2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 36, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016 (continued)

H. Bains

D. Barnett

B. Routley

S. Gibson

D. Routley

M. Dalton

K. Conroy

D. Plecas

J. Rice

D. Donaldson

Hon. S. Thomson

Bill 19 — Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. M. Polak

G. Heyman

S. Gibson

S. Chandra Herbert

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education (continued)

K. Corrigan

Hon. A. Wilkinson

B. Ralston

L. Popham

S. Simpson

[ Page 11777 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2016

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: In this House, we have continued second reading of Bill 12, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016; and in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, continuing estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — FORESTS, LANDS AND

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

H. Bains: We were on Bill 12. We talked about some parts of it, and there are some more that we need to talk about. As I said before, there are some good things in the bill, and we’re going to support that. But there are things that the minister should be doing and paying attention to when it comes to the forest industry. That’s what I was trying to explain in this House before the break.

We talked about a number of things. We talked about firefighting, fire suppression and where the government is failing. We talked about the professional reliance model, where the government is failing, and I want to talk a bit more about that.

We talked about log exports, the utilization of our fibre that is available to us. I might say — many say — that it is a scarce resource that we have now, considering our capacity to mill it. On the coast, we have more fibre available than the milling capacity.

[1335]

You look at the numbers. Our annual allowable cut on the coast is close to 20 million cubic metres, but our milling capacity, the utilization capacity, is only about 12 million cubic metres. So there are about eight million cubic metres of excess fibre to our needs — of the current milling capacity. I think that’s where the government is failing — eight million cubic metres. I reported earlier that 6.7 million cubic metres in 2013 was exported of that excess timber. Can you imagine if we were able to utilize all of the timber here?

Now, knowing and having worked in the sawmills on the coast, every size of mill…. Because of the size of the logs, we use about half a million cubic metres on a two-shift basis. That would employ about 200 workers year-round on a two-shift basis. Can you imagine, if you multiply that, how many mills that would have supported and how many jobs that 6.7 million cubic metres would have supported? You’re talking about almost 14 mills running full-time, year-round, employing about 3,000 workers. Those would be good, family-supporting jobs. But because of a lack of leadership, because of a lack of, I would say, foresight by the government….

When I say “government,” it’s largely the west wing where the Premier sits. The decision and direction come from that office. It’s all politics all the time, rather than having put some good minds together to say: “How do we utilize that almost seven million cubic metres to create jobs right here in British Columbia for British Columbians?” It would make sense. But her decision is all politically motivated, not what the good policy is to have good-paying jobs grow the economy utilizing our local workers. We have the fibre, but we’re not utilizing it because of the policies of this government.

Now, our processors, our sawmillers, are not required to process those logs here in British Columbia, as it used to be — the requirement under the previous act, before 2003. That was due to the appurtenancy clause that I talked about earlier — that you must use the equivalent volume that you harvest within your own mills. That requirement is no longer there, part of the social contract that we had between the government, on behalf of the people of the province, and the industry. That is completely gone.

What they do, what they want to do — I’m talking about the industry — is they would take the easy route: cut the logs and make quick money by shipping them out of the country. That is not the way to run our economy. That is not a way to create jobs. Those are about 3,000 direct jobs. I’m talking about direct jobs in the sawmills. I’m not even talking about indirect jobs that they would create. In the forest industry, it’s like one to four. You’re talking about another 10,000 or 12,000 jobs in the forest industry, if we were able to work with the industry to have those logs processed here in B.C.

Because of no vision and because we put all our economic eggs in one LNG basket for the last four years, every other sector that built this province has been ignored, including the forest industry. That is the reason that B.C. companies are leaving British Columbia, investing in the United States. I mentioned those names: Canfor, Interfor, West Fraser. Forty sawmills have been purchased in the United States compared to, when this government took power, perhaps one or two.

[1340]

That is the result, and as a result of that, as well, we have, like I said, 30,000 fewer forestry workers working in the mills compared to when they took power. Two hundred mills have been shut down. That’s the result. That is the legacy of this government. That is a serious problem.

Then we take a look: how do we manage our forests that we have here? I talked about professional reliance. This government, rather than…. When they cut all of the

[ Page 11778 ]

forestry services, the staff, so they could tell the world that they had balanced the budget, they cut the staff to a level where there is hardly any enforcement. They say it should be self-reliant and self-policing.

Here is what’s happening. It’s not only with the trees. What else is out there that is related to our trees? Wildlife, for example. Here’s a bit of a scene of that. I will read to you what different people in the industry are saying. It’s on the professional reliance model.

“The B.C. Liberals launched an internal review of how its laws and oversight of resource development affects wildlife habitat. The review, headed by Prince George MLA” — he’s here now; he’s the minister of law enforcement — “is a response, in part, to concern that was raised by different stakeholders, by wildlife user groups. The 43,000-member B.C. Wildlife Federation, B.C. Trappers Association and Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. called on the government to retake control of resource extraction practices, planning and oversight.” That’s what they said.

These are the people that represent almost everyone in those areas. The B.C. Wildlife Federation, B.C. Trappers Association and the Guide Outfitters Association said: “Retake control of resource extraction practices, planning and oversight.” They went on to say: “Government’s move in the past decade to rely on professionals hired by industry to make decisions on the land base with little government oversight has failed.”

This is not the opposition saying. This is not me saying. This is not just anybody saying. These are the people that know the ins and outs of that industry. They live, they breathe and they work in the forest industry. They care about our wildlife habitat. They are the ones who are recommending to the government to retake control of enforcement and that their model of self-reliance has failed.

These are the facts, and do you think the government would listen? No. They did nothing. The report came, it sat there, and they did nothing. What does that say about the government’s reaction to the public’s request to make things better in the forest industry?

Their attitude is contemptuous towards the public by not listening, by saying: “We know best.” Here is an example that I just gave you, and I’ve given you many examples before. The contempt that is shown by this government toward the public and toward the stakeholders in every sector of this economy is horrendous. And then they try to fix a little here, a little there and say: “We are actually working on it.” They’re tweaking a bit here, a bit there, but the real foresight, the real leadership is not there. That’s a serious problem.

Let’s take a look at the fibre utilization, because that is part of this bill. We will talk about that. The waste I talked about, and I talked about the log export amounts.

[1345]

The other thing I want to touch on here is that every time there’s something else that goes on — for example, if there’s a transmission line that goes through our forest area — what happens to that forest? In most cases, that forest that comes out is wasted. They shove it aside, burn it or leave it there to rot. These are millions of cubic metres of logs that should be utilized when our mills are starving of timber.

Now let’s talk about what we are actually doing with our fibre. Let’s do some comparisons. The other two major jurisdictions that have major amounts of forest are Quebec and Ontario, in Canada. This is what they are doing with their fibre, fibre that is available to them.

For every forest sector job in B.C., we cut about 1,400 cubic metres of trees — 1,400 for every job in the forest sector. Ontario gets over four times the number of jobs from each tree that they cut. Quebec gets three times more. Here are the numbers. In Quebec, 476 cubic metres per job. Their AAC is about 29.2 million cubic metres, and they have 61,300 jobs. In Ontario, 328 cubic metres per job. With 12.6 million cubic metres, they are employing with 38,400 jobs.

Now here is the number in B.C. For those who are paying attention, 476 cubic metres per job in Quebec, 328 cubic metres per job in Ontario. In B.C., we are using 1,469 cubic metres to create one job — 1,400. So three to four times more fibre is utilized in B.C. to create one job as compared to Quebec and Ontario. Something’s wrong with that picture.

Where is the leadership to sit down with the industry? Sit down with those who want to invest in the forest industry, to say: “How do we utilize our fibre more efficiently to create more jobs with the timber that is available?”

Let’s learn some lessons from Ontario, from Quebec, from other jurisdictions. You go outside of Canada — to Washington, you go to Sweden — and they are doing much, much better. There are some lessons to be learned from those jurisdictions. But because the decisions made in the west wing here — who I don’t think know much about the forest industry…. All politics all the time. Their decisions are sent down to the ministers: “This is what you do. Leave the industry alone.”

“We are only the spectators,” as the previous minister would say. “Let the industry run the industry.” We have seen the results. I have mentioned how many jobs have left this province.

Here are some other numbers. When you compare where we have been and where we are today, B.C.’s efficiency has gone down by 50 percent since the 1990s. In the 1990s, we needed to harvest just under 800 cubic metres per job — 800 in the 1990s. Since 2002, it has been about 1,200, so from 800 to 1,200 cubic metres per job. While B.C. got worse at that time, Ontario and Quebec were getting better and got more jobs out of each tree that they cut.

[1350]

You see the trend? You see why industry is leaving B.C.? You see why B.C. companies today are investing in the United States? Compare to the 1990s, 1980s, when the foreign companies were coming to invest in B.C.

[ Page 11779 ]

Remember Weyerhaeuser? They came in. They purchased MacMillan-Bloedel. You remember all the other companies that came in from the United States and invested in B.C.? They saw some future in B.C. Now it’s the other way around.

So here, when you compare to Ontario again, B.C. wood and paper manufacturing industries make just 1/5 of the sales revenue from each 1,000 cubic metres of trees. That is one-third compared to Quebec.

Here’s another number. Quebec — they are bringing in $467,000 per 100 cubic metres harvested. Ontario — $805,000 per 100 cubic metres harvested in 2012. Both of those jurisdictions — for 2012, those are the numbers. B.C. — $160,000 per 100 cubic metres harvested in 2012.

You measure it any different way, we’re not doing well in the forest industry — the industry that built the province; the industry that paid for the education of my children and everyone else’s children and generations before us; the industry that paid our health care and all other social programs, built roads and bridges. All the amenities that we enjoy today largely were supported by the forest industry.

The forest industry isn’t even on this government’s radar. It’s LNG all the way. LNG all the way.

Interjection.

H. Bains: Ah, the Minister of Health finally woke up. He finally woke up. He’s talking about LNG versus forest industry.

Let’s do some comparisons. The Premier said 100,000 jobs in LNG. Debt-free B.C. because of LNG — $1 trillion. Let’s look at the results now. That was the promise before the election. Let’s look at the results.

She said three operations in operation by 2015, right? Three. How many have you got today? I would ask the Minister of Health to stand up and say how many you have got today. Zero. During the same time, because the forest industry was being ignored, industry has left B.C. We lost forest industry jobs. No jobs in LNG, but we are losing jobs because all the other industries were ignored. That is the reality. They don’t like to hear it. That’s the reality. I’m waiting for them to stand up one day and say how many LNG plants are in operation today.

Prosperity fund. Remember? The prosperity fund will be there to look after all of our needs.

Interjection.

H. Bains: We’re against something that is not even there. How can you be for something that is not even there?

Show us. The people of the province are saying: “Show us. Don’t stand up and make all those bold statements. Show us.” There’s nothing to show. Nothing. In the meantime, we had the forest industry that was working. They have decimated it. We had the forest industry that was working, at least — decimated it.

Industry is leaving B.C. B.C. companies are leaving B.C. thanks to their misdirection and no leadership. They are going to blame everything, blame everyone else, except look in the mirror to see what wrong they have done.

[1355]

It was all LNG, all the way. Nothing to talk about forest industry. It wasn’t even on her radar when she was campaigning. Now they know that they screwed up royally, and people will be asking some questions on the LNG: “Premier, you promised us. ‘Debt-free B.C.’ on the bus, remember? Where are those LNG jobs?” The election is coming. People will be asking those questions. She had nothing to show for it.

Now, finally, they have realized: “We have to find some other message.” Again, no policy, but a message. Now they are talking about diversity in the economy. Everyone was asking them to diversify our economy. They said: “No, no, no. LNG will solve all of our problems.” Now they are starting…. For the first time in three years, I’m hearing them…. Diversity finally is the word in their vocabulary.

Now, I’ve just, so far, talked about the major industry, logging, and the primary manufacturing side. Let’s talk about the secondary manufacturing. They depend on these mills. Pulp mills depend on these mills for their residuals. If you talk to Russ Cameron, who’s the head of the remanufacturing association, he’ll tell you the state of affairs in his part of the industry.

He’s got some startling numbers. He said that our industry is decimated. There are some really good operators, excellent operators. They’re trying to do the best that they can to keep the secondary manufacturing going, but they are not getting any help from this government. They’re not getting any help from the majors. So they are left at the whim and decision of the major industry.

They look for fibre. They don’t get it. They look for some support in marketing. They don’t get it. He talked about category 2 licensing, which was a successful program that was brought in by the NDP, but this government is sitting quietly and not doing anything for them.

That industry is not doing well. Again, it’s a lack of vision and strategy to make the forestry industry work. I think in an ideal world, the vision should be around that we utilize our forest industry and the trees that we cut to the final product that we sell to consumers, to our customers — from tree to the final product. But that’s not happening, and that’s where those secondary manufacturers come in. That’s where the furniture factories and the cabinet makers come in. When they don’t get the material that they need, the fibre that they need, then they suffer, and the jobs go with it.

You know, you talk about anything. It always comes down to leadership, and we don’t see the leadership. We talk about how we invest in forest health — another ser-

[ Page 11780 ]

ious issue. Report after report, whether it’s the Auditor General’s report or the Forest Practices Board, continuously and regularly give them failing grades — that we’re not investing in forest health.

[1400]

There are thousands, millions — actually, there are three million hectares — of what they call NSR, not sufficiently restocked areas. The trees that should be growing in those areas — we don’t have enough. Those areas need to be replanted, and we’re not doing that. The fertilization program that is needed — we’re not doing that.

I talked about inventory. We don’t even know, according to the Auditor General, which is an independent body — not pulling any sides here. They came down with a report saying that the government doesn’t even know what is there. From replanting to cutting and utilization to nurturing them and caring for them to grow again so that our coming generations can utilize them again — they are failing in every one of those areas.

The stewardship plans. These are the only plans that the licence holders are supposed to put together that become public — only those reports, nothing else. The Forest Practices Board said, in 2005, when they did the first report…. I’m talking about 2005. The first report was done, and they felt there were serious problems with it.

Nine years later, they did another report — last year. They said they are disappointed to report that in nine years, nothing has changed. The government’s goals and objectives that are supposed to be part of those stewardship plans — how the licence holders are managing our forests…. The Forest Practices Board said they’re failing nine years later, after it was identified nine years earlier — the real problems that existed.

The government thought nothing of it. Do you think anything’s going to change? Looking at their history, again, nothing’s going to change. More reports are going to come in, I predict. They will give them failing reports, so we are in a very serious situation when it comes to the forest industry.

Of course, there are some outside forces beyond the control of anybody — in Canada or the ministry or the government here or the minister — such as the softwood lumber dispute, such as the market across the border. In 2008-2009, we saw some real slumps in the United States economy. Well, a real slump. It was a disaster. They weren’t buying very much from anybody, never mind our wood or our forest products, so we suffered.

I say this. The industry is doing what they are supposed to do: look after their shareholders. Workers are doing everything they can to make sure that our forests are looked after and tended to. They’re doing everything they can to nurture those forests — those who are working in the silviculture industry. They’re doing everything to utilize the fibre that is available to create as many jobs as possible.

The ministry staff. Again, I would say that the ministry staff is doing a good job, as well, with the resources that they’re given when there’s cutback after cutback after cutback. You are telling, through the policy, that you’re not allowed to enforce, or it’s going to be self-reliance, self-policing…. Then what are they supposed to do? They only have the tools that they’re given to work with. There are real good ministry staff that I came to know and work with over the years. And the stakeholders out there, community after community that we visited — they’re also worried.

The question always came back: “Who is looking after our forests? Who is looking after our natural resources, such as wildlife?” You can’t just leave it to the industry alone. Industry will do what they’re good at. They’ll manage their affairs. Their primary role is to meet the needs of their shareholders and look at their bottom line. That’s what businesses are for, and I don’t blame them.

[1405]

It’s the government’s responsibility to show leadership, set the policies, and then go out there and say to the industry: “These are our policies. We developed these policies through consultation with the industry, with communities, with workers at the table. We developed these, and now we expect you to live by them. If you don’t, there are consequences, and we will be enforcing them.”

So far, we haven’t seen that. It’s an industry and an operation by chance. We’re spectators. As the previous ministers have said: “We are spectators. There’s nothing we can do.” That’s not how you run any ministry. That’s not leadership.

I think I have touched on almost every part of the bill. There are parts that I said I like. There are some issues that are quite complex in the bill, such as AACs and how the partitions of different licence holders, or TSAs, are going to be managed. Those we will be talking about through the committee stage, when we have that opportunity. We will be able to ask questions line by line so that we get the answers to understand what the bill actually will do.

I would say that I’m happy to stand again. I think there are, in every area that I go, a number of other things that I can talk about, but because there are a number of other speakers who want to get on to speak on this bill, with that, I take my place. Again, it was a pleasure talking about a sector, an industry, that fed me, fed my family and fed thousands of families. They’re still feeding thousands of families today, but generations before us.

We’re hoping that if we can work together and if the government actually listens, we can put together some strategies so that the forest industry will be enjoyed and worked with for generations to come also. What we had, for us, and what generations had before us and what brought this British Columbia to a place where we all proudly say that this is the best province to live…. The forest industry was a major contributor to that.

We cannot ignore the forest industry. We need to bring in policies through leadership, through vision, so we can put the forest industry back on its feet again and can util-

[ Page 11781 ]

ize our fibres to create jobs in British Columbia for British Columbians, as we have done for the last 150 years.

With that, I say thanks to so many of those people who actually have passion, like the United Steelworkers and like Unifor, which was joined by CEP, which had so many workers who worked in the industry before PPWC.

There are many other union and non-union operations out there. Many large operators and many small operators are doing everything they can to continue to make this industry a good industry and a thriving industry. But only if you can get the government to get on side and work with our industry, with our workers, with those communities can we actually do it.

D. Barnett: It is my pleasure to rise today to speak on behalf of my constituents in the Cariboo-Chilcotin in support of Bill 12, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act. Before I really start my speech, I’d like to make a couple of comments regarding some of the issues that the opposition member has brought forward about our forest industry.

I’ve been in the Cariboo-Chilcotin for almost 50 years. My livelihood was made because of others working in the forest industry. I’ve been involved in woodlot licences. I’ve been involved in community forests. I’ve been involved with the forest sector — all kinds of it.

[1410]

Our government really does care about the forest industry, because our communities in the Cariboo-Chilcotin will only survive with a strong, stable forest industry. I take offence when the opposition attacks an industry so valuable and viable to the future of our rural communities. I listen to the opposition point fingers.

I also learned a lot from being a mayor of a small community when the pine beetle hit. We, as a coalition, went to the opposition and said: “Please let us mitigate. We know it won’t stop it, but let us mitigate.” But we had to lock up the parks. We locked up Tweedsmuir. We locked up Schoolhouse Park. But the opposition forgot to put the sign up telling the beetles not to move, and they moved. A lot of the issues within our forests in the Interior and this province were created because we could not mitigate and look after the health of our forest.

I was even invited to Alberta. Alberta wanted to talk to local communities because they knew that this little creature was flying. Some of us went to Alberta. We had the opportunity to talk to the Alberta people, to local governments, to forest industries. They learned from us what not to do. Mitigate — that is why their forestry looks a little better than ours.

The opposition shouldn’t be too proud of themselves and point too many fingers.

As you know, effective at noon today, a ban has been placed on category 2 and category 3 open fires throughout the Cariboo-Chilcotin fire centre. A lower snowpack and an earlier than normal snow melt have resulted in drying conditions in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. Since the beginning of March, the Cariboo Fire Centre has responded to more than 20 wildfires. Many of these wildfires in the Cariboo Fire Centre were the result of grass burning or pile burning when peoples’ fires got away from them due to winds and dry conditions.

There is no doubt and no question that human-caused fires have devastating impacts in our province. On average, 30 to 40 percent of wildfires in British Columbia each year are caused by people. I think both sides of the House can agree that this is simply unacceptable. Careless activities such as throwing a cigarette butt out of a car window or leaving a campfire unattended have the ability to cause large-scale devastation in our province.

Human-caused wildfires have resulted in the evacuation of communities, the hospitalization of residents and the destruction of precious natural resources and critical infrastructure. Furthermore, firefighting efforts in our province to combat human-caused forest fires cost B.C. taxpayers millions and millions of dollars per year.

The 2015 fire season was one of the busiest and most expensive in recent years, with over 283,400 hectares burnt and $278 million spent on wildfire management. The taxpayer money that is being spent on fighting human-caused fires, year after year, could certainly be put towards a multiple of other worthy services in our province.

Our government promised British Columbians that we would enact tougher penalties to discourage irresponsible behaviour that contributes to increased wildfires. Bill 12 delivers that promise by proposing some of the highest wildfire-related violation ticket fines in the country.

These proposed amendments to the Wildfire Act will discourage human activities that contribute to wildfires through the imposition of these stiff new penalties. Legislative changes will result in significantly increased ticket fines for 19 violations under the Wildfire Act and for seven violations under the Wildfire Regulation.

[1415]

For example, the fine for failing to comply with a fire restriction will more than triple under this act, from $375 to $1,150. This represents a 333 percent increase over the previous fine for that offence, which will cause people to think twice before violating fire restrictions in our province.

These increases mean that British Columbia now has some of the highest wildfire-related fines in the country, reaffirming our commitment to keeping our communities and our forests safe.

Bill 12 supports our dedicated B.C. Wildfire Service in their efforts to protect our communities, natural resources, infrastructure and wildfires. This bill discourages actions that could hinder firefighting efforts in the province to ensure that our hard-working firefighters are able to respond to wildfires as effectively and efficiently as possible.

The proposed amendments clarify that interference with firefighting activities or wildfire control measures

[ Page 11782 ]

does not have to be intentional to constitute a contravention of the Wildfire Act. Similarly, non-compliance with an official’s request does not have to be intentional in order to contravene the Wildfire Act. The proposed amendments will also clarify that it is a contravention of the legislation to interfere with government wildfire control activities or with government authorized personnel engaged in wildfire control activity.

Compliance and enforcement provisions will also be strengthened by Bill 12 by establishing an offence for failure to comply with a stop-work order. The Wildfire Act currently makes it an offence to not comply with an official requirement or request. However, the proposed amendments add a more direct and explicit offence for failing to comply with a stop-work order. Under Bill 12, failing to comply with a stop-work order could result in a maximum penalty of $100,000 and imprisonment for up to one year.

As we look toward another beautiful summer in British Columbia, we must keep in mind that wildfire prevention is a responsibility of every single person in our province. Government is doing our part to prevent interference with firefighting efforts in B.C. and to discourage human activities that contribute to increased wildfire risks. Through Bill 12, we are committing to spending taxpayer resources efficiently, we are committing to protecting B.C. forests and infrastructure from damage, and we are committing to keeping communities and residents safe.

Due to the reasons listed above and with my constituents in the Cariboo-Chilcotin in mind, I am proud to speak in support of this bill today.

B. Routley: I’m always finding it interesting to be taken down memory lane by the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. While I do have great respect for her involvement here in the Legislature in many ways, I hasten to correct something that she’s said before. In the past, I’ve just kind of let it ride, but it’s just too outrageous, in my mind, to not be challenged. That is the notion of the pine beetle somehow not being mitigated by the NDP in the 1990s.

She should walk over and see the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource, and I’m sure he’ll correct her that there’s no way, at the end of the day, the pine beetle could have been mitigated. If it could have been done, your government failed. The government failed to mitigate because…. Do you know that it’s now 81 million hectares, five times the size of Vancouver Island?

This member is suggesting that it could have been mitigated by the NDP back in 1990. Since 2001, this government has had a chance to mitigate. That was probably back when it was less than one Vancouver Island, and there was no action. This government didn’t find a solution to mitigate the pine beetle.

[1420]

I’m going to rush to help. I was down in the stacks right here, the library of the Legislature of the province of British Columbia. I randomly happened to pick up a document from 1912. It was a report to the Legislature on — guess what — the pine beetle, 1912.

It was a few hundred hectares that the foresters had found, and they were happy to report to the Legislature that they’d found this small area of 400 hectares. They’d isolated the problem. They’d dealt with it dramatically. Somehow we went from that, back in 1912, to a government that clearly failed to mitigate the pine beetle.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

B. Routley: We are looking right across the aisle, and we can see the tragic reality that if there was anybody….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Member.

Members will wait for their turn when they want to speak. Please, let’s have one speech at a time. Thank you very much.

Carry on.

B. Routley: Anyway, it’s all very interesting, but it does relate to the history lesson that I want to go through. That is, let’s go back to the start of…. We’re now going to be dealing with Bill 12. You know, Bill 12 is amongst a series of bills that this government has introduced. Is it important? In fact, is it critical that we, as opposition, raise the track record of a government that says one thing and does another?

For example, let’s go back to the biggest change in the history of this Liberal government. Back in 2003, Bill 28, the revitalization act — heavy on the revitalization. Let’s remember that we were going to revitalize the economy of British Columbia. That’s what they said. They were going to revitalize the forest industry in British Columbia. Do you know that the word “revitalize” means breathe new life, bring it back to life, reinvigorate?

I want to read a quote from their revitalization document, which says “a brighter future is ahead.” Oh, really? “We’re going to be reshaping our forest sector to restore the B.C. advantage to our province’s number one industry, both at home and abroad. These changes will help revitalize the economy, generate jobs and spinoff benefits for communities and provide long-term contributions to the province’s standard of living.”

Well, how’s the report card doing on that? Let’s take a look at that. I say they failed. Why do I say that they failed? Why do I judge this so harshly? Because the reality is that throughout British Columbia, I experienced…. I used to represent forest workers at the time that this government took over. I watched the mills close. I went through the bankruptcies and mill closures that oc-

[ Page 11783 ]

curred throughout British Columbia, and 35,000 forest workers lost their jobs — more than 200 manufacturing mills gone.

I want to go through the history, the lessons that really should be learned. We were told that they were changing the social contract, if you like. There used to be talk a lot when there was a royal commission…. Any commission on forestry used to talk about the social contract in the province of British Columbia.

What was the social contract? Well, that was that we were providing the forests of British Columbia through tenure, the timber supply…. It’s something that the U.S., by the way, raises quite regularly. Timber licences were granted by the B.C. government, and the quid pro quo was these companies…. What were they getting for their piece of paper and their licence?

[1425]

Why would you just hand out a licence to anybody to go and harvest the timber in British Columbia? Well, the thought was that they ought to be providing a plan to build mills, to build sawmills, pulp mills, to have logging and manufacturing going on together. For a time here in British Columbia, we enjoyed what I would call integrated forest companies — big companies that I remember. In fact, I started out in the forest industry working for B.C. Forest Products. It was an integrated company. What do I mean by integrated? Well, they had the Crofton Pulp and Paper mill. They had not only the BCFP sawmill in Youbou where I worked….

It was actually three mills, by the way. There was the A-mill, the B-mill and the veneer plant all in that one site. Then there was the B.C. plywood…. Victoria Plywood was down here in Victoria in the Inner Harbour. They’re now building a bridge. You could never tow logs there ever again — not that they ever would.

There used to be a sawmill on the Gorge. I remember it well. I toured it as part of our safety committee way back in the day, back in the 1970s, when there were mills all over British Columbia that are now history and now closed. But we should remember that we were being told that we were going to make things so much better, oh so much better. It was going to be wonderful.

Then a year later, we even had the Minister of Forests at the time…. Another piece of wonderful legislation…. Well, it was wonderful from their point of view. If you happen to be a government that takes all kinds of money from major forest companies in corporate donations, then you would understand why, in 2004, there was the removal of private land from tree farm licences held by Weyerhaeuser, TimberWest, Rice Properties, Alcan, Western Forest Products right down here in Sooke. We all remember that — a big to-do.

Why would we give the companies that kind of right? What was in the public interest? In fact, aren’t the words “public interest…”? Doesn’t that sound like an auditor general that talked about the public interest? What exactly was the public interest? Who knows? If only these walls could speak to us and tell us what was really going on. However, that’s not to be. You look forward. I still remember Rick Jeffery and his statement, not to be outdone.

The forest industry workers were really getting brutalized, watching mill after mill close. I went through that corporate consolidation, and I just want to camp there for a minute before I get back to Rick Jeffery. Well, I should finish with Rick Jeffery and then carry on. What Rick Jeffery was saying is that….

This is back in 2005. Not to be outdone, we had the three amigos vision for British Columbia. They got all these concessions from the government, and they were going to make things bigger and better, and they were going to invest. But his vision says that B.C. companies should consider moving their wood product manufacturing to China to take advantage of lower wages and repressive laws.

Now, I know he’s a bit of a jokester. He actually thinks he’s being funny when he says this kind of stuff. But it was not funny. It certainly wasn’t funny to forest workers and their families to have him say they should go to China and take advantage of low wages, repressive laws.

The Chinese manufacturers have a financial advantage over B.C. companies. He observed they have access to a workforce at very low wages, and it’s a very motivated workforce. Well, a very motivated workforce in a country where workers aren’t free. They don’t have the freedom of association to belong to a union, for example. They don’t have the right to stand up and speak.

In fact, I still remember the pictures of a young student standing up against huge power. Nothing has changed, so who are we kidding to have a forest executive who was already…? The forest workers were already being beaten up.

[1430]

By the way, this new vision under the revitalization that I just read that said things were going to be rosy, don’t forget…. I’ll never forget it. I will never forget that this promise…. They stood right up in this very room and told the good people of British Columbia it was going to be wonderful. They were revitalizing the province. It was going to be good for us all, and the results were….

Communities all over British Columbia have been decimated — more than 204 mills and manufacturing plants closed. The number of value-added plants has been cut in half, and logging jobs have been decimated. I’m going to get more to how logging jobs got decimated in a minute.

I also want to give you the benefit, if you like, of what I went through. I started, in 1985, representing forest workers. Back in that time, not only did I have a total of 52 companies, I had…. The majors at the time were companies like Fletcher Challenge. We had MacMillan Bloedel, Pacific Forest Products, Doman Forest Products, CIPA lumber mill in Nanaimo. That’s just over here on Vancouver Island, where I was. We didn’t have any

[ Page 11784 ]

Interfor mills, but there were Interfor mills. There were Field Sawmills up-Island.

I remember all of the different manufacturing, both plywood and log manufacturing that we had all over British Columbia, some of them that were private, but guess what? All of those manufacturing plants…. It started when BCFP sold to Fletcher Challenge, and then Fletcher Challenge spun off, and they shut down all of their mills.

They used to have Youbou and the Elk Falls mill. They did away with their manufacturing as part of this forest revitalization that we’re talking about here — the plan that this government introduced legislation to make things better in British Columbia. Where have we heard that before? We have heard before that it’s going to make things so much better, so much better indeed.

Well, the consolidation continued. We’ve had corporate consolidation in the province of British Columbia to the point where all of the major forest companies like MacMillan Bloedel and Weyerhaeuser are gone. Now Western Forest Products…. Doman — all of their mills gone. All Western Forest Products.

The CIPA mill in Nanaimo…. I went out for lunch with the mill manager in the last week of operation of that mill. I remember the workers begged me to try and negotiate a deal to keep that mill alive. So I did something that I thought I’d never do. That is, I went in, and I said to the manager — in fact, I got approval from the crew, first, to say this: “Okay, what if we work for 25 percent less, with the understanding that we put that 25 percent in abeyance pending a future return to profitability of the company?”

They would open their books to our auditor, and if they had more than a 5 percent return on capital employed, we would start to get paid back, over time, the money that we had, in effect, lent them through this concession of 25 percent.

We tried it out, and do you know what the manager said to me? He said: “Thanks, Bill, but even if you cut the wages in half, it isn’t going to survive. This mill is not going to survive because of log exports.” I said: “Really? Why? You get a lot of your logs now from TimberWest and from MacMillan Bloedel. You buy some of your wood from each company.”

He pointed out to me…. That’s where I learned about this problem that we had, of companies saying: “Well, look. I gave you 100,000 cubic metres last year. If you’re going to start blocking my logs, I’m not going to be giving you 100,000 cubic metres next year. I won’t be selling it to you.”

[R. Lee in the chair.]

The same thing with both of those companies. They basically got these phone calls with, if you like, a veiled threat. I might go so far as to call it blackmail, to phone you up and say: “If you don’t take your block off our timber, we’re not going to sell you the wood that we’ve been selling, the 100,000 or the 200,000, to your mill.”

He had no timber supply, and they told us: “Well, look. Log exports is one of the major reasons this mill can’t survive.” That mill has been bulldozed. I’ve, sadly, seen the end of that — seen the end of the Doman mills. Many of them closed. Same thing with MacMillan Bloedel — all gone.

[1435]

What we have left is corporate consolidation. Where there used to be five to seven different companies, today we have one — one manufacturing company. One: Western Forest Products here on Vancouver Island. Not that we don’t think Western Forest Products is doing the best they can for the boys, the men and the women that work in the forest industry.

I’m sure they are, but corporate consolidation has not been good, in my mind, for British Columbia. It certainly didn’t bring the bonanza that we were promised by forestry revitalization. And by the way, shortly after forest revitalization, I saw the end of Munn’s logging down in Sooke. They’d been around since the 1980s, logging in the Sooke Forest Products area, and they went bankrupt.

I saw Madill logging equipment supply. I used to walk through there. I knew a lot of the machinists, the welders, the fine men and women that worked at Madill in Nanaimo, a wonderful plant. They’d built Madill equipment for all over North America, and I got to see the day where they announced to the crew: “Sorry. There’s been a crash.” It was a combination of the American dollar, but also, the forest industry was not buying equipment.

Oh, they weren’t buying equipment? This is the revitalized forest industry we’re experiencing? I got to see hundreds of good, family-supporting union jobs go the way of the dodo bird, and this government would have me wipe my mind clear like some kind of computer clear-out. You know, get in there and clear out the webs.

Interjection.

B. Routley: Triple delete. Yes, it was supposed to be triple-deleted, but it didn’t quite make it.

Then I saw Madill forest products. I remember warning Ted LeRoy. He’d been a small contractor on the coast for years and years, and suddenly he was going to take over for TimberWest, a huge, big logging…. He went out and leased a whole bunch of equipment so that he could log in Nanaimo Lakes and in Johnstone Strait.

I still remember the conversation I had with him when he said he got the phone call from the big corporate leader that said: “You know what? Things are tough in the industry. We don’t need any logging at all in the operation there at Johnstone Strait, that 300,000 cubic metres.” Here he was, stuck with all of this equipment that he had leased. The lease agreements for several years, and there was no clause in there to get out, no exit strategy.

[ Page 11785 ]

Pretty soon you saw Ritchie Bros. having sale after sale after sale. I’m sure the minister has driven by some of the equipment sales — harvesting, harvesters, feller-bunchers, logging equipment, miles and miles of it. If not, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin must have seen some of the Ritchie Bros. sales where they’re selling out stuff and getting rid of their logging equipment.

And then there’s Donald Hayes. Donald Hayes was in the B.C. Business Magazine for one of the best…. They called his one of the best-run logging firms on the coast of British Columbia. One of the best — front page. I had lunch with Donald Hayes when his company was going bankrupt. He got involved in helicopter logging. Same thing — the phone rang one day, and they just said: “Well, sorry. We don’t need you anymore. That’s just the way it is.”

It’s sad for me to go back and look, to read the fine words that were said — a bright future: we’re reshaping our forest sector to restore the B.C. advantage to our province’s number one industry…. These changes will help revitalize the economy, generate jobs and spinoff benefits for communities.”

[1440]

As the member that spoke before me pointed out, the result is that we lost not only manufacturing jobs, primary jobs; we lost the value-added sector as well. And the number of cubic metres per job here in British Columbia…. As he pointed out, Ontario does four times better. Quebec does three times better. For every job in British Columbia — 1,469 cubic metres per job.

Why? Why did it have to be? Well, a government that decided that it was okay to support log exports, sit down with the big forest companies and work out a deal where they wrote the amendments to the Forest Act…. Essentially, that’s what happened. They decided what they needed.

Meanwhile, here in 2007, after Western Forest Products announced the removal of 28,283 hectares of private lands from three tree farm licences on Vancouver Island, that decision helped pave the way for Western’s conditional sale to developer Ender Ilkay for more than 200 hectares of land and several parcels west of Victoria around Shirley, Jordan River, Jacob Creek Muir Creek and the Sooke Potholes. That created much controversy here in southern Vancouver Island.

Meanwhile, Brookfield, a 50 percent owner of Island Timberlands, was spinning off its timber and power assets to a Bermuda-based partnership to create an offshore investment vehicle. Did you know, hon. Speaker, that right here on Vancouver Island, what used to be MacMillan Bloedel forest land transferred into Island Timberlands? They’re based in a Bermuda company, and this Bermuda company, the new company, will have an international board of directors and is expected to be exempt from certain Canadian taxes and the enforcement of Canadian civil judgments.

So there you go. That’s how this government plans on making things better for British Columbians — as they put it, reshaping for a greater future, revitalizing the economy, generating jobs and spinoff benefits for communities. So 35,000 jobs lost. Have we come back a bit? Oh, a little bit. But those mills and those communities have been devastated all over British Columbia, and this government knows it.

They wake up in the morning with the new dream of LNG. As others have said…. Three years ago now, we heard the promises — 100,000 jobs, trillions of dollars in a prosperity fund. It was all going to be wonderful, and what have we got? A bag full of nothing, just like the good people of British Columbia were promised back with the revitalization plan. One needs to look no further than the truth of what actually happened with the revitalization plan.

Another one. There was this round table, the coastal forest action plan. Oh, there’s a winner. October 2007. What was promised there? Well, government had introduced a market-based forest policy designed to create a business client to attract new investments and to allow those new mills to be built. Well, as you will have heard by now, a lot of the companies right here in British Columbia took any investment that was put into their companies through the help they received from this B.C. government, and they invested in mills south of the border. They’re now owning 40 mills at last count.

Companies that used to be primarily here in British Columbia, companies like West Fraser and Canfor and Interfor, have heavily invested across the line.

Why? You know, the American softwood lumber deal…. They would tell you: “Oh, isn’t it awful that the Canadians have this system?” I would argue that we have a right as democratic citizens in the province of British Columbia to determine our own forest policy. We don’t need a foreign government telling us how our forest policies should work. Is it broken? Yes. Yes, it is. I’ve just described how our forest policy is broken. It sure didn’t do what the manufacturer promised.

[1445]

If this was a car, you would say: “We got a clunker here. We got a lemon.” This is a bad deal all around because of what’s happened with the so-called new era, the heartland strategy, and then the revitalization act that have resulted in a catastrophic impact for communities all over British Columbia, including the community that my young family first worked in, in Youbou.

It’s gone. It’s a tourist town now. You know, you can drive up there. Nice place to visit, but there’s sure no economic strategy — unless you want to sit and watch the logging trucks roll through town and create dust on their way to the log export market. You could do that for an afternoon, if you had nothing else to do, but I wouldn’t recommend it. You could wave a little flag as the truck went by making dust and say: “There’s part of our revital-

[ Page 11786 ]

ization plan.” Maybe I’ll bring together a bunch of the forest workers that used to work in those mills, and we can stand on the side of the road with a little banner. Hmm, revitalization. Didn’t work for us. Sad.

I do want to finish up with Bill 12 and the wildfire, the mischief clause that intends to deal with people that are violating the provisions of the act. I support many of the changes. I certainly support the changes in

definitions that are going to help the chief forester partition areas so that companies that are not cutting the dead pine beetle trees, or if they’re high-grading, the chief forester can partition an area. I understand that one of the new features is having the right to partition and to deal with residual fibre.

Is that a good thing? Yes. So are there good elements of this? Is it all bad? No, it’s not all bad. In fact, I would applaud any changes that are trying to finally get at the waste loss here in British Columbia, the amount of volume of wood that used to be just left on the side of the road or burned. In some cases, more than 20 percent of the volume would have been just left. If the pulp market was any good, they would have taken it as pulp logs. Now we need to be able to use that wood to create pellet operations and help pulp mills and provide waste for other types of remanufacturing.

I do see that as a move in the right direction. Again, I do applaud the improvements to the wildfire, but I would say that it would be nice to see our old Mars water bomber put back into action. Why do I say that? Not just for historical reasons. I talked to somebody that lives out in Renfrew, and when they had that two-week fire, they said that they knew that had the Mars water bomber arrived, it would have been a two-day fire.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

S. Gibson: On behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford-Mission, I rise today to speak on Bill 12. Of course, Abbotsford-Mission has its own share of beautiful forested vistas. It’s perhaps the first area east of Vancouver on the north side of the river that has significant forests — and beautiful vistas they are — and the Fraser River.

This legislation amends three acts: Wildfire Act, Forest Act and the Wildlife Act. Last year, we saw one of the busiest and most expensive wildfire seasons in recent memory. Wildfire prevention is everybody’s responsibility. However, we still see human-caused wildfires every year. In fact, on average about 30 to 40 percent of wildfires in B.C. are human caused — 283 hectares last year alone. We need to find ways to lower that figure dramatically. While public outreach is expanded, which emphasizes wildfire protection, with public education and enforcement we can do much more.

[1450]

With this legislation, we’re taking a tougher stance to discourage behaviour that contributes to increased wildfire risk and helps protect many communities throughout the province. This legislation includes provisions aimed specifically at people who interfere with firefighting efforts. This legislation clarifies what is considered interference in terms of actions that could hinder firefighters. This legislation also clarifies that interference does not have to be intentional to contribute to a contravention.

Compliance and enforcement provisions are strengthened by establishing offence penalties up to $100,000 and/or imprisonment for up to one year for failing to comply with a stop-work order. As well, we are significantly increasing ticket fines for 19 violations under the Wildfire Act and for seven under the wildfire regulations.

These changes mean that B.C. will now have some of the highest wildfire-related violation tickets in the country. One example — the fine for failing to comply with a fire restriction under the Wildfire Act is increasing from $345 to $1,150, which includes a $45 and a $150 victims surcharge, respectively. This represents a 333 percent increase over the old fine for that offence. We believe this increase will deter people from walking away without completely putting out their campfires or just leaving a fire when a ban is in place.

This legislation also amends the Forest Act and the Wildlife Act. The proposed amendments to the Forest Act would continue to implement the recommendations from the B.C. Timber Sales effectiveness review. The amendments proposed will enable the minister to more effectively balance government objectives for communities and First Nations, while ensuring that B.C. Timber Sales have access to a sufficient supply of Crown timber to provide credible cost and price benchmarks for B.C.’s timber-pricing system.

Currently, the Forest Act does not provide the appropriate authority to expand the areas of all types of community forest agreements. As we know, many community forest agreements are held by First Nations. The ability to expand community forest agreements provides flexibility where expansion makes sense. Under the proposed legislation, an expansion to a community forest agreement would only be considered in timber supply areas where there is available volume apportioned to community forest agreements by the minister.

Additionally, the proposed amendments to the Forest Act will provide security to users of residual fibre, such as pellet producers in the Interior. This will allow for better planning and increased certainty for the use of residual fibres. This would also increase the term of the fibre supply licence while also providing the licence holder with more certainty. Increasing fibre use would help mitigate challenges with the mid-term timber supply and support the investments made in rural communities by the forest sector.

Finally, the proposed amendments to the Wildlife Act will facilitate the move to e-licensing for hunting licences, as well as compulsory reporting requirements and on-line payments. The on-line system will allow the govern-

[ Page 11787 ]

ment staff to indicate if a licence or permit is suspended or cancelled. As well, this legislation will include minor changes to group trapping–related provisions together in the act and to clarify who has authority to issue these permits. The general process won’t change, and regional managers will continue to issue permits in these cases when they are statutory decision-makers.

Changes are also being proposed to make the guide-outfitter reporting system much more fair and efficient. Under the existing system, the guide-outfitter must fill out a report immediately after a hunt is over and give a signed copy to each hunter. The proposed amendments will allow a guide-designate to file a report. These reports are hunter-specific and allow experienced assistance guides working for an outfitter to also file such a report.

[1455]

There are a number of important changes in this legislation. I’m happy, as the MLA for Abbotsford-Mission, to enthusiastically support them and speak in favour today.

D. Routley: I rise to speak to Bill 12, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016. The main feature, I would suggest, to this bill, as has been indicated and focused upon by speakers from both sides of the House, is the apparent crackdown on people disrupting wildfire suppression efforts — that penalties are being increased and that enforcement will, hopefully, reduce the interference with wildfire suppression.

Along that vein, I suggest that the first group that should endure these increased fines should be the B.C. Liberal government, which has most assuredly stood in the way of the suppression efforts of wildfires in B.C. This government has — in so many ways, in so many different areas of public policy — blamed others for what has largely been their own failure.

Yes, there was interference by a drone in a fire in B.C., and that needed to be dealt with. But the bigger question of interference with the suppression of wildfires in B.C. is the B.C. Liberal government itself and its failure of public policy, its failure to guard the public interest and its failure to live up to its obligations under the Filmon report, which was issued after the 2002-2003 Kelowna wildfires.

This report came out in 2004 and recommended that some 680,000 hectares of interface lands — that’s the land directly between community and forest — needed to be treated. Treated would mean either preventively burned or having slash removed, dead trees removed, fallen trees removed, in order to protect communities, buildings and businesses from the devastation of wildfires that make the jump between the forest and the community.

That was a significant report by former Manitoba Premier Gary Filmon. It made these recommendations. The government accepted these recommendations, and then the government did virtually nothing to fulfil these recommendations. After more than ten years, less than 8 percent of that land has been treated. In these ensuing years, of course, the interface areas have grown as communities have expanded. The interface areas have become more in need of treatment as the forest cycle of life and death proceeds.

I think it’s a little bit tragic. I think it’s irresponsible of the government to stand and claim that they are taking steps to mitigate wildfires or they’re taking steps to control the interference with wildfire fighting. Of course, we don’t want to see people flying drones into the paths of wildfire fighting aircraft, as happened in the past fire season. But it really begs of every British Columbian that we collectively remember that this government has so bitterly failed our forests — our forest health, our forest industry, our forest communities.

In terms of forest health, what could be more obvious than the replanting of forest areas that have been harvested? In that area, the government has fallen down quite severely. There are over two million hectares of not sufficiently restocked lands in this province.

The government will play games with that designation and try to recognize only the minimum that they must, but even at that, the government admits that there are over 600,000 hectares of not sufficiently restocked lands. This is a failure of the government to guard and protect the future health of our forests, and we will pay a price in B.C. for a very long time for that failure.

[1500]

The Filmon report came out in 2004. What do you think the government did in 2005 when it came to wood waste and slash left behind in the forests? Well, one might expect that the government would have tightened up regulations and reduced the slash and waste that was left in the woods. Instead, one year after the Filmon report, in 2005, the B.C. Liberal government increased the amount of slash and waste that could be left in the forest to either burn or rot and contribute to the negative effects of climate change as well as waste a B.C. resource.

The number one challenge in our forest industry currently and over the past decade has been access to fibre, access to fibre at a time when the B.C. Liberal government has overseen an increase in log exports from this province — from around 800,000 cubic metres at their peak during the 1990s to more than eight million cubic metres today. A cubic metre of wood is, essentially, a telephone pole. So you had 800,000 telephone poles of wood being exported as raw logs, at the maximum level, in the 1990s.

That has increased to eight million today, more than eight million telephone poles’ worth of wood, more than eight million cubic metres being exported without providing jobs beyond their harvest in British Columbia — no value-added.

This is all the result of failed public policy, failed forest policy, from this government in answer to its major contributors, its major donors, the major forest companies. We were promised, as a province, when these chan-

[ Page 11788 ]

ges were brought about in the 2002-2003 period, that the forest policy changes the government was entertaining at the behest of their large donors would, in fact, result in a revitalized industry with massive investment in new mills and new production value-added jobs in the province. What it, in fact, led to was the loss of more than 200 value-added plants.

So 200 mills that process wood, that provide jobs and that make the best use of our fibre were lost since the disintegration of the forest industry under the B.C. Liberal government. Those 200 closures represent 50 percent of the value-added plants in this province. So 50 percent of the value-added plants in this province have been closed, resulting in the loss of 60 percent of the value-added jobs in British Columbia.

As has been pointed out by a previous speaker, in Ontario, the forest industry produces five times more jobs per cubic metre than the B.C. forest industry. In Quebec, the other major player in the forest industry in Canada, their forest industry provides four times as many jobs per cubic metre as the forest industry does here in British Columbia. The largest contributing factor to that was this change in policy, in the 2002-2003 period, that led to the disintegration of our industry.

An integrated industry, as was described by the member for Cowichan Valley earlier, was an industry where a company would have logging and rights to log, rights to use the resources of the province. In return, they would provide, through appurtenancy, the provision that they must process the wood in B.C., in their region. They would own sawmills. Then the derivative waste, the chips and sawdust, from the sawmills would move on that integrated chain to their pulp mills, their pulp and paper industry.

This was a model that, although it had its difficulties and its quirks and its problems…. It maybe required renovation. It did not require that we tear down the house. That’s what the B.C. Liberals did. They tore down the house, and we ended up with the loss of more than 200 sawmills.

[1505]

Often when we bring up these numbers, the government will say, “Well, we had an international economic crisis in 2008,” which is true. But this government were such marvellous wizards of management of the forest industry that during the largest postwar housing boom in the United States, in the period leading up to 2008, this government oversaw the loss of 50,000 forestry jobs.

There has been some comeback so that we’re only down 30,000 forestry jobs now, but they lost 50,000 forest sector jobs during the biggest postwar housing boom in the United States since the Second World War. That’s really quite a feat, I would suggest. That was clearly a result of the policy changes that this government brought about and the resulting increase in raw log exports and decrease in forest industry jobs.

The member for Cowichan Valley also described the pressure that’s put on independent companies who process wood not to block the export of wood from B.C. in order to preserve their access. They’re essentially blackmailed into not blocking wood from being exported, logs from being exported, in order to maintain their access to any fibre at all. This is an absolute mismanagement and failure to guard the public interest of this province.

The role of government has to be to balance the forces in our society in the public interest. When they absolutely surrender that role to themselves being held hostage by major donors and their interests, then our government, the B.C. Liberal government, has failed the people of B.C., failed the forest industry, failed the future of forests in British Columbia and failed the interests of our forest-dependent economy as a whole.

People can easily see that the major donors to the B.C. Liberal Party have had their prayers answered when it comes to forest policy. They had their prayers answered when the private lands on Vancouver Island were removed from tree farm licence management — a $200 million gift to these companies with nothing in return to the people of B.C. except more lost jobs, more failure in the forest industry.

The Auditor General at the time described it as, indeed, a failure to guard the public interest. That’s the way the Auditor General described that decision — also an answer to the donors of the B.C. Liberal Party.

If you look at the cynicism that has developed in this province around public process…. People have become cynical because they can easily draw a conclusion from the following equation: donations equal policy change, equals profit, equals lost public interest. That’s been the story, as minimally reduced as possible. Donations equal policy change, equals profit, equals lost public interest.

The people of B.C., our forests and our environment will pay for that for generations to come, because this isn’t simply a light switch that you can turn on and off. Once there’s a gap in the cycle of life in our forests, we don’t just simply plant more trees quicker and have them grow faster. It takes just as long to grow a tree, if not longer, in an unhealthy forest, and those lost years will never be recovered.

With this government deciding now, as its latest tinkering at the edges of forest policy, to do such things as specify portions of an annual allowable cut that would create greater certainty for those companies that are busy processing and using the residual fibre, the surplus fibre, the waste in the woods — pellet companies and companies that make chips for the pulp and paper industry…. Well, that’s something that we can support, but as a tiny measure.

[1510]

The bigger picture is not being dealt with. We’ve had a series of forest-related legislation come through this House, none of which has dealt with the fundamentals

[ Page 11789 ]

that are dysfunctioning as a result of the forest policy changes that were made some 13, 14 years ago.

This is something that…. I don’t know if people are quite aware of the direct connection between what happened in those days and what’s happening now. The government, in a way, had the fortunate cover of the 2008 financial crisis.

As I said before, that was not responsible for the losses of jobs in the forest industry. This government oversaw the loss of 50,000 jobs, as I said, during the largest post-war housing boom in the United States, the loss of now over 200 mills, the loss of 50 percent of our value-added industry, the loss of 60 percent of the jobs in the value-added industry in B.C. at a time when we should be focusing on ever-greater job creation out of each and every cubic metre that is harvested in this province.

If we’re going to have a responsible approach to managing our forests, if we’re going to have a responsible approach to keeping our forests healthy in order to have a greater, more positive impact on climate change, in order to have a global contribution to the fight against climate change, we need to have healthy forests — and millions of hectares of unplanted forest lands that have been logged.

We have hundreds of thousands of hectares of land that is still covered with dead trees that former Premier Filmon recommended in his report needed to be removed. All of these things have not been done, so we find ourselves now in such a desperate place.

At the current pace of fulfilment of the Filmon report recommendations on treating interface lands, it will take more than 100 years to complete the task. It’s a little bit like painting a bridge. You start at one end, you get to the other end, and you go and start at the end again. It needs to be done again. It’s the same thing with forests. They grow again. In the interface areas that have been treated, the brush grows again, and they need to be treated again.

We have no idea at this point where this province stands, but it stands in a bad place when it comes to the recommendations and provisions of the Filmon report. It’s hard to believe that a government could do a worse job if they set out intending to do a worse job.

You look at the resiliency of the forest industry. Even though we’ve seen the loss of 50,000, now 30,000, jobs and even though we’ve seen the loss of half of our value-added industry, forest products still account for $12.7 billion worth of exports from this province. That compares to natural gas exports of less than $1 billion — I think around $600 million, at the last reliable count.

In which industry should the B.C. government place the economic eggs in the basket of hope? The industry that is absolutely fully 100 percent renewable if it’s taken care of — the forest, which we all depend on for our ecology, for the beauty of our province, for wildlife, for healthy communities and to resist climate change?

No, the B.C. government didn’t want to focus on that industry because it had done such a desperately poor job. Instead, they wanted to float a balloon. They had the province and all of its public policy decisions obsessively focused on one industry, represented by three letters, LNG.

[1515]

While we support the development of the liquefied natural gas industry in B.C. — in fact, the Oil and Gas Commission that the NDP brought into effect in the ’90s was responsible for the development of that industry — we are not foolish enough to forget that a $12.7 billion, absolutely 100 percent renewable industry requires maintenance, management and care. Something that has absolutely been abysmally failed by the B.C. Liberal government over the past 13, 14 years.

At the time of the loss of appurtenancy in the woods and the change in the way the charges to forest companies were calculated for the wood that they take out of the forest, we saw an increase in high-grading of the forest. That means we saw companies increase their dependence, their removal of the highest grade of fibre in the forest. We saw the government, at the same time, allow these companies to leave more and more wood waste behind.

On the private lands in Vancouver Island even six or seven years ago, there was a 100 percent increase in the amount of fibre left as slash to rot or burn and damage the climate rather than help repair the climate — and waste fibre that could have produced jobs in British Columbia.

Their decisions have had such perverse outcomes. At a time when every British Columbian realizes that we must make the most productive use of the natural resources that we take from this province in order to be environmentally responsible and economically successful — at that very time — we now see the result being over eight million cubic metres of logs being exported.

To add salt to that wound, injury to that insult, currently companies cut the logs into 40-foot sections in order that they fit into a shipping container. When they do that, they cut off the butt of the tree. Sometimes it’s six or eight feet at the thickest, most productive point in the tree — at its butt — and they leave it. They leave it to rot or be burned because it won’t fit in a container. Now, how does that sound? It sounds absolutely, unfathomably ridiculous.

Interjection.

D. Routley: It makes no sense. The member for Stikine knows that it makes no sense. Every British Columbian knows that it makes no sense. We’re tired, in our communities, of watching truckload after truckload of logs be hauled to the shore to be floated to freighters, loaded and carried away without contributing a single value-added job.

Don’t allow the B.C. Liberal government to tell you that it can’t be done. In Ontario, they get five jobs for every one that we get from every cubic metre of wood harvested. In Quebec, they get four times as many jobs.

[ Page 11790 ]

Now, if that isn’t an indictment, a conviction, an absolute description of failure, I don’t know what is.

In the end, there are some elements of this bill that deserve support — definitely. We don’t want to see people flying drones into the path of aircraft that are fighting wildfires. But for that to be what this government offers up as mitigation for wildfire when they each year budget $60 million…. It doesn’t matter what the expectation is; it’s $60 million for wildfire fighting every year. Well, for the last ten years the average has been $180 million. If you look at these past ten years, there’s been just shy of $2 billion spent on fighting wildfires and approximately 1/10 of that put into mitigating them.

[1520]

I think it begs any thinking British Columbian to arrive at the conclusion that the B.C. Liberal government has abandoned the public interest, has abandoned the forest industry, has essentially answered the call of its donors and is proving the cynical equation that British Columbians make about politics: that donations equal policy change equals profit for the donors equals lost public interest for them. And that contributes to a failure of process in the minds of British Columbians.

We hear it all the time. If the B.C. Liberal members are listening to people in their communities, in their constituency offices, they’ll hear the same thing we’re hearing. We’re hearing that people have arrived at this cynical conclusion in British Columbia, the Wild West of campaign and political party funding — that if you have enough money, you can buy your ticket. And you can buy your ticket through public policy changes from a government that is beholden to major, large-scale donors and has forgotten its obligation to public interests.

I don’t enjoy saying that. There’s one of these things. We’re in opposition, so we watch the government send the environment and economy and society of B.C. to hell in a handbasket, right? That hurts the government — or it should, if people haven’t become so totally cynical. In fact, it encourages the opposition to fight harder because we love the province. We hope that people will thrive. We hope that the economy will thrive.

When a government makes a series of decisions — like this government did with forest policy — that essentially surrender their role in setting public policy to their largest donors and forfeits to them an opportunity to simply pursue policy changes that increase their shareholder value and increase their dividend payouts at the expense of public interest, at the expense of the environment, at the expense of the future of the forest industry, at the expense of forest health, at the expense of respect for First Nations — all of those things — then we all fail.

The long-term view, if you look out from this, is not encouraging. When you forget that you have to replant the garden, you don’t have a product the next fall. The B.C. Liberal government has forgotten that it needs to replant and tend the garden — the forests of our province. They’ve forgotten that this is their primary obligation to forests, to the environment and to the economy in British Columbia, when it comes to this industry and this ministry.

I do think that the party that should be targeted with these fines for having stood in the way of the suppression of wildfires is the B.C. Liberal government and its members, who have failed to respond with public policy that will encourage forest health, job creation, a stronger economy and a more sustainable environment. That’s the legacy.

I’d like to say something nicer than that: “Glad there are not going to be drones flying into the way of helicopters.” That’s probably good. But the fact that the government has bitterly, abysmally failed to deal with the source, the cause of the wildfire epidemics in B.C., is simply pointing that way: “Next window, please. It’s not our problem. Somebody flew a drone in the way of a helicopter.

“It’s not the fact that we’ve only completed 8 percent of the Filmon report’s recommendations in ten years. That’s got nothing to do with it. It’s not the fault of us for loading up the forest land base with slash and waste that will rot or burn. No, that’s not the problem. It’s not the fault of the government for not having planted millions of hectares of lands that should have been planted, or seeing that they were. No, it’s an individual who flew a drone into a fire area.”

[1525]

That is serious, but it pales in comparison to the public policy hazard that is represented by the government.

M. Dalton: I’m happy to speak in favour of Bill 12. We, as British Columbians, are really blessed by an abundance of beautiful forests across our province. It certainly is true in my riding of Maple Ridge–Mission. Every year countless families, both local and from out of the province, throng to them to enjoy their splendour and the unparalleled recreation opportunities they offer. Visitors are just amazed by how green and forested our province is. It’s a real draw.

Indeed, camping, hiking and exploring in the forests of our province are ingrained in our spirit as British Columbians and are an important part of our way of life. Our province is home to a quarter of the world’s coastal temperate rainforests and one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world. They are a global treasure and one that must be protected and carefully managed by our provincial government.

We’re doing that. Last month we passed the Great Bear Rainforest Act, unanimously, protecting a good portion of the rainforest and still allowing logging in specified areas, which is so important to our economy. Our forests cover some 55 million hectares. That’s larger than France. We need to show responsible forest management, and we’re doing that. As a matter of fact, just 1 percent of our forests are logged each year.

[ Page 11791 ]

British Columbia has a proven track record of stewardship over its forests, which is why we brought forward Bill 12, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016. Bill 12 addresses a number of important shortcomings in the current regulatory regime to ensure that our province’s forestry management professionals have the resources they need to protect our global treasures.

Most importantly, these proposed amendments will strengthen the capacity of the B.C. Wildfire Service in their efforts to protect our forests and communities from wildfires. Penalties will be raised to discourage interference with firefighting activities or wildfire control measures. A case in point, which I believe may have been mentioned by other members, is drones.

It’s starting to be a real problem in jurisdictions across North America. The drones are seen as a hazard to the planes, so the airspace must be closed to fixed-wing aircraft if they’re seen in the air. It can kill firefighters in the air if there is a collision.

If you can’t support our firefighters in the air, then what’s going to happen on the ground is that the fires will certainly get bigger. It’s significant. It’s a huge issue, and it does interfere with fire operations. I think of California. Last year in Osoyoos, there was a fire with drones. What’s happening — the reason for this — is that the number of drones is increasing as the cost is decreasing.

I believe that sales in the U.S. alone last year, in 2015, were 700,000 drones, from 430,000 the year before and 128,000 in 2013. So it’s going up astronomically. It’s important that our legislation reflects what’s happening with technology.

The industry group estimates that this year’s average sale price is approximately $200, which is down from last year and the year before. It’s going down significantly. Most operators of drones who go near wildfires are probably unaware of the dangers. Some are just reckless, perhaps motivated to get images that no one else can get, maybe to sell them.

With these amendments, British Columbia will have some of the highest wildfire-related fines in the country. It demonstrates the seriousness with which we take the protection of our forests and will send a clear message that we will not tolerate reckless behaviour which threatens their health.

Last year we had one of the busiest and most expensive wildfire seasons in recent memory. And while we continually remind people about how dry our province gets in the summer, we still see many human-caused wildfires.

[1530]

Hopefully, by tripling the fine amount from $345 to $1,150, we may see even less human-caused wildfires in the coming season. We all play a

part in making sure that we are monitoring or even watching over our neighbours, campers, to make sure that they extinguish their campfires. It’s important.

This legislation will also serve to strengthen business certainty for the forestry sector, a key part of our province’s growing economy and a source of livelihood for many families across British Columbia for generations. Forestry is an essential element in wealth generation, employment and way of living in British Columbia, and it’s been like this for generations in most B.C. communities.

In Maple Ridge, we have the Hammond Cedar mill, which has been the biggest producer of cedar products in the world. We have a number of mills in Ruskin, which is part of Maple Ridge, but it’s close to Mission. Mission has a number of mills. We also have logging in the Mission tree farms. All throughout the province we have so many communities, and jobs are dependent on the forestry sector.

I know that the previous member was talking about job decline. But we have actually seen…. One of the factors with the decline in jobs is automation and technology. That has impacted all the different resource sectors, agriculture. When I had a tour of Hammond mill with the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows about a year or so ago, just the automation and the involvement of computers and x-rays and cuts — everything….

All this does increase productivity, but there’s a lot of technology and automation, and B.C. leads the field in this. That certainly does have an impact upon employment, but on the flip side, B.C. is also, as far as compared to the rest of the country, seeing significant growth in employment in other fields, whether it be the tech sector or aerospace or other fields. That’s important.

Bill 12 will update legislation pertaining to B.C. Timber Sales, which provides the cost and price benchmarks for all timber harvested from public land in British Columbia. Under these proposed amendments, the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations will have the ability to ensure that communities and First Nations continue to benefit from our forests while also ensuring that B.C. Timber Sales has access to an acceptable supply of Crown timber.

It’s an effective measure to balance the prosperity of the forestry sector with the duty we have as British Columbians to protect and preserve our forests for our children and grandchildren.

This bill also addresses a number of administrative housekeeping items, updating and modernizing relevant forestry legislation. For example, changes will be made to improve the use of residual fibre, expand the areas of community forest agreements and allow the minister to put binding restrictions on those that are not abiding by the allowable annual cut partitions.

It’s hard to overstate how important our forests are. They are vital to our economy, to our health and to our way of life as British Columbians. Bill 12 will strengthen the already world-class measures we have in place to protect our forests. In doing so, we will ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy a benefit from this

[ Page 11792 ]

great treasure we’ve been so blessed with. That’s why I’m happy to speak in favour of Bill 12 today.

K. Conroy: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 12. I’m not going to repeat all the things my colleagues have said about forestry. I agree with them, and I think that they’ve spoken really well.

I just wanted to put on the record some of the questions around the Wildlife Act, which I’m sure will come up in committee stage. I just thought I’d give the minister a heads-up that there are some questions that come around this.

The interesting one is facilitating e-licensing. Of course, I know it’s 2016, and this is the way that people are moving towards — accessing on line to register for licences and to complete compulsory reporting requirements and making payments on line. I just wonder…. I hope that the ministry has considered provisions for people that don’t actually have emails and computers, and how we’re going to deal with that.

[1535]

Is that going to be through Access B.C., or are there going to be places in the community? I know that when the Ministry of Social Development put applying for social assistance on line, it created huge consternation for people — I know in our area — that had to suddenly go on line to apply for social assistance. There were a lot of people coming into our office and trying to get help to suddenly do this.

I’m hoping that there is something that the ministry has so that they can have this initial transition period to help people. I was thinking of someone like my father-in-law, who is no longer with us, but who was an avid hunter and certainly was not an avid user of computers. He would be at a loss with trying to do this and quite upset about it. Hopefully, the ministry has thought this one through, and there are ways to support people to access it somehow.

I hope that the system that the government uses, that this ministry uses, has been tested and isn’t going to end up like some of the systems that have been used in other ministries, like Education and Health, that haven’t worked out. I think that would be a horrific situation.

I also notice the “An agent of a guide-outfitter is allowed to submit a guide report.” That begs the question: does that agent have to be part of the hunt? Does that agent have to be involved with whatever is being reported? What kind of parameters are around the agent of the guide-outfitter?

I see that this bill — or legislation, actually; it’s going to be introduced as regulation — would allow for fines and tickets for first-time offenders without going to court. I’m curious at how this would happen. I know that our conservation officers in this province are greatly overworked and have considerable issues with trying to ensure that they’re taking care of all the different regulations as they exist now on the books. I’m wondering if there is going to be some support for them to ensure that they can…?

If they go up to give somebody a fine, are we talking about a conservation officer walking up to someone in the bush that’s poaching or has done something and being able to say: “Okay, you owe me X number of dollars for how you’ve just contravened the act”? Is it as simple as that? How is that going to work? I’m sure conservation officers aren’t going to be crazy about the idea of suddenly having to collect fines and tickets. I’m just wondering where, and if, there are going to be more boots on the ground, so to speak.

We know now that there are issues in the field where conservation officers aren’t able to answer the call-outs that they get as it is, because they cover — especially in rural B.C. — such huge geographic areas. I know, in our area, if they get a call-out north of Nakusp and someone has to come up from Castlegar, it can take them two, three hours to get up there. Sometimes by the time they get there the issue has disappeared.

So it’s one that I just want to also mark for the minister, which I’m sure will come up at committee stage.

I was looking through the actual changes in the act. It’s talking about how the regional manager can issue trapping licences to a person who is a citizen of Canada or a permanent resident of Canada. I’m wondering if, in this act, there is anywhere where B.C. residents will actually have a priority over licences issued in B.C. Is it all one big happy bunch of people applying for licences, or do B.C. residents have priority?

Also, in

section 59, too, that was repealed, around guiding outfitters and guiding territories…. I’m wondering, again, with this section…. Are these licences, these certificates for the guiding territory being issued, again, for priority to B.C. guides? Or does this continue to allow foreign guides to come into B.C. and have the right to guide in B.C.? Is there actually legislation — or there’s wording in here, regulation somewhere — that will ensure that B.C. guides actually have priority over other provinces in Canada or foreign guides? As we know, now there is regulation that allows foreign guides to actually come in and hold guiding licences within B.C.

Those are just some of the issues that, when I’m reading through this bill and thinking what are…? What do these actually mean? I’m sure we’ll have an opportunity to canvass this thoroughly in committee stage.

[1540]

I wanted to just respond to the wildfire

section of the act. I thoroughly understand the issues around that. Anybody that’s driven through Rock Creek this year — after the devastating fire in that region — on your way to Kelowna would see the effects of a wildfire.

A lot of conversation was that this fire was, in fact, human-caused. I think that if we can work to ensure that people who do cause this mass destruction like what happened in the Rock Creek–Westbridge area would actually

[ Page 11793 ]

be held accountable for it, I applaud that. I think that’s something that we need to move forward with. Even to this day, when people drive through it, they’re shocked by the destruction and the number of homes that were lost and how you can still see it to this day.

I thank the minister for the opportunity. Hopefully, we can canvass this further at committee stage.

D. Plecas: On behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford South, I’m pleased today to speak on Bill 12, and that is the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016.

Last year we had one of the busiest and most expensive fire seasons in recent years. We saw over 283,000 hectares burned and over $280 million spent on wildfire management. Unfortunately, each year we see human-caused wildfires. On average, 30 to 40 percent of wildfires in British Columbia are human-caused. Last summer, of the 1,805 wildfires, 545 of them were caused by humans, and that’s 545 too many. Despite constant reinforcement about the dangers of making sure your campfire is out — that is, you don’t throw the cigarette butt out the window — we still see human-caused wildfires.

A new problem we saw last year that interferes with firefighting activities was the danger of drones flying over wildfires. Twice last August, firefighting operations had to be shut down because of a drone flying in a restricted airspace. When firefighting operations need to be shut down to wait for drones to leave the area, that is valuable time wasted, and it puts the public at risk. As more and more people own drones and this technology becomes more popular, we may see more interference with firefighting efforts, as people want a bird’s-eye view of wildfires.

To help discourage human activities that could interfere with firefighting activities, we are introducing amendments to the Wildfire Act. We are increasing the fines. Last year the member for Prince George–Mackenzie undertook a review of fines and penalty structures related to human-caused fires and to consider recommendations for a number of penalties.

The good news is that this legislation will increase the range of ticket violation fines from about 33 percent to 333 percent. For example, the fine for failing to comply with a fire restriction under the Wildfire Act is increasing from $345 to $1,150. Nineteen fines for violations under the Wildfire Act would be affected through this proposed legislation.

The proposed amendments would clarify that interference with firefighting activities or wildfire control measures does not have to be intentional to constitute a contravention of the Wildfire Act. Similarly, non-compliance with an official’s request would not have to be intentional in order to contravene the Wildfire Act.

As well, the proposed amendments would clarify that it’s a contravention of the legislation to interfere with government wildfire control activities or with government-authorized personnel engaged in wildfire control activities. The proposed amendments would provide a compliance and enforcement mechanism to address non-compliance with a stop-work order.

The Wildfire Act currently makes it an offence to not comply with an official requirement or request, but the proposed amendments add a more direct and explicit offence for failing to comply with a stop-work order.

[1545]

A maximum penalty, upon prosecution, of $100,000 would apply to the new offence of “non-compliance with a stop-work order and/or imprisonment for up to one year.”

This legislation also proposes amendments to the Forest Act and Wildlife Act. The proposed amendments to the Forest Act will continue to implement the recommendations from the B.C. Timber Sales effective review.

This legislation also makes changes to boundaries or areas of a community forest agreement. Currently, the Forest Act does not provide the appropriate authority to expand the areas of all types of community forest agreements. Many community forest agreements are held by First Nations. The ability to expand community forest agreements is meant for flexibility where expansion makes sense.

As well, as part of any decision-making process on expanding community forests, the appropriate First Nations would be consulted before a final decision is made. Under the proposed legislation, an expansion to a community forest agreement would only be considered in a timber supply area where there is available volume appropriated to community forest agreements by the minister.

As well, this legislation improves the allowable annual cut proportions. A partition directs that a proportion of the allowable annual cut associated with a management unit be directed to a particular timber type, geographic area or terrain type. The Forest Act allows for an allowable cut determination to be in place for up to 15 years. The chief forester will only set or amend a partition after a determination where there are emerging stewardship or timber supply issues that are significant. If the chief forester cancels a partition, any order relating to that partition is automatically cancelled.

Currently, the legislation only allows the minister to issue an order that applies to all licences in a timber supply area. However, there are many situations where there are several licences operating in a timber supply area and all are adhering to the partition except for one or two. This proposed change will allow the minister to put binding restrictions only on those that are not abiding by the partition.

Additionally, the proposed amendments to the Forest Act will provide security to users of residual fibre, such as pellet producers in the Interior.

[ Page 11794 ]

Finally, this legislation proposes amendments to the Wildlife Act. The amendments will facilitate the movement to e-licensing for hunting licences as well as compulsory reporting requirements for on-line payments. The on-line system will allow staff to indicate if a licence or permit is suspended or cancelled. As well, the proposed legislation will include minor changes to group trapping-related provisions together in the Wildlife Act and to clarify who has the authority to issue these permits.

Proposed amendments will change the rules to allow a guide’s designate to file a report. These reports are hunt-specific and allow experienced assistant guides working for an outfitter to file a report. The proposed system changes mean the reports will still get done but in a manner more fair and efficient for guides.

There are a number of amendments in this legislation. As we approach this year’s wildfire season, I hope the increased fines will remind people that their actions do cause fires. Make sure your campfire is put out, don’t throw your cigarette butt out the window, and don’t interfere with firefighting activities.

J. Rice: I rise today to speak for a few minutes on Bill 12, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016.

[1550]

This bill is essentially a miscellaneous bill. I think it was driven by the desire to crack down on people disrupting wildfire suppression efforts. Primarily, it makes a wide variety of technical, complex and housekeeping amendments to several acts. The bill clarifies the

definitions of and increases the penalties for interfering with wildfire suppression. I think this was instigated by the reports of drones last year flying over wildfires. In the summer of 2015, it resulted in the grounding of water bombers and other aircraft.

This bill proposes penalties for ignoring fire bans that will rise to $1,150 from the current $345, while the fine for failing to report a fire increases to $383 from the current $115. The bill also makes several amendments to the Forest Act, making changes to

definitions of annual allowable cut available and gives the chief forester additional leeway to specify portions of the annual allowable cut. It requires the ministry to make payments to some holders of non–B.C. Timber Sales licences under certain circumstances.

It makes changes to the community forest agreements. It makes changes to First Nations woodland licences. It gives the minister the authority to set limits and amend limits of harvested volumes and to take partition timber into account when setting limits. It sets out a process for preserving and making agreements for harvesting residual fibre. The bill, further, makes amendments to the Great Bear Rainforest Act, which has not yet passed in this House, and the bill makes changes to the Wildlife Act.

At this point, I think we’ll be voting in favour of this bill. We had, as many other people mentioned earlier in the House today, a record number of forest fires last summer. We had the new situation of drones actually interfering with firefighting of fires, which posed problems of actually grounding the firefighting equipment or aircraft from doing their job. That was a big problem. With the increased use and affordability and availability of drones, I think this could possibly pose future problems, expanding of future problems, in our province. So informing the public of the risks and how their recreational activities may impede forest fighting is a good thing to do.

I would like to take the opportunity to mention that the amount budgeted annually for firefighting has been wholly inadequate. It’s interesting to note that each subsequent year the amount spent and the amount budgeted are hugely…. There are huge discrepancies in between. We can essentially plan for implementing more resources to fight fires. However, this government doesn’t do so in their budget.

Again, just mentioning the record number of forest fires last year. I live in one of the rainiest or wettest communities in the province, in Prince Rupert, in the constituency of North Coast. I was pretty blown away, in my almost 20 years of living in this area, experiencing a local forest fire in the coastal temperate rainforest.

We had phenomenal firefighting services deployed. I must congratulate all our local firefighters and local people who stepped up to mitigate this problem just within Port Edward’s boundaries. I don’t recall ever experiencing a forest fire in such proximity to my local constituents, so I was very pleased that this was mitigated very quickly and effectively.

[1555]

I think I’ll leave it at that. I think that we’ll be voting in favour of this bill. I’m particularly interested in the changes to the Great Bear Rainforest Act. The initial bill has not yet passed, so it will be interesting to see what changes are going on there. But with the more forefront issue of interfering with fire suppression measures, I think that is a step in the right direction.

D. Donaldson: I’m pleased to take my place at second reading of Bill 12, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act. There are a number of general comments I’d like to make in relation to the act. On some of those comments, I’m sure we can get some specific answers from the minister during committee stage, when I have more specific questions.

The act deals with a number of topic areas, and the one that’s getting the highest profile is the ability to increase penalties for and clarify

definitions around interfering with wildfire suppression.

We know this is from an instance last year, when we had a really terrible wildfire year, that involved drones interfering with firefighting activities in the Kelowna area, in the Okanagan. I was through the Okanagan during those times the fires were burning and was also back

[ Page 11795 ]

home earlier in the year last year, in the early part of the fire season, when there were large fires burning south of Vanderhoof.

We know that the activities of firefighters…. In fact, my own son, at one point, was part of the firefighting team that the province employs, and I have many friends who are still part of that work. We know that they put their lives on the line often when fighting the fires. They do it to protect our forests and our ecosystems but also to protect communities. I know that that is the main focus when a fire occurs — to protect communities and structures. That’s a good thing.

We have had fires in Stikine where, basically, they are left to burn, as long as they’re not impacting infrastructure, although sometimes that can be a counterproductive strategy. It is a concern when decisions are made, perhaps, with budgets at the top of mind.

I know that that is not what the minister has said, but when a budget is set for a certain amount and a fire manager has to try to work within that, still, it does potentially represent some constriction of what the strategies might be.

I recall one fire in Stikine recently. It could have been hit early with firefighting activity, and it wasn’t. It ended up burning across Highway 37, and Highway 37 had to be closed.

That was in the summer season, of course, and that really impacted the people along Highway 37 who were dependent on tourism traffic in order for their livelihoods. Especially, I was contacted by many people who owned RV parks along Highway 37, all the way from Kitwanga right up to the Yukon border, who were really, really concerned that this one particular fire hadn’t been dealt with in the early stages, because it ended up burning across Highway 37.

In fact, some people who drove along Highway 37 before the road was closed and when the fire was raging were saying that the asphalt, or the chip seal in that case, was so hot that tires on the vehicles were heating up.

I appreciate the strategy to let wildfires burn. They’re actually part of the natural ecosystem, and many plants and animals are fire-adapted. In other words, their life cycle has been adapted over evolution and over thousands of years to be part of the fire system.

[1600]

But there is a caution that when budgets might be a part of a decision-making process, that can impact the infrastructure that other parts of the economy depend on, including tourism.

As far as the bill addressing the interfering with wildfire suppression, what I was saying is that the people that put their lives on the line to do this for the rest of us need to be protected.

The situation of drones for a sort of vicarious viewing of a natural disaster is not something that can be tolerated, and I’m happy to see that part of the bill. That part of the bill has been highlighted very much by the Premier, and, of course, it’s a small part of the bill. It’s significant in its nature, but it’s a small part of the bill. It’s also something that one could have seen coming. Although this is in reaction to what happened, drones have been around a while, so we could have dealt with this earlier before it became such an issue.

Having said that, there are other parts of the bill that are of interest to me and are of concern to me.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I think about some of the legacy in the northwest. Our communities in the northwest are communities that grew out of and became dependent upon the local forests, and unfortunately, much of the good timber has now been harvested.

The proportion of pulp timber to sawlog timber is now quite high, so that makes…. Under the current industrial model, harvesting activities are uneconomical for most of the major companies, anyway. There are many smaller sawmills that are able to make a go, and they don’t necessarily benefit as much from legislation that we’ve seen in the last number of years as the majors. But nonetheless, the history and the legacy of the lumber and timber and forests supporting local communities has been strong, and it’s not very strong anymore.

I also think of not only the high grading of the profile so that most of the sawlogs and the easier-to-get timber was harvested first but also the fact that the pine beetle epidemic has led to a real run on forestry activities. Now that is coming to an end, as the pine beetle–affected trees are only harvestable and usable in industrial forestry mills for a couple of years before they become too old and they become checked and hardened. It really presents some difficulties in sawmills, not only from a lumber quality perspective but, as we’ve seen, from a safety perspective as well because that dried-out timber ends up causing a lot of dust in mills.

So in connection to Bill 12, when I see some of the initiatives, I have quite a few questions. One of them is around fibre usage. It appears in the bill that there are going to be some new amendments around fibre usage. It reminds me of — I believe it’s back to 2005, over 11 years ago — when fibre usage was brought to this government’s attention. The minister who eventually ended up attempting to address it was Pat Bell, the Minister of Forests then, and it was around access to fibre in the forests. That issue has still not been resolved.

What the problem was, and I know the minister is very familiar with this, is that there are some entrepreneurs who believe that they can extract further value from what’s called, apparently, the “waste wood” left behind. I get a laugh out of that because when…. We have many Europeans come through the northwest part of the province, Stikine especially, when it’s steelhead season and

[ Page 11796 ]

other vacations, and they shake their heads when they see the piles of wood that we’re burning in B.C., because what we call waste wood is actually very valuable wood in places where that kind of timber isn’t available anymore.

[1605]

There are some mentions of amendments around fibre and fibre allocation, so I’m very interested, in committee stage, in getting into the details of that to see if it’s actually addressing what has been an issue for quite a number of years around access to fibre and access to those slash piles. Most of them are controlled by the major licensees, and it’s difficult for entrepreneurs and small business owners in the smaller communities in the north to get access to that fibre. We’ll see if this bill is tackling that kind of tough nut that needs to be addressed to create more jobs out of our forests, which we know from….

Previous speakers on this side of the House have been pointing out that we aren’t getting the jobs per cubic metre of wood out of our forests that other provinces in this country are able to get. In fact, we are very far behind other provinces. Accessing those fibre piles that are actually burned at the moment could be a place to do that. We’ll see if, in these amendments, that is being made easier for local small business owners.

As another note on the fibre issue, if we were able to use these piles and access was easier and some of the considerations that the major licensees get were also given to small business owners and local businesses, then perhaps we wouldn’t have the situation that recently occurred in Prince George when — and this was just last week — the air quality alerts were off the map because a major inversion had occurred.

Prince George has that lower bowl area where, when there is an inversion, the cold air suppresses the warm air in the lower bowl, and there was a very high air quality alert because of waste-wood piles being built in the direction of the wind.

Likewise, in the Bulkley Valley, the area I represent, air quality can be a major issue because of inversions. When there is wood waste being burnt, there are times when air quality alerts are issued by the Ministry of Environment. That’s not a good thing, and it’s especially not a good thing when there could be other uses for this wood.

I’m not saying all wood is suitable for this, and I’m not saying that there are times when there is wood waste that can’t be burnt. But certainly, we need more attention focused on getting all the value out of the forest that we can. Currently, the access to that fibre is limited. I hope this bill…. I look forward to committee stage, and I look forward to finding out if this bill addresses that.

I’m also concerned about another

section of this bill on page 13, I believe it is — 13, 14. No, sorry. On page 4 and 5, it talks about the community forest agreements that may require a reduction of timber depending on if B.C. timber sale licences are required in that community forest area.

That’s the way I read it, anyway. We’ll see during committee stage if that’s accurate, but if it is accurate, then I think of the very successful Wetzin’kwa Community Forest in the Smithers area. That’s a joint community forest between the Wet’suwet’en and the town of Smithers.

It’s been a very, very successful adventure, but community forests, as the minister knows, have a different set of priorities. That’s part of the legislation around community forests — that they can look at a wide variety of values, not just maximizing return for the licensee as the major industrial businesses do.

[1610]

I’m curious, during committee stage, as to how the fact that a community forest agreement may end up having a reduction, based on the need for a B.C. timber sales licence, will play out with the priorities.

I’m getting some nods and shakes from the minister, so I’m sure, maybe even in the closing comments, he’ll be able to clarify that, or at least when we get to the committee stage.

As I said, this amendment bill, Bill 12, covers a lot of different ground. Most of the attention is on the issue of interfering with wildfires and the drone issue. Again, that’s a fairly simple one to deal with. It’s a needed amendment, but it’s straightforward.

There are a lot of other areas that this bill, 12, covers, and a lot of it has to do with how we’ve managed our forests. As I said, fibre is one part of it, and community forests and woodlots are other parts of what’s being addressed here, and also licensing. There’s a part of this bill that deals with the ability to issue…. The actual words are “facilitates electronic administration” of licences. That’s to do with hunting licences and fishing licences.

My concern here is that…. I know where I get my local fishing licence. It’s at a small retail business that does repairs on small engines. When you go into the business, you can often meet up with others buying their fishing licences or get some real firsthand knowledge from the people who are running the business but also selling the fishing licences on the side as part of their agreement with the provincial government. And you can find out a little bit more about the rules and regulations, not just reading them in the rules and regulations book. It’s all part of sharing the knowledge in small, rural communities.

As well, many have limited or no access to the Internet in remote and rural communities, and if they do have access, it’s often on dial-up. I’m not sure how well the electronic licensing system that is going to be developed as a result of this act deals with that. We have many people, as well, who don’t even participate with the Internet. They either have limited means to pay for it or to buy a computer and also Internet access, or they have no fibre optic cable, or they can’t afford one of the dishes either.

What I would hope that this bill will not result in is a decrease in the ability, in rural areas, for people to actually go and purchase their licences from a local business, or

[ Page 11797 ]

sometimes it’s a municipality that also offers that service. Because if that’s the case, then we’re really cutting out a large

section of the population who’d like to participate in these great activities on the land — hunting and fishing.

The final area that I’d like to address in the bill, Bill 12, is around the issuing of trapping licences. What the bill does is authorize, it says, “regional managers to issue trapping licences.” This made me think of a presentation I was able to take in when I was the Deputy Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance. It was around the issue of trapping and trapping licences, and Bill 12 addresses that.

[1615]

The trouble is that Bill 12 is talking just about the ability to issue a trapping licence and giving that authority to a regional manager, but that’s not really what the issue is around trapping.

In the presentation that I recall to the Select Standing Committee on Finance that I was Deputy Chair of, it was that there are only about 900 of the 2,600 traplines available actually being trapped on in this province.

That’s not simply because people aren’t interested in trapping. As the presenter said, the issue was the ability of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to actually have some resources dedicated to administering traplines — in other words, determining which ones were no longer being trapped, which ones weren’t actually being used in the proper manner.

There was an issue raised by the presenter that some traplines had been allocated to people who simply just ended up using them as recreational properties. Many of these traplines have cabins on them and are very beautiful places. For many people I know in Stikine, trapping is part of their livelihood. It’s not simply a recreational activity; it’s a lifestyle, for sure. But the fact that these traplines weren’t being put out for availability was being pointed out by the presenter.

The issue there was that the provincial government wasn’t adequately funding the wildlife branch so that they could properly administer trapping in the province. This was presented by the then head of the B.C. Trappers Association, who is now currently the Solicitor General for the province. At the time, he was presenting this to the Finance Committee and was pointing out the lack of resources put towards trapping in the province. The wildlife branch was actually being underfunded, and they weren’t in a position to administer traplines properly.

The bill makes an amendment to the Wildlife Act in order to allow regional managers to issue traplines, but again, as the minister, the Solicitor General, pointed out when he was head of the trapping association, the government is not properly or adequately funding the wildlife branch so that they can actually get these trapping licences in place to be put out to public auction.

It means a lot in remote and small communities around the local economy. We’re definitely not trapping as much as we used to in B.C. There are people eager to take up that activity and who make it part of their lifestyle, as the Solicitor General used to. So I think his comments about lack of adequate funding rang true then, when he presented in 2011 to the Finance Committee, and