea Seale and

Jenny Byford. I wish everyone in the House to make Dr. Edmonds and the

representatives of the Canadian Cancer Society very welcome.

Hon. J. Horgan: I’d like to introduce a very special guest in the gallery today. He’ll be

sitting with the press gallery. His name is Angelo Cortese.

I met Angelo about a year ago almost to the day. He was then part of a

grade 4 class from Gilmore Community School in Burnaby. Grades 4, 5 and 6 kids

decided, with the leadership and direction of their teachers Lucas Anchor and

Jason Morton, that they would participate in the democratic process during our

election campaign, and they came en masse to a press conference we were holding

just down the street from their school.

Although we had a very important issue to talk about that day, it became

pretty clear to the assembled press that the star of the show was Angelo, because

he had been nominated by his classmates to ask questions. I’ll never forget his

earnest look as he held his spiral notepad and raised his pencil and said: “I have

a question.” Everyone turned to Angelo at that very moment, and he asked his

question. I did my level best to answer it, and he said: “I have a follow-up

question.” My press secretary at the time, unbeknownst to me, decided to let this

roll.

There he is up there. Angelo is joining us in the gallery.

He proceeded to ask three questions, which became the nightly news — the

fact that Angelo would ask the questions and that, apparently, the topic that I

was discussing wasn’t as interesting as his probing analysis of our election

campaign.

Angelo is joining us here today, a year after the fact, in question period.

He’s going to be an honorary member of the press gallery. The newly elected

president, Rob Shaw from the Vancouver Sun , has allowed him to come in.

He’s going to watch question period today.

He’s joined in the gallery by family members Sophia, Nancy and Joseph

Cortese; Manuel de Melo; Edmea de Melo; Lucia Sousa; Julian Sousa; and Ana Maria

Pacheco.

Would you please welcome the next budding journalist in British Columbia:

Angelo Cortese.

J. Thornthwaite: The member for Peace River South and I are meeting with the folks from the

Trans Tipping Point Project today. It’s a UVic initiative organized by Dr. Lindsay

Herriot and Kate Fry. This book-writing project brings together 25 transgendered

and non-binary youth from every corner of British Columbia and from across Canada.

Can the House please make them welcome.

Hon. H. Bains: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House…. We have in

the gallery my EA, Emily Zimmerman, who has been with me and who was my CA from

the day that I was elected. The people tell me that if I’m any good, it’s because

of her, and I believe them.

She has done a very, very good job representing me in the constituency and

helping those who come to our office. You know the important part the CAs play in

our constituency offices, helping those who need the help. Please help me welcome

her.

[1:40 p.m.]

Along with her, she brought her partner, Garnet Zimmerman, my longtime

friend, a labour activist. Now I’m told he’s gone to both sides. He’s a

negotiator, mediator and everything else to go in between. Please help me welcome

both of them to the House.

Thank you very much for all the support you’ve given me.

Hon. M. Mungall: Well, I have some very special guests in the gallery this afternoon. It’s

their first visit to the B.C. Legislature, seeing us all in action. Please welcome

ma tante Jeanine Tenove; her partner, George Watson; my cousin Wendell Tenove and

his partner, Bonita Staalduine; and last but not least, my mom, Carmen Mungall.

They are all here enjoying a wonderful afternoon at the Legislature. Please make

them feel very welcome.

Hon. G. Chow: I have an important guest from my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview who is

visiting the Legislature today. Her name is Stephanie Chang, and she is my

constituency assistant from the riding. She wanted to find out what I do in the

House and whether I was just running away from the office, from facing the

constituents.

I’m very impressed with her ability to manage the office and her ability to

assist our constituents with their problems. The first thank-you card to my office

was not to me; it was actually to her. I’d like everyone to thank her for her

dedication in managing my office so I can do my job here as well.

R. Leonard: Today in the gallery we have representatives from the Vancouver Island

Region Restorative Justice Association. The president, Myles Morrison, is from

Ucluelet-Tofino restorative justice. We have Genesis Hunt, the vice-president,

from Alert Bay and Sasamans wellness program in Campbell River. We have Gail

Jewsbury, who is now the treasurer, from Warmland Restorative Justice, and Bruce

Curtis, from the Comox Valley. He was the founding president in 2009. He is now

the secretary, and he’s been involved since 1994.

I hope that the House will join me in welcoming these representatives from

the Vancouver Island Region Restorative Justice Association.

B. Ma: We’re all very lucky today to be joined by the Minister of Corporate

Relations from the B.C. Youth Parliament. Mr. Kyle Dow is joining us here in the

chambers today. Would the House please join me in making him feel very

welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL

ARBITRATION AMENDMENT

ACT, 2018

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a

bill intituled International Commercial Arbitration Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce the International Commercial Arbitration

Amendment Act. This bill will modernize B.C.’s arbitration regime and enhance

B.C.’s standing as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.

B.C. was the first jurisdiction in the world to adopt the 1985 United

Nations Commission on International Trade Law model law as a freestanding act.

Our current International Commercial Arbitration Act follows the UNCITRAL 1985

model law, with some modifications for B.C. application. In 2006, the UNCITRAL

model law was updated. Our act has not yet been amended to incorporate these

updates, and our present legislation is very out of date.

The proposed amendments to the International Commercial Arbitration Act

incorporate the recommendations of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada in

response to the 2006 model law as well as other recent best practices in

international commercial arbitration. The amendments will meet the expectations

of an international audience and encourage parties to select British Columbia’s

legislation as the governing legislation for arbitrating international

commercial disputes.

I move first reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, International Commercial Arbitration Amendment Act, 2018,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1:45 p.m.]

BILL 6 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. H. Bains presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2018.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 6, the Employment Standards Amendment Act,

2018. This bill introduces several important changes to the job protection and

leave provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

Specifically, the bill adds two new unpaid leaves for parents: up to 104

weeks for the death of their child and up to 52 weeks for the crime-related

disappearance of their child. Entitlement to these leaves will mean that the

parents who are facing the tragedy of the death or disappearance of their child

will not have to worry about their continued employment for the specified

period.

This bill also impacts three of the existing unpaid leave provisions

under the act. It increases the length of compassionate care leave available to

a worker who is caring for a dying family member, allows pregnancy leave to

begin earlier and permits parental leave to be taken for a longer period of

time.

These amendments are being made to ensure that British Columbians can

take advantage of changes to the federal employment insurance and compassionate

care, maternity and parental benefits with the assurance of job protection. It

is part of our government’s commitment to make life better for British

Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Ministerial Statements

MOURNING FOR VICTIMS OF

ACCIDENT INVOLVING

HUMBOLDT

BRONCOS HOCKEY TEAM

Hon. J. Horgan: I rise to make a ministerial statement.

All of the members of this House and all British Columbians will be

sharing in the heartbreak of those who live in Humboldt, Saskatchewan, and the

families that were affected by the tragic loss of lives last Friday — 15 valued

friends, 15 colleagues, 15 community leaders, 15 people gone in the blink of an

eye.

Team sports binds communities together, big and small. As a young man, I

travelled across British Columbia with team sports. As a hockey parent, I sent

my son away on trips and never ever for a minute thought that he wouldn’t come

home. But that tragedy did happen on Friday for the families in Humboldt, and a

country grieves, a world grieves, at the senseless loss of life.

British Columbians join with those around the country and around the

world, offering our thoughts and our sincere prayers for those who have

survived and for those that are grieving the loss of a loved one. The flags

here will be at half-mast today. I know I speak for all members of this

Legislature and for all British Columbians when I offer my sincere support and

best wishes to those who are getting through the most difficult time any of us

could possibly imagine.

With that, I would ask that we have a moment of silence to acknowledge

the loss of life and those that are left behind to grieve that tragic, tragic

loss.

[1:50 p.m.]

[The House observed a moment of

silence.]

A. Wilkinson: I want to thank the Premier for his thoughtful remarks at this time. I

share his grief, as does everyone else in this chamber, as do all

Canadians.

There is something very special about this country when young people can

get out there and engage in team sports and travel to other communities. It’s

part of the fabric of our culture, and it’s something that is enjoyed widely

across this country and especially in rural areas — the chance to get out, the

chance to have fun, the chance to travel, all the hijinks that occur on the

bus. The last thing that any player or parent or participant expects is the

kind of tragic event that occurred in Humboldt, Saskatchewan.

All of us reflect on what this says about our culture and our society

and the things that keep us together, that join us together. Team sports, and

team travel, is one of those things that we really undervalue and that we must

enjoy and treasure because it is something that is purely positive. It is

something with almost no downside, except when tragedy strikes.

We have to reflect upon how fortunate all of us are. Our hearts have to

reach out to those families, all across the Prairies, whose sons have

disappeared and have been lost in this extraordinarily tragic event, with 15

dead and 14 seriously injured.

It’s time for all of us to reflect on how fortunate we are and the

peace, order and good government that typify this country and provide the

opportunities for those kinds of wholesome and healthy enjoyments that were cut

short so tragically on Friday. Our hearts go out to the people of Humboldt, the

players and participants. We wish them every possible positive outcome from

this tragic event.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CANCER AWARENESS AND DAFFODIL MONTH

R. Glumac: As you look around the room, you’ll see everyone is wearing a daffodil

today. The reason why we’re wearing a daffodil is because it’s an extremely

resilient flower. It survives a long winter in the extreme cold, and it comes

up in the spring, in a time of renewal and hope. For those living with cancer,

the daffodil is a symbol of strength and resilience, of courage and life.

That’s why April is Daffodil Month, organized by the Canadian Cancer

Society.

During this time, we’re all reminded of the opportunity that we have to

support world-class cancer research and the support services that come along

with that. If you look to the person to your left, look to the person to your

right, chances are you’re looking at someone that has been or will be diagnosed

with cancer in their lifetime. Or maybe it’s yourself. Or maybe a family

member. Nearly 50 percent of Canadians are expected to be diagnosed with cancer

in their lifetime, and we’re expecting to see a 35 percent surge in this by

2030, due to our growing and aging population.

Now more than ever, the Canadian Cancer Society needs our support to

provide services for patients and families. Last year they provided support for

over 14,500 people, British Columbians, through services such as the cancer

information service, Camp Good Times, the travel treatment fund, cancer lodges,

peer support programs and prosthesis lending programs.

For the month of April, please wear the daffodil, and let’s all work

together so that one day cancer won’t be something that affects so many of

us.

HUMBOLDT BRONCOS HOCKEY TEAM

M. Stilwell: I would like to, with the House’s attention and gravity, pay tribute to

the Humboldt Broncos — the players and personnel who were killed this past

weekend, their families and the survivors. We would like to extend our warmest

and most heartbroken condolences in the midst of this horrific time.

Sports are the lifeblood of our communities, and they are the beacon of

good nature and camaraderie. Tragedies like this are particularly devastating

to small towns like Humboldt, where teams are made up of your family and your

neighbours. The impact is unimaginably vast.

[1:55 p.m.]

Fifteen lives were taken this weekend as a result of a collision between

a tractor-trailer and a bus full of hockey players. Ten of them were young.

They were boys much like my son. They were just still discovering the heights

of their game, about to embark on their lives. Five were personnel who loved

hockey so much as to give and offer their time and their expertise to ensure

its success.

Everyone who was killed at the intersection of Highway 35 and Highway

335 north of Regina was there in true spirit, on their way to a playoff game in

Nipawin, and they were cut short.

As a prairie girl and an athlete myself, I have driven those roads many

times in similar conditions, in less-than-favourable conditions of the road, to

compete in the sports that I loved. Truly, I feel the stories of the Humboldt

Broncos closely.

People across our country are in shock, and we cannot imagine the grief

that has settled upon their town or the homes of the ones who loved them the

most. We can only offer our condolences, our support and our dedication to

prevent future accidents to the best of our ability. But know, too, that sport

and the love of sport will be the vehicle for healing and help the survivors

find their strength to carry on.

You’re not alone. We are here for you, and we mourn with you.

PETER FURSTENAU

S. Furstenau: I want to thank the member for her very moving words.

My father had a life of beating the odds. Born in northeastern Germany

in 1939, Peter Furstenau grew up in the midst of war. The odds of surviving war

as a child are not good. When a gun was found by a group of children in the

village and it went off, the bullet went straight through Peter’s knee. He went

on, later in life, to be a star runner and soccer player. Another time a plane

flew overhead, strafing with bullets the field where he and other children were

playing.

When typhoid swept through the town, my grandmother thought she was not

going to survive the fever, and she told six-year-old Peter that he was to be

responsible for himself and his younger sister. Luckily, she did survive. A few

years later she recognized the tightening border between East and West Germany,

and she took her two young children to West Berlin for a picnic, not telling

them until they had checked into the refugee camp that they were never going to

return to their home in East Germany.

Peter kept defying the odds, getting a scholarship to a prestigious

school in Lake Constance, sponsored to come to Canada at 16 years old, using

the transatlantic trip by sea and the trans-Canada trip by rail to master

in 1963.

He went on to earn a master’s and PhD, teach college and become an

architect of the university transfer program. He was an incredibly positive

influence in the lives of thousands of students over his career, and he was

truly a wonderful father.

Dad had a life of beating the odds until, at age 61 years old, he was,

like one in two Canadians, diagnosed with cancer. Six months later, on October

16, 2001, one week before his 62nd birthday, he died.

As we recognize Daffodil Month and the work of the Canadian Cancer

Society, let us hope that these terrible odds can be turned around so that

families can hope to avoid the devastating, premature loss of those we love so

dearly.

VIMY RIDGE BATTLE SITE AND MONUMENT

M. de Jong: There is a peacefulness and serenity to Vimy today that is comforting

but also a bit disconcerting — disconcerting because the pastoral fields and

the grazing sheep so effectively camouflage the trauma and the horror of the

battlefield that descended upon that part of France just over a century

ago.

Today I would say that to fully appreciate the magnitude of that horror,

one should descend into the murky subterranean world of the Vimy tunnels.

There, etched into the soft chalk walls, you will find the etchings and the

messages of young Canadians awaiting participation in a battle that would claim

thousands of them but which would also forge a new sense of

Canadianism.

[2:00 p.m.]

That site, Vimy Ridge, and what I would say is Canada’s most magnificent

monument are maintained by the Vimy Foundation. I would like to thank them and

also remind all members and all British Columbians that if and when they do

visit the site, they will have an opportunity to contemplate its historic

significance from within British Columbia park — a feature made possible by a

generous gift a year ago from the people of British Columbia.

I also want to pay tribute to Dana Garcia, the Cadet League and the team

at the Cadet League that she leads for ensuring that the memory of Vimy lives

on in future generations. A group of B.C. cadets has just returned from Vimy

Ridge. I would suggest, for the fallen, what better way to breathe life into

the words: “At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember

them.”

RETIREMENT OF

NORTH VANCOUVER MAYORS

B. Ma: I’d like to begin by thanking my legislative colleagues for all of their

deeply emotional and important statements. I will now follow up with something

entirely different.

The city of North Vancouver mayor, Darrell Mussatto, and the district of

North Vancouver mayor, Richard Walton, have a lot in common. They both have

nearly 25 years of civic service as municipal officials. They were both elected

mayors of their respective municipalities in 2005. They’ve both advocated

valiantly for their constituents, and they will both leave behind very large

shoes to be filled when they retire from their distinguished careers as civic

champions this fall.

Mayor Darrell Mussatto, a former paramedic, has been an out-of-box

thinker who dared to dream big for the city of North Vancouver. In doing so, he

has transformed the city into what it is today — a vibrant, diverse urban

centre that is well served by public transit and that offers its residents a

plethora of public facilities and community services.

Mayor Richard Walton has led the district of North Vancouver to receive

the United Nations Sasakawa Award for world leadership in the area of planning

for and responding to natural disasters. He has been honoured with a

designation of fellow chartered accountant for lifetime achievement and, in

2013, was awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal for

distinguished service for his community.

Now, it’s often said that if you’re not pissing someone off, you aren’t

doing anything important. Indeed, under the leadership of these two incredible

men, a lot of important things have been accomplished on the North Shore. Few,

if any, have worked harder for our community over the last 25 years as they,

and the legacies they leave behind will likely not be matched by anyone else

any time soon.

I am so grateful to have the opportunity and honour of working with

Darrell Mussatto and Richard Walton in their final year as mayors. As a

resident of North Vancouver, I thank them both deeply for their

service.

CANCER AWARENESS AND DAFFODIL MONTH

S. Bond: As many of my colleagues do, I recently used the Canada Line to get from

YVR to meetings in downtown Vancouver. As I took a seat, I heard a hello from

the person seated beside me. It turns out that person was from Prince

George.

During our shared time on the train, I learned, among other things, that

one year previously my seatmate had lost her 54-year-old husband to cancer. As

we both fought back tears, she expressed her profound gratitude for the support

that she and her family had received from the Centre for the North. She shared

her hope that, through research and enhanced treatment options, some day other

families would not have to endure the painful journey that her family had

faced.

As you have heard today, April is the month to fight back. In the words

of the Canadian Cancer Society, who are represented here today, cancer is

relentless. It has taken loved ones from all of us. We can’t change the past,

but we can change the future. We can join the fight. We can help save lives and

support those living with cancer in our own communities.

[2:05 p.m.]

Today in the Legislature, we stand together to fight back. By wearing a

daffodil pin, we show our support for those who are currently in the fight of

their lives. We celebrate survivorship, including colleagues who are sitting

amongst us in this chamber today, and we remember those who lost their battle,

despite valiant efforts.

We want to thank the Canadian Cancer Society for the exceptional work

that they do. Today we want them to know that as MLAs who represent every

corner of this province, we want to do our part to fight back during Daffodil

Month and beyond. The daffodil is a symbol of hope. While we can’t change the

past, we can and we will work together to change the future.

Oral Questions

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN

PIPELINE

J. Johal: This government is acting deliberately to terminate the Trans Mountain

project, which has already received full regulatory approval. These actions

have triggered a trade war and a national confrontation, with serious negative

consequences for our economy.

Will the Premier explain how a trade war with Alberta and a fight with

Ottawa are good for B.C.?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. As he will know, we had an election

campaign about 12 months ago. During that time, we on this side of the House —

completely, from one end to the other — campaigned in the best interests of

protecting our air, water and land and ensuring that we could defend our

coast.

We were abundantly clear about our view on a particular project. We were

abundantly clear about our concerns about a lack of federal action to protect

our marine environment. We put that question before the public, and they

spoke.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: Standing up for British Columbians means having constructive

relationships with our neighbours and with our federal government and not

picking fights.

Does the Premier accept that he has put our economy at risk with an

escalating trade war?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m not in a trade war with anybody. I am in court, with the lead of the

Attorney General’s ministry. We joined a court proceeding already underway

before we were sworn in. We have started a second proceeding to get

clarification on jurisdiction, as a result of a provocative action by the

government of Alberta. We at that time asked the federal government — myself

and the Attorney General — to join with us in that, sending the question to the

Supreme Court of Canada. They declined, and we’re going to proceed.

This is one project of many in Canada. This was not a crisis when Energy

East did not proceed. This was not a crisis when Keystone XL did not proceed.

This is one project in a sea of investments.

We have had robust growth in British Columbia. The member will know that

for seven consecutive months, unemployment has been below 5 percent. That is

record-breaking for Canada. We also, as the Minister of Finance will maybe have

an opportunity to talk about, have had our credit ratings reaffirmed. We have

three balanced budgets going forward. Things are looking pretty good in British

Columbia right now.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a second supplemental.

J. Johal: It’s the Premier and his actions that are ultimately harming British

Columbia’s interests by picking an unwinnable fight. It is the Premier who is

escalating this battle. It is the Premier who is ignoring the rule of

law.

The question. The Premier has the power to end this. Again I ask: will

he end all threats of delay to the Trans Mountain project?

Hon. J. Horgan: I find it passing strange that the member from Richmond believes that

trying to assert the jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia in a

cooperative federation is somehow flouting the rule of law. I find it passing

strange that joining a court proceeding that was begun when that side of the

House was on this side of the House is somehow ignoring the rule of

law.

We stand with British Columbians, in court, making the argument that

this project is not in the interests of British Columbia. If the member wants

to go to hear the court proceedings, I welcome him to do so. We’re living by

the law in British Columbia, as all British Columbians should.

[2:10 p.m.]

T. Redies: The NDP is telling local and international investors that you cannot

rely on the government of British Columbia to follow the law. Either this is a

province that you can invest with confidence in, or it is not. This is bigger

than one project.

To the Premier, how can any investor trust a government that is willing

to ignore the constitution?

Hon. J. Horgan: Last time I checked, the constitution provided protections for Canadians

and all British Columbians, and we are living under that cloak of protection

when we go to the courts to seek clarification on issues that are in dispute.

That’s what the rule of law means.

I know there are one or two QCs on that side of the House that may walk

the member through what the constitution is and what is at dispute in this

instance. We said during the election campaign that we felt the National Energy

Board process was flawed. It turns out that the federal government agrees.

After they made the flawed decision on Kinder Morgan, the federal government is

now rewriting the National Energy Board processes because they recognize

they’re inadequate.

I say for British Columbians that we shouldn’t have to take the last bad

decision by the NEB. We should revisit this thing in the interests of British

Columbia to defend our coast and defend our interests.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Redies: This is what the Business Council of British Columbia said this morning:

“This is a referendum on whether British Columbia is open to investment and

whether a legal enterprise can, with any confidence, invest, build and operate

a business within the province….”

Again to the Premier, how can any business have confidence in a

government that doesn’t follow the rules?

Hon. J. Horgan: When we’re getting the primer on the constitution, maybe we’ll get a

primer on referenda as well.

What we’re talking about here is the province of British Columbia going

to court to assert our jurisdiction and to protect the interests of British

Columbians. We’re not being provocative. We said in an election campaign a year

ago that this is what we would do. We’re now doing it. A year later somehow

this is a crisis. It was not a crisis when Energy East went down. It was not a

crisis when Keystone XL went down. One investment project does not an economy

make.

LNG DEVELOPMENT AND

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION

TARGETS

A. Weaver: Government has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40

percent from 2007 levels by 2030 and by 80 percent from 2007 levels by 2050.

This is why the government’s continued desperate push for LNG is so

problematic.

LNG Canada’s proposed four-train LNG facility would add eight to ten

megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. That’s more than 50 percent of all of

British Columbia’s present industrial emissions. And they’d add that to B.C.’s

total emissions.

Our targets are such that by 2050, British Columbia can emit only 12.9

megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. At about 9.6 megatonnes, LNG Canada

would yield the single largest source of those emissions. That’s three-quarters

of all of British Columbia’s allowable emissions in just one LNG

facility.

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy. How is it possible for British Columbia to meet its greenhouse gas

reduction targets in light of these numbers?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Third Party for his question. I know his

passion for climate action, and his reason for being in this House is that very

issue.

I’m committed, as I said during the election campaign and as I’ve said

since forming the government…. We are going to put in place targets, by 2030,

that see our emissions go down by 40 percent from what they were in 2007. I’m

committed to doing that.

At the same time, when investors come calling with proposals, it’s

appropriate that we talk to them. It’s appropriate that we look at the fiscal

framework and that we put in place the terms of engagement.

That’s why I’ve said to the LNG community: “If you’re going to employ

British Columbians, there’s going to be a fair return to B.C. for access to our

resource. You’re going to work with Indigenous people in partnership.” The

member for Skeena can talk to us about that. “If you’re going to ensure that

you assist us in getting to our greenhouse gas objectives, we welcome that

investment.”

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

[2:15 p.m.]

A. Weaver: I do appreciate the response from the Premier. Nevertheless, it seems to

me that rhetoric here in B.C. is not too dissimilar from what we’re hearing

nationally. On the one hand, Prime Minister Trudeau claims we need to build new

pipelines and increase oil sands production multifold in order to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions. Our government thinks we need to increase industrial

emissions by 50 percent in order to meet our greenhouse gas reduction

targets.

Look, LNG Canada would not build a new LNG facility today just to tear

it down tomorrow. The facility will be built to be around for decades to come.

That means that for all other aspects of the British Columbia economy,

emissions would have to drop by 52 percent by 2030 and — get this — 95 percent

by 2050. Government is essentially saying that this one LNG plant and these 200

jobs are more important than everything else in our economy.

My question to the Premier is this. Is he prepared to tell Rio Tinto

Alcan, Teck, Lafarge, Canfor, Catalyst and even the Greater Vancouver Sewerage

and Drainage District that they all have to shut down because British

Columbia’s emission budget is all but used up by that one LNG Canada

facility?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, we have no final investment decision by anyone when it comes to

developing liquefied natural gas, and the members on that side will know that

full well. They promised dozens and dozens of them, and none of them

materialized.

I don’t want to be glib with the member’s question because he’s

absolutely correct. If we are going to meet the targets that we have set as a

Legislature — or will be codified by the Legislature in the days, weeks and

months ahead — we’re going to have to have the hard discussion with all members

of society, not just the industrial sector but our families, our communities.

Everyone is going to have to weigh in and do their part to reduce

emissions.

This is the challenge of our generation. I’m not telling the member

anything he doesn’t already know. I’m committed, as the leader of this

government, to realize those objectives, and I’m going to continue to fight for

that.

RESPONSE OF ENVIRONMENT MINISTER

TO ANTI-PIPELINE

ACTIVITIES

P. Milobar: After losing on Site C, after losing on LNG, this activist Environment

Minister is trying to keep his activist friends on side by continuing to carry

out a guerilla war against Trans Mountain. The goal of the Bowen Island group

is to support mass resistance. To quote Grand Chief Stewart Phillip: “You

cannot build a pipeline in a war zone.”

When will the minister start acting like an unbiased regulator and

denounce the actions of radical activists who are trying to turn B.C. into a

war zone?

Hon. J. Horgan: We’ve got the deep state conspiracy theory over here. I’m waiting for

Sarah Huckabee Sanders to come in any minute now and declare it all to be fake

news.

We’re, on this side of the House, trying to bring British Columbians

together, and that might be something to reflect on, on that side of the House.

When you identify passionate people as enemies of British Columbia, you’re on a

slippery slope, my friend. Take it from me. I understand that.

Now, I think the better course of action for the member from Kamloops is

to work with his community and work with people on this side of the House to

build a better British Columbia. Most of us want to do that. You should join

in.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.

P. Milobar: Well, it’s actually Kamloops–North Thompson, and the North Thompson

part

is critical because there is much support for this pipeline project all through

our riding. In fact, they don’t want to see it shut down and Canada’s resource

industry shut down.

The minister has been attending strategy retreats with activists and has

refused to disavow statements that support conflict and illegal activity. Today

in the Globe and Mail , in a national editorial, they accuse the B.C.

government of “attempting to carry out a guerrilla war against Trans

Mountain.”

How can the minister claim to be an unbiased regulator when it is clear

to everyone, including the federal government, that he is not acting in good

faith?

Hon. J. Horgan: I was adjacent to the member’s constituency just last week, in the Upper

Nicola First Nation, where they want to invest enormous amounts of money in

alternative energy, bringing on a solar farm that will create lots and lots of

jobs right in his backyard. It’s green energy. It’s what we want to see more of

in British Columbia. I think he should get on board with that.

[2:20 p.m.]

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND

TRANSPORT OF OIL BY

RAIL

M. Bernier: The only alternative to the Trans Mountain project is a significant

increase in the transportation of oil by railcar throughout British

Columbia.

An easy question for the Minister of Environment, unless the Premier is

going to keep taking his job away from him. Can he please explain why he

prefers oil by rail?

Hon. J. Horgan: Certainly, I raised the question with both the Prime Minister and the

Premier of Alberta yesterday that if we had spent a fraction of the time

focusing on building more refining capacity here in Canada, we’d be in a much

better position in terms of job creation, using a resource that we can

currently depend on and then helping us transition into a green

future.

That would be leadership. That would make life better for all British

Columbians. That would make life better for Albertans and all Canadians. I

think you should get on board with that.

Mr. Speaker: Peace River South on a supplemental.

M. Bernier: It’s pretty basic. The actions of this government are going to mean more

oil being transported throughout communities in British Columbia by railcar —

communities like Burnaby, Langley and even downtown Vancouver. I know the

Premier can see the railcars that have oil in them out of his window in

Vancouver, in his office.

To the Minister of Environment, can he explain how many more railcars

are going to be needed to be transported through British Columbia before he

will stop the delays of the Trans Mountain project?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, to the member that just asked the question and all members on the

other side of the House: why don’t you join with British Columbians and build a

new vision for an economy that includes everybody, not just the boardrooms in

Texas but people right here in British Columbia?

Creating economic opportunities — what we’ve been doing since July of

last year. We’ve invested in people. We’ve invested in infrastructure. We’re

going to continue to do that to build a robust, sustainable economy that

includes everybody, not just the people in Texas.

DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON

TRANS MOUNTAIN

PIPELINE

M. Lee: The Globe and Mail says this is “nothing short of an economic

and constitutional disaster for Canada.” Does the Premier accept that this is

no longer just about one project but about the fundamental basis of our

federation?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m grateful to know that the member still believes that the

Globe is running Canada, but it’s not. It’s not. British Columbians

are running British Columbia, and the federal government has its

responsibilities. I had a very productive discussion with the Prime Minister on

the weekend and again last week. These are issues of importance to all

Canadians, and we take it very, very seriously.

Let’s just review here. We are in court, where civilized people should

go to resolve disputes. We proposed to the federal government they join with us

on the jurisdictional question. They declined to do so.

I believe it’s my responsibility, under the constitution that the member

behind you will be getting a primer on, to protect the interests of this

province, and I’ll continue to do that. I don’t give a damn what the Globe

and Mail says.

Mr. Speaker: Vancouver-Langara on a supplemental.

M. Lee: I’m happy to hear that the Premier acknowledges the federal jurisdiction

in this manner. This is a federally approved project under federal

jurisdiction. With 14 out of 14 court challenges already dismissed, this

government should know it doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on.

Will the Premier drop the political games and meet with the federal

government to resolve this matter immediately?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, a lawyer on the other side of the House, a group of people that

took teachers to court for 15 years…. I’ll remind him that you only have to win

one case to be right. The B.C. Teachers Federation won one case, and you lost

bigly, as the fellow down south would say, and the interests of students are

now being met by new people on this side of the House.

S. Bond: Let’s talk about the people who are working to grow the economy in

British Columbia. What did they have to say to the Premier this

morning?

[2:25 p.m.]

In fact, here’s what they said. They called on the Premier “to

demonstrate the leadership expected by Canadians to end this crisis of

confidence for investment, the rule of law and the federation.”

A simple question to the Premier. Will he get on a plane to Ottawa

immediately to resolve this issue?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m not familiar with who the member was quoting, but let’s just

deconstruct the points that she made. Firstly, our federation is strong. It’s

150 years strong, and it has withstood more than one difficult issue in that

time. I’m fairly confident that Canadians will get past this one issue that is

more important to shareholders in Texas than it is to the broad coalition of

provinces right across this country.

First point, the federation is strong. Second point, we are not

violating anything. We’re in court. We have been, by the admission of Kinder

Morgan, issuing permits as required, as they’ve asked for them. We have not

been hassling them in any way. They are coming. We are dealing with

them.

The issue at hand is before the courts. A country that is built on the

rule of law should resolve its disputes in courts, and that’s exactly what

we’re doing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

S. Bond: The Premier talks frequently about responding to British Columbians.

Business organizations in British Columbia are standing up today, and they are

asking this Premier to move past the political gamesmanship. He can stand in

this House and deflect all he wants, but here’s a simple question. Will this

Premier do the right thing, set aside his pride, get on a plane, meet with the

Prime Minister and resolve this issue?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, firstly, it’s not about pride. It’s about the commitments we made

to the public during an election campaign. We’re living up to those commitments

by using the courts to make our argument that we believe that the risks are too

great to proceed with this project. That’s what we said we would do. That’s

exactly what we’re doing.

I know that members on that side of the House are engaging in the

politics of the day, but I have to tell you that when we put forward the notion

of a joint submission to the Supreme Court to resolve the jurisdictional issue,

that was good enough for Alberta then. They stood down their illegal action

against our wine sector, and they said: “Good for you. We’ll see what happens.”

And all of a sudden, when the shareholders in Texas issue a press release, it’s

a constitutional crisis.

I was in the member’s community on Friday talking to 500 representatives

from the forest industry. They are very happy with the way things are going in

British Columbia. There’s a government that’s listening to what they need.

We’re doing our level best to make sure that the challenges that forestry faces

can be resolved by cooperation and consensus. I had a happy group of people,

and the member would have enjoyed being there. It was really quite an enjoyable

morning.

M. Polak: British Columbians are proud Canadians. They are rightly troubled when

well-being of Canadians and…the fabric of the federation itself.” Considering

the national interest and, indeed, what’s in the best interest of British

Columbians, will the Premier work with Ottawa to resolve this issue?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, again, I’ll go back to the National Energy Board process, which,

at one time, the member who just asked the question was responsible for,

tangentially, as the Minister of Environment. She will know that there were

significant challenges with that process, so much so that it was declared

illegitimate by many people that were participating in that process. Now we

have a federal government that, after having insisted that we accept the last

ruling of an inadequate process, has completely revamped the entire

thing.

Why is it okay for British Columbians to accept the outcome of a bad

process and it’s not okay to say: “Enough is enough. Let’s go to court and

resolve this”? That’s what we said we would do. That’s what we’re doing. I

think British Columbians support that.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the opposition on a supplemental.

M. Polak: It is a result of the actions of this government that have caused

Premier Notley of Alberta to promise that she will “impose serious economic

consequences on British Columbia if its government continues on its present

course.”

Interjections.

[2:30 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

M. Polak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let’s be clear. It’s working British Columbians who are the ones who are

going to be hurt as the result of any sanctions imposed by Canada and Alberta.

Will the Premier do his job, talk to the Prime Minister and resolve

this?

Hon. J. Horgan: I did talk to the Prime Minister yesterday. I talked to the Premier of

Alberta yesterday. I’m sure we’ll talk again in the future.

A. Wilkinson: What we’re seeing today is a government and a Premier that seem to think

they act in complete isolation. Let’s hear what the rest of the country has to

being reckless with the financial well-being of Canada and the fabric of the

federation itself. These are usually extended to Quebec separatists, but

instead we find them being applied to British Columbia.

We have a Premier who stood here not 20 minutes ago and said he is

“living by the law.” What they are doing is creating uncertainty by ignoring

the law. What we get from this is commentary saying, in a national newspaper,

that this “is nothing short of a constitutional disaster for Canada.” The

Premier stands alone in his opinions.

What we have at the end of the day is a government and a Premier who

have created uncertainty in the marketplace, who are ignoring the law, who are

defaulting to the idea of oil coming by railcars not three years after

Lac-Mégantic. Of course, we have the prospect of a trade war with Alberta,

which Premier Notley is not about to give up on in her desperate attempt to get

re-elected. We have stern warnings from Ottawa calling for this government to

come to its senses.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question. Thank you.

A. Wilkinson: It’s rather disappointing to hear the NDP backbenchers making fun of the

situation.

The question to the Premier: is this burgeoning fiasco his definition of

success?

Hon. J. Horgan: Sub-5-percent unemployment is a symbol of success, I would

argue.

Reaffirmed credit ratings just last week, when there was allegedly a

constitutional crisis and the fabric of the country was coming apart — I would

say that would be an affirmation of support.

I would say starting the first significant social program in a long,

long time by making sure that we have universal, accessible, quality child care

for families is a good step forward.

I would say that making life affordable for British Columbians is

something that they voted in favour of, and that’s what we’re delivering

on.

Lastly, I would say that I do not stand alone. I think I stand with a

whole bunch of people on this side of the House, on the right side of history,

with British Columbians, defending our coast against what would be a

catastrophic event for our economy and for our environment, and that’s a

diluted bitumen spill in our pristine waters that would affect our economy and

affect our people for, potentially, generations.

A. Wilkinson: The Premier represents the riding of Juan de Fuca. For the last 45

years, every single day an Aframax tanker has come from Valdez, Alaska, past

his riding, to the Anacortes refinery complex. This side of the House secured

$1.5 billion in coastal protection funds for the first time in British

Columbia’s history so that the entire west coast of British Columbia could have

some protection from a possible tanker spill.

[2:35 p.m.]

This Premier is now writing off the idea. What are we going to get? Oil

by rail. American imports. That same Alaskan crude will come in past his riding

and be sent to British Columbia to backfill the deficit in British Columbia.

Yet we have a Premier who stood here 25 minutes ago and said: “One investment

project does not an economy make.” That’s $7 billion of worldwide investment

confidence in British Columbia, the prospect of saving us from oil by rail,

getting ourselves off American crude that comes in by ship right past his

house, and this Premier blows it off.

It becomes clear that it’s time for this government to wake up and

realize the fiasco it’s created. We have a trade war about to emerge with

Alberta. We have a Prime Minister who’s furious with this province and talking

about the possibility of changing transfer payments to this province. This

Premier has single-handedly created a complete mess, and it’s time for him to

accept his accountability, get on the plane to Ottawa and solve this little

mess that he has created for all British Columbians.

Hon. J. Horgan: Hyperbole is not in the interests of anyone. I appreciate that this

half-hour of the day is designed for just that. But this is a very serious

matter, and the members know that. I also believe that we have to be committed

to the campaign statements that we made. We said two years ago that we would

stand up and defend our coast. I don’t know what the problem is with members

understanding that, and 60 percent of the people who cast ballots, cast ballots

for that point of view.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response. Thank you.

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, if the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove wants to get exercised,

I think that’s good for all of us. But the facts remain. We said over a year

ago that we would pursue a course to protect and defend our coast, and that’s

exactly what we’re doing. We’re not doing it with threats. We’re not doing it

with intimidation. We’re not stomping our feet. We’re in court. We’re in court,

making the argument that British Columbia should have jurisdiction over our

air, our water and our land, and the risks are too great.

I don’t think that that’s disagreeable to most British Columbians or, in

fact, most Canadians, because that coast does belong to all of us, from coast

to coast to coast. The protection plan the member talks about is an 11-year

commitment for three oceans. So is he now suggesting that the federal

government should yank that away and not protect our coast? I don’t think

British Columbians would be terribly happy with that position.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the 2017 annual report of the Forest Appeals

Commission.

D. Barnett: I seek leave to table an envelope with letters from my constituents to the

Ministry of Education from the Canadian Council of the Blind in my riding, asking

for funding to fund CELA in rural British Columbia.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of

Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. In Committee A,

call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Climate

Change Strategy.

[2:40 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,

LANDS,

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the

chair.

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

On Vote 28: ministry operations, $473,452,000

(continued) .

J. Rustad: Thank you, hon. Chair, and to the minister and staff, good to see you

back here again as the estimates process continues.

We are going to start by going back to an issue that we canvassed three

weeks ago with regard to tenures and the tenure process on fish farms. There

was a report that came out from the Minister of Agriculture’s Advisory Council

on Finfish Aquaculture that made some recommendations to this government. I

believe the comment from the Minister of Agriculture, at the time, was that

they will be considering these recommendations.

The reason for asking is that there was a discussion that we had

specifically around the tenures and the renewal of tenures for fish farms. The

minister, I believe, stated that there would be no change to the current

process in terms of renewable tenures. The recommendations from this report

suggest that there would be a change if these recommendations were

adopted.

[2:45 p.m.]

Starting off, I’d like to ask the minister whether or not he and this

government are endorsing these recommendations brought forward from this

advisory committee.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Chair, welcome back to estimates as well. I jokingly heard today that

we’ve covered two months in these estimates, in that we started in March and

now we’re in April.

I welcome any questions in these estimates. It’s the time for the

official opposition to have a chance, on behalf of the public, to question the

expenditures within the ministry.

As far as the member’s question regarding the Minister of Agriculture’s

Advisory Council on Finfish Aquaculture final report, known as the MAACFA

report, I just want to commend the amount of work that went into this report.

It’s taken pretty well almost a couple of years, and I understand the members

of this council met at least a dozen times.

There are at least 29 recommendations. It’s a matter of looking at these

recommendations, analyzing them. It’s a complex issue. We will be having our

staff look at them. Also, we need to make sure that we consult with First

Nations and industry around the recommendations as well.

I welcome the recommendations. I welcome the analysis that the people on

the council took in providing the report. As I said, it’s a complex report —

over 200 pages, over 29 recommendations. We’ll be taking our time to look at

them, along with consulting First Nations and industry.

J. Rustad: As the minister is likely aware — and by the way, thank you for that

response — there are tenures that are up for renewal this spring into summer.

There are decisions that need to be made by companies with regard to

restocking, moving forward with their operations.

I guess the question is: what time frame is the minister looking at, is

this government looking at, in terms of a review of these recommendations and

any potential changes? Will any permitting requests for renewals that are in

the system go through under the current rules, or will they be facing potential

changes midway through the process?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, we have statutory obligations to begin consultation with First

Nations around the renewal of the 20 tenures that come up for renewal at the

end of June — those being in the Broughton Archipelago.

At the same time, we’re proceeding with First Nations. We began meeting

with them. It’s a historic coming together of six First Nations and five band

council representatives at the table. That’s important, because we have the

process proceeding with the statutory obligations around tenure renewal. But it

has to also be considered within the whole framework of how we’re proceeding

with First Nations on the question.

Importantly, there’s also a major role for the federal government to

play here. I would just roughly estimate that 90 percent of the responsibility

around aquaculture is within federal jurisdiction, so we’ve had discussions

with the federal government as well to try to bring them to the table in a more

fulsome manner on this topic.

[2:50 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I didn’t really hear an answer to the question, so maybe I’ll try to

restate the question. I understand the federal government’s role in terms of

the licensing. It is a provincial role in terms of the tenures, which is what

we’re talking about in terms of process.

I’ll re-ask, if I may: can companies expect the process to be what is,

under the current rules and the current process…? Can they expect that to be

able to go forward in terms of renewals of those 20 permits through the process

through the end of June? Or is there potential for that to change, in light of

the report on finfish aquaculture?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Of course, the intent overall in this process is to ensure that wild

salmon populations are sustainable, not just in the Broughton but in the

province generally. I know that they’re important in the area I represent.

They’re important provincewide. Those populations are important in the

constituency that the member represents.

Just for clarification, when the member uses the term “tenures,” we’ve

got to make sure, for the record, that we’re at least talking about two

different types of tenures. The tenures that we’re responsible for as a

province are Land Act tenures. They’re the tenures that are affiliated with the

anchoring of the fish farms, either to the foreshore or to the seabed, a seabed

that is under provincial jurisdiction in these cases.

Then there’s the fisheries licence, and that’s a federal jurisdiction.

That has to do with issuing a licence for aquaculture activities such as

open-net fish farming, the water column beneath those fish farms. The majority

of what people would consider the concerns around Atlantic salmon and the

impact that they possibly have on wild salmon are within federal

jurisdiction.

We have entered into significant negotiations with First Nations who are

concerned and who are in support — and do not support — fish farms. But those

significant negotiations are underway, and I will not prejudice those

negotiations by predicting an outcome in any way. But we’re on a time

trajectory to try to resolve this situation. It’s been around for a long time,

and we want to make sure it’s resolved in a manner that’s going to be able to

have both industry and First Nations move forward.

J. Rustad: I, unfortunately, am going to be required to ask the question once

again. The minister, a few weeks ago, through the estimates process, said that

there would not be any change to the current process which those tenures would

go through. It’s a process I understand well, and it’s a process that statutory

decision–makers will be making through the establishment of how these tenures

get renewed and have been renewed many, many times in the past.

The question, once again, to the minister is: will the expectation of

that process going forward to renew those permits be subject to changes, or

will they be renewed under the existing process?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll be as clear as possible for the member and his question. The

statutory obligations about moving forward with the process around tenure

renewal will take place as is obligated under the legislation.

[2:55 p.m.]

At the same time, we’re undergoing significant government-to-government

discussions and negotiations with First Nations whose territory includes the

Broughton Archipelago. So all I can tell the member at this point is that we’re

going to be proceeding as our statutory obligations require, and we’re

negotiating with First Nations to create certainty in the longer

term.

J. Rustad: The minister — for, I think, the third time now — still hasn’t quite

answered the question. Would there be changes to the process which has been

long established for the renewal of tenures?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, the member can keep asking the question, and I’m going to give him

the answer that I’ve been giving — that we are committed to the statutory

obligations that are in existence now and that I will not predetermine the

outcomes of significant negotiations on a government-to-government basis with

First Nations.

We are in touch constantly with industry. We are in touch with the First

Nations organizations that are in representation of the Broughton Archipelago.

We’re in touch with First Nations out of that geographic area that have fish

farms in support and not in support.

The tenure obligations that were required to fulfil our statutory duty

are being fulfilled. At the same time, I’m not going to be predetermining or

talking about what’s going on in significant government-to-government

negotiations with First Nations.

J. Rustad: Perhaps the minister didn’t understand the nature of the question. I’m

not specifically asking for what the outcome will be. I understand the need for

negotiations. I understand the engagement from government to

government.

What I’m trying to talk about, or I’m trying to ask about, are the rules

by which a company may operate and have expectations to be able to go through

in terms of a process of tenuring. I guess I’ll rephrase the question in

respect of the rules. Does the minister anticipate the rules changing between

now and the time when those tenures are up for a renewal decision by a

statutory decision–maker?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, for the issuance of licences and tenures under the Land Act, the

process remains the same. And we have, at the same time, negotiations on a

government-to-government basis being undertaken with First Nations. The purpose

is to resolve the conflicts that are occurring within the Broughton around

open-net salmon fish farms. The purpose is that the outcomes will resolve those

conflicts. It’ll be good for the future of aquaculture, and it’ll be good for

First Nations.

On the one hand, we have a process that remains unchanged. It’s the

statutory obligation. On the other hand, I can’t predetermine the outcomes. But

we’re in a negotiating process to try to reduce conflict, because the situation

as it stands now is not conducive to industry and not conducive to First

Nations who have concerns.

[3:00 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I suppose that might be as close as I get to an answer on that question.

But I do want to put on record that one of the recommendations for immediate

recommendation actions was to establish policy requiring industry to have

agreements with a First Nation or Nations “affected by a net-pen aquaculture

site as a condition of any new or replacement site tenures and provide

guidelines to industry for developing these agreements.”

That, to me, would signal very clearly that if government were to be

doing that, it requires there to be an agreement before those tenures would be

renewed. That would be a significant departure from the current tenuring

renewal or issuing process, which is why I’m asking the minister whether or not

a recommendation like that is going to be considered to be mandatory prior to

the renewal process for those 20 licences in the north end of Vancouver

Island.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll go back to where we started with the first question. I want to

thank the MAACFA council members for their hard work over 18 months, and the 29

recommendations are all being considered, in discussions with First Nations and

industry.

I just want to quote from…. It’s over 200 pages long, but I’ll quote

from one paragraph and the conclusion of the report on page 19. It says: “All

council members recognized there is a desire among many for a simple ‘yes’ or

‘no’ answer to the core questions in the terms of reference about the

continuance of marine-based salmon aquaculture in B.C. Simple answers are

rarely available to complex questions, and this is the case for

aquaculture.”

J. Rustad: I recognize that quote and that component from the report on page 19.

That wasn’t the question, of course. I’m not asking about whether it’s a simple

process or complex. I’m asking about whether there is a change to process and

expectations.

Under the United Nations declaration of the rights of Indigenous people,

UNDRIP, there is a clause in there that speaks about free, prior and informed

consent. This particular recommendation that would be brought in could be

viewed as a requirement for consent before any sort of licence or process would

be renewed or issued, which is why I’m asking this question.

We have canvassed this many times in this Legislature, and that

particular clause, even as referred to by Grand Chief Ed John, does not mean a

veto. Yet this particular recommendation coming forward would be a veto,

because obviously if an agreement cannot be reached, it would be a requirement.

So this is why I’m asking the minister.

I’ll ask once again if that particular recommendation would be something

that would need to be in place or considered before renewal would be in place,

which would be a departure from the current process and, quite frankly, would

send a very interesting message right across this province with regards to the

interpretation of free, prior and informed consent.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll say again that there are 29 recommendations. We’re considering all

of them. We’re consulting with First Nations and with industry about the

recommendations. It’s a large and complex report. We’re not endorsing any one

of them at this point, to date.

As far as what…. The member raises a very good question around free,

prior and informed consent. We believe that the process we’ve embarked on with

the First Nations in the Broughton is a demonstration of the principles of the

United Nations declaration. It’s a direct result of the fact that this kind of

work wasn’t done in the past. We’re doing it now, and it’s creating a pathway

to more certainty and a pathway to a better future for both industry and First

Nations.

J. Rustad: In the interest of time, I think we’ll move on from this particular

topic. I’m sure we’ll get a chance to canvass this further down the road. Who

knows? Maybe we won’t even end estimates today, and there might be a chance

down the road as well.

[3:05 p.m.]

However, at this time, I’m going to move on from the fish tenuring

process. I’d like to offer my colleague from Delta South an opportunity to ask,

specifically, around some of the foreshore issues and other issues associated

with his issues on the Fraser River.

I. Paton: I’d like to speak for a moment about water lot leases. I think you’ve

heard this from me before. In my riding of Delta South, we have a great number

of water lot leases that are held in the southern part or the western part of

the Fraser River, right at the mouth — Steveston, Richmond and Ladner, in

particular.

Mr. Minister, uncertainty over the future of 360 provincially owned

water lot leases in the Lower Fraser River has reached a crisis point. The lack

of long-term leases is taking its toll. Most evident is the devaluation of

businesses and homes, but unseen costs include higher insurance premiums,

failed sales agreements and untold infrastructure investments being put on

hold. The businesses and property interests impacted include fish processing,

marine parts and service, tugboats, tows and barges, shipbuilding repairs,

restaurants, marinas, yacht clubs, condominiums and float home owners, and

municipal interests, such as the city of Delta’s waterfront plans.

Although we appreciate that FLNRO has had to staff up and that the First

Nation consultations took time, prompt action is required on long-term leases

with fair rents. In my area of Ladner — I’ve brought this up before — we have a

very frustrating long-term situation. For instance, in downtown Ladner, we have

a street called Chisholm Street. It’s basically bare. It’s vacant. It’s on the

water. We can’t get any businesses, any restaurants, any gift shops or any

developers to come in and take hold of this Chisholm Street.

We would like to make it a beautiful re-enactment of Steveston, where

people can come and sit and have coffee out on the water. But no one will come

to invest in Chisholm Street in the downtown, historic part of Ladner to build

anything — to build a Cactus Club, a Milestone’s, a gift shop or even a fish

and chips shop — when they know of the uncertainty of leases. They’re not long

enough. Right now they’re being offered, I believe, one- and two-year leases.

No bank is going to lend money to a developer to come along and borrow money to

make investments on the water with these short-term leases.

The other thing is that I’m getting letter after letter from people that

live on the river. We have fish processing plants in Ladner. We have

recreational marinas. We have a lot of float homes, and we have different

businesses, such as restaurants. I’ll give you an example, Hon. Minister, of a

restaurant in Ladner called Sharkey’s Seafood. Part of his business is on the

upland portion of the dike, but part of his business is also part of the water

lot, which is basically some land with a little old dock at the bottom, in the

river, that nobody ever uses.

He traditionally paid $2,500 a year as his water lot lease. About a year

and a half ago, he was told that it was being increased to about $12,500 a

year, which he thought he could live with. In 2018, he got a letter from FLNRO

saying, “Your estimated cost for your water lot lease portion of your Sharkey’s

restaurant is going to be $59,000 for the year,” which is absolutely

outrageous.

We need to get through this consultation period. Hopefully, it’s finally

over. I would really like to get some answers on the length of these water lot

leases in my Ladner area and the cost of the water lot leases.

Hon. Chair, can the minister update me on the status of the timeline for

the renewal of long-term water lot leases for residents and businesses of

Ladner?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I just want to thank the member for not only his question and the

background but his advocacy on this file. It’s a file that I, of course, being

from the northwest, wasn’t absolutely up to speed on until I became minister.

Not only through the efforts of my ministry staff but through his efforts in

bringing representatives from the Ladner local government to the Legislature

here for me to meet with and from his questions previously, I’ve come to a

greater understanding of — and our ministry understands — the situation that’s

faced by the members in his constituency, by Ladner.

We’ve put a priority on it, and we’re progressing. Eighty-three percent

of the files that we’ve received from the federal government have been

completed. Those are, beyond those two-year leases, multiple-year leases,

depending on the purpose. We did institute the two-year-lease renewal just to

have some continuity while we had time to do consultation. We’re consulting

with the Musqueam and others.

I’ve got to say that each circumstance is a little bit different,

because the purpose of the lease is a little bit different. I believe that

we’re making good progress, but I do understand the frustrations on those other

17 percent of the files that haven’t come to a long-term completion

yet.

If the member would like to supply me with some specific information on

the circumstance with the restaurant that he describes here, I’d be happy to

have a look at it. As far as the other ones go, overall, it’s a priority of

ours, and we’re working hard to get them resolved quickly.

I. Paton: One final question on this. I won’t spend too much time. I’d love to

spend a couple of hours. Would you have any sort of a hard deadline from the

ministry to finalize all the leases and lease offerings in my area of

Ladner?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: It took a little bit of time, and I just want to express to the member

that that time is reflective of the seriousness of the topic. I want to make

sure that we can try to give as much certainty as possible to those who are

holding those leases.

We got the head lease provided to us from the federal government in

2015. Our goal was to have things wrapped up within three years. That would put

us to the end of this calendar year, of 2018. Having said that, some of the

files are quite complicated, but that’s what we’re shooting for. We also have

to rely on some of the evaluations and assessments that are done in the 2018

assessment year.

I just want to make sure that the member knows that this is a priority,

and we’re hoping to wrap them up by the end of the calendar year.

I. Paton: I’d like to move on, just briefly, to dredging in the secondary channels

in my community of Ladner. As the minister likely knows from the last time we

were here in estimates, back in 2015 there was a problem of sediment buildup in

the secondary channels of the Fraser River that move into my little town of

Ladner and the different fingers of the Fraser River.

Back then, we finally got together a coalition of stakeholders such as

the province of B.C., the city of Delta and Port Metro Vancouver to come up

with quite a large figure of roughly $10 million to get in the dredging

companies to dredge the secondary channels of my small community of

Ladner.

The Fraser River, as we know, is one large river, but as it gets towards

Metro Vancouver, it splits into many little secondary channels — in which, in

Ladner, we have recreational marinas. We have many, many float homes. We have

upland dikes, as I’ve just spoken of. We also have two commercial fish

processing plants, right on a secondary channel coming in from Sand Heads and

Steveston into Ladner.

Back in 2015, we were able to get this dredging taken care of, but even

since 2015, the silt is starting to come back into these secondary channels

around Ladner. This also includes 500 direct and indirect jobs along the

channels in my community of Ladner.

What we are looking for is roughly $750,000 a year to upkeep the

dredging in this area, rather than having to chase down $10 million every ten

or 12 years for a major dredging project. What we’re looking for is a program

and funding of roughly $750,000 a year, which could be a joint venture with the

province, once again.

My question. Can the minister update me on the status of the ongoing

funding request for the dredging of Ladner’s secondary channels? Secondary to

that question, has the minister approached the federal government to discuss

potential joint funding options for Ladner’s secondary channels?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Again, thank you to the member. I remember getting the maps out with the

representatives he brought in from Ladner and looking at the back channels. Not

only were there good maps but aerial photographs, as well, about the concern

around the sedimentation and the secondary channels.

Our staff, as soon as next week, will be out to tour site-specific areas

to look at the siltation issues. We will approach the federal government, but

it’s a complex file. We want to have all the information in our hands, the most

current, and all our ducks in a row. There are multiple stakeholders — First

Nations, local governments. Of course, the overall issue is that dredging for

navigation is a federal responsibility.

It’s not that we’re trying to shirk any responsibilities that we have.

We just want to make sure that we have a really solid file before bringing it

to the federal government, and we want time to do it properly. So we’ll be

starting that by having the site-specific visits next week.

I. Paton: One final question. I guess a statement to begin. We would certainly be

honoured if the province could look into funding not only through the province

but in dealing with the federal government to come together with stakeholders

such as the city of Delta, the port of Vancouver, to come up with…. It’s still

a big figure, but $750,000 a year would likely get us the dredging done so that

we don’t have to chase down a huge amount of money every ten years to solve a

bigger problem.

My question, then. Maybe not next week but two weeks from now…. We have

a group in Ladner called the Ladner Sediment Group. They’re very adamant about

dike heights. They’re adamant about dredging. They’re adamant about water lot

leases. They’re a very vocal group. I know that we met with the minister last

fall.

My question is…. I believe there’s a setup for a river tour of the

secondary channels around Ladner for April 17, and the group is wondering if we

can confirm whether the minister will be attending on that riverboat cruise. If

not, will there be any deputy ministers attending to have a good look at the

situations we have in Ladner with sediment and water lot leases?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’d like to confirm that the deputy minister will be on that…. The

member characterized it as a riverboat cruise? Anyway, I’m not sure…. That

doesn’t sound like work, but he’ll be there on that trip.

J. Rustad: Thanks for that version, too, to the issues for my colleague. There may

be some other issues associated with water and dredging. There will certainly

be some issues around docks, but that will be a little bit later this

afternoon.

[3:25 p.m.]

At the moment, I’d actually like to move now to talk a little bit about

wildfires, followed by flooding, and then, hopefully, at that point, some

forest health issues and then into wildlife and wildlife management. We’ll see

how far we get through the process.

Starting off on the wildfires and the terms of reference for the

committee that is chaired by George Abbott and Maureen Chapman. We made a

number of recommendations with regards to the terms of reference. Last fall the

minister provided an opportunity for the opposition to be able to provide those

suggestions.

I’m just wondering if the minister could start, perhaps, by explaining

or going through some of those recommendations that we had made and whether or

not they were included and, if not, why they were excluded.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, I distinctly recall offering the opportunity, especially for those

MLAs from the areas impacted by the last wildfire season to have the ability

for input into the terms of reference for the work that that independent,

arms-length Chapman-Abbott team has undertaken. They finished the public input

section of their work at the end of March.

As far as the recommendations, the input, that were provided by the

official opposition MLAs, there were quite a few recommendations — and interest

in input. The bulk of them were incorporated into the terms of reference. I can

get the member a document showing the recommendations that were provided and

how they were incorporated into the terms of reference. I can provide that to

him as a request through this estimates process.

J. Rustad: I know that report is due soon, coming up here in April, I think it is.

I’m sure all members of the House are looking forward to the report. I guess

we’ll leave estimates open until the end of May so we can ask some…. No, I’m

just joking.

It would be nice to be able to ask questions with regards to the report,

but I recognize that’s not possible. Of course, questions associated with this

may or may not be covered by the report.

However, it does bode…. Given the fire season that we had last year and,

of course, the potential for other fires this year, which I’m sure there will

be, the severity, hopefully, will not be in the category of last year. But it’s

important to ask some questions with regards to some of the lessons learned

from last year and what changes may be considered or implemented, regardless of

what the report may be making in recommendations.

I’d like to provide the minister with an opportunity to perhaps

elaborate on some of those lessons learned, some things that may be considered

for doing differently this season, in advance of, obviously, the

recommendations that may come from the report.

[3:30 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I welcome the question. This is critical for the public, especially, to

understand — that it’s not just waiting till the end of a season, although

people are obviously extremely busy when a fire season and fires are occurring,

wildfires. But it’s a matter of.... During the actual episode and event,

there’s detection and correction continuously going on. It’s a continuous

improvement model. It wasn’t just: “Oh, let’s make note of that, and we’ll

address it at the end of the fire season.” When it’s been able to address

during the actual crisis, during the actual event, then we do that.

I would say that — and I know that Abbott and Chapman are hearing this

as well — communication seems to be something that has been universally raised.

As the member will know, we have a four-tier review system within our ministry

in connection with emergency management B.C. The fourth tier is the level where

we get to an independent review that I commissioned back in the fall, but the

other three levels are internal. So we do have the system in place to address

what we see as gaps.

Of course, this was one of the biggest fire seasons — was the biggest

wildfire season — ever. It obviously gave us the opportunity to see some of the

areas that need more work in communication, bringing people into the

decision-making process earlier in preparation and in response — people like

ranchers and cattlemen and the forest industry — especially building on the

local knowledge. That was pointed out, oftentimes, around how do we better

incorporate local knowledge into the preparation and response during events of

the magnitude we witnessed — First Nations as well.

Those meetings about how to create the communication avenues better

already began in November and December — and protocols around how to engage and

interact and develop the relationships that are so important when a crisis

occurs. Those relationships are really what creates the fabric of a better

communication system. Just on Friday we held a stakeholder seasonal outlook

with an eye to the upcoming wildfire season.

[3:35 p.m.]

J. Rustad: As we start on this discussion on wildfires, I was remiss in not making

an initial opening comment, which is to thank the members within the ministry

and across government in many ministries that were involved in last

year.

I know everybody worked extremely hard, long hours, was very dedicated

in what was an extremely trying time — both when we were in government and, of

course, when you were in government through that time. I just want to thank

them for all of their efforts in making sure they protected life and doing the

best they could to protect property and, of course, other values that we have

out on the land base.

I guess I want to canvass a number of things around this. They may or

may not be included in what the report may or may not include, but there are

things that I think are important to canvass. In particular, I was at a

presentation on Saturday night by the fire chief that was responsible for the

Fort McMurray response when they had that devastating fire back a couple of

years ago. Miraculously, they moved 90,000 people — or 88,000 people evacuated

— with no loss of life through that whole process. That, by itself, was an

absolute miracle through that.

One of the things that was striking to me, and a comment that was made

to me, was the value of our structural protection units that we have in British

Columbia. It didn’t appear that they had those. Maybe they did in Alberta. I’m

not sure, but it didn’t appear to me that those were in place or used as a tool

at that time.

Structural protection units were invaluable in many areas. I had a

chance, as I’m sure the minister did, to go out and tour areas that were

impacted by the fires and see the difference that a structural protection unit

made in saving homes and other values.

I know we have a significant inventory of these, but I often wonder,

particularly, about the private sector individuals that have homes that are in

potentially high-risk areas — that are out in the woods or in interface areas.

Has there been any thought by this ministry to look at setting up a program to

encourage or perhaps provide a tax incentive to individuals to be able to

purchase and maintain structural protection units in case their property is in

the line of fire of a future wildfire?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: As far as the protection of communities, we have a budget uplift of $50

million over the next three years for wildfire resiliency initiatives. We’re

building a plan about how to best utilize that budget lift, in order to assist

communities in becoming more fire safe. The recommendations from Chapman and

Abbott — I definitely anticipate they’ll have something to say about

this.

As far as incentives to purchase and maintain these kinds of products

for individuals, again, I would anticipate that Chapman and Abbott will have

something to say about that. I have had, for instance, in my office, one

manufacturer of a product around sprinkler kits, which they were advocating for

wide distribution, as far as prevention of burning embers landing on a property

or on a roof. These sprinkler kits could reattach to gutters. That falls,

perhaps, within the category that the member is talking about, around

structural protection units.

We have to make sure, in taking into account the recommendations from

Abbott and Chapman and from our own reviews, that whatever ideas are coming

forward have been well tested and well thought out. There are often lots of

ideas, and you’ve got to make sure they’re ground truth before we get behind

them fully.

As far as SPUs, structural protection units, go, they can be effective

in minimizing structure ignition. But what it really depends on, and their

effectiveness, is around the amount of combustible fuels in and around

structures. In major urban areas such as the example that the member cited, in

Fort McMurray, internally, that’s a pretty significant urban centre. However,

having said that, I too witnessed areas where the SPUs were deployed that

helped in more rural areas as well.

These are all considerations that we’ve turned our minds to and are

turning them to even more, now that we have the budget uplift and as we get the

recommendations from Chapman and Abbott.

J. Rustad: The reason, particularly…. I’ve got a number of questions to ask around

the structural protection units inside. It was a few of the recommendations

that we had suggested, the opposition had suggested, for the review, which

didn’t make it into the review directly. It may have been covered by other

components of the review. But that’s what begs the question with regards to the

structural protection units.

There were a number of cases during the 2017 fire season where

structural protection units were deployed. As you saw and as I saw when out

touring, in some places, they were successful. In most places, actually, that

they were deployed, they were successful. Many places they were deployed, they

weren’t required, because the fire went off in different directions,

thankfully. So they weren’t tested.

The reason for asking is I often wonder whether or not there should be

some broad provincial code with regards to whether, if people are going to be

building homes in interface areas, that should be a requirement for homes in

those areas, to help in terms of protection against potential interface fires

down the road, similar as to other types of standards that we apply for

construction. It’s a piece that the province could potentially play a role

in.

Obviously, if it was a requirement and/or if there was a program in

place, that could be able to help save many homes. It may not always be

successful, but it would be…. More often than not, where I’ve seen those things

applied, they have been successful in fires.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’m concerned that that wasn’t directly a question that was put to the

committee or to the report, to the chairs of the report. It may be in their

report. It may not be. I don’t know, but it’s one that I need to ask here, in

terms of the ability of the ministry to be able to help working with

landowners, property owners, that have these interface homes.

The question, I guess, is: if recommendations like that are not in the

report…? I’m not going to speculate as to what is or what isn’t in the report.

But is this a direction that the ministry sees that may be of value — to work

with regional districts and perhaps put in some significant changes to what

sorts of standards are required for those homes that are in areas of

interface?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Some good points. The collective goal — it doesn’t matter to me if it’s

on the official opposition benches or the government benches — is to ensure

that we address the potential risks coming out of what we saw during the flood

and the fire season. We’re talking primarily right now about the fire season,

knowing that by all modelling, this could be not just an aberration of one year

but a more regular event — the size and the behaviour that we witnessed in the

wildfires this past season.

I’ll talk about a few points. We have the B.C. FireSmart committee,

which has all agencies that are involved in wildfire protection, including the

B.C. Wildfire Service, the office of the fire commissioner, First Nations

emergency planning, Emergency Management B.C. and others.

That’s the forum that can address things like building codes and the

ability to look at the kinds of structural protection unit issues that the

member brings up. They are actively engaged in that conversation at that

committee level. Like I say, it’s an all-agency committee, so it’s a very

worthwhile place for those topics to be discussed.

When it comes to specifics, there’s the individual, the community and

the role of the provincial government. We’re definitely interested in

partnerships, with local government and within our government, around building

codes and standards for homes in the interface area. There’s a role to play for

the individual in the communities as well.

[3:50 p.m.]

We have the FireSmart program when it comes to individual houses and

education and how people can fire-smart their properties. I’m one of them that

needs to be doing a lot more of that, for sure.

We’re committed to undertaking this, whether it’s subdivision approval

that’s required or other good ideas. We’re going to be working on that — and,

again, with input and ideas from members from both sides of this

Legislature.

As far as the recommendations for terms of reference for the review that

were put forward by opposition MLAs, I already discussed that in a previous

answer. Now we’ve gotten to a specific that the member knew hadn’t been

addressed or says it wasn’t addressed. Definitely, I’ll take a look into which

input was provided into what areas that didn’t make it into the review and

determine if they were covered by the review once it comes out.

J. Rustad: Staying on the structural protection unit, how many structural

protection units are available in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Donaldson: There are six type 1 units and approximately 25-plus private or local

government type 2 units located throughout the province.

J. Rustad: So about 31 structural protection units — I think that’s the number I

heard — plus private and local government units that would be available

potentially around the province.

The reason why I ask is that during last year’s fire season, there were

a number of incidents where individuals and families were told by people

working on those fires that there would be these units applied to the

residents. In some cases, unfortunately, they weren’t deployed.

Now, I get that in the chaos that was that season and with everybody’s

best efforts, these things can happen. But it concerns me when there’s a sense

of security or a sense of hope that some of these units may have been applied.

One of the questions that we were hoping that the committee would look into was

a review of how and why these commitments were made, of the decision-making

around deploying the structural protection units out and why, in some cases, of

course, there were those commitments and, apparently, they were not

deployed.

I was wondering. The structural protection units. Given the number that

we have available and given the number that were utilized and the

widespreadness of that potential fire, why wasn’t there, I guess, maybe some

more consistent messaging with regards to the potential or the challenge in

terms of the lack of those kinds of resources to be able to protect homes that

were potentially in the line of the fire?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just for a little more clarification, the six type 1 units that I

described that contain about 350 sprinklers and can protect between 30 and 50

homes, each one of those units…. Those are owned provincially. Then, we are

able to draw on over 25 private or local government type 2 units throughout the

province. Local governments continue to build that capacity.

We also — and we have, last season, as well — import those structural

protection units from outside the province. There’s a national sharing program

that is well established that each province depends on. So that’s there, and

that’s part of what we’ve been able to depend on. For sure, we’re open to more

discussion around this, especially as far as what we hear from the Chapman and

Abbott report.

The actual deployment of these units is another topic altogether. It’s

an operational decision based on a number of factors. It’s dynamic, as the

member alluded to. It’s a very dynamic decision-making environment. Sometimes,

in order to maintain first-responder safety, which is our priority, the units

are not deployed or are pulled out.

J. Rustad: The reason, of course, for asking for that to have been put in the

review in question is because…. The tragedy of somebody losing a home or other

assets…. They want answers. They want to know why decisions were made and why

it wasn’t. I understand that, but in saying that, I also recognize that I know

everybody did the best they could through the season. It’s these lessons that,

potentially, we can learn from that might be able to help in the future, which

is why I asked that question around it. Maybe there will be something in the

Abbott and Chapman report.

In any case, with regards to the structural protection units, are there

plans in place within the ministry to be able to purchase any additional of

these units, and/or is the ministry considering engaging with local governments

to be able to provide some financial support to build the inventory of these

structural protection units in the province, hopefully never to be used, but in

case we end up having another nasty fire season as we did in 2017?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I know that the member understands this, but I should state it anyway.

SPUs are just one tool in an array of tools to keep communities safe and people

safe and, as the member pointed out, to reduce the risk of damage to property —

which, after life, is something that’s very tragic for people and difficult for

them to overcome, both financially and emotionally.

Do we have plans to purchase — or engage with local governments with,

perhaps, financial support — to increase the number of SPUs? Well, we want to

make sure that that’s a possibility, and we’re going to definitely wait for the

independent review. That report is due at the end of this month, the end of

April. We have to put it in the context of availability. For sure, having said

that, we depend on other provinces to fill gaps. We have to put it in the

context of: are fire seasons getting worse across B.C. and across Canada, where

that availability might not be there when we need it because other provinces

are using the resources in their own jurisdictions?

We may acquire more. The possibility is there to provide incentives. We

do have the $50 million wildfire resilience fund over the next three years, and

we do have the ability to partner with the office of the fire commissioner, who

has a major role to play in the acquisition and creation of these type 1 and

type 2 units. That’s all something that we’re contemplating. A lot of the

guidance, of course — it’s the reason I commissioned an independent review — is

that that independent review has gathered much information from around the

province about lessons learned in this past season.

J. Rustad: I want to canvass the $50 million, or the $72 million associated with

that, perhaps in a short bit, but there are a few other questions I’d like to

ask around the review and the process that’s in place.

[4:05 p.m.]

One of the challenges many individuals had — farmers, in particular,

ranchers…. Some of them chose to stay behind — they had equipment or other

expertise — to try to protect their property and to be able to help out their

neighbours in terms of protecting their properties. I understand fully the

first priority — and it should always be the first priority — is life, life and

limb obviously, for the fire service in terms of its attempts to protect from

wildfires.

In cases where individuals were left behind, there was virtually no

support for those individuals. Communications were sporadic, if any. I know

that there’s always the challenge for government, in terms of if people are

left behind, whether it was people in a First Nation community that decided not

to leave or people on a ranch that decided not to leave. There’s the risk that

if government intervenes and tries to find ways to support, that government may

be found liable in enabling an activity if there was a loss of life. But the

end result is that these people are left in isolation, in some

cases.

I’m wondering whether the report is going to look at that situation,

where people made the choice to stay behind and take risk — whether it’s

looking at that or, if the report is not looking at that particular issue,

whether that’s something that the ministry is doing a review around how they

work through that situation to be able to support those people in a way that

could be beneficial in terms of their efforts.

Now, I recognize, when you have such a complex situation with so many

people involved and everybody is busy with their jobs, that it’s tough to be

able to look at individual needs or even a community, in terms of First

Nations. But at the same time, whether it’s even the basics of making sure

there’s food or making sure they have accurate information, understanding the

risks, understanding the fire behaviour, whether or not there should be some

sort of protocols put in place that would better enable those people to be

supported in one fashion or another….

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: This is an area that concerned me greatly during this past wildfire

season — when you heard people were staying behind in some situations. At some

level, you can understand it, but the worry that that creates, as far as their

safety, is really something that kept me awake at night, over the past wildfire

season — and, I’m sure, many of our staff as well.

Definitely, communication is a large part of that, and we’re working to

improve that. I’m sure that the Chapman and Abbott independent report will have

something to say about that.

I guess what I want to say is that the toughest situation is where you

don’t want one or two individuals who choose to stay behind compromising the

overall efforts of the firefighting. I know that the member reflected on that

by talking about how complex it is. We have only a finite capacity within the

B.C. Wildfire Service and those that we engage with, and the number one

priority is for public safety and the safety of our first

responders.

However, I think, we can work to improve the communications. Part of

that is building up the relationship in advance. We’re undertaking that

already, and we’ll be doing more of that in a preventative manner, in that.

We’ve done a lot of work already with First Nations. The member specifically

mentioned the farmers and ranchers community. Establishing that relationship

early — so that there’s a bit of trust and there’s a bit of understanding of

roles — I think will go a long way to alleviating some of the specific issues

we faced this past summer.

For me, it’s a matter of balance. We live in a democratic society. In

some instances, people exert their right to stay on their property. We’ve got

to be able to balance that right with the overall public safety goal and the

overall goal of ensuring that our first responders are safe, as well, and not

having to deal with risk presented by individuals who decided to stay

behind.

J. Rustad: It’s something that I just needed to raise. I recognize the challenges

there, but this is an issue that is not going to go away. There is going to be

another fire. There will be people that will decide not to obey evacuation

orders. It’s about trying to do our best to encourage them to follow an

evacuation but — in a worst-case scenario, when somebody decides to stay behind

— trying to make sure that there is some way they have accurate information and

whatever support could be applied.

I’m hopeful, whether or not there are recommendations in the report,

that the minister will consider that in terms of a strategy going forward, in

terms of what can be expected, so that people understand, fully, the risks and

challenges.

To that end, in particular, last fire season there were some decisions

by individuals to stay behind — quite frankly, to protect their home, not just

to fight the fire but to protect the structural protection units that were put

in place, to make sure that they weren’t vandalized or stolen, as had been the

case. There were several cases, I believe, that were reported where that

happened in the last fire season.

One of the things that I think needs to be considered, quite frankly….

As you can imagine, if you’re an individual who had — whether it was private or

was provided through various ministries and local government — a structural

protection unit put in place, you know it’s got 72 hours of gas or whatever the

case may be, right? It’s got bladders that were set up in place. It may or may

not work.

We do know that for the most part, they’re very helpful in preventing

the loss of a structure. But if the pump goes missing or somebody slashes the

bladder, then obviously that unit is no longer valid and would no longer be

able to provide the protection that a person would anticipate. Like I say, some

people stayed behind because they were worried about that. It did happen during

the season.

I guess, when you look at it from a criminal perspective, it’s theft

under a certain value or over a certain value or whatever it is, or vandalism.

But the reality is, if a home were lost and somebody did that, the consequences

are far, far worse than what a crime like that would be.

[4:15 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the minister would consider looking at some much more

severe penalties for anybody that might undertake that kind of an activity

during a fire season. It’s something that I don’t know whether the Abbott and

Chapman report would look at, but it’s certainly something that I think needs

to be considered as a strong deterrent, so that when these structural

protection units are put in place, there is the expectation that they won’t be

targets for vandalism.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Again, there is a natural instinct to want to stay behind and protect

your home when it’s in danger, and I fully recognize that. Being from a rural

area, I understand it as well. Part of it is also building up trust between

individuals who have that overpowering natural instinct and the B.C. Wildfire

Service and the relationships there.

I think, overall, I just learned — especially and even more so, this

past summer — about leaving it to the professionals. There were a number of

people that I ran into — you could see it, as well, on media almost daily — who

were able to come to the resolution that material items can be replaced and

that in the end, it’s the value of life that is most important.

I think that’s the message that we want to get out there, as well as the

fact that, yes, people who are interfering in protection of structures, who are

interfering in wildfire-fighting activities, should be prosecuted. Along those

lines, we’ve already, since the wildfire season ended, modified fines. In other

words, we’ve increased fines for infractions under the Wildfire Act. For

instance, if people are disobeying area restrictions, we’ve already increased

the fines for that kind of activity.

[4:20 p.m.]

What the member discusses is a Criminal Code violation. That’s something

that needs to be addressed at the Attorney General’s level, but I don’t

disagree with him that those kinds of actions, by people taking advantage or

just straight-out vandalism, cannot be acceptable and cannot be

accepted.

Some of it has to do, again, with…. The enforcement of law and order is

made more difficult when people are accessing their properties when there’s

been an evacuation order or decide to stay behind. When people don’t leave,

it’s more difficult for law enforcement officers like the RCMP to determine who

is validly in the area or not.

Those are things to consider, but I don’t disagree. If the Criminal Code

changes are part of what needs to be looked at, we’ll look at them, especially

in light of the independent review from Abbott and Chapman.

J. Rustad: I’ll leave that for the minister to have a conversation with his

colleague from the Ministry of Justice.

Quick question. Maybe it’s not a quick question, but it will be a quick

question. Back in the early 1980s, I was fighting fires, and we had a water

delivery system back then that really hasn’t changed a lot to today in terms of

how we put water on a fire. Obviously, technology has improved in terms of

pumps and other such things.

Is the Abbott and Chapman review — as we’re calling it, I suppose,

through this process — looking at and taking any lessons that can be learned

from the potential of using a mass water delivery system?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll go to the actual question around the Abbott-Chapman review. You can

call it Chapman-Abbott or Abbott-Chapman. I think we can interchange the

personnel there. They’re both really well-respected and reflective individuals

that are heading the independent review.

[4:25 p.m.]

We didn’t get prescriptive and specific in the terms of reference, but

we did have in the terms of reference about the tools — a review of the tools

that are used to fight wildfires. Of course, they’re going to respond in their

independent report to what they hear from communities, and so if the variety of

tools are a topic that communities bring up, then they’ll be responding in

their independent review. That’s the short answer.

J. Rustad: Thanks. Another quick question, just to make sure we have it on record.

The Chapman and Abbott review, obviously, is coming out soon here — this month,

in April. At what point will that report be made public, and will the public

see that report in its full extent?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member is correct. The timeline is for the independent review to be

submitted to the Premier’s office at the end of April. That’s the timeline that

was outlined when the panel of Abbott and Chapman was commissioned back in

November, I believe it was.

Depending on the number and style of recommendations, it might take a

little bit of time for a detailed analysis. The recommendations will be made

public. We want to make sure, as far as the timeline goes, that the

recommendations are made public and the ones that are actionable in a critical

manner before the coming fire season are actionable before the coming fire

season.

J. Rustad: I understand there will be…. Obviously, it takes time to review and

respond in that component. I fully expect that that response would come at some

point. You know, it takes some time afterwards. But the question is, I guess,

whether the report itself would be released in advance of a response or with a

response.

I can wait and find out. It was just one of those things that I just

wanted to know and wanted to make sure we get on record. It’s good to hear that

there’ll be an expectation that the report will be released and people will get

an opportunity to be able to review that.

Contractors over the last season…. There were challenges in terms of the

process of being paid. I know a lot of that is the form in which it was put

through. If people were more familiar, then that could get it through the

process quicker. Then in many cases, there was information that might have been

missing and caused delays. And of course, just the overall overwhelming number

of contractors that were involved with the fires last year made it challenging

for the ministry to be able to make payments in a timely manner.

I would ask the minister whether or not, with that particular component

of firefighting and that particular component of the government activities,

there are proposed changes in terms of the future and how that will be handled

in terms of the ability to be able to submit invoices, the format in which

those should be submitted and the timeliness from which those will be processed

and payment made.

[4:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member points to a couple of very valid reasons why there began to

be a backlog in some of the invoice payments around the volume that was

received: an unprecedented fire situation; more than 800 contractors, at one

point or another, working on and providing services to the government; and, of

course, the number of invoices received — 38,495 provincewide, and 99 percent

were paid, to date. We’ve got a few more we’re working on, as of February 2.

That’s still just 1 percent.

A lot of those delays have to do with not just the volume but also with

verifying. Though it’s a crisis situation, we are expending taxpayers’ dollars,

so it’s incumbent on our staff to verify the invoices and make sure they’re

accurate. Errors were found, so those had to be sent back and asked for

clarification.

What we have learned is that the capacity during the fire season to do

that verification, when it is such a large fire season, creates some delay, and

it’s difficult. We’ve already discussed with businesses how to make the

invoicing process tighter — improvements on their end and our end as

well.

One of the parts about adjusting on the fly is that we did recognize,

after the fire situation became more severe, that we needed more personnel in

the financial and processing, and we did increase the number of personnel

there, as an example of adjusting on the fly. The lesson learned there is that

if we have that kind of situation where we see the scope and breadth to the

same extent that we witnessed last year, then we know the kind of personnel

numbers that are required right off the bat, rather than adjusting on the

fly.

J. Rustad: Is the ministry considering going paperless in terms of a process to

help speed up that type of work that needs to be done?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: We want to be as efficient as possible. We’ve already…. Electronic

processing was available at the Cariboo Fire Centre. In this world, not

everybody has the ability to go paperless. So we did encounter some suppliers

and some First Nations who weren’t able to submit electronically or do the

process electronically.

But absolutely, we want to make sure that we’re as efficient as

possible. We have electronic processing available, and we’ll be working on that

to ensure that it’s even better into the future. We want to be efficient,

especially for people who are working for us in crisis situations.

J. Rustad: Just a couple more quick questions on fires, and then we’ll move to

discussions with stuff on floods, on the flooding situations.

From time to time — and it’s obviously hopeful that these things don’t

happen — when contractors are out on the land base helping out in situations

like the wildfires, equipment could get lost, whether that’s hoses or other

types of things, because of the unpredictable nature of fires. Sometimes that

equipment can be compensated or is compensated by the ministry. Sometimes it’s

not.

I guess the question for contractors, the question to the ministry

associated with contractors that bring equipment to a fire, is: is the ministry

considering setting up some sort of insurance program that would be able to

better define how companies could potentially be compensated for a loss, if

there was a loss, and also provide the companies with some sort of assurance

that if there is a loss, these would be the rules that would be in place for

compensation for that loss — as opposed to having to go through a process, and

unknown whether it would be covered or not?

I hope I’m describing this well enough for the minister. Companies that

bring equipment to the table…. If there’s loss of equipment, can there be an

insurance program set up in place that would clearly define the rules around

how compensation would be applied for any of that type of equipment

loss?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I appreciate the member’s question in that, obviously, contractors who

are offering up their services want to see a clearly defined process if their

equipment gets damaged.

A couple of things. We definitely, obviously, last summer and fall

depended on 800 contractors to provide services. Not all of them are directly

related at the front lines to firefighting, but a number of them

were.

The first point is that it’s important for contractors to have their own

insurance. It’s available, should they want it, through private insurance

sources. I would suspect that most of them do. When you have a piece of

equipment that is worth several hundred thousand dollars, whether it’s a

skidder or something else, and you take it to a jobsite, you want to protect

your assets. In that case, that’s our first step: personal accountability about

the contractor having their own insurance.

If there’s an unforeseen circumstance where there’s an emergency

situation, where damage was caused by fire, then we’re always willing to have a

look at that situation. That’s the second point I wanted to make.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister. Maybe he can just have a look and a review.

Safeguard lost about $15,000 worth of hose — which, of course, can’t be insured

through private — and was denied compensation with regard to it. There are

other stories I’ve heard. That’s why I looked for the question around how those

rules could be set out for the future with regard to companies that may have

suffered losses.

Regardless of that, one last question associated with the wildfires that

I had, for now, is around the workforce. Obviously, the number of contractors

that came in was significant, and the process of being able to mobilize

contractors was significant. Yet there are others that could have been

deployed, but to do training or other certification made it much more

challenging for them to be able to get in and to be able to support.

I can imagine that the review that is being done by Abbott and Chapman

will no doubt look at and make some recommendations around that. But is there

work in place already within the ministry to look at our contractor workforce

and to look at ways of being able to strengthen — or, potentially, mobilize

quicker — the contractors where a situation might arise again in the future,

where they might be needed?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: This is an area that I’m quite interested in as well, so it took a

little while to look at the different areas. It’s not just one type of…. When

the member asks of workforce and contractor workforce…. Yes, we are working on

that topic from a number of different aspects.

First of all, for type 2 contract crews when it comes to fighting

wildfires, the type 2 requests for proposals will be out qu