Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 237

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Joe Enook

R. Chouhan

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Dave Mannix

D. Routley

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 28 — Zero-Emission Vehicles Act

Hon. M. Mungall

Bill 29 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. D. Eby

Bill M208 — Welfare Payment System Reflection Act

J. Thornthwaite

Bill M209 — Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2019

A. Weaver

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Public safety lifeline volunteers

J. Rice

Armand Denicola

S. Bond

Support for the arts

S. Chandra Herbert

Hong Kong–Canada Business Association

T. Wat

Contributions of volunteers

A. Kang

Autism awareness

M. Stilwell

Speaker’s Statement

Conduct of MLAs and rules for question period

Oral Questions

Impact of caribou protection plan on jobs

M. Bernier

Hon. J. Horgan

T. Shypitka

Hon. D. Donaldson

Consultation on caribou protection

T. Shypitka

Hon. D. Donaldson

Woodwynn Farms and herbicide use

A. Olsen

Hon. S. Robinson

Consultation on caribou protection

S. Bond

Hon. D. Donaldson

Impact of caribou protection plan on jobs

J. Rustad

Hon. D. Donaldson

Relocation of land title records and First Nations consultation

P. Milobar

Hon. D. Donaldson

Petitions

M. Bernier

S. Furstenau

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. D. Donaldson

J. Rustad

S. Furstenau

S. Thomson

Hon. C. Trevena

C. Oakes

R. Leonard

D. Routley

Hon. D. Donaldson

Bill 15 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. L. Popham

M. de Jong

A. Olsen

Hon. J. Sims

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. G. Heyman

R. Sultan

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2019

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

JOE ENOOK

R. Chouhan: On behalf of you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of the Legislative

Assembly, I would like to offer condolences to the people of Nunavut

and, in particular, the riding of Tununiq on the passing of their

Speaker, MLA Joe Enook. Last October the member for Powell

River–Sunshine Coast, the Acting Clerk and I had the pleasure of meeting

Speaker Joe Enook through a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in

Iqaluit. Joe Enook passed away in late March after a brief

illness.

Speaker Enook was born in an outpost camp near Pond Inlet in 1957

and lived in other camps before his family settled in Mittimatalik, the

Inuktitut name of Pond Inlet. He represented that community, located in

the far north of Baffin Island, since he was first elected in 2011. He

was a fierce promoter of the Inuktitut language and was known as a very

hard worker. One of his lasting legacies, according to Premier

Savikataaq, was his advocacy for the establishment of a small craft

harbour in his community.

Speaker Enook passed away on March 29 at the age of 61 after a

short illness. I ask the House to please join me in expressing our

sorrow to Joe’s loved ones, his constituents and the Legislative

Assembly of Nunavut.

Introductions by Members

T. Redies: I’m absolutely delighted to introduce some old friends in the House

today. Barry Macdonald is the chair of the CPABC, the Chartered Professional

Accountants of B.C., a former retired partner with PwC, somebody I worked

together with when I was at HSBC for many years. Lori Mathison is the CEO of

the CPABC and also the chair of the Vancouver Board of Trade.

Great to see you, Lori.

Jamie Midgley is the executive vice-president of the CPABC and a

former colleague of mine that I worked with for many years at

HSBC.

Absolutely delighted to welcome you to the House today. I wish all

members would join me in welcoming you.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I see a surprise guest in the Legislature today. On my behalf and on

behalf of the Leader of the Third Party, I’d like to introduce and welcome

the former member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, former Minister of Finance,

former Minister of Health, former instructor at Royal Roads, small business

owner. Anyone who lives in Oak Bay or Victoria knew that one of the best

garden shops to head to was the shop owned by the person who is here today.

Please help me welcome back Elizabeth Cull.

A. Weaver: I would like to join the Finance Minister in welcoming Elizabeth Cull

to the chamber. For those who know, they will no longer be able to come to

the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, which is now extended beyond Foul Bay to

Richmond and which included the old Dig This shop on the corner of Foul Bay

and Oak Bay. That shop, unfortunately, is now closed.

You’ll have to go, my friend, the member for Saanich North and the

Islands, to a Dig This store. Or I believe, the Broadmead would be in the

member for Saanich South…. There are still two. I highly recommend them,

bought lots of supplies there. Would the House please once more make

Elizabeth Cull feel very welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Today, as part of National Volunteer Week, we’re joined by a number of

Public Safety Lifeline Volunteer Award winners who’ve distinguished

themselves with their extraordinary contributions to their communities.

These dedicated people and their colleagues conduct air and ground search

and rescue missions, help extricate victims trapped by motor vehicles, set

up communications networks and coordinate services for victims of natural

disasters.

I’d like to introduce the following Public Safety Lifeline Volunteer

winners for 2019: Deb Chmara for her work with emergency support services;

Les Sakals, our search and rescue award winner; John Lamb, our winner from

PEP Air; and Doug Barry, our emergency communications winner.

Doug sadly passed away in 2016, but his widow, Irene Isobel, and one

of his sons, Grant Barry, are here to accept in Doug’s honour.

I’d also like to recognize Dale Hark, winner of road rescue, and Paddy

Flanagan, who is our lifetime achievement winner for 2019. Their dedication

and sacrifice is amazing, and I would ask the House to make each one of them

most welcome.

Hon. M. Mark: I’m delighted to introduce some special guests that are in the chamber

today, members from the Chartered Professional Accountants of B.C., and we

had a robust conversation over lunch with members from the government side

of these chambers: president and CEO Lori Mathison; executive

vice-president, regulation and registrar James Midgley; CPABC board chair

Barry Macdonald; vice-president, external affairs and communications, Kerri

Wilcox. Thank you for your leadership.

I want to acknowledge the 35,000 members, the volunteers that are out

there conducting financial literacy workshops. They set the bar. They’ve got

a gold standard. All of those CPAs are coveted members on all of the public

post-secondary institutions where we make appointments. Our government

welcomes their ethical conduct and all that they do to make sure that we

uphold those ethical standards here in British Columbia. Will the House

please join me in welcoming the CPABC.

J. Thornthwaite: I have some special guests to the House today, fellow animal lovers

from the SPCA: Craig Daniell, the CEO; Marcie Moriarty, chief prevention and

enforcement officer; Dr. Sarah Dubois, chief scientific officer; and Geoff

Urton, the general manager of strategy and innovation. Could the House

please make them welcome.

M. Bernier: It’s an honour and pleasure today to introduce some constituents of

mine who’ve made the long journey down to be here today. Today in the House

we have Kathleen Connolly, who is the executive director of the Chamber of

Commerce in Dawson Creek and one of the co-founders of Concerned Citizens

for Caribou Recovery.

We have also Tim Schram, who is a third-generation small business

owner and outdoor enthusiast in my riding and who was also a member of the

Concerned Citizens for Caribou Recovery. We have Dan Rose, who is the

vice-chair of the Peace River regional district with us, as well as a city

councillor from the forest-dependent community of Chetwynd, Clay

Bassendowski, who is here today, as well, to be part of something that I’m

going to be doing with a petition at the end of question period.

[1:45 p.m.]

I really appreciate the fact that they took the long journey from the

Peace country to be down here on such an important issue. Would the House

please make them welcome.

N. Simons: Some of you might have heard some beautiful singing this morning in

this building. It was the Bellflower High School Choir, from Bellflower,

California. They’ve been here before. They had an opportunity to sing in the

rotunda; they sang in the library. They had an opportunity to meet Mr.

Speaker, and they sang in his office.

It just reminds us all, members opposite, of how we’ve talked about

the importance of choir and bringing voices together, diversity together and

building communities and friendships. Today they were really pleased to have

the opportunity to visit here. They were really warmly welcomed. We welcome

them, and we will welcome them again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your hospitality.

L. Throness: In the gallery today, we have a regular visitor, Jason Goertzen from

Leading Influence. He brought with him a special friend, Travis Hutchinson,

pastor of Shelbourne Street Church of Christ in Victoria. Would the House

please make them welcome.

Hon. L. Popham: First, I would like to introduce my wonderful dad, Henry, and my

wonderful stepmom, Lee-Ann. They’re visiting today from Mayne Island, doing

some errands over here. This is literally the only time we’re going to see

each other, so please play nice today. I love you guys. Thanks for being

here.

I would also like to introduce a number of folks who participated in

the Vaisakhi celebrations just moments ago in the Hall of Honour. With us

today are the Sikh Youth of Victoria; Khalsa Aid; Avtar Singh Dhillon of the

Sikh Motorcycle Club; the Sikh Nation Blood Donation; Gian Singh Sandhu, who

is also a recipient of the Order of B.C.; and the three Sikh gurdwaras of

Victoria — the Khalsa Diwan Society, the Punjabi Akali Sikh Temple and the

Gurdwara Singh Sabha of Victoria.

Thank you for all you do to represent your communities and in being a

part of the greater community. You’re very valued.

M. Stilwell: Joining us in the gallery today will be 27 grade 5 students from École

Oceanside Elementary School in school district 69 of my riding. They are

accompanied by Ms. Raviglione and six adult chaperones, one of whom happens

to be my friend, and the CAO of the town of Qualicum Beach, Daniel Sailland.

The class will be touring the precinct and learning about the things that go

on inside and outside the chambers and about the legislative process — all

the exciting things that go on here on a day-to-day basis. Would the House

please make them feel very welcome.

R. Kahlon: I’ve got two special guests here today. Well, I have lots of special

guests here today, but the Minister of Agriculture introduced some of them.

Two, in particular, I want to introduce. One is Mark Gordienko, who is the

former head of the longshoremen in Canada. He and I have been good friends

for a long time. Now that the ferries are free, he finds himself more

frequently visiting this chamber to come hear the proceedings. Today he

brought someone very special to me. He brought my father-in-law, Gurmit

Grewal, with him today. They’ve got quite the friendship — quite the duo —

so they travelled together today.

I want to say a special thank-you to him. As many members in this

House know, in order for us to do our work, it requires a lot of people back

home to help with family and other things. I think my son sees him way more

than he sees me. The other day my son was driving with him and was

complaining that he had to go to tutor lessons. My father-in-law said to

him: “Listen. Do you think I like taking you to tutor lessons? Your dad told

me I have to take you to tutor lessons. We’re both in the same boat

together.” Since then, my son has been in solidarity with him. I want to

thank both of them for being here today.

Hon. M. Mungall: Zavier and I have some very special guests with us today in the House.

“mémère” — is here, along with her sister, matante ,

Jeanine Tenove. Zavier’s good friend George is also here. As always, Zavier

is in his dress code but this time this lovely suit comes from Grandma, of

course. Please may the House make them very, very welcome.

[1:50 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I appreciate following after the minister, because I want to

acknowledge Geoff Morrison, who I know is in the gallery today as well.

Geoff is with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. It’s great to

see him here. As most people know, most of the oil and gas companies that

are in the province of British Columbia are CAPP members and specifically in

my riding, so it’s great to see Geoff here today.

A. Olsen: It never ceases to amaze me the amount of connections on this side of

the House to Mayne Island.

Nonetheless, I would just like to pause for a moment and say

Y SC̸ÁĆEL to Tiffany

Joseph, ŚWXELOSELWET.

Tiffany is a powerful woman from our community in

W̱JOȽEȽP, WSÁNEĆ. She also has

heritage in the Squamish Nation on the North Shore. A true leader in our

community, she just ran in the North Saanich by-election — the first

opportunity to run on the other side of the line, I would say — to seek a

seat in municipal council. She is doing very important work with respect to

native plants, Indigenous plants, from our area and the restoration of a

sacred place in our territory called

SṈIDȻEȽ. It’s a very, very important

place to the WSÁNEĆ people.

I ask that my colleagues here please raise their hands and welcome

Tiffany Joseph to the House today.

Hon. J. Sims: Today a lot of us from both sides of the House joined in with the

Vaisakhi celebrations. A big shout-out to everybody who was able to make it

happen. Thank you so much.

I especially want to recognize today the musicians who played today at

the Vaisakhi. I met Amarjeet Singh, who is the founder of the Naad

Foundation, in 2011, when he first came to Surrey and opened up a school,

where he still teaches music. He has a master’s degree in music and many

years of performing tabla solos. We have become very, very good friends. I

know that my children really enjoy listening to them and come to many of the

concerts they hold in Surrey. Amarjeet was joined by Baljit Singh, who is

currently working as a teacher and performer in the Naad Foundation in B.C.

as well.

Having that music added to the first Vaisakhi celebration in the

people’s House made it extraordinarily special. So please help me welcome

both of these wonderful musicians, who made their instruments talk and

touched our hearts.

B. Ma: I’d like to take this moment to introduce to the House a very good man

and a good friend of mine, a man named Dick Jones. Dick worked as the

highways manager of North Vancouver, part of the Howe Sound district. He

served with the Ministry of Transportation for 35 years. He retired about 12

years ago, but he always had many, many fond memories of working for the

province as part of the Ministry of Transportation. He also knew my partner

growing up, ever since he was a very small child. He was like a second

father to him.

Dick isn’t able to join us in the House today, but he is watching from

the hospice at Peace Arch Hospital. I’d really love to ask the members to

please join me in thanking him for his service to this province.

Hon. J. Horgan: I, too, want to stand and say to all members of the House how

wonderful it was to have the first Vaisakhi celebration here at the

Legislature today. The member from Surrey, the Minister of Citizens’

Services, just spoke about the band that played.

I want to just reach out to my friend from Boundary-Similkameen, who

was working with me together on an important issue. The name of the band is

Indian Standard Time. I had no knowledge of this, Member. I told you I would

keep you up to speed on all events. I had no knowledge of this.

Indian Standard Time was in the House today, and as the member for

Boundary and I work together, we’ll hopefully get to another time, in

another place.

Tributes

DAVE MANNIX

D. Routley: I just received some sad news of the passing of a very important

constituent. His name was Dave Mannix. He was a board member on the

Island Coastal Economic Trust. He’s got a long history of service in the

Nanaimo area — a Snuneymuxw band member and a member of ICET since

[1:55 p.m.]

He was the CEO of the coast opportunity fund, which arranges and

manages and promotes investment in Indigenous communities. He was the

economic development officer for the Snuneymuxw First Nation. He was 20

years in forestry, owning his own company. He was also the chair of the

National Aboriginal Forestry Association, a firefighter, an ambulance

volunteer, search and rescue in Sooke.

Dave Mannix will be sorely missed by the people of Nanaimo.

There’s a memorial service at the Snuneymuxw First Nation longhouse on

April 11.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 28 — ZERO-EMISSION

VEHICLES

ACT

Hon. M. Mungall presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Zero-Emission Vehicles

Act.

Hon. M. Mungall: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 28, the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act.

This bill establishes the new Zero-Emission Vehicles Act and amends the

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act.

British Columbians are eager to make the switch to zero-emission

vehicles. We have the highest per-capita adoption of zero-emission

vehicles in Canada, with over 17,000 zero-emission vehicles on the road,

averaging 4 percent of new light-duty vehicle sales in 2018. We also

have one of the largest public-charging and hydrogen-fuelling

networks.

As more people adopt zero-emission vehicles and as technology

improves, more people are seeing that these types of vehicles can work

for them. But barriers to increased adoption of zero-emission vehicles

still exist. In our CleanBC plan, we committed to help reduce those

barriers by making zero-emission vehicles, or ZEVs, more affordable and

accessible for British Columbians. We are delivering on that commitment

with this bill, which will ensure greater supply and availability of

ZEVs at more affordable prices in our province.

The proposed legislation establishes ZEV sales targets reaching 10

percent of light-duty vehicle sales by 2025, 30 percent by 2030 and 100

percent by 2040. The legislative framework is designed to ensure that

these vehicle targets and emissions reductions targets in CleanBC are

met, while being achievable for the automotive industry as a

whole.

The bill outlines a compliance system based on a point system

similar to other jurisdictions. Because not all zero-emission vehicles

have the same emission profile, these point systems are used to

recognize a vehicle class’s actual contribution to greenhouse gas

reduction. Those classes with a high GHG reduction profile will have

more points than those that result in fewer emission reductions.

Measuring GHG emission reductions is an important component of our

zero-emission vehicle mandate, because reducing our impact on climate

change is ultimately the reason behind this mandate, so we need to

measure it.

In our system, the points are going to be called ZEV units, and

suppliers will accumulate ZEV units to meet yearly requirements. To aid

in tracking and enforcement, the bill includes provisions for annual

reporting and verification, penalties, appeals, the handling of

confidential information and information-sharing.

The bill also repeals sections of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act

that relate to ZEVs so that there’s no redundancy. This is to ensure

that there are not competing legislative requirements on manufacturers

as well.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Mungall: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the

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

Bill 28, Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, introduced, read a first time

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

sitting of the House after today.

BILL 29 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

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

now.

[2:00 p.m.]

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 29, the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 2019. This bill amends following statutes: the Integrated

Pest Management Act, the Motor Vehicle Act, the Personal Property

Security Act and the World Trade University Canada Establishment Act.

This bill also makes repeals and consequential amendments to other

statutes.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 29, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2019, introduced, read

a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M208 — WELFARE PAYMENT

SYSTEM REFLECTION

ACT

J. Thornthwaite presented a bill intituled Welfare Payment System

Reflection Act.

J. Thornthwaite: I move that a bill entitled the Welfare Payment System Reflection

Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be

introduced and now read for the first time.

Medical health experts and first responders know that there is a

significant spike in drug-related deaths within days of people receiving

their social assistance cheques. During income assistance payment week,

there is, on an average, one more illicit overdose per day, bringing the

average total to five.

In February 2016, the police chief in Victoria called on the

province to consider staggering the distribution of income assistance

cheques throughout the month because of the strain that the increase of

overdoses caused on resources that surpassed the capacity to deal with

the incidents. In 2018, Vancouver paramedics received an average of 22

overdose calls a day. Insite, a safe injection site, had an average of

approximately seven overdose incidents a day in 2018.

The fentanyl crisis has exacerbated the situation. A recorded 16

overdoses occurred on cheque day and 11 more on the following day. We

need more concrete action on the prevention, treatment and recovery

options in mental health and addictions in order to turn the tide on the

number of deaths that continue to occur in British Columbia. Changing

the distribution of the cheques would help reduce the strain on overdose

services and is a step in the right direction in fighting against the

opioid crisis.

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

Motion approved.

J. Thornthwaite: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M208, Welfare Payment System Reflection Act, introduced, read a

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

at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M209 — BUSINESS CORPORATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT,

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Business Corporations Amendment

Act, 2019.

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled Business Corporations Amendment Act,

2019, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be

introduced and read a first time now.

This bill amends the Business Corporations Act, adding a new part

to the act that would give companies in British Columbia the ability to

incorporate as benefit companies. This legislation would support

companies that choose to put the pursuit of social and environmental

goals at the heart of their mission. Benefit companies would embed a

commitment into their articles to operate in an environmentally

sustainable and socially responsible way and to pursue public

benefits.

B.C. is home to a number of incredibly innovative and socially

responsible companies that want to play a bigger role in addressing the

challenges we face collectively. This legislation is one that government

can support and encourage business to take on this critically important

role in our society.

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

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M209, Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2019, introduced,

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PUBLIC SAFETY LIFELINE VOLUNTEERS

J. Rice: It’s National Volunteer Week, and this year’s theme is “The

volunteer factor: lifting communities.” This is to recognize the impact

volunteers have lifting every part of our society.

On that note, I want to make sure British Columbians are aware of

the thousands of dedicated public safety volunteers who guide our

communities through periods of struggle by giving freely of their time,

sometimes risking their lives to help those who are affected by

emergencies.

Later today the Public Safety Minister and I will take

part in the

2019 Public Safety Lifeline Volunteer Awards. Public safety lifeline

volunteers are really the heart of B.C.’s emergency management

system.

[2:05 p.m.]

They do everything from leading air and ground searches to helping

victims of serious car accidents to providing radio expertise when other

communications systems are down to being the front line of support

services for victims of natural disasters. These people help British

Columbians through some of the most trying experiences of their lives.

They help them not for money or recognition but because of a belief that

giving back to others can make a difference. They know the greatest gift

you can give someone in trouble is your strength.

When I think about the dedication and sacrifice displayed by

public safety lifeline volunteers, a simple thank-you seems inadequate.

I will, nonetheless, say thank you on behalf of all British Columbians.

I’m honoured and humbled by the work of all our public safety lifeline

volunteers, work which is exemplified by those joining us today. Their

commitment to this province, our communities and our neighbours is an

example of what’s best in us all.

ARMAND DENICOLA

S. Bond: Well, he may have been small in stature, but he was a giant of a

man. Sir Armand James Denicola passed away in Prince George on March 1,

and his life was celebrated on March 21 in a standing-room-only crowd in

attendance.

Armand is survived by his wonderful wife of 54 years, Doreen, his

children, his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren. Armand loved

his family, and he loved his country.

He was a decorated Second World War veteran, having enlisted in

the Canadian Scottish Regiment when he was 20 years old. Armand won many

medals of honour and had been awarded the rank of knight of the French

National Order of the Legion of Honour by the French government for his

part in the liberation of France.

Armand was also a cowboy, having lived in the Chilcotin and worked

for the C1 Ranch and Chilcotin ranch near Alexis Creek. In 1947, after

his dad passed away, Armand moved back to the farm on Foreman Road and

spent the rest of his life living on the farm. He also worked in the

logging industry, the Dominion Experimental Farm and as the supervisor

of the runway at our airport.

I am so grateful to have known Armand. He had a quick wit and a

mischievous smile, and he loved to tell stories. When he was forced to

spend time in the hospital and Bill and I went to visit him, he told us

repeatedly that all he wanted to do was to go home to the farm on

Foreman Road.

One of the highlights of every Remembrance Day for me was the

chance for my annual photo with our Second World War veterans. I will

cherish those images even more now, since future photographs will not

include Armand. But this I know. Despite his physical absence, I have

every assurance that this man, who touched so many hearts, including

mine, will be present as we pay tribute to those who have served their

country and made a difference.

We will always remember Sir Armand James Denicola and be thankful

that we shared a little piece of his life.

SUPPORT FOR THE ARTS

S. Chandra Herbert: Want to help build community? Support the arts. Want to help

people live longer and healthier and more enriched lives? Support the

arts. Want to deal with some of the most challenging social issues we

have? Support the arts. Want to involve youth, bring new neighbours

together and make healthier, more interesting places to visit? Support

the arts. Want a vibrant, creative, resilient economy? Support the

arts.

I’ve made these arguments — and my apologies to colleagues who’ve

heard me make them over and over and over again — over the years, but

you know, supporting the arts works. We’ve seen it in our communities,

with some of the busiest jobsites being the film economy, the visual

effects, the digital, the music. The creative economy is just booming in

British Columbia these days — something we can all be proud

of.

We’ve, of course, seen it in the non-profit arts world, with

record-breaking investments from this government in the B.C. Arts

Council — $10 million more going to support youth connecting, Indigenous

arts, festivals, the things that make life good to celebrate and bring

us together.

Of course, we’ve seen that through Creative B.C., in supporting

our book publishers, our authors, our writers through the film and

television tax credit. Our arts and creative economy are on a roll in

British Columbia, and I couldn’t be happier, because arts bring us

together. Arts are so often what make life worth living. They make us

question. They make us dream. Arts inspire.

[2:10 p.m.]

I just want to say thank you to everybody in British Columbia who

supports the arts, who invests in the arts, who volunteers, who works,

who loves the arts. And thank you to everyone in this House for

supporting increased investments in the arts. It pays off. It makes life

worth living.

HONG KONG–CANADA

BUSINESS

ASSOCIATION

T. Wat: Last month the Australia–Hong Kong free trade agreement was

signed, marking a significant milestone in an already substantial trade

and investment relationship between Hong Kong and Australia. Now, you

may be asking: “This is all well and good for Australia and Hong Kong.

But what does this have to do with Canada, let alone British

Columbia?”

Well, it is because, much like our Commonwealth partner, Canada

also shares a long tradition of economic cooperation with Hong Kong,

namely through the Hong Kong–Canada Business Association. Last month I

had the honour of attending the 35th annual gala for the association’s

Vancouver branch, which saw over 300 business leaders

participate.

Established in 1984, the Hong Kong–Canada Business Association is

one of the largest bilateral trade associations in Canada, with around

1,000 members. The mandate of the association is to encourage bilateral

trade relationships between Canada and Hong Kong by helping businesses

expand their commercial relationship with Hong Kong and throughout Asia,

using Hong Kong as a platform for advancing this objective.

The previous B.C. Liberal government understood the importance of

this connection and the positives that arose from a stronger economic

relationship with Asia. That is why, in 2012, former Premier Christy

Clark announced that a new trade and investment office would be opened

in Hong Kong, strengthening B.C.’s already solid ties with Asia’s most

Canadian city. The goal of this office is to provide local market

knowledge and access to large networks within government and industry

and to connect B.C. businesses with new markets and

opportunities.

I hope that all members can see why these Canadian-Asian

connections are so important to our economy here in B.C. and why I

started by congratulating Australia for their future good fortune, as we

have experienced it as well.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF VOLUNTEERS

A. Kang: April 7 to 13 is National Volunteer Week 2019. It is a time when

Canadians celebrate to thank the 12.7 million volunteers across our

nation. This year’s theme is “The volunteer factor: lifting

communities.” The volunteer factor celebrates and recognizes the

exponential impact of volunteers and how they lift our

communities.

This year’s theme is signified by the beautiful image of hot air

balloons of different sizes, shapes and colours. These hot air balloons

reflect the diversity of our community volunteers, and they illustrate

that when people volunteer together, the sky is the limit in terms of

what they can achieve.

Volunteers are the driving force that celebrates community

programs to become a success. Volunteers help out with community

cleanups. We see volunteers in care homes or elders residences, helping

isolated seniors keep connected with the community. We see volunteer

parents in schools and classrooms. Some volunteers are specially trained

individuals, such as those who assist nurses in immunization clinics,

volunteer firefighters and volunteer search and rescue teams. This is

just to name a few.

When I think of volunteering, the first person that I think of and

am reminded of is a very special friend. Her name is Anne Waller. During

volunteer week last year, Burnaby celebrated the 40th anniversary of

citizen support services and the retirement of Anne Waller after 29

fantastic and passionate years.

Anne was a department head. She was a mentor to many and a friend

to all. She tells people that she manages a small department with a big

heart. She had a department of five staff who manage almost 300

volunteers annually.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Anne for all she does. I

also want to take this opportunity to thank all volunteers across

British Columbia for all that you have done to lift our communities up.

Quoting Sherry Anderson: “Volunteers are not paid because they are

worthless but because they are priceless.”

[2:15 p.m.]

AUTISM AWARENESS

M. Stilwell: April is World Autism Awareness Month. It’s a chance to reflect on

the strides that we have made with education and inclusion, to share our

stories and to recognize the supports and services available for people

on the autism spectrum and their families.

For me, this month is also about celebration. I believe in

informing the world about what autism looks like, what it feels like and

what it sounds like. I’m not shy about it. I tell our family stories in

hopes of opening eyes and opening hearts.

When my son, Kai, was diagnosed on the autism spectrum, I remember

being told that he may never communicate normally and that he would

probably never graduate, find employment or live independently. It has

not been an easy journey, and there are likely more challenges ahead.

But I can proudly say today that thanks to the supports, the services

and the incredible people helping him to fill his toolbox with the

skills that he needs, Kai talks way too much, especially when it comes

to weather and natural disasters. He will be graduating high school this

June, and he will be going to Vancouver Island University in the fall.

And he has a part-time job. [Applause]

In our country, there are about one in 66 children and youth

diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. It’s safe to say that we all

know someone who has been impacted by autism, whether it’s a friend, a

family member, a son or daughter or a neighbour. Everyone is living a

different experience.

I’d like to acknowledge some organizations and networks who are

helping children and families navigate the complexities of living with

autism, including the Autism Society of B.C., the Canucks Autism Network

and, locally, our Nanaimo Child Development Centre. I am incredibly

proud of Kai’s hard work and perseverance, but I know that he didn’t

succeed in isolation. He succeeded with the help of different

organizations, programs and opportunities in our community that have

opened doors to recreation, school and employment programs.

This month join me in celebrating the resources for assessment,

treatment, education support and research helping families and people

living with autism spectrum disorder reach their full potential. Let’s

continue to build awareness and inclusion.

Speaker’s Statement

CONDUCT OF MLA s

AND RULES FOR QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Speaker: Members, we’re about to start question period. Before we do, if I

might make a statement, particularly out of a concern expressed by the

House Leader for the official opposition yesterday regarding behaviour

of members in the House.

I want to begin by quoting to you parts of an email I received

today, which is one not unlike ones I receive, many per week. It goes

like this:

“Yesterday I visited the Legislature during question period as a

chaperone for an elementary school field trip. I was delighted by the

hospitality we received on our tour and the beautiful building. I was

appalled and deeply saddened by the ugliness we witnessed during

question period. The time was wasted in posturing, bullying and

name-calling. It was rather uncomfortable to watch with students we

teach to ‘Be kind. Be safe. Be respectful. Be responsible.’”

That’s their school motto. I receive lots of letters like that. I

don’t want to receive any more.

I just want to point out that oral question period is an important

accountability exercise and provides members of the Legislative Assembly

with the opportunity to seek information from the government of the day

and to hold the government to account. These are two fundamental

responsibilities of our system of parliamentary democracy.

[2:20 p.m.]

It follows that this vital proceeding is an important and central

part of each sitting day. We must ensure that it functions in providing

a daily public venue to canvass urgent and important matters that cannot

be addressed through other proceedings.

As such, it is helpful to review recent practice and the ongoing

expectations with regard to oral question period. Again, I want to thank

the House Leader for the Official Opposition for raising this issue

yesterday.

The standing order relating to oral question period is not new.

Standing Order 47A outlines the basic expectations of this aspect of

daily proceedings. I strongly encourage members to read Standing Order

47A and its accompanying narrative in Parliamentary Practice in

British Columbia , fourth edition, pages 139 to 144.

Presiding over oral question period is always a challenging role

for a Speaker. This is captured well in the third edition of House

of Commons Procedure and Practice , where it is noted at page

503: “Presiding over the daily question period is regarded as one of the

most onerous and difficult tasks undertaken by the Speaker. The Speaker

strives to ensure that question period is conducted in a civil manner,

that questions and answers do not lead to debate and that both sides of

the House have an opportunity to participate.”

In recent days, it has become virtually impossible for the Chair —

and, I would suggest, for members as well — to hear proceedings during

oral question period, particularly answers to questions. I do not think

it is unreasonable to expect that all members conduct themselves in a

manner which shows respect for each other and for this

institution.

In reviewing the six Hansard broadcasts of oral question period on

April 1 through April 9, I observed frequent interruptions,

interjections and general disorder, reducing the proceeding to an

ineffective exchange at best or a spectacle at worst.

With respect to questions about the role of the Chair during oral

question period, I make four submissions to the House.

First, as Speaker, I am reluctant to interfere in debate, but I

will do so if it appears that either the question or the response cannot

be heard. House of Commons Procedure and Practice , third

edition, at page 503 states: “The Speaker has discretion and authority

to rule out of order any question posed during question period — or to

interrupt any member, in the case of unparliamentary language, for

example — if the Speaker is satisfied that it contravenes House rules of

order, decorum and procedure.”

Furthermore, as reflected in a decision of Speaker Hartley

recorded in the Journals of May 31, 2000: “As has been the

practice in the past, the Speaker is reluctant to continually intervene”

— as I’ve had to do — “bearing in mind the short duration of our

question period. But unless members on both sides of the House exhibit

some self-discipline, the Chair will have no option but to

intervene.”

Second, I will exercise my discretion where it’s afforded to me by

the rules of this House, including on allowing or disallowing a

supplementary question, as provided for in Standing Order 47A,

subsection (c). In this respect, I note that House of Commons

Procedure and Practice , third edition, also notes, at page 504:

“The Speaker retains sole discretion in determining the time that

individual questions and answers may take, and the Chair may interrupt

any member consuming more than a reasonable share of time in posing or

responding to a question.”

I think we should pay particular attention to that because we’ve

had some questions which go on too long and some answers which go on too

long, and it hurts the ability to get more questions in.

Third, I have a fundamental duty to uphold order and decorum in

the House. I will not hesitate to ask members to come to order when such

discretion is merited and at any point during a sitting, including

during oral question period. Should a member make frequent, repeated or

disorderly interjections, I will ask that particular member to come to

order. Should that member refuse to comply with the request, Standing

Orders 19 and 20 extend certain powers to the Chair to restore decorum

in the House, which I am prepared to enforce.

[2:25 p.m.]

Lastly, I will note that when the red light at the table is

illuminated at the end of question period, members must be succinct in

stating their question or providing a brief response, as the case may

be. The red light indicates the 30-minute time frame for oral question

period has elapsed, and members should take note that this is not an

opportunity for extended commentary by either side.

This discretion I have provided is well founded and well

recognized in our assembly, as well as in other parliamentary

jurisdictions.

Finally, I would remind all hon. members of the importance of

maintaining order in all our proceedings, and I encourage members to

review the commentary in Parliamentary Practice in British

Columbia, fourth edition, pages 98 to 103, regarding language

and decorum.

There is one element of commentary that I would like to highlight,

which comes from page 99: “The proceedings in the House are based on

centuries of tradition of mutual respect and integrity.” I believe that

it is possible to have passionate debate and exchanges about issues that

we care deeply about without excessive noise, rudeness and

disturbances.

It seems, judging by the correspondence I receive, that many of

our constituents feel that our conduct and decorum do not meet their

expectations — as taxpayers. Poor behaviour reflects badly on the

Legislative Assembly, and I again ask that we be mindful of our

responsibilities to constituents, to this institution and to each other

and demonstrate respectful behaviour in our proceedings. Thank

you.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF CARIBOU

PROTECTION PLAN ON

JOBS

M. Bernier: With that, a job to do.

This week the Premier was on Kamloops radio, acknowledging the

failure of his Forests Minister on the land titles records, saying: “We

are going to have to do a better job.” Well, we agree on something,

finally.

That, also, is not the only thing that this minister is failing

on. The public is outraged that the government is imposing a

predetermined caribou plan that will result in significant job losses.

We have thousands of people packing town halls around the province as we

speak, voicing their frustration and disapproval of what this Premier

and this minister are doing.

Today in the gallery, we have local officials and concerned

citizens who want answers about how the Premier’s plan is going to

impact their lives. Will the Premier explain to them why he is making

decisions in Victoria on a plan that’s going to threaten to shut down

key parts of B.C.’s rural economy?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. I will correct some facts,

however, if that’s all right. Firstly, with respect to the registry, it

was privatized by the former government. The board was appointed by

others, not this government. The board made the decision, and we’re

working through that. It’s not a failure of anybody. It’s a

misunderstanding, and we all have to work better to do a better job of

that.

When it comes to mountain caribou, the member will surely know —

as a mayor at that time or, at least, as a city councillor — that in

2003 the federal government acknowledged that the mountain caribou were

at risk and that as recently as in 2014 they directed the former

government to take some action or they would take unilateral

action.

Let’s move from 2014 to 2017. We had an election campaign two

years ago this month. In the time that we’ve been on this side of the

House, we have worked diligently to try and understand why issues like

this — like ICBC, like B.C. Hydro, like so many issues that we’ve been

discussing in this place — were neglected by the previous government,

left to the future to resolve or, as the federal government said, kicked

down the road.

This issue is critically important to the people of British

Columbia. It’s critically important to those in the member’s

constituency. We are working with the public. We’ll continue to work

with the public to try and find….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: The member surely has her answer.

[2:30 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Member for Langley, this is outrageous. I’ve just finished talking

about decorum and being appropriate in the House. We’re not two minutes

later, and we’re behaving as people would expect that we should never

behave. I’m sorry. I cannot tolerate this any longer.

M. Polak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the interest of understanding the

ruling, is it the Speaker’s position that heckling is always out of

order?

Mr. Speaker: I am not saying heckling is out of order. I’m saying that

interrupting a speaker is out of order and interrupting a speaker when

they start is out of order.

I don’t know how clear I have to be about that. The average person

on this planet would say that when somebody is speaking, it’s

appropriate to not interrupt. I’m sorry. That’s what I mean. We will not

have interruptions of a speaker.

M. Polak: Respectfully, I would like to read from the website for the

Parliament of the U.K. in describing the activities in the chamber. I

appreciate that a level of decorum should be maintained, but I also

appreciate that in oral question period, there is also a tradition of a

certain amount of leniency with respect to interventions.

It is short. It says: “The style of debate in the House has

traditionally been one of cut and thrust: listening to other members’

speeches and intervening in them in spontaneous reaction to opponents’

views. This style of debate can make the Commons chamber a rather noisy

place, with robustly expressed opinions, many interventions, expressions

of approval or disapproval and, sometimes, of repartee and

banter.”

I would just submit and respectfully ask that we consider that, as

the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, there is,

on the part of chair occupants, generally a practice of ignoring what

they call applause and mild heckling.

Mr. Speaker: Member, we are going to have to continue this conversation in the

Speaker’s office at a later time. We will continue now with question

period.

The member for Peace River South on a supplemental.

M. Bernier: Well, it’s been a little bit. Hopefully, the Premier can remember

my first question that I had.

British Columbians can see right through this sham of what they’re

calling consultation right now around the province. We have over 30,000

people who have signed petitions, and more signatures being gathered

every single day around the province, speaking against what this

government is doing.

In the recent meeting in Chetwynd, almost a fifth — think of that,

a fifth — of the population showed up in Chetwynd to voice their

concerns around a unilateral decision that the NDP are doing right now.

Why? Because they actually weren’t involved in any of the processes that

the Premier just talked about. They were left out, and that’s a disgrace

to the people in the region.

We’re talking about, now, significant job loss as a direct result

of the Premier’s caribou plan and what he’s trying to do. He never even

bothered talking to the public before decisions were being

made.

Will the Premier today…? He has an opportunity in front of this

House today to stand up and say that he’s going to stop this process

until more work, more science, more data and more information from the

public are taken.

Hon. J. Horgan: We are seeking feedback on a response to federal legislation. I’m

confident that the member understands that. To characterize this as

somehow an NDP plan is a mischaracterization of the enormous challenges

we face, and the member knows that. The member knows that.

People in his community, people in Peace River North, people in

Columbia River–Revelstoke and people in Cariboo North are affected by

federal legislation, species-at-risk legislation that the former

government knew about for a decade — for a decade.

We are working diligently with communities, with First Nations,

with the industry, with workers to try and find a way forward. I would

appeal to the member to work with us to try and find a way forward in

the interest of his constituents, in the interest of the B.C. economy

and in the interest of mountain caribou.

[2:35 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: People in the Kootenays are tired of this Premier and the NDP

government making decisions for them from their offices in Victoria. I

come from a very heavy industrial area of B.C. There will be direct

impacts on resource industries, and people are deeply concerned that

they will lose their jobs or be shut out of the back country.

A question to the Premier. Will the Premier drop this attempt to

impose a plan that will result in significant job loss?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I know the people in the Kootenays see the southern mountain

caribou as an iconic species. People in B.C. do. First Nations do,

people across Canada and people internationally. We’re acutely aware of

the impacts conservation and protection of the southern mountain caribou

could have on local economies and local jobs. That’s why we as a

government undertook the challenge to protect caribou and protect jobs

by making sure B.C. was at the table in these discussions.

Now, the risk that we inherited, the risk and the path that we

were headed down, was the fact that due to a patchwork of measures that

the former government took that were unacceptable to the federal

government’s standards when it came to species at risk…. Their inaction

was putting at risk a federal government unilateral decision regarding

the habitat needs of caribou and not the needs of

communities.

That’s not the approach we took. We took the approach, on a

government-to-government basis with the federal government, to enter

into a framework in order to protect jobs and protect caribou. It’s

better that B.C. is at the table, unlike the previous government’s

approach where B.C. would have been shut out.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kootenay East on a supplemental.

CONSULTATION ON CARIBOU PROTECTION

T. Shypitka: This is the NDP once again deciding that the government in

Victoria knows better than the people in rural British Columbia. The

draft to Ottawa is complete. It has been done without public

consultation. The fix is in. The deal has been done. Once again,

regional voices have not been part of the solution here, and rural B.C.

once again is on the outside looking in. These eleventh hour fake

consultations are mere window dressings before rural B.C. gets shafted,

and rural B.C. won’t stand for it.

The question is to the Premier. Why doesn’t the Premier stand up

and back off and actually listen to those that his decisions impact the

most?

Hon. D. Donaldson: This is a draft agreement that’s out for public consultation.

We’ve had amazing input from the public. We value local knowledge that’s

underway in the Peace region and across the interior of the province, in

through the Kootenays. We feel that that’s going to impact, in a

significant way, the final agreement.

I just want to add that the approach that the former government

took, knowing that the federal government listed the southern mountain

caribou as a threatened wildlife species in 2003…. For 14 years, the

actions they took were obviously not enough. The federal government

issued an imminent threat of extinction in May 2018.

We take this seriously. We don’t take the approach — and what the

member is suggesting — to ignore First Nations rights, to ensure B.C.

isn’t at the table and to let the feds decide on a significant issue for

the people of B.C. That’s not our approach, and that’s why we’re

undertaking this public consultation process on a draft

agreement.

WOODWYNN FARMS AND HERBICIDE USE

A. Olsen: Woodwynn Farms is an iconic farm in Central Saanich. It’s about a

200-acre contiguous piece of agricultural land. It’s got massive

potential. It’s had its fair share of controversy over the decades,

since I’ve been at the local government table and now in provincial

politics.

Thousands of people drive by the farm each week. It’s, frankly, a

very important part of our community. Many of us who’ve lived in the

community a long time have gone by there and noticed and known the

Holsteins that used to graze underneath the Garry oaks next to the

road.

Last weekend I noticed that the upper field was brown, completely

dead, the field further to the south, part of the farm operation, still

lush and green. I’ve been receiving messages from my constituents asking

whether the government has treated the property with glyphosate —

Roundup, as it’s known — or another herbicide.

[2:40 p.m.]

My question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: did

B.C. Housing, the owner of Woodwynn Farms, spray that property with this

or any other herbicide?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for the question and for drawing my

attention to this matter. I just became aware of this concern, and I

will commit to getting more information and sharing the details with the

member as soon as I have more information.

Mr. Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

A. Olsen: Taking a closer look at the farm — and I’ve had photos sent to me

— it’s very clear. Where you get to the side of the field, it’s green,

and then there’s just this massive dead field. It has very much all of

the signs of a field that’s been sprayed with glyphosate. We know that

there are an awful lot of challenges with it. There’s a lot of evidence

of the harmful impacts.

Woodwynn was either organic or was on the way to becoming organic.

The future of it was to achieve organic status. It runs next to

ḰENES, an important watershed

within Saanich and Central Saanich. I know that First Nations

communities have got a huge interest in that land.

I recognize that the minister has just become aware of it. I would

just ask if the minister would also, in her response back to me, at some

point, be able to acknowledge whether or not the local First Nations

were also consulted on this.

Hon. S. Robinson: As I said, I will get more details and certainly share them with

the member.

CONSULTATION ON CARIBOU PROTECTION

S. Bond: For months, thousands of concerned British Columbians and local

government officials have demanded that this Premier hold meaningful

consultations on the caribou recovery efforts. Instead, they were

ignored. Decisions were made in Victoria behind closed doors, and a

predetermined plan was announced that will result in significant job

losses.

Local knowledge and on-the-ground experience matter, and they have

been overlooked and only brought into the picture now as a token

afterthought. My constituents and thousands like them are frustrated and

angry about being left out of this critical process.

Will the Premier finally listen and ensure that meaningful,

appropriate consultation takes place?

Hon. D. Donaldson: This is a draft agreement. We’re seeking public input, and the

engagement process has been very rigorous, to date. People have been

attending in incredible numbers — over 2,500 people in the first

sessions we’ve held in the Peace River country. This is the valuable

process where we gain input from the public before draft agreements

become finalized.

These agreements will provide greater certainty and a more secure

economic future for the people in the regions. That’s because the path

that we were headed down, because of the patchwork approach of the

previous government, was leading to a result where the federal

government, under the Species at Risk Act, would unilaterally impose a

section 80 order, based on habitat only, that would be catastrophic to

workers, catastrophic to communities and that could result in billions

of dollars in economic losses in B.C.

That’s not the approach that we’re taking. We’re taking an

approach to involve regional voices. We’ve had numerous meetings

throughout the period where these draft negotiations have been

undertaken. That’s the approach that this government is willing to take

to get from a final draft to a final agreement.

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

supplemental.

[2:45 p.m.]

S. Bond: The minister knows it is way too little, and it is way too late.

In rural communities, including my own, across northern British

Columbia, hundreds and hundreds of people have jammed into rooms, in

fact, overflowing, because they want their voices heard.

This Premier has decided that the government in Victoria knows

best. As a result, people across the regions where we live feel

disrespected and ignored.

The Premier has a chance today to stand up in this House and

listen to thousands of British Columbians — thousands of them — that are

concerned about their ability to keep a job and to enjoy recreation and

participating in activities on the land base that they live

on.

It’s time for this Premier to stand up, to show that he cares

about that and to take a pause in this process. We’re trying to jam a

pile of meetings into the next couple of weeks. That is hardly fair —

too little, too late.

Will the Premier stop the process today and give people a chance

to have their voices heard?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, let’s talk about “too little, too late.” The people on the

other side, when they were in government — and the member asking the

question was a cabinet member at the time — had 14 years to act to

respond to the federal government warning that the mountain caribou were

a threatened wildlife species — 14 years. Because the former government

didn’t act, we’re facing the timeline that we’re facing now. We’re left

to try to fix a problem that they created.

As far as a solution and who knows best, I’ll just read a quick

quote from Chief Roland Willson, who’s not in Victoria. He’s the Chief

of the West Moberly First Nation. He says, in regards to this draft

agreement: “This agreement is the result of the lack of action by the

previous government over the last 16 years that they were in office. The

reason we’re here today is because of that. We can’t lose sight of what

happened there. I raise my hands to this government for stepping up and

doing what the other government refused to do.”

IMPACT OF CARIBOU

PROTECTION PLAN ON

JOBS

J. Rustad: Maternal penning, predator control, habitat work — the work that

we were doing when we were in government all led to increased caribou

herds in the Peace country. Something more significant we did, as well,

is that we included all participants in an engagement process, including

Chief Roland. The minister is clearly failing these forest-dependent

communities.

I want to give a quote from Rodger Roy, who is the manager of the

West Fraser mill in Chetwynd. He had this to say this morning: “We had

been told that we can expect job losses in the range of 500 people. We

had not been consulted or involved or asked for our opinion and had no

input whatsoever or discussion in any of these discussions at all.” It’s

an absolute shame that this government has not taken that seriously, in

terms of these communities and what’s needed to be done.

Will the Premier stop imposing this plan to destroy significant

jobs in our communities?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, conference calls between staff on the provincial caribou

recovery program and stakeholders, including industry, local governments

and NGOs from across the province, have happened every six weeks over

the past 12 months that we’ve been in government.

I just want to point out that if the actions of the previous

government were so great, then I fail to understand why, then, the

federal government issued, under the Species at Risk Act, a

determination of imminent threat of extinction for the caribou herds

that we’re now trying to deal with.

To quote, once again, Chief Roland Willson from the West Moberly

First Nation: “This government” — meaning this government that’s sitting

on this side of the House — “is trying to fix the wrongs of the previous

government. I’m glad that they took on the challenge, and we’re sitting

at the table now doing this.”

[2:50 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nechako Lakes on a supplemental.

J. Rustad: A petition of 35,000 people from up in that area, half the

population of the Peace River, would disagree with the Premier, in the

sense that there is no engagement whatsoever.

This is a top-down process that has been driven by this

government, out of a Victoria approach that they know best. This is

unacceptable. On top of this, they’re driving up costs and creating

uncertainty, imposing a plan that will destroy jobs right across this

province. The only way that a caribou recovery strategy can be

successful is if it has buy-in from local residents. That means you

actually have to go and talk to them before you make a plan.

It’s time for this Premier and this government to go back to the

drawing table, give some respect to the people that live in the Peace

and come up with a better plan.

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’re acutely aware of what was left to us by the previous

government and the potential impacts on local economies, workers and

jobs. The potential impact of a unilateral decision by the federal

government under the Species at Risk Act would have meant billions of

dollars of economic consequences to rural communities right across the

province.

What we’ve done is taken a different approach, made sure B.C. was

at the table during these draft negotiations and then presented a plan

for public engagement to incorporate local knowledge in the last little

while, where we’ve been able to get great input from people all over the

province.

I want to quote from the federal member, now a federal cabinet

minister, Jonathan Wilkinson, who says: “We can’t kick this problem down

the road, which has been the path of the government for 15 years.” He’s

referencing the previous government.

RELOCATION OF LAND TITLE RECORDS

AND FIRST NATIONS

CONSULTATION

P. Milobar: It’s fairly obvious that this week’s message box by the government

appears to be: “If in doubt, blame the federal government for our

shortcomings.”

This is what the Premier told Kamloops radio about the relocation

of land titles records in an interview played on Monday. “I’ve every

expectation that the minister is going to be working with the mayor and

council and Indigenous groups.” In fact, in that same interview, the

Premier also acknowledged that the minister is the minister responsible.

Yet they keep tap dancing away, saying they’re not responsible for land

titles.

However, mere hours after that interview, the movers showed up and

began loading boxes of records — a total slap in the face to the local

community and local First Nations. In fact, this has forced the Chief of

the Whispering Pines First Nation to retain lawyer George Petel to

represent his band’s legal interests about seeing what they can do to

stop the removal of these records until proper consultation can take

place.

When is the Premier going to stand up, take proper responsibility

for this mess of a file and acknowledge the province needs to start a

consultation with area First Nations?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The Land Title and Survey Authority. If it were a government body,

we would expect consultation and communication to be done differently

than it was done. However, it’s not part of government. The reason it’s

not part of government is because the members over there, when they were

in government, made it a corporation that has nothing to do with

government.

If this member and the members opposite are concerned about the

actions of the Land Title and Survey Authority, all they have to do is

look in the mirror for the reasons why.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson on a

supplemental.

P. Milobar: Well, I’d point out to the minister that this government, when we

were in government, never moved the records, and we wouldn’t be having

this conversation. It’s their actions that have led to this.

[2:55 p.m.]

The minister can say he’s not responsible, yet he had the

president and CEO of land titles sitting behind him in estimates to

advise him. The reality is this. The minister has also acknowledged that

the province of B.C. is actually the owner of these records and these

documents that have not had consultation. The reality is that area First

Nations and area municipal governments have been unanimous in raising

their concerns about the lack of consultation on this file.

The minister has said he would look into it. He hasn’t. The

Premier has said he would direct the minister to do it. He didn’t. Local

area First Nations have said — again, to quote Chief Lebourdais of the

Whispering Pines yesterday: “There has been nothing from the minister’s

office or the Premier’s office about any consultation on any of

this.”

When will the Premier stand up, acknowledge that there’s been a

colossal failure of consultation, stop the removal of the documents

immediately, start the process of having proper consultation with area

First Nations, and stand up and deliver on his word for once in this

House?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The colossal failure was the ideology that the government over

there created in privatizing the land records office. These are

important….

Interjections.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The misinformation spread by the member is hard to respond to

because it’s so false on so many fronts. The point is that the land

records office, the Land Title and Survey Authority, is not an arm of

government. It was created on that government’s watch. We’re proud of

our record of reconciliation with First Nations across this

province.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

M. Bernier: I rise in the House, proudly, to present a petition from over 30,000

people — and counting, daily. They’re calling on this government to consult

openly with all users, stakeholders, businesses and local governments, which

they haven’t done; immediately begin economic and socioeconomic impact

studies in the northeast region, which they haven’t done; and provide

baseline data on populations and relevant science-based studies to support

closures and recovery plans, which they haven’t done.

S. Furstenau: I rise to present a petition that was delivered by grade 9 Reynolds

student Mira Blakely yesterday. It’s 340 signatures requesting that the

government of B.C. lower the voting age to 16.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 21, Forest and Range

Practices Amendment Act. In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued

debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy.

[3:00 p.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — FOREST AND RANGE

PRACTICES AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that Bill 21, the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act,

2019, be read a second time.

The proposed amendments in the Forest and Range Practices

Amendment Act, 2019, will restore public confidence in how B.C.’s

forests and ranges are managed. We’re responding to feedback received

over the past decade about the need to do things differently in the

woods and on the range.

Once in effect, these amendments will be the first major

amendments to the act and regulations since they came into effect in

2004. That’s 15 years where there were supposed to be reviews and

potential amendments to the Forest and Range Practices Act that were

never done.

Much has changed in those 15 years. The efforts of our government

on reconciliation are a good example of what’s happened in the last 20

months, but there have been successive court cases that have reinforced

the First Nations interests in the forest. Also, there have been many

changes on the landscape in the last 15 years around catastrophic

natural events, whether it’s been the pine beetle infestation in the

Interior, whether it’s been wildfires around the province.

These are all events and situations that needed to be considered

in any review or amendments under the Forest and Range Practices Act,

and it was never done. It was meant to be done. It was never done, and

I’m happy that we’re introducing these amendments as a first step

today.

There are over 55 million hectares of Crown forest land in B.C.,

over 140 forest stewardship plans and over 1,475 range use plans. The

changes that we’re proposing in this amendment will create more frequent

and reliable opportunities for public input, improve information-sharing

and forestry planning, strengthen government’s ability to manage forest

activity by restoring some specific powers to government, expand the

definition of “wildlife” in the act to help protect at-risk species and

improve and streamline range use planning.

More opportunities for public review and comment will be created

by requiring the replacement of forest stewardship plans every five

years and woodlot licence plans every ten years. We know that under the

current act, forest stewardship plans can be extended, and some of these

plans have been extended twice. In other words, a forest stewardship

plan has been in place for 15 years without reconsideration. This will

make sure that plans have to be resubmitted every five years.

In the event of catastrophic damage, such as wildfire, a licensee

will need to update a forest stewardship plan and submit it to

government for approval within six months, making these plans more

responsive to changes on the land base. We’ve heard feedback from

numerous sources on this, whether it’s the Forest Practices Board, Union

of B.C. Municipalities, First Nations or concerned citizens, that we

have to be more responsive to these kinds of events on the land base

when it comes to planning forest activities through things like the

forest stewardship plans. These amendments will make sure that

happens.

Another new requirement is for forest companies to produce a

forest operations map that includes the approximate proposed locations

of proposed cutblocks and roads. This map is to be made publicly

available and will be subject to review and comment by interested

parties, including First Nations, the public and other tenured resource

users. A forest operations map must be completed before a licensee can

apply for a cutting or road permit.

Again, this is in response to people really wanting to know what’s

going on in their own backyards when it comes to the forest resources.

Of course, having some information and knowledge about that, about the

approximate proposed locations of cutblocks and roads, will definitely

lead to people being able to understand what’s going on in their own

backyards and potentially lead to less conflict about those

plans.

[3:05 p.m.]

The worst thing is when people are uninformed and don’t know where

those kinds of activities will occur on the land base. That’s happening

because we haven’t had a review or amendments to the Forest Practices

Act since its inception in 2004. The map will help those who are

potentially affected to understand where road building and logging will

occur.

Another amendment will expand the definition of wildlife in the

act to align with the definition under the Wildlife Act and allow for

the protection of ecological communities. Currently, only animals are

identified.

Changes will also ensure that the Forest and Range Practices Act

and regulations regime uses consistent terminology for at-risk species —

either endangered, threatened or of special concern. The expanded

definition comes into effect April 1, once the bill receives royal

assent, and all other amendments will come into effect by

regulation.

The ministry will also be able to vary or suspend an operation

plan, a forest or a range practice, or a cutting or road permit where it

may unjustifiably infringe on an Aboriginal right or title.

The changes being introduced today respond to feedback, as I said

already, and insights received over the last decade from First Nations,

the Forest Practices Board, the forest industry, the Union of B.C.

Municipalities and the ministry’s forest and range evaluation program.

It will bring back improved oversight by government on a publicly held

natural resource, and that’s the forest.

We’re also improving and streamlining the range use planning. The

range stewardship plan is being eliminated and range use plans will be

managed through an online platform. As well, the term of a range use

plan will be aligned with that of the range agreement to improve

administrative efficiencies. Currently, range use plans are there for a

term of five years, with a possible extension of five years. Range

agreements are in the form of a licence for 15 to 25 years or a permit

for one to ten years.

Together these amendments will put land first by making sure

government is in the driver’s seat when it comes to Crown tenures and

other land use decisions. The initial changes to the act will be

followed, over the next two years, by more substantive changes, which

will be informed by a public consultation later this spring.

For that, I’ll wrap up my comments on second reading. I look

forward to hearing comments and the perspectives of all members of this

Legislature who choose to partake in second reading debate.

J. Rustad: I’m pleased today to have an opportunity to stand up and respond

to Bill 21. After going through a number of days of estimates with the

Minister of Forests, it seems like we’re right back at it again, only a

little bit different perspective. It’s good. It’s good to have these

discussions, and it’s good to be thinking about this.

When I look at the act, and I looked through this…. My initial

reaction on the act is one of: “You know, it seems reasonable. It seems

like we could support it.” But there are some questions that need to be

asked, and I need to be convinced that this act will actually be able to

help our industries, whether it’s forestry or whether it is agriculture.

There’s a process that we’ll go through, of course, as we go through

second reading, but also, in particular, when we get to the committee

stage of the bill.

One of the things that the minister was just talking about, I find

interesting, in that there would be a requirement upon the industry to

update the plans on the land base if there’s a fire in the area. If

there’s a fire of significance in the area, they’ll have to go and redo

their stewardship plan, and they have to do it within six

months.

Well, first of all, that’s very challenging, in that a fire isn’t

necessarily out until the fall. It’s tough to get in to do the kind of

work that you need to do over the winter. But more importantly, I find

it really curious, in that that requirement isn’t on the chief forester,

in terms of updating their information for the area. The company has to

look at it, but perhaps the government doesn’t. It’d be interesting to

know why the minister thinks that, as we get into the committee

stage.

When I look at the bill and I think about my community and

communities much like the one that I live in and the ones that I

represent, forestry is an important part. In over 140 communities across

the province, forestry plays a significant role. It supports lands. It

supports our families. It supports our communities. Not just forestry

but also agriculture and range — they’re very important components. Any

changes to these components, to the base factor that makes these

industries work, people have an interest in. They want to

know.

[3:10 p.m.]

I find it interesting. One of the questions I’ll be having in

committee stage with the minister…. There doesn’t seem to have been a

lot of consultation or engagement, particularly with the ranchers, when

they talked about the changes to the range plans. I’m curious as to why

that hasn’t happened. The minister says that there’ll be lots of

consultation going forward into phase 2, but I’m wondering why there

wasn’t an indication or an engagement that allowed people to be more

comfortable with what this was, prior to this bill being introduced in

the Legislature.

When you think about our land base and you think about everything

that needs to be done, we’re looking for a balance. We have to balance

between wildlife, the values that we have out there, the biodiversity on

our land base as well as, of course, water, recreation, forestry and

agriculture — all of these types of things. For us, of course, living in

British Columbia, we live this. We understand the balance, and we

understand the needs that need to be put in place.

When I look at the plan, overall…. Like I say, it’s something that

I look at and think: “Well maybe it can be supported.” But I find it

also curious when the minister says he’s looking for more public input.

People have been talking to him about, particularly, the forest

stewardship plans and the need to be able to renew these every five

years.

I’ve had the honour of representing Nechako Lakes for 14 years

now, and it truly is an honour to bring forward the issues that come up

in my riding. My riding is very dependent upon forestry; there are many

mills throughout the area and activities.

I find it curious that in that 14 years, I’ve never had one person

come into my office and ask me about a forest stewardship plan or the

need to have opportunity for input. So I actually asked the companies in

my area. I said: “When you put your forest stewardship plans out for

public input, how much input do you get back? How many comments and

questions came back?”

One of the people said to me: “Well, they managed to bring out,

you know, their wife and children and a few friends so that they’ve got

at least somebody to sign up on the sheets when the public comes in,

because nobody else seems to come in and engage on these.”

I’m wondering where this drive is to do this renewal of these

plans every five years, as opposed to allowing it to be able to be

extended out for periods of time. Like I say, I’m sure there’s a

reasonable rationale for it. I’ll be interested in exploring that with

the minister as we go into the committee stage.

Range plans and that side…. I talked to some ranchers about this

going into the second reading debate, and I asked them what their

thoughts were on it. What they said, actually, was interesting. It’s

that the range stewardship plans weren’t really being used and that

they’re being eliminated, I believe, in this bill, if I have that

right.

They weren’t really used, although range plans…. Of course, as the

minister said, there are close to 1,500 of these. But the range

stewardship plan was a tool that, actually, ministry staff were using to

be able to help with ranchers and move through things. So I’m curious as

to that particular tool or that flexibility that, in some places, the

range managers were able to help ranchers in going through that. I’m

curious whether that type of flexibility will still be there or whether

those options and components will be gone.

I think one of the things that I look at in this bill — and it’s

disturbing — is this continuous pattern that a lot of the questions will

be answered through regulations. The intent and the full exposure of

this is not transparent. We fought on the LNG bill that came in. We

fought for one very good purpose: that there needed to be transparency,

that the agreement needed to be out in the public and transparent so

that people could see what’s going on. What’s the intent of the

ministry? What is it that they’re trying to achieve through

this?

By going to more of this work through regulations…. It’s just

another example of the government deciding that they don’t want to

necessarily reveal this out front and have that fuller engagement. We’re

seeing that in spades, of course, with caribou and the caribou

management plans which, of course, were a large focus of question period

today.

It’s disturbing. It’s very disturbing, because we want to be able

to have that transparency. People on the land base, people that depend

on our land base, whether it’s for agriculture or forestry, need to see

that transparency and understand what it is that the ministry and this

government are trying to achieve.

The other thing that I’m concerned about is when you look at these

requirements for renewal on these plans every five years or every six

months…. If there’s a fire in the area…. Madam Speaker, as you’re

probably well aware, over the last two years, there have been very, very

significant fires across the province, not just in large-scale fires but

the number of fires across the province.

[3:15 p.m.]

If we’re going to have companies having to go in and update their

plans every six months, this is a tremendous amount of cost that comes

onto the companies and a burden — time for engagement and the whole

process. We’re already looking at an industry right now that’s

struggling. Lumber prices are $340 U.S. or below. Many companies have

come to me and said that their break-even is close to $400 now because

of all the additional costs and uncertainty that have been layered on by

this government, as well as high stum­page and the softwood lumber

challenges.

This layer of uncertainty, this layer of additional cost, is going

to have an impact. It will make things tougher for companies to be able

to operate. Now, I think we all want transparency, and we all want an

opportunity for input and process. But when you look at the fact that

there has been very little engagement or process when opportunities are

there, but we’re adding yet more requirements and more engagement and

more process…. All that is, is adding red tape and cost, making things

less competitive. It’s not actually achieving, I think, what the

minister wants to try to achieve.

I’m just wondering, like I say: where is this being driven from?

What is the purpose that the ministry is trying to get to? I think the

minister agrees that forestry is a vital component. It’s important, I

know, for the communities that he has, that he represents in his riding,

as it is for many of us here in this Legislature.

As we go through the committee stage on this bill, I think there

certainly will be some interesting questions and discussions as we go

through. Ultimately, that will lead to whether or not our side of the

Legislature supports the changes that the ministry is planning to do in

this bill.

As I mention when I talk about flexibility for ranchers and the

process that they go through, you know, many ranchers…. I don’t know,

Madam Speaker, if you had that opportunity…. I know the minister has

probably had that opportunity. But many people who work on the land base

work long days. They have, I guess, a challenge with doing paperwork,

going through the process, going through these types of engagements, and

that’s a concern. Are we adding more burden on to these people who are

trying to raise the food that we eat or are trying to scratch a living

out on the land base and are also so important for communities like

mine, like Vanderhoof, and so many others that have that as an important

component?

Like I say, I’m just wondering if the minister is concerned about

adding some layers of potential paperwork and other components that need

to be done by these ranchers and sort of what the reasoning is and the

thinking behind wanting to do that. Concerns that ranchers have been

raising with me, with having to engage personally with First Nations on

things like being able to do a dugout for watering or wells or these

types of things…. This is just adding to their angst in terms of: what

is it that we’re expecting ranchers to do to be able to continue on with

utilizing range and utilizing our land base?

You look at this, and you look at all of these components that are

being added up. It’s the reason for asking: why is so much of this going

to be done through regulation?

When I looked at the visual quality objectives…. I was working in

the industry in the 1990s when visual quality objectives were first

brought in. We sort of looked at it. It all made sense, and it was all

nice because we thought of the world as a static world. The landscape is

dynamic. It changes. We have seen that dramatic change across the

landscape now because of mountain pine beetle.

Many of those areas that are visual quality objectives are dead.

Trees are falling down, they’re fire hazards, and they’re close to

communities. They need to be able to go in and to do something in those

areas. Will this be able to provide the flexibility that is needed to do

that so that communities can protect their communities against the

potential of wildfires, so that we can get young and healthy forest

growing back in these areas that have such restrictions on them in terms

of the ability to be able to harvest and to go in and to be able to

replant?

I’m just wondering: are the changes in this act designed to be

able to help with that problem, or are they actually going to hinder

with that problem?

Similarly, when I look at the issue of invasive plants and the

requirements in terms of going out and doing assessments and the work

that may need to be done, talking to ranchers…. I mean, for invasive

plants, there’s so much spread of weeds that come from migratory birds,

that come from people out recreating on ATVs and other things that are

taking seeds along with them unknowingly. This happens on the land

base.

[3:20 p.m.]

Will we end up downloading costs now to ranchers having to manage

these sorts of things on the range when it might not even be their

issue? It might be something that is brought on from outside. So it does

end up being a downloading from the government onto ranchers, onto

people who are operating on the land base.

Once again, I believe that as this particular component goes

through, it’s going to be driven more in regulations afterwards. So it’s

a big question mark: how will all these things work? Certainly, if it’s

going to be a downloading of costs and a burden onto ranchers that are

price-takers — they struggle to be able to carry on with what they’re

doing — I can’t support that.

Clearly, we want to see a healthy landscape. If there are weeds,

weed issues, we want to be able to go through and make sure that the

work is being done. I think that both sides of this House would like to

see that. I guess the question is: will this end up being downloading,

or will this be a partnership and resources that government will bring

to bear in terms of their role in managing the landscape?

After all, 95 percent of the landscape in this province is

Crown-owned, and the Crown should have a responsibility in terms of

stepping up to the plate and being able to make sure those are looked

after properly.

Once again, like I say, there are many details to come in terms of

how this process will go. I have these fears about what is going to come

through regulation and the process. Hopefully, we’ll get a sense of that

through the committee stage. Hopefully, it won’t have to go to a process

that ends up like the mountain caribou, with people starting to protest

and coming out with concerns because the plan is already

done.

Hopefully, there will be that opportunity for the engagement and

process, and we’ll get a good sense of that as we go in and through

this. In the end, Victoria-driven regulations imposed down on these

without the engagement, without the study and work and considerations

for the people and the communities is not a good approach. It’s a bad

approach. It’s the wrong approach.

You need to be able to work with the people. You need to be able

to make sure that the farmers and ranchers, the forestry professionals,

the people in communities have an opportunity to engage so that we can

have healthy ideas that help to support what we all want to see, which

is not just a healthy forest for all the biodiversity issues we have but

healthy communities and healthy families.

With that, I look forward to raising these concerns during

committee stage as well as hearing what other members contribute to this

debate.

S. Furstenau: I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 21, the Forest and

Range Practices Amendment Act.

British Columbia has long been known as the province of hewers of

wood and drawers of water. We’ve all seen the famous turn-of-the-century

photographs of gigantic trees being logged. For generations, forestry

has supported thousands of families in the province, just as for

thousands of years our forests have, in turn, nourished the environment

that we all depend on.

Our forests are no longer what they once were. Mills have closed.

Jobs have been lost. And our forests are not being managed sustainably.

Every year more and more of them go up in flames or succumb to pests.

Every year forests that have been logged without proper review

jeopardize community watersheds, endanger species, harm the local

ecosystems and dump more carbon into our atmosphere.

The state of affairs has gone on for far too long, and the

legislation before us today is overdue. As legislators, we have a duty

to protect the public interest, not just for today but for generations

to come. And it is with that in mind that I speak to this act

today.

I’d like to begin by revisiting the Haddock report on professional

reliance, which emerged in response to the systemic mismanagement of

public resources. The review, published last summer, outlined in great

detail the challenges that we face and provided 121 recommendations on

how we can address them.

A significant portion of this review was dedicated solely to the

forestry sector. Mark Haddock found that the Forest and Range Practices

Act “is a somewhat unique approach to professional reliance….

Government’s reliance on forest tenure holders is much higher than in

other natural resource legislation.” In other words, although the other

natural resource sectors were already placing too much reliance on

proponents to uphold the public interest, this was especially prominent

in forestry.

[3:25 p.m.]

Mark Haddock found that this reliance was based on four key

factors. The information submitted to the government about decisions on

the land base was limited. There were also limitations on the

discretionary authority of decision-makers when approving plans and

making orders. So the people charged in government with protecting the

public interest were meant to do so with limited information and with

limited available tools.

The requirement for approvals for cutblocks and forest roads has

been eliminated. Finally, the practice of tenure holders retaining and

relying upon the opinions of a professional service was greater than in

other sectors.

Mark Haddock summarized these factors with a statement from the

Association of B.C. Forest Professionals. “Government should retain the

authority to determine how resources are utilized and give clear, timely

direction to professionals and resource users.”

It is clear that the status quo in B.C. forests was putting the

public interest at immense risk by minimizing oversight and allowing

companies to essentially self-police. The environmental, cultural and

economic values that British Columbians care about have been

compromised.

I do want to respond to the member for Nechako Lakes, who said

that he’s questioning the need for increased input and that he has

noticed very little input when opportunities have been provided. I’ve

actually experienced the opposite. I’ve heard numerous stories from

concerned communities across the province that they have gone on a walk

one day to find tags on trees. They have found out too little, too late

about what is going on in their community.

In Ymir, for example, logging decisions in the community have put

their watershed into jeopardy. The decision to log had not taken into

account how valuable the forest is to their very small drinking water

watershed, and it hadn’t given them the heads-up. I understand they are

in consultation now. However, they still fret deeply for the well-being

of their drinking watershed and the future of their community. In the

Kootenays, residents displaced by last year’s flooding wonder if logging

in the region contributed to the severity of the waters that took their

homes.

I had a conversation yesterday with Karen, who lives in Youbou.

She’s deeply concerned about the proposed logging on the slopes above

the town, worried about the impacts to drinking water, the impacts to

water storage. Cowichan Lake is now sitting at 28 percent of its regular

levels, and we’re in April, not August.

The questions that communities have, that people have, about

decisions being made on our land base are actually numerous. I hear

about them all the time.

It isn’t helping the bottom line of foresters either. Mills are

closing as logs are exported in raw form. It would appear the system is

benefiting very few. That’s why the amendment act on the table today is

an important step in the right direction. By creating more frequent

opportunities for public input, communities will be able to review and

comment on forestry plans.

This review and comment period will reoccur each time a forest

stewardship plan or woodlot licence is replaced, and that must happen

every five to ten years respectively. In this way, if anything

significant changes on the land base — for instance, if a watershed

becomes critically endangered — those impacted could let government and

licensees know.

Licensees will also be required to share a forest operations map

containing approximate locations of proposed developments such as

cutblocks and roads. These maps will also be subject to review and

comment, and review and comment must be completed before the licensee

can apply for permits to cut or build. No longer can logging roads be

begun or cutblocks harvested without anybody knowing.

The change in language that includes protection for ecological

communities marks a shift towards a more holistic way of evaluating the

ecosystems in question. It is not enough to look at one species in a

vacuum. Everything is interrelated, and that is a fundamental piece that

our decision-making process has been lacking.

Of course, we’ll see in time if this legislation has been

effective. If we are allowing public engagement with natural resource

decisions, we need assurance that the feedback given to proponents and

to government will actually be taken into account. It’s the difference

between meaningful consultation and a rubber stamp.

If a community says, “No way. This will take away our clean

water,” then something needs to be done to address that. That remains my

most fundamental concern with this piece of legislation. Public review

and comment must be meaningful.

There’s a lot more to be done before we can rest easy and know

that our resources are being managed with the best interests of British

Columbians — present and, most importantly, future — at

heart.

[3:30 p.m.]

On Vancouver Island, for example, 90 percent of the productive

old-growth forests have been logged, and we’ve heard from the ministry

that they have no intention of stopping. People are relying on those

forests for everything from cultural significance to tourism to carbon

sequestration and ecosystem services. We need to recognize and calculate

those values. Old growth is far more valuable standing than it is

exported as raw logs.

We’ve headed into another fire season. It’s already begun. I’m

worried. I dread another dry summer shrouded in smoke, yet that’s what

we’re expecting. On a hike just a few weeks ago off the Malahat in

coastal rainforest, the forest was so dry that branches snapped off in

my hands. Underneath my feet, the ground literally crackled.

My colleagues and I recognize the significance of the legislation

before us today. We’re supportive of the shift towards transparency and

oversight in our forests. But in many ways, we also know that this

government often fails to consider long-term impacts. I’ve quoted Greta

Thunberg many times, but her words come to mind again: “You only talk

about moving forward with the same bad ideas that got us into this mess,

even when the only sensible thing to do is pull the emergency

brake.”

This legislation is good. It’s improving forest management in B.C.

But it’s a far cry from emergency action that we so desperately need. We

are in an emergency. Summers are hotter and drier. Droughts are more

severe. Impacts from climate change are growing more extreme, and our

forests in B.C. are net emitters of carbon.

What we need is a new vision for our forests in B.C. — a vision

that creates sustainable, healthy ecosystems and sustainable, healthy

communities, a vision that ensures long-term employment, not just in

harvesting and milling but in innovative, value-added products that will

help to create an economy that serves B.C. communities.

S. Thomson: I’m pleased to rise to make a few comments, as well, on the bill

that’s before us — Bill 21, the Forest and Range Practices Amendment

Act. I will echo the comments of my colleague from Nechako Lakes in

providing the comments here.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

As was pointed out and as was pointed out in the minister’s

release in bringing the amendments forward, our forests and our

rangelands really are the heart of British Columbia’s rural economy, one

of the foundational sectors and economic contributors in our rural

economy, along with other sectors like agriculture, which I know we’re

going to be talking about at length, probably, in the not too distant

future. These lands, both forest lands and ranch lands, support

families, support communities — 140 forest-dependent communities,

140,000 jobs.

It’s important to note that of our vast province — 95 million

hectares in total area — forested land is 55 million hectares of that,

and our timber-harvesting land base is 22 million hectares. The annual

harvest from that timber-harvesting land base is about 200,000 hectares.

About 1 percent annually is harvested. That was noted in the minister’s

press release and background information in bringing forward the

amendments.

An important point that was also in the release was the fact that

over 50 million, approximately 52 million, hectares in British Columbia

are certified to one of three international forest management standards,

independent standards. That’s more than any other jurisdiction in the

world, apart from Canada as a whole. So as a whole, our forest

management regime has been put to those standards and operates with a

long-term, sustainable approach.

[3:35 p.m.]

That’s the context of the amendments that are being brought

forward. As my colleague said, there are certainly elements of the bill

in front of us today that we support.

One of the key processes here will be the committee stage, because

so much of what is being brought forward is in the legislative side of

it. So much of it is left to regulation — and implementation and

appropriate consultation in developing those regulations.

I can recall, as I’ve said previously, being the minister on the

other side of the equation on these issues and being roundly criticized

by the members opposite for leaving so much in regulation and not having

the transparency and the processes into the legislation on everything we

brought forward — particularly on many of the forest statutes amendment

acts and forest legislation that we brought forward, having that

criticism. Now we see, in this bill, many, many elements that are being

left for regulation.

You look at the areas in here that are left to the regulatory

steps. Amendments in the plan, in prescribed circumstances, will be set

out in regulation: regulations concerning forest operation maps that

determine form and content; working times by regulation; visual quality

moving to requirement and regulation, rather than the current process

around setting out objectives to be achieved; regulation around

determining and defining the ecological communities and how they’ll be

employed; regulations for the details, as was mentioned by my colleague,

on the invasive plant component of this — the prevention requirements,

the mitigation. All of those elements are left to regulation.

That will be the key area that has to be pursued in the committee

stage. One of the concerns that I know we will want to pursue in the

committee stage is: just how much additional regulation, how much

additional cost, how much additional requirements — in terms of cost,

time and processes — do these amendments result in and that industry

will have to work with and comply with? That will be the key part of

this.

We, and I, certainly support the need for ensuring that there are

the processes for public input into the stewardship plans and those

processes. The desire to increase the public involvement and

consultation in those processes, I think, is an approach that can be

supported. It certainly responds to many of the recommendations from the

Forest Practices Board previously.

Just to recognize the Forest Practices Board. If you look through

all of their audits and work and investigations and everything that

they’ve done, which is extensive, in the greatest percentage of all of

the investigations, even those that come through the complaints process,

it’s found that the companies, the licensees, the B.C. Timber Sales, the

woodlots, the community forests are operating in compliance and with

good forestry practices and good stewardship practices.

We have to acknowledge that. But that doesn’t mean that there

can’t be improvements in the engagement process, improvements in

ensuring the public input is there, because that is part of ensuring the

understanding of what the industry is doing, what it means in terms of

economic benefits for those communities.

[3:40 p.m.]

We will need to look at how we assess the regulatory im­pact

of the amendments that are in this legislation. Also, we need to

recognize, as we do that, that as the release pointed out, this is only

step 1 of where further amendments and changes maybe come.

This is, as was pointed out, a preliminary set of amendments. So

we know that there will be more steps taken, more steps in responding to

recommendations that have come forward in the processes. We have to make

sure that we will be comfortable with how these initial steps play out,

recognizing that down the road, there will be further adjustments and

further changes.

The desire to increase public involvement and consultation I think

is the right step. Some of the changes in terms of the range use plans,

aligning with range agreements, cross-ministry coordination and

arrangements there…. I get the sense, in reading the legislation

currently, that much of that is administrative in nature in terms of

administrative efficiencies. But we will need to make sure that that

intent, as it might appear there, actually does achieve those

efficiencies while maintaining that flexibility of operations for our

ranchers and our cattlemen.

That’ll be the key process. The real challenge is to make sure

that this isn’t an additional red-tape burden on the industry. The

industry remembers all too well the forest practices code, the mountains

and the stacks of regulatory processes and forms that they had to go

through under that forest practices code. So we’ll be ensuring, through

the committee stage process, that this is not the beginning of the

return to that kind of situation.

As the industry faces challenges in the processes that are

underway for coastal revitalization and Interior revitalization —

addressing the declining timber supply, increasing costs, the lack of a

softwood lumber agreement…. It’s making sure that the industry, through

all of this — both in the forest sector and in the cattle sector, which

will be a key part of this as well — can remain competitive.

They are competing in a globally competitive market, so we need to

make sure that this is not adding a process and layering of costs on the

industry and that it’s not bringing a prescriptive “Victoria knows best”

approach and bringing it down onto those operations and those families

that depend on both forestry and ranching out in those rural

economies.

The other key, and the concerns I’ve heard from the sector on it,

is having an appropriate level of consultation in developing the

regulations and the implementation of this, given some of what they’re

seeing in terms of consultation processes currently underway — the

example of what we just spent a significant amount of time in question

period today on, in terms the caribou recovery process, coming in and

bringing in those consultation processes too late in the

process.

When we were working through the plans and the elements that were

being pursued, we had everybody at the table working on those —

everybody in the community, all the stakeholders, First Nations at the

table.

[3:45 p.m.]

We will need to make sure that the regulations, and that

significant list of regulation areas that I listed, are done in a way

that is consultative and engaging with industry in the process, and with

cattlemen.

I did talk to the Cattlemen’s Association. They recognize the

administrative efficiency changes here, but they also did flag,

certainly, the concerns around wanting to make sure that there was an

ongoing, appropriate level of consultation through the range branch and

the range staff within the minister’s staff, and organization through

the range branch.

Again, as pointed out by my colleague, we will look to address

much of the concerns or the implications of these changes as we go

through committee stage, to make sure it achieves that objective of

ensuring ongoing sustainable forest management — which, as I pointed

out, the industry is known for and takes very seriously and responsibly

— balanced against what are the increased processes and burdens these

changes may bring, and to make sure that what is put in place helps and

enhances the industry, helps create that awareness and ability to

operate on the timber harvesting land base throughout the province, and

not something that impacts their competitiveness and adds a significant

cost to their operations.

I’m sure, as the minister knows, he is hearing from the industry

of all the challenges and the increasing costs in many areas — the

regulation, the taxation side of it — all up against a very, very

globally competitive market, with prices that are currently causing

challenges within the sector.

With those comments, I appreciate the opportunity to provide those

few comments of perspective and will look forward to carrying on and

listening to the committee stage on the bill. I think when you look at

amendments like this, it really is the committee stage where you get to

the heart of what it is intended to do and how that’s going to be

implemented and developed and how the industry will be able to see their

operations fit into the changes.

Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to hearing further

perspectives and further consideration of this bill as it moves into the

next stage.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’m very pleased to be able to add just a few comments about this

bill, the amendments to the Forest and Range Practices Act.

The member opposite, the member for Kelowna-Mission, as a former

minister, would have known and heard me stand up many times, when I was

in opposition, to rail against the previous government’s approaches to

forestry. What this bill does and what our government is doing really

does redress some of the problems that were created over the last number

of years.

Representing a forest-dependent community in the north Island…. It

really is a forest-dependent community. We saw mills close over the

years when we were in opposition and the opposition was in government.

We saw huge changes to the way forestry was done.

[3:50 p.m.]

I think one of the most exciting things about this, which is an

essential part of the coast forest sector revitalization that was

announced back at the truck loggers convention in January by the

Premier, is that it brings back the real sense of public ownership and

public oversight for our Crown lands.

I represent a constituency that has…. Most of the forest lands are

Crown lands. There’s a small area around Campbell River which is private

forest lands, largely run by TimberWest. Much of the rest is public

lands, and the company that has the licence there is Western Forest

Products. They have been working for many years in a way which has not

been regarded by communities as responsible. There has been a sense that

the communities have not had what they need. They’ve not had either the

oversight or the access to the resource.

This legislation will start to make changes to that. It will start

to make sure that that oversight by the community, the public oversight,

is back and that people can examine what is happening. Whether it is a

road, a full cutblock or the five-year plan, that people can actually

see what’s happening.

I’ve had many people in my constituency over the last number of

years, people who run tourism operations, who are extraordinarily

concerned about the lack of consultation when logging companies are

moving in. People who work in the bush are seeing what has been

happening and are concerned about that, but had no way to express those

concerns. This will really make major changes to that. It will really, I

think, restore the public trust in how our forests are

managed.

I know that the opposition is worried about micromanaging and

piles and piles of texts. When I was first running for my job as the

representative of the north island, I heard: “This was great. This was

bad.” There were piles and piles of texts, and I hear the opposition

saying this. But the real part of this legislation is to make sure that

the land is the land and our resource, the public resource, the resource

that should benefit everyone.

By putting the land first…. It’s to make sure that the government

is the one that is there when it comes to Crown tenures and land use

decisions. And the government not working alone. We are a government

that is committed to reconciliation, so it’s a government working with

Indigenous communities, working with First Nations.

Again, I have a number of Indigenous communities in the

constituency who all also want to have that ability to have access to

the resource, whether it’s for economic development, whether it’s for

culture, for history. But the First Nations, having been the people

traditionally living on the coast, surrounded by the forest and having

that as a resource, are acutely aware of the needs and the overuse and

the oversight.

One of the examples I always use is one of the TFLs held by

Western Forest Products in the Nimpkish Valley around Woss. It’s TFL 37.

You look at the map of TFL 37, and it is almost the exact overlap with

the traditional territory of the ’Namgis First Nation. The First Nations

absolutely have to be part of this, as we move forward, to make sure

that when we are making decisions for our forests and for the resource,

there is that input and that involvement and that

partnership.

The member opposite talked about what’s going to be happening

later. Essentially, this is phase 1. It’s a long process. The forests

have been there a long while. We hope they’re going to be there a lot

longer. It is a resource that we all depend upon, and we need to make

sure that we do this thoughtfully and constructively.

[3:55 p.m.]

It’s going to take time to get it going. It is complex. There is a

framework that does impact lots of groups. I mentioned Indigenous

groups. There are lots and lots of businesses. As I say, my

constituency, while it doesn’t have the mills anymore, still has got a

huge number of businesses absolutely dependent on the forest sector and

a huge number of people — well, not as large as it used to be but a

number of people — still absolutely dependent on the forest

sector.

There is going to be engagement. There is going to be more

discussion and communication as this evolves. It is really going to be,

as I say, a partnership that does allow for us, as the people of B.C.,

to really regain that sense of ownership of our public lands and to make

sure that we are the stewards of our public lands.

I heard the member for Cowichan Valley talk about that real need

of looking to the future. This is one of the things this does. In

revitalizing the coast forest sector, we have to look in the long term.

When we’re dealing with forestry, it is a long-term commitment. We have

a quick rotation for some trees, some aspects of the forest, but

effectively, we have to manage our forests and manage this resource for

the people of B.C. not just now, not just so we get the present benefit.

I think that the previous government was looking primarily at the

present benefit and not at that long-term resource.

We’ve got to have that long-term resource and long-term investment

for the future of our communities, our industry and, essentially, our

environment. I think that now, when we’re looking at everything, we have

to have that lens as well. I mean the climate lens, the lens of

greenhouse gas emissions, the commitment to many generations hence. So

when we are revitalizing the forest sector, it’s not just revitalizing

it for the industry, but it’s revitalizing it so we have that long,

long-term commitment.

There are a number of changes that this will bring in. It means

that licensees have to replace their stewardship plans every five years.

Woodlot owners — there are many woodlot owners in my constituency; in

fact, many of my neighbours are woodlot owners — have to replace their

woodlot licence plans every ten years.

The major forest licence holders, non-replaceable licence holders,

community forests and B.C. Timber Sales will all be involved in this.

We’ll all look for their input, as well as the smaller ones, those who

have the licence to cut. They don’t have stewardship plans, but their

interests will also be respected.

I don’t want to take too much time on this. Rather, just to say,

this is something that is long overdue. As I started my remarks, I spent

12 years railing against what was happening in the sector. I see this as

a good step, a first step — and we know it’s the first step — to

revitalizing the sector, giving people the confidence of oversight in

the forest, in our land base, and giving my constituents that hope that

there is really going to be a change in the way that our forests are

managed and our lands are looked after.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I’ll take my place. I thank you for giving

me the opportunity to speak to this very, very important

bill.

C. Oakes: It truly is my pleasure to rise today and have the opportunity to

speak to this bill — Bill 21, the Forest and Range Practices Amendment

Act.

Perhaps, before I start my comments, I would like to make a

comment on some of the words expressed by the Minister of Transportation

and Infrastructure. One of the significant challenges that we look….

It’s always easy to go backwards and to provide finger-pointing on what

has been achieved or not achieved.

[4:00 p.m.]

I have raised in this House…. I think this is a good opportunity

for me to continue to bring it forward, and it does align with what Bill

21 looks at, the incredible challenges I see with the spruce bark beetle

in our region, as a good example. I had the opportunity to travel

through the Pine Pass and to particularly look at the Parsnip trench.

The spruce bark beetle infestation continues to grow and has more than

doubled in size since 2015.

Due to wildfires, we certainly have had challenges going to do the

aerial overview surveys. But I have had discussion with professional

foresters, and there are an estimated — granted, this is before the most

updated — 40 million to 50 million cubic metres of mature timber supply

impacted by the epidemic. It has a shelf life of three to four years,

notwithstanding the significant economic loss. But having lived through

the fire catastrophe in stands dead from the mountain pine beetle

epid