Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Tuesday, October

31, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call continued second reading for Bill 39, Zero-Emission Vehicles

Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 29, Environmental

Management Amendment Act.

In the third House, Committee C, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 31, Emergency

and Disaster Management Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 39 — ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

D. Davies: I'd say it gives me pleasure to continue, but it's actually a displeasure to continue

this debate on Bill 39.

I'm getting the aws from the government side.

I briefly made my introductory comments yesterday on our opposition to this bill,

which is zero-emission vehicles, Bill 39, 2024. It builds on the 2019 bill, Bill 28,

zero emissions, which was absolutely silly at the time, but this has become more silly.

I introduced a few pieces talking about the diversity of our province and how this

bill would work down here in Victoria or on the Lower Mainland. But it does not work

because of the diverse weather conditions, environment, demographics, geographics

of our province.

Right now, in fact, up in Fort St. John, we're already at below-zero temperatures.

It's not going to get any warmer between now and May. I know the member for Stikine

also has winters, not as cold as we have up in the Peace country.

I talked briefly about information right from Tesla, information from an American

automobile study that talks about a near 50 or over 50 percent reduction in battery

and distance travelled when the temperature goes below six degrees. Well, that's T-shirt

weather, certainly, in February.

We are locking in here, probably over the next couple of weeks, at minus-20-degree

temperatures in the Interior and in the North. Those temperatures are going to be

lasting right through, literally, until April.

We also talked briefly about the distances travelled. I have a constituency office

in Fort Nelson, 500 kilometres away from my residence in Fort St. John. When it's

minus 20, 30 or 40, the range on an electric vehicle is only going to be 250 kilometres.

The infrastructure is nowhere near…. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how it's going to

be what is needed.

A gentleman who is north of Fort Nelson, Urs, owns the Northern Rockies Lodge. He

has a level 1 charging station at the Northern Rockies Lodge, which is 2½ hours north

of Fort Nelson, being run by a diesel generator, I might add, because he's off grid.

They have to produce all of their own electricity with diesel generators.

It's absolute silliness — that this cookie-cutter piece of legislation, where one

rule, across the board, is somehow acceptable when it isn't. There need to be exceptions

made. We need to be looking at the province as the diverse province that it is.

[1:40 p.m.]

I left off my remarks yesterday talking about the resource sector, whether we're talking,

which is really big up in my area…. The natural gas sector is huge. Everybody in that

sector requires a pickup. You need a pickup to access remote lease locations. You

need a pickup when you're working on building pipelines to connect facilities into

the main line.

You know what? These are not close to any civilization. They are in the middle of

nowhere. In my early days, I worked in the oil and gas industry. We would drive straight

north of town, which is not up the Alaska Highway, for 2½ half hours. There are zero

communities. There are no communities. Unless you've got one heck of a long extension

cord….

I just do not foresee how mandating that every single British Columbian must have

an electric vehicle by 2035, 90 percent by 2030…. That's only seven years from now.

It's just not reasonable.

We heard some of my colleagues earlier talk about how this is going to impact people's

pocketbooks. These vehicles are expensive.

The supply chain, which was talked about by my colleague from the Kootenays…. Right

now there's a critical shortage of EVs. So if you're going to be pushing this forward….

I don't even know how it's going to actually happen.

I talked about oil and gas. Forestry is a very similar sector up in…. Well, it's everywhere

in the province of British Columbia. I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find anything,

any vehicle that is probably…. Well, tons of half-ton pickups, tons of three-quarter-ton

pickups. Those are the most common pickups that you're seeing in all industry. They're

a lot cheaper than a one ton. As soon as you go to a one-ton pickup, you're looking

at $130,000.

This legislation, Bill 38, now captures, with the weights that are put in the bill,

three-quarter-ton pickups and less. So everything three-quarter ton and under…. You

will not be able to purchase in the province of British Columbia in a few short years.

It is shortsighted. It is a silly piece of legislation that is going to have catastrophic

negative impacts, quite frankly, on all of British Columbia.

I talked a little bit about the resource sector. This is going to have a huge impact

on farmers up in my region, for almost the same reasons as it does the other industries

that I just talked about.

I was up visiting…. My colleague from Delta South…. We were up north visiting some

ranchers this summer. Of course, it was a horrible summer, with the droughts and such.

Every farm and ranch out there…. They've all got half-ton pickups and three-quarter-ton

pickups. They're hauling around equipment or pulling their trailers for moving cattle

and such. The backbone of any farming industry is to make sure that they have these

pickups.

I cannot even fathom an electric farm vehicle operating in minus 30 conditions outside

of the Lower Mainland. It is absolutely going to be catastrophic for the farming community

across the province. Having electric pickups is even going to be a challenge, I believe,

if you're going into the Fraser Valley, for many of these farms.

My colleague from the Kootenays called desperation legislation on a couple of other

pieces of legislation. I think that's what it is.

This government has failed to meet the direction of their climate targets. "You know

what? Let's just do this knee-jerk response here and get this going." Unfortunately,

I think it is really…. Well, not I think. This piece of legislation really, really

will have huge negative consequences on the economy of British Columbia, again on

the affordability issue, impacting British Columbians the most in their pocketbook.

[1:45 p.m.]

This is what worries me, certainly, about people in my region and my colleague from

Peace River South's region. This is going to have a horrible, horrible impact.

I could talk for a lot longer, but I think I've made my piece. There's no way we can

support this legislation. It's something that is going to be catastrophic for the

resource sector, it's going to be catastrophic for farmers, and it's going to be catastrophic

for the average British Columbian.

Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Fourth Party.

I don't see him online. I did get an indication that he wished to speak to this at

this point.

Minister, would you like to close debate?

Hon. J. Osborne: I'll simply thank all the colleagues here in the House for their comments and look

forward to further discussion over committee.

Deputy Speaker: With that, shall second reading pass?

Division has been called.

[1:50 p.m. - 1:55 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 39, Zero-Emission Vehicles Amendment

Act, 2023.

Second reading of Bill 39 approved on the following division:

yeas — 50

Alexis

Anderson

Babchuk

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D'Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Furstenau

Glumac

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Malcolmson

Mercier

Osborne

Paddon

Parmar

Phillip

Popham

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sandhu

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Whiteside

Yao

nays — 24

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Halford

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Paton

Ross

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Sturko

Wat

Hon. J. Osborne: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 39, Zero-Emission Vehicles Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

[2:00 p.m.]

R. Kahlon: I call second reading, Bill 41, forest act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

BILL 41 — FOREST STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

This bill fulfils, in part, commitments made in the June 2021 Modernizing Forest Policy intentions paper to transform the forest sector by implementing new tools to strengthen

the social contract and enhance stewardship and sustainability.

Wildfire Act amendments will give prescribed fire legal standing in B.C.'s forest

management toolkit, enabling government to expand work with First Nations and other

partners on cultural and prescribed burns when requested. These amendments will allow

for a more concerted effort in the advancement in prescribed burns as a wildfire mitigation

practice.

Fire is obviously a natural process in many B.C. ecosystems, and First Nations have

a long history of using fire as a stewardship tool. Using prescribed fire in cooler

weather can reduce the risk of more severe wildfires in hotter seasons. Reintegrating

cultural and prescribed fire into the Wildfire Act allows us to increase these actions

to decrease the risks of wildfire, using First Nations knowledge to benefit and protect

everyone.

Forest Act amendments provide greater discretion in the issuance of cutting and road

permits. This will enhance the government's ability to be an effective steward to

manage our forests in a sustainable manner for generations to come.

Under the proposed amendments, decision-makers must consider stewardship, cultural

heritage resources and public health and safety. They may request additional information

related to the issuance of permits and during the term of the permits. They may impose

conditions on permits, and they may, of course, refuse a permit. This new discretionary

authority will enhance First Nations ability to address First Nations concerns raised

during the permit consultation and review process.

The proposed amendments to the act will reposition government as the land manager,

reasserting the public interest in forest management and equipping land managers with

appropriate tools to exercise discretion in decision-making.

Forest and Range Practices Act amendments will provide new tools for compliance and

enforcement. This will strengthen protection of public and First Nations values and

interests by ensuring that there are consequences for noncompliance and appropriate

tools to encourage voluntary compliance from participants and thereby deter noncompliance.

Strong, transparent compliance and enforcement is critical to protecting the forests,

the province's forest resources and ecosystems, conserving fibre supply and maintaining

the public's confidence in government stewardship of B.C.'s forest resources, and

further reflects government's commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

[2:05 p.m.]

Amendments to the Forest and Range Practices Act will introduce needed compliance

and enforcement tools by adding new administrative remedies and accountability measures

to ensure that public resources are effectively managed and to increase understanding

of the significant impact of noncompliance upon our public resources.

Often, contraventions result in losses and damages to Crown resources and property,

and there are no means to recompense the public. Damages to Crown land resources and

property can be significant, impacting ministry and government objectives and resulting

in unexpected costs to the people of B.C. These amendments will enable the minister,

as part of the administrative remedies process, to assess and require the payment

of damages where a contravention of the acts directly or indirectly harms or destroys

Crown resources.

Under the proposed remedial cost recovery provisions, if, for example, a contravention

results in a landslide that destroyed a government investment on the land base, such

as the restoration of a riparian area, the costs of the investment could be recouped

from the contravener. Reparations orders for damage, for harm to environmental, cultural,

recreation and resource values, add significant new consequences where contravention

harms a Crown resource. This will help to ensure that contraveners are accountable

for losses to important values such as biodiversity, protected wild habitats and old

growth trees.

For example, if an old growth stand is unlawfully harvested, in addition to administrative

penalties, which are to deter illegal actions and to remove any economic gain, reparation

order authority will enable an additional amount to reflect the irreplaceable harm

to resources and government objectives to which the old growth stand contributed.

While these losses cannot be easily determined, regulations will prescribe amounts

according to the nature of the resource harmed and the area impacted.

Finally, in addition, some minor legislative improvements will remove spent or other

provisions that are no longer relevant to make the Forest Act, the Forest & Range

Practices Act and the Wildfire Act more efficient and accessible.

If I might conclude, overall, the amendments will build on government's efforts to

reassert the public interest in our forests by supporting government as the provincial

land manager and as a leader in forest stewardship that can work in partnership with

First Nations to establish clear landscape-level direction, mitigate conflict and

facilitate local solutions.

These changes will demonstrate the government's long-term vision for stewardship,

economic well-being and its continued commitment to reconciliation.

Hon. J. Osborne: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Osborne: I notice in the gallery today that we're joined by Chief Michael Recalma from the

Qualicum First Nation and his wife, Sharon. I want to say hello and welcome them to

this place. The chief and I met in the summer of 1991, when I was a summer student

working at the Big Qualicum hatchery. It's a delight to see them today.

Please, everybody, make them welcome.

Debate Continued

M. Bernier: I want to thank the minister, as I'm speaking to Bill 41 — second reading here — as

it's brought forward. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill. The minister

highlighted, obviously, some of the changes that are being considered and brought

forward by the ministry.

Maybe I'll start, with all sincerity, by commending the minister on the approach on

this one. By that, I mean that it's been quite uncommon for this government to put

forward a bill after consultation. Looking at what they've done around the province,

usually it's the other way around. They put a bill forward and then say: "After we

pass it, we're going to consult." In this actual situation, I know — as the minister

highlighted after the 2021 paper — that there have been consultations taking place

that have led to some of these changes.

This is also right after we've had the largest forest fire season in the history of

the province of British Columbia. Some of the challenges we've seen on the landscape,

some of the impacts to our ecosystem, not just around forestry but, of course, the

forest fires and what's taken place….

[2:10 p.m.]

When we look at the amendment, it's a 188-section bill. It's quite large, understandably.

Some of it is consequential to previous changes being made in the acts. But we'll

get into a lot of the meat and potatoes, I guess, on this in committee stage.

I do want to make a couple of quick comments. I won't speak in too much depth, because

again, we'll get into some of the issues at committee stage, and also my colleague

from Prince George–Mackenzie I know will speak to this after me and is very passionate

and knowledgable, as well, on this sector.

I think it's important to recognize that forestry is in an unprecedented situation

right now in the province of British Columbia — the impacts on our ecosystem, again,

as I mentioned, but also the impacts to our communities, to the jobs. We know that

forestry is an important industry in the province of British Columbia. The minister

and I agree on this. It's an industry that's basically one of the founding industries

of this province, but they are under immense pressure and challenges right now.

I think everybody would also agree, because of that, that we cannot keep doing business

as usual, that we have to be looking at biodiversity on the landscape. I know my colleague

will talk to that in greater length, as he always does.

When we're looking at amendments in the Forest Act, Forest and Range Practices Act,

the Wildlife Act, I appreciate that some of these changes, I will say, on the face,

look like they're important. But again, the devil is always in the details, which

we'll get to later on in committee stage.

I think the minister will acknowledge that sometimes I will immediately be supportive

where I believe there are good changes, but also skeptical, because of the way this

government has rolled out some of their bills — I'll talk about the impacts in my

riding specifically — without due diligence, without consultation. The impacts it

has had on our communities, whether it's been around wildlife, the caribou issue,

the reduction in the moose hunt, which I would argue is not science-based, the back-country

closures that we've seen through the ministry without any kind of socioeconomic impact

study done, a lot of it is political and knee-jerk.

Of course, people in my region…. When this bill was introduced just yesterday, their

first reaction was skepticism, because they've lost faith in this government's approach

on a lot of this. But I do have to remind them that in some cases…. This bill might

be one of them, where there are meaningful steps being taken that could be appropriate.

We'll discuss that as well and as we go through committee stage, as I mentioned. I

never shy away from the fact that if government is putting something forward that's

valuable, I'll support it. I think we should all be doing that.

Again, there are parts of this that I'll have some very important questions on as

we go forward. One of them that I think the minister knows that I will get into is

my concern about…. Any time there are changes — and as the minister even talks about

— administratively, the first thing I ask is: what's the red tape involved? Is this

going to create more uncertainty in the forestry sector?

As I've mentioned all along, in any industry…. This bill talks about permitting. But

one of my biggest concerns…. I would far rather get a no quickly and move forward

than government delaying permits for a year or two years or three years and creating

that uncertainty. That is where the criticism comes in.

So if the minister is going to be able to speak to this in committee stage and say

the approach is actually to expedite a permit process, knowing full well that it's

not always a yes, that sometimes it's a no…. But we need to get to a process, a place,

where we can start giving more certainty to a sector that is struggling.

I'm always worried about extra costs, downloading and red tape that will be created

any time we make changes to a piece of legislation that talks about administrative,

more bureaucracy. The minister will be able to quantify that or correct that, again,

when we have the opportunity to dive into it further in committee stage.

[2:15 p.m.]

With that, I won't spend too much time other than to say I appreciate the conversations

that we're going to have when the time comes at committee stage. Again, on face value,

some of the changes that I see in this look appropriate, but of course I want to make

sure that we quantify those changes as we get into that discussion.

I appreciate the time that I've had today to speak in second reading. Thank you very

much.

M. Morris: I'm going to just spend a little bit of time speaking on Bill 41. It's an area that

holds a lot of interest for me. I live in the Prince George timber supply area, which

is the largest timber supply area in British Columbia. It takes up about 40 percent

of B.C.'s softwood production, or has up until this point, for sure, anyways.

I like what I see. I'll come back to a couple of particular areas in this bill as

I move forward over the next few minutes here. But how did we ever get to this stage?

That was one of the things I looked at, and I've always been bewildered as to how

and when we ended up having this myopic vision of a forest as being nothing more than

a mere 2-by-4 or pulpwood.

I did a lot of research into this. I looked back, and I traced it all the way back

to 1945 to the royal commission report that was published in 1945. The commissioner

said in that report that British Columbia should adopt…. He recommended to the government

of the day that British Columbia should adopt the sustainable yield strategy. At that

time, in 1945…. And of course, the royal commission had taken place a couple of years

before that, so this was the culmination of all the information that he got at that

particular time.

The input was based on the forest sector in the '20s and '30s, leading up to this

particular point in time. And when the commissioner recommended a sustainable yield

strategy, their vision was that British Columbia had so much wood and so much forest

that we would be able to harvest forests forever in a sustainable way. Rotations were

120-year rotations in the Interior of the province –– a little bit less than that

down in the southern part of British Columbia, on Vancouver Island, but 120 years.

So when the commissioner made this recommendation, he also said: "Just a minute. I

also identified that there are other values in the forest: the wildlife, the riparian

areas, the water and the impact that a forest has on this. But I don't think I need

to take that into consideration in my defining what sustainable yield is." At that

time, he was speaking from a paradigm of British Columbia just covered in mature primary

forests and we would never be able to cut it down fast enough to jeopardize that primary

forest. It would be in existence all the time.

Well, as we rolled through 1945, and there was another royal commission in '55 that

focused more on the administrative parts of forestry, nothing was ever mentioned about

these other values of a forest until the 1975 royal commission. They did reference

the fact that we're harvesting all this mature timber, and one of these days that

mature timber will be gone. The advantage we have had in the B.C. forest sector up

until that period of time will be gone. There was a brief mention of wildlife. There

was a brief mention of other uses on the land base other than forestry at that particular

time.

We carried on, and we carried on without any regard for wildlife, riparian areas or

any of these other values on a forest until the first timber supply review that took

place in the late 1990s.

I harken back to a presentation that the chief forester of the day made to the Faculty

of Forestry at UBC where he said that, up until the late 1990s, nobody ever talked

about the riparian areas and wildlife values and all the other values on the land,

and everything was considered or calculated on one rotation of forests only at that

particular time.

The chief forester was Larry Pedersen. There was another little bit in his presentation

to the faculty that caught my attention, and that was where he speaks to the fact

that the environmental group of the day, in the early '70s, was looking at the fact

that…. Their recommendations were that B.C. would have an annual allowable cut of

around 30 million cubic metres of wood per year. Larry Pedersen was suggesting that

a more feasible amount of wood during that period of time would be about 60 million

cubic metres of wood per year.

[2:20 p.m.]

Industry at the time suggested that no, we should be looking at 80 million to 90 million

to 100 million cubic metres of wood harvested every year in British Columbia, and

it looks like they won out because that's exactly what we went up to. But what that

did is it eliminated the amount of primary forest that we have.

We started clearcutting in the 1960s in British Columbia. Up to that point in time,

we were doing selective harvest only. Any tree greater than 12 inches would fall,

and anything smaller than that would stand. That was working quite well from the early

days up until the mid-1960s.

Once we started that clearcut process, we have been clearcutting from that day forward,

to now. When we clearcut, we eliminate all the tree cavities that are home to 81 species

of wildlife that den or nest in these tree cavities in British Columbia. That 81 factor

is something I pulled from a B.C. government website.

Particularly in today's world, where we have these feller-bunchers that can go and

cut a phenomenal amount of wood in a very short period of time, the operators don't

look up. They don't look for stick nests. They don't look for the tree cavities. They

just cut everything down in their path, and it's gone forever.

What we have, basically, done over that period of time is we've harvested probably….

We've clearcut 20 million hectares of forested area in British Columbia — 20 million

hectares. That's a lot of land. That's a lot of habitat that is missing.

I throw this question out now, but I've thrown it out in many of the presentations

that I've made around the province: what happens to the wildlife that reside, that

live, in that area that's going to be logged? What happens to the raptors — the goshawks,

the eagles, the owls — the marten, the fisher and all the animals that live in that

area?

Everybody, when I generally make a comment like that, will look at me, and they expect

an answer from me. The answer is this: they die. They either die in the logging process

itself — the 81 species that are hiding in a tree cavity or under the roots of a tree

and that get crushed in the logging process itself.

If they're lucky enough to escape, they could escape into an adjacent area of forest

that has adequate habitat to keep them, but all animals on the land base are territorial.

They will fight to the death to protect their particular area from another one of

the same species coming in.

That's their food source. That's their home. It can only sustain so much life within

that area. There's a fight to the death, so there is no net increase of wildlife.

They don't all move into the adjacent primary forest habitat, because it won't sustain

them. Many of them die.

The ones that run to the other side of the area that has been logged…. That has already

been clearcut and has not yet provided regrowth that would sustain any habitat. That

takes 80 to 100 years, in the interior of the province, to grow back. They die of

starvation or exposure.

So our wildlife population in British Columbia has been decimated. It has probably

dropped by 50 to 80 percent across the province. In many areas, the marten population,

which is the Canadian sable, has disappeared. The fisher has disappeared. Goshawks

have disappeared. Grey owls have disappeared. Great horned owls have disappeared.

Over the last seven or eight years, maybe a little bit longer than that, I've put

on a lot of miles driving through the Prince George timber supply area, parts of the

Mackenzie timber supply area, the Quesnel, 100 Mile and Lakes District timber supply

areas. I've been looking at the retention areas, the areas that have been left behind

by logging, and I've been focused on a few things.

One of the things I was looking at was the stick nests that might have been left behind

in logging. Under

section 34 of the Wildlife Act, you can't cut down, you can't dispose

of, a stick nest at any given time. It's protected, because the stick nests are what

the owls…. The owls will chase the eagles and the hawks out of those nests and take

them over themselves to raise their young.

I've been looking for stick nests, and I haven't found one single stick nest in any

of the retention areas that I've seen in those timber supply areas. I've put on 10,000

or 15,000 kilometres specifically driving into them. If I can't see the area with

the set of binoculars that I carry, I walk into it. That's a problem for me.

[2:25 p.m.]

I haven't seen the tree cavities that are so important for those 81 species of wildlife.

Where are they? They're logged. They're cut down. There is the odd time where a forest

company will leave a wildlife tree, as they call it. They will leave this big cottonwood

with a tree cavity, perhaps, in it. The tree cavities are usually 20, 30, 40 feet

up in these trees. The tree needs to be at least 80 to 100 years old before it is

big enough to have a tree cavity.

They will leave this solitary tree in the middle of a large clearcut that no animal

will ever consider going to because it's open around there. There's no habitat for

it, for protection. There's no food source for it, in that particular area there.

All this has been happening year over year.

I started researching this when the former Premier, Christy Clark, asked me to do

a wildlife habitat review across the province. Those are the things I was looking

at. Then I became quite concerned when I saw the level of clearcutting that had taken

place across the province, not only at the loss of wildlife habitat that we see, which

has led to the 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 percent decline in wildlife populations — in some

areas, probably 100 percent has been extirpated — but about the loss of tree cover.

I first came across a hydrological study done in the southern Interior of the province

by a UBC professor and a hydrologist from the Kootenays. They said: "Hmm, I think

we've been using the wrong science to determine the impact of the loss of forest cover

on the land base."

Their research indicated that the loss of the tree cover leads to accelerated snow

melt in snow-dominated regions, which most of British Columbia is, particularly on

the south-facing slopes. With no tree cover or very little tree cover — we get massive

amounts of snow falling in British Columbia, like we do, thank goodness — the spring

freshet comes, and the sun melts the snow in a very quick and rapid fashion that causes

flooding.

That flooding starts in the upper reaches of every watershed in British Columbia.

By the time it reaches the Fraser Basin, it starts building up. That has led to….

The science that I've read over the last five or six years is making a connection

between the loss of forest cover and the massive floods that we have. The science

— there have been some recent studies out this year, as well, that indicate that.

It goes a step further. With the loss of the tree cover and the rapid melting of the

snow that we have, once that snow is gone and once those creek beds have dried out,

the sun continues to shine in the summertime and the watersheds dry out. There's no

moisture retained in the watersheds themselves, which leads to a higher wildfire risk

in just about every watershed that we have across the province, which is concerning.

I think it would behoove any government or any forest company not to ignore that science.

It has been developing over the last 15 years or so. There's a liability attached

to it, if you do ignore that science. From what I've read and some things that are

occurring today, I think that this connection has been made. We see loss of life because

of the fires, because of flooding. We see billions of dollars in damage, and we know

what's causing that.

I think that this bill is timely, and I do like pieces of it, particularly under

part

3.1 of the bill itself, on issuing cutting permits and some things that the minister

will be taking into consideration in approving those cutting permits.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

This is critical to British Columbia: recognizing the entirety of a forest — not just

the value of a tree for 2-by-4s and pulpwood but the entire forest for its biodiversity,

the entire forest not only for wildlife values but also for the hydrological values

and maintaining that hydrological integrity of the watersheds that we have and reducing

the risk of fires at the end of the day. There are a number of factors that need to

be taken into consideration here.

I talk about the fires, which are a worry when we see 2.8 million hectares of forests

burned in British Columbia. I watch on the news, and I do some research on where these

fires are. A lot of them have taken place in secondary growth. They've taken place

in managed forests that have replaced the primary forests that were in place.

[2:30 p.m.]

The rule is…. British Columbia went through a number of transitions in forest management

and sustainable forestry. We started planting the lodgepole pine as the tree of choice,

because it grew faster than all the other trees that we had tried. We still plant

some spruce and fir species as well. But lodgepole pine, in the interior of the province,

was a species of choice.

An area I'm familiar with…. Everybody probably knows I've been a trapper in British

Columbia for 50 years. The area that I've been trapping for the last 50 years has

been predominantly spruce and balsam. Balsam is a fir species. There's been a moist

interior area of the province, and it's been replanted with pine. The primary forests

that I've been used to — and my baseline stems from over 50 years ago, when I was

first getting into trapping and hunting and fishing and whatnot — was a forest populated

with mature trees that had about 300 stems per hectare, 400 stems per hectare.

They cut all those trees down, and industry says that we are planting three trees

for every one that we cut. I questioned that. I said: "Is that a good thing to do?"

When you look at it…. We're getting industry planting 1,500 stems per hectare, on

average, in a lot of these clearcuts that are produced. Then we look at the natural

regen, trees that might start growing up in these same areas. I walk into them, and

I'll show people. We'll walk into this regen area of freshly planted pine that might

be ten, 15, 20, 30 years old, and the understorey is missing. There's no understorey

in these plantations.

It's probably six inches deep of dried pine needles and dried pinecones, and there's

nothing else. There are no broadleaf plants in there, because we use glyphosate to

kill it prior to replanting all those trees. That makes it impossible to do any prescribed

burning.

I see sections in this bill where they talk about cultural burning and First Nations

input into that. That might have worked in a world prior to clearcutting, where we

had regulated burning and where we practised cultural burning, where it generated

the understorey and the biodiversity and provided the animals for harvest and the

fur-bearers for harvest and was beneficial for everything on the land base, including

the blueberries and the huckleberries and the mushrooms and plants like that.

But as we have mowed down and cut down the 20 million hectares of primary forest in

British Columbia and replanted it with dense populations of monoculture conifers,

we have eliminated that option for us. There is no way that we can control a fire

in these monocultural plantations. They will take off. They're planted so densely,

they are so dry, that it's impossible to do that.

We need to integrate and bring back the mixed forests that we had, with a good population

of deciduous growth in there — the aspen, the cottonwood, the birch and all those

kinds of plants that help the ground retain moisture in those particular areas.

I see that opportunity is going to exist. I go back, on this particular

section that

I talked about under this bill, where it talks about issuance of a cutting permit.

Under

section 52.03, it says: "Without limiting the minister's discretion under subsection

(1) to consider other matters, in deciding whether to issue a cutting permit, the

minister must consider the impact that timber harvesting under the cutting permit,

and road construction in relation to the cutting permit, would have on (

a) the management

and conservation of forest resources" — outstanding, I'm really glad to see that in

there — "(

b) cultural heritage resources, (

c) public health and safety, and (

d) prescribed

matters."

When I look at public health and safety, this is what I look at when I sit and I watch

the news with every other member of this House, watching the massive floods that take

place as a result of the atmospheric rivers that come through, that end up flooding

our highways and cutting off access to parts of British Columbia. That's a public

safety issue.

This latest science, this hydrological science from the UBC faculty of forestry hydrology

department…. Prof. Younes Alila has done a lot of work in this particular area, with

other hydrologists in the province as well. He's linked that. They have linked that

situation where the loss of forest cover has contributed to these mass flood events

that we see in the province.

[2:35 p.m.]

I think this is something that the minister will obviously be taking into consideration.

There are other sections in here as well, where industry has to go to the experts

and say: "What about these things here? What about this work the UBC faculty of forestry

has done that says this? Is this right? How do we risk that out?"

That is a determination that the forest industry has used for as long as I can remember.

I've liaised with the licensees up in my particular area for the last 30, 40 years

over cutting permits and operational plans and whatnot that they have there. I was

always thwarted by their response. I would say: "What about the fact that we've killed

off all the goshawks in the area? What about the fact that we don't have any moose

left? What about the fact that we don't have any marten left?" And their response

now, when I go to them, is: "Well, legislatively, we can do it. So there's nothing

stopping us because the legislation allows us to do it."

So now when I see this coming into place, this is a tool that myself and other tenure

holders on the land can say: "Okay, well, what about this? How are you going to address

these particular issues here?"

Companies have taken me to task before, and they say: "Well, how do you know that

we've lost all this wildlife in the province?" I say: "Well, number one, where are

they going to eat and live if we've destroyed 20 million hectares of their habitat?"

When I look at moose, which is a predominant species throughout the province — was,

at one particular time…. I looked at all the data on moose harvesting in the province,

and moose are reliant on our forests, on a mixed forest. In 1997, we harvested roughly

about 14,000 moose in the province of British Columbia. In 2021, we harvested just

under 4,000 moose in British Columbia, despite the fact that we are now selling four

times more harvest licences for moose than we did in 1997.

When I look at the fur returns for the trappers across the province here…. The fur

returns have plummeted. At one particular point in time, we used to see…. The fur

depot in Prince George would bring $2 million to $4 million worth of raw fur through

the Prince George fur depot every year. Today that number has dwindled down to a few

hundred thousand dollars at best, just because the wildlife isn't there. The species

are no longer there, available for us to use.

When we look at a forest…. And this may be the start of a change, but when we look

at the forest, we need to understand all the values of a forest. We need to understand

that it's more than a mere two-by-four or pulpwood. Jobs are important, and jobs have

been important all along. But when I look at the fact that the GDP for forestry in

British Columbia will be less than 1 percent, probably, this year, maybe next year….

It was 1.8 percent in 2020. It was around 4 percent in 1997. So it has dropped significantly

from that period of time.

Employment levels have dropped from well over 100,000 to maybe 20,000 across British

Columbia directly involved with the forest sector. So when we look at this and look

at the fact that we are out of harvestable trees across the province, this may be

the time to make those adjustments so that we have the least impact on those types

of things that we see.

There's another study that I looked at, and it was a collective of literature that

international scientists from around the world looked at to determine the impact of

primary force on continental weather, on regional weather patterns and whatnot. The

study indicated that the coastal rainforest that many continents have is responsible

and directly related to the amount of rainfall that you get internally within the

continent.

So the weather patterns coming into British Columbia and passing through and over

the coastal rainforest that we have in British Columbia are directly responsible for

the amount of precipitation they get in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. So it's

got wide-reaching impacts.

The other value, though, that we have, when we talk about climate change in British

Columbia and rising temperatures…. What are the evapotranspirational values of a forest?

Those need to be taken into consideration, and I hope that will be part and parcel

of what this bill addresses here.

[2:40 p.m.]

A large mature tree will take up 250, 350 litres of water in a day, and then it transpires

— that water — during the evening hours. It evaporates, and it forms the clouds and

forms rainfall, but it also keeps that primary forest cool. You can walk from your

front lawn into a forested area that's completely covered, and you can feel a difference

on a hot day. Well, that's what these forests do. They regulate that temperature range.

There was a report, which came out in 1986, done by the fish and wildlife branch.

They looked at the impact and the densities of the martin population. Of course, as

a fur-bearer…. I was interested in that.

They determined that clearcut logging not only eliminated the habitat for that particular

species. It also raised the temperature on the ground so that the pelted animals,

the animals that have fur, could no longer survive in that particular area. The temperature

on the ground was hotter than they would normally tolerate. They kept going into the

deeper and denser parts of the forests we have. So that was a significant impact for

those particular animals.

There was also a research study done by Dr. Jeff Werner out of Prince George — he

works for government, a wildlife ecologist — that has determined that the amount of

protein available for ungulates in the feed they have in a clearcut is insignificant

to support them. The research has indicated that the further away you get from the

edge of a forest into the middle of a clearcut, the less protein value is in the feed

they use. They could virtually starve to death with a full belly of their normal food

— the poplar and the alder and the birch and the other food they eat there.

All of these have implications that have never been properly considered in the development

of operational plans for forestry. They need to be taken into consideration for those

operational plans. The total value of a forest is not just a two-by-four and a job;

the total value of a forest needs to take into consideration all these other factors

in order to make it work properly.

This is the era…. We have been two or three generations of politicians that have supported

the sustainable yield strategy since 1945. This is the time to change. If we want

to have mature or primary forests that mitigate climate change, that mitigate floods,

that mitigate wildfires, that help us use natural means to mitigate all of those factors

so we're not re-engineering our highways and our cities and our towns, we need to

look at the complete forest and all the values that the complete forest will provide

to the people of British Columbia for generations and centuries to come, if we change

how we do that today.

We need to do that today. When you look at the fact…. There's a lot of discussion

around old-growth logging. If you cut down these 300- and 400- and 500- and 600-year-old

trees, they are gone for 300 and 400 and 500 and 600 years. People will say: "Well,

walk away from it. It's gone now. Now what do we do?"

Now is the time to retain what we have and to look at a new way of doing business.

Have everybody sit down at the table, follow the legislation and entertain all of

the values on the land to ensure that all the factors are considered, moving forward.

I'm going to have a closer look through this bill. It's got some interesting things

in it. I'm sure that during the committee stage, when we pop the hood open on this,

we will put the minister to the test and fully task him with trying to provide the

answers for that. I like what I see so far in this bill.

Thanks very much for the time.

Deputy Speaker: Nanaimo–North Cowichan, please.

D. Routley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A pleasure to see you in the chair there.

Thank you to the previous speaker, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. I think

many of the experiences he has, as a longtime fur-trapper, and his awareness of the

state of being in the forests of B.C. are helpful to this place.

[2:45 p.m.]

I'd like to be helpful to him by agreeing with him and also assuring him that much

of what we are doing is founded, at its core principle, on exactly what the member

has just spoken about. It's about increasing the appreciation for the full spectrum

of values of the landscape and planning in a way that's sustainable not only for the

yield of the forest, in terms of products, but also in terms of tourism values, in

terms of cultural values, in terms of biodiversity and all the other values that the

member mentioned. I very much appreciate him doing that.

I also think that the industry of forestry has been plagued for decades with a lack

of certainty. People from the industry will call for that. At the same time, communities

have felt disengaged from the planning and utilization of their own land bases. Those

are also the values that we, as a government, are seeking to introduce into this new

vision of forestry that is founded on landscape planning and that does take into consideration

all the values that I mentioned and the member previous mentioned.

My own history is more on the forest industry side. My first job, in high school,

was cleaning out log barges. I later went on to work as a chokerman, setting chokers.

That's putting a cable around a tree that has been cut down. Then it's dragged to

a landing, where it's loaded onto trucks.

A lot of the jobs that I did in those days no longer exist. Imagine that. The industry

has innovated and moved on so much.

I later became a tree planter. There are hundreds of thousands of trees in the province

that, at my age, are only within two decades of being harvestable.

I have an appreciation, personally and as a British Columbian…. I really, really cherish

the role of our forest industry and how it has served communities over many, many

decades.

We need to innovate. We need to advance our management and understanding of the forests

in a way that is sustainable on all the levels that we've been talking about here.

In doing that, we will create durable plans that will stand the test of the various

interests that are expressed around forests, from environmental interests to cultural

interests to economic interests.

This will rebuild a social licence in the communities. It will empower communities.

It will empower a partnership with First Nations that should lead to a state of forest

management that's much beyond what we've experienced in the past.

How did we get here? Well, the member detailed how planning without that appreciation

for the many values and levels of values in the forests has put us in this place.

The best time to make change is yesterday. The next best time for change is today.

Today we're bringing forward change that will help empower those bigger goals.

There's probably nothing in this province that will get a more positive head nod test

than telling people that we need to do better in the management of our forests. By

saying "do better," I mean get more jobs, more value per cubic metre cut, preserve

the ancient forests, and expand our appreciation for the values of the forest on all

those other levels.

These are really important issues to British Columbians. Their sense is that we need

to do more value-added, another core goal of our government, another core goal of

management that will be empowered by these changes.

Community values will be better expressed through the landscape planning process.

First Nations partnerships can be engaged and empowered and actioned through these

landscape planning tables. These changes will help the minister manage that transition.

[2:50 p.m.]

When we look at the role of cultural fire in the mitigation of wildfire…. This is

many centuries of knowledge being applied to a very modern problem in a very modern

context. Cultural fire, and fire itself, has been a natural element of the management

of forests but without the role of our forest management being fully engaged in that

process.

First Nations have long understood the role of cultural fire. It's going to be to

the benefit of the health of the forest and the health of communities that we capture

that knowledge and protect communities at the same time.

My own stepson spent the summer fighting wildfires. He's going to go back next year

and do the same. We worried about him. We also were more acutely aware of how much

fire damage there is in our forests every year, this being a record year.

We have to plan ahead for that. We lost hundreds, even thousands, of structures this

summer and in summers past through wildfires. It will be in the interests of all communities,

in the interface with the forests of British Columbia, to have this more advanced

but also more culturally deeply understood method of managing fire in the province.

The bill will empower the minister to consider values when approving roads and cutting

permits. If there are concerns in a community or there are concerns in a First Nation,

the minister can, then, approve or disapprove a permit based on those concerns. Of

course, in the past, if all the boxes were ticked when the permit application went

in, the minister, in fact, had no power not to approve that permit, even though there

might have been other values — cultural values, community values, First Nations values

— in competition with that decision. So this will be an important step.

As I talk to British Columbians about this very element of this bill, by and large,

they're surprised that the minister hasn't had that ability all the way along. This

will, in fact, give the minister a discretion that most British Columbians expect

that the minister should and, in fact, does have.

Then, when we look at the…. When I've toured forest areas, I've seen such things as,

up in the north Island, five giant cedar old-growth trees that had been stolen, effectively,

fallen during the night. There were batteries from headlamps all scattered around.

Then the perpetrators of that theft were coming back repeatedly to take sections of

that tree away as cutblocks for shakes or shingles.

It's in the interests of all of us that we see greater enforcement of the regulations

and rules when it comes to the management of the forest land base. Again, another

thing that most British Columbians, when I talk to them, expect already should be

there. I think this will satisfy something that British Columbians feel as though

they should be able to take for granted.

The new administration tools that are offered by this bill create, also, accountability

measures that aren't currently available or present. We will see penalties administered

that take into consideration more than the simple timber value of the trees that were

cut that shouldn't have been cut. It will take into account all the other values that

the member for Prince George–Mackenzie and myself and the minister have already described,

those values of community, First Nations and environmental considerations.

We cannot manage and make these plans and changes if we aren't able to enforce or

at least encourage compliance. This bill will do both of those things. So as I look

around, I'm really encouraged.

When we discussed DRIPA and UNDRIP in the past, we were reminded by Premier John Horgan

that there would be a gap between introducing and materializing the benefits, just

as with forest transition. There's a gap between introducing transitions and seeing

them materialized in the market and successfully implemented.

[2:55 p.m.]

We want to see British Columbians be able to give a positive head nod to that test

of whether or not we're managing their forests in the way that they expect us to.

I look to the North Island. The member for North Island is inspirational in the way

that she has worked with the industry, the community she represents, the various stakeholders,

First Nations and concerned environmentalists in her constituency to build partnerships,

to build consensus around the path forward. And the path forward is not continued

litigation. The path forward is not a singular view of what our forests represent.

The path forward is partnership with First Nations. It's the full value of the forest

for its many, many values and characteristics.

I look up to the North Island, and I see inspired leadership and inspired partnership

coming from that leadership with Western Forest Products and their new agreement,

34 percent interest to the First Nations in that region for about a $35 million investment

on their part. Together with Western Forest Products, they're entering a limited partnership.

The Tlowitsis, the We Wai Kai, the Wei Wai Kum and the K'ómoks Nations are all partnering

with communities, with the companies in the industry and with this government — this

whole House, apparently, in this case — to introduce transitions and changes in their

communities on the land base that are in the interests of all British Columbians,

every single one of us.

I'm very proud of the forest industry, as a former forest worker. All of us know it

needed to change. Often people would say: "It needs to change. Just don't change anything."

But it takes courage to step forward and make those changes. I commend the minister

and the government for having the courage to step up to the table and make the changes,

build those partnerships and relationships, take the time necessary to do this right.

The future of our province, in my opinion, in so many ways, the levels described by

the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, depends on us getting this right. That gap

between introducing the beginning of a new vision for something and the materialization,

the proving of the theory…. Well, we're finally getting to that place with agreements

like the one I've described between Western Forest Products and those nations, with

the steps taken by the government towards landscape planning, the building of new

relationships with First Nations, a new relationship with the land base. This is all

in the deep, long interest of all of our children.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak.

M. Lee: I rise to join my colleagues with the B.C. United caucus to speak on Bill 41, Forest

Statutes Amendment Act, 2023. We've heard from the shadow minister responsible, the

member for Peace River South. I also want to take this opportunity to recognize, as

well, the remarks from our colleague the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

As a leader in his community in British Columbia, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie

once again demonstrated to this House…. He certainly has been such an important person

to add to the dialogue around the stewardship of forests, the renewable industry that

it is, the recognition of the importance of biodiversity, the partnership with First

Nations.

[3:00 p.m.]

His remarks here on second reading once again reminded us of the importance of that

longer-term view. His voice is so important for our province. I was certainly pleased

to hear him speak again to this bill and use the opportunity to reflect on the history

of the forest industry in our province, certainly over the many decades, including

before the 1970s and after. That's a very important perspective to keep in mind.

When I hear the Minister of Forests speak in this House, both on first reading and

on second reading…. On first reading, the Minister of Forests referred to specifically,

and highlighted, the changes to the Wildfire Act amendments which would enable government

to, in the words of the minister, aid First Nations and other partners with cultural

and prescribed burns that are not prohibited by law when requested.

Certainly, in the context of the government's release in tabling this bill and in

the minister's second reading speech, we heard further from the minister about the

importance of the recognition of the use by First Nations, having, over generations,

the long history of using fire as a stewardship tool and certainly one that can reduce

the risk of more severe wildfires and hotter seasons. There is recognition that is

shared for those traditional uses.

This bill, the 60 pages that it is, has one section. Well, two clauses.

I must say, I am very challenged by the government's continued management of the House.

Right now my colleague the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin continues in what is, I think,

the ninth day of committee stage on Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management. I

have been with my colleague most days on committee but not now, because I'm in this

House reviewing another bill that is important to speak to, as I will take the opportunity

to speak to the next bill, Bill 40, in respect of the changes to the School Act.

There are a number of initiatives, of course, this government is moving forward with

that affect and are in partnership with First Nations and Indigenous peoples. Just

like we've said in this House that it's hard on the Third Party and the Fourth Party

to be in three places at once with only two members, it's also hard for a shadow minister

critic like myself to be in multiple places. This has been a continued challenge that

I've seen with the way this government has managed their House.

Given the complexity of Bill 31 that we're still working through, I find it particularly

challenging not to be with my member, the shadow minister for Emergency Management.

Having said that, when I hear the Minister of Forests speak about this bill, it's

one

section of this 169-clause bill that he's speaking to. Now, in hearing other members

of government speak to this bill…. And in the tail end of the minister's second reading

speech, I hear the minister talk about land use planning.

Certainly, I've heard from his colleague the Minister of Water, Land and Resource

Stewardship in gatherings of First Nation leaders of our province, like the Assembly

of First Nations, that there is important work being done to understand how, collectively,

we can work with First Nations to better manage land use in our province.

[3:05 p.m.]

I didn't hear more specifics from the Minister of Forests in his second reading speech

about how that's being done here in this bill. I look forward to joining the member

for Peace River South, if I'm not debating another bill at the same time in another

House in committee, to review the sections of Bill 41 that speak to this.

I've heard the reference to values. When I look at

part 3.1 of this bill, under "Cutting

permits," I see the words, under "Issuance of cutting permit," that the minister's

discretion whether to issue a cutting permit authorizing the holder to exercise harvesting

rights is subject to the consideration by the minister under his or her discretion

to consider the impact of the timber harvesting, under the cutting permit and the

road construction, that it would have on cultural heritage resources.

Just like I asked the Minister of Emergency Management under Bill 31, when we talk

about heritage values, sites and objects of heritage value…. Those are the words reflected

in Bill 31. Does that draw in the Heritage Conservation Act?

This Bill 41…. As I hear the minister and a few other members of government speak

to this, I want to understand further what values are being imported into this bill

that relate to First Nations and Indigenous peoples. As we've seen in the debate in

this House, even with Lytton, an understanding, a recognition — certainly, with the

Lytton First Nation — of what Lytton was built on in terms of an ancient village….

We need to ensure that government does not continue to pit and use First Nation interests

as a shield. We need to understand the balance that is trying to be accomplished here

under this Bill 41.

We've seen the government's old-growth deferral policies with First Nations, including

on Vancouver Island and in the Interior of our province, who say to the government:

"Well, thank you very much for your policy on old-growth deferral, but we've been

managing our forests, our lands, for generations. We will tell you, government, how

we will work to continue to manage those forests."

They're an important resource not just to the province but to that nation. That nation,

of course, has relationships with local mills, where Indigenous peoples are being

employed in those mills, having jobs in the forest sector. So through all of the matrix

that is presented in Bill 41, we need to continue to ensure that First Nations have

the opportunity to be involved in how the lands that we share with First Nations in

our province are being managed.

Certainly, I recognize the important announcement recently, a second announcement

with Western Forest Products. This follows the first announcement back in 2020, where

the Huu-ay-aht First Nation purchased a controlling interest in TFL 44, on western

Vancouver Island, in the Port Alberni region. That was an important first example

of partnership, at least with Western Forest Products, as it continues to build the

necessary relationships and partnerships with First Nations for the benefit of those

peoples.

But just like we saw with Huu-ay-aht, in their forestry operations, we've seen other

interests come in to dictate and tell First Nations how they should be or should not

be managing their forests.

[3:10 p.m.]

I know that, as we see a shift with even more and greater resources to the new Ministry

of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, we'll want to understand, in the context

of Bill 41 coming forward, how this government is managing those partnerships and

enabling First Nations to continue to be involved in the management of our land base

together with First Nations? I think, in understanding that, we want to focus on the

provisions within this bill, if I'm not caught in a different House.

I'll just use this as an opportunity to get some points in for consideration, as I

usually like to do on second reading, to at least give the minister and the team around

him in this case the opportunity to understand the types of provisions I would want

to focus on.

Again, without going back to the very start,

Part 3.1, Cutting Permits, clause 52.

I've spoken to the reference to cultural heritage resources. If we look into the aspects

around clause 57, it refers to the rights being held under an agreement held by a

First Nation or its representative. We're talking now about suspension under

section

76 of the act. It makes reference to the term "First Nation." I know, in the bill

that next follows in this chamber, Bill 40, in terms of the amendments to the School

Act, there are

definitions of First Nation in that bill.

I'd like to understand from the minister how First Nation is defined for the purpose

of these amendments, because as we saw with the emergency management and disaster

recovery bill, there is no definition of First Nation in that bill, to my recollection.

The bill focuses on Indigenous governing bodies. So here we have a government focused

on different

definitions, different gateways, entry points as to how these pieces

of legislation, apply to an Indigenous governing body which, again, in the course

of Bill 31, does not recognize Métis Nation B.C.

Here we are talking about a land-based bill. I won't get into the Métis Nation, Métis

people's consideration here, at least not in second reading, but I would say that

at least when we talk about the use of the term "First Nation," how was that interpreted

by this government, a lack of a definition as is being defined under the School Amendment

Act? That is something, certainly, I'll get into under Bill 40 as well.

As we look at, again, clause 67, it does pick up, in terms of refusal to issue authorizations

under "applicant," a reference to First Nation again. But coming back to how government

may assist with fire under the Wildfire Act from the minister, as we look at the….

This is a fairly broad provision that refers to lighting, fuelling, or using a fire

for any purpose, including, without limitation, a purpose identified by an Indigenous

people. So there we have the term "Indigenous people" being drawn into this bill for

the purpose of these specific amendments proposed under Bill 41 to the Wildfire Act.

That definition of Indigenous peoples comes from DRIPA. That's what's referred to

in the lead into clause 168 of this Bill 41. Why is that? Who is actually giving this

direction? Who is actually identifying this purpose?

[3:15 p.m.]

I appreciate that, as was referred to in the press release, that there likely has

been an indication, given the nature of the quotes coming from, for example, Lennard

Joe, the CEO of the First Nations Forestry Council, that there has likely been some

meaningful consultation at least with the First Nations Forestry Council. So as we

typically would be doing, we'll be understanding from the minister the nature and

the scope of the consultation with First Nations rights and title holders, other Indigenous

governing bodies, as this government has defined under DRIPA, as to this bill.

I would certainly expect to understand from the minister why and how Indigenous people

will be identifying the purpose for which fire can be utilized and why that is not,

for example, a reference to Indigenous governing body. How will that work? Are the

Indigenous peoples of a particular First Nation going to take a vote? Are they going

to sign a document? How will they provide their direction or consent or their input?

I would also say the minister, in his second reading speech, referred to Indigenous

knowledge. I do not see that term utilized in this clause. Indigenous knowledge has

a specific meaning to it, at least as I've seen in other pieces of legislation that

this government has brought forward. Indigenous knowledge certainly is something that

is, in many cases, confidential to the nation involved.

But I do think, in terms of understanding for the perspective of the surrounding communities

and others that are involved, to the extent that we're talking about orderly prescribed

uses of prescribed burnings, the understanding of the local community will be important.

This level of transparency will be important to understand how this is being utilized

in the way that is being contemplated under Bill 41.

The one thing I would say is…. When we refer to the importance of the partnership,

and there are continued references by members of this government to UNDRIP…. We know,

and we've seen, in the decision rendered by the courts on the Mineral Tenure Act,

which is now being…. A notice of appeal has been filed by the Gitxaala First Nation.

The government's own position has been, as submitted to the lower courts…. And the

courts agreed that UNDRIP is illustrative, that there's no specific

article there

that would give the right to a First Nation to have a declaration that the Mineral

Tenure Act, in that case, is unconstitutional.

I know, as this government continues to pick and choose between articles of UNDRIP,

that we need to appreciate, though, even as an illustrative tool, as the government

has put forward in that court application and as the courts have agreed with them,

that as we're recognizing UNDRIP for what it is, we need to recognize that there are

also articles in UNDRIP that pertain to economic livelihood rights.

We recognize the importance of free, prior and informed consent and the importance

of self-governance rights for First Nations, apart from all the other rights that

are articulated in UNDRIP. I know that when we look through the lens of UNDRIP at

the importance of partnership with First Nations, I seldom hear from this government

any recognition of the economic livelihood rights of First Nations in our province

that are spelled out in UNDRIP.

I hope, as the government, through this Minister of Forests, puts forward amendments

to the various statutes relating to the forest sector and forest industry, including

with First Nations, that we will find a clearer path as to how we can support and

work in partnership with First Nations to ensure they can continue to have very renewable

access, in partnership with companies like Western Forest Products, to the forests

that will obviously be beneficial to all peoples, including Indigenous peoples.

[3:20 p.m.]

M. Babchuk: I'm happy to stand today and show support for Bill 41 and thank the minister very

much for bringing it to the floor.

It'll be no surprise to anyone in this chamber that my riding of North Island has

relied on forestry as one of its main economic drivers for many years. Although some

people have referred to us as forest-dependent communities, we generally like to think

of ourselves as forest-fortunate communities. Whether it's because of the natural

beauty of our forests, the tourism opportunities, the biodiversity that we find in

the North Island, the historical and Indigenous routes or even the resource extraction,

the forests of North Island are part of our identity.

I know that many in the North Island are struggling right now with the transition.

We have truck loggers and contractors and a secondary industry. I just want to thank

the minister for coming up and actually meeting with a few of our secondary industries,

Carl Sweet and his friends from Inland Kenworth, so that he can understand the challenges

that are going on there.

Of course, I've heard from all of those that we have problems accessing fibre, and

of course, we have heard the challenges around permitting. But you know, I'm very

proud to be part of a government that has listened to those calls when I've walked

into those offices. We're now seeing 30 percent reduction in those cutting permits,

as we move forward into new processes. I'm very proud to be part of a government that

is listening to all of the sectors in the forest industry.

One of the bigger pieces…. I heard this very much from the member that just spoke,

the member for Vancouver-Langara, around our First Nations communities and the cultural

and prescribed burns. Those cultural burns have been used as a tool by Indigenous

communities since time immemorial and have been effective for a variety of many different

reasons. Our recognitions of cultural practices in this piece of legislation strengthen

our commitment to DRIPA and recognize the values of traditional knowledge in our forest

practices.

You know, in the North Island, we have some great examples of Indigenous collaboration.

The first one I want to talk about is the collaboration between the 'Namgis First

Nation, Western Forest Products and our government, who are currently one of the first,

if not the first, moving forward with the forest landscape planning.

I had the pleasure of being briefed on that and the new way that we are looking at

forestry in the North Island and the collaboration that's going to happen with communities

as everybody moves forward in our new way of doing business. That draft plan I'm hoping

to see soon. I'm very, very confident that that is going to include Indigenous knowledge

as well as local community knowledge in that.

One of the other ones we've heard about already today, from my colleague from Nanaimo–North

Cowichan, who said some lovely words about me — thank you very much, Member; I much

appreciate that — was that landmark agreement that supports First Nations participation

in forestry. That was in collaboration with the Wei Wai Kum, Wei Wai Kai, Tlowitsis

and K'ómoks First Nations.

I just want to give a shout-out to Chief Smith, Chief Ronnie Chickite, Chief Roberts

and Chief Ken Price, who have all been instrumental in the north end of Vancouver

Island in making these agreements come together.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention Dallas Smith, who is the president of the Nanwakolas

Council, who is bringing a lot of these great initiatives to fruition.

I just want to quote him. In one of his statements that he made not too long ago,

just in response to where in the North Island Indigenous communities are with our

practices: "For too long, the very people who are the reason there were healthy, abundant

forests here prior to colonialism, were excluded from participating in their continued

sustainable management and the ability to benefit from them. Today we celebrate a

significant step forward on a pathway to sustainable, effective resource management

of our forests for the benefit of future generations."

[3:25 p.m.]

There's a very, very real recognition that they are involved in the collaborative

pieces in the north end of Vancouver Island. I was very happy to see the Premier talk

about the rising tides that lift all boats when we collaborate for the benefit of

society as a whole. That's exactly what we're doing.

The second one that I want to point out…. I'm just going to talk about the true North

Island, because I am told by a lot of my constituents from Sayward north that the

North Island actually doesn't start until Woss. So we'll talk about the true North

Island and one of the initiatives up there that didn't come out of a piece of legislation;

it came out of their own community initiatives.

That's the North Island community forest that was originally formed with the three

communities up there — of Port Alice, Port McNeill and Port Hardy — which started

to understand the value of Indigenous participation and their knowledge within that

community forest and now has expanded to five partners as they have now equal shares

with the Quatsino First Nation and the Kwakiutl First Nation. I have to tell you,

the proceeds from that community for us are game-changers in those in those communities.

They're also reflecting the values we've seen in time immemorial from those Indigenous

partners.

I'm very proud of the work that's being done there. I just have to put in a bit of

a plug because that community forest is one of our smallest community forests in the

province but incorporates some of the largest land mass. So if the minister is listening

there, that's my plug for the day.

The other issue I would really like to discuss is the ability for these new agreements

that are happening through the Nanwakolas Council. The Nanwakolas Council also includes

the Mamalilikulla, the Da'naxada'xw, the Wei Wai Kai, the Wei Wai Kum, the Tlowitsis

and the K'ómoks, once again headed up by Dallas Smith.

They just signed a fantastic agreement with North Island College that recognizes the

guardian programs, which are popping up everywhere, that are taking a look at stewardship

of not only our forests but also our oceans. These types of programs that are being

funded through the provincial government, $1.1 million through the Indigenous training

skills education program, are instrumental in making sure that these programs move

forward.

When I hear members across the across the hall there talk about Indigenous communities

being left behind, I don't see that on the north end of Vancouver Island. I see integration

into all of these communities, integration into our new planning processes, integration

into any of the economic benefits and the economic livelihoods that we're seeing throughout.

This piece of legislation that we're seeing now that includes the cultural and prescribed

burning just gives us that…. I guess it's an enthusiasm that we are starting to move

forward and that we are going to come out of this transition and be healthier for

it because we've all been working together.

I also would like to speak just a little bit to the compliance and enforcement. As

my colleague from Nanaimo–North Cowichan spoke about…. He talked about these trees

that we had the ability to see. We went on a tour with forestry staff, and, actually,

they took us right off the highway, right off the highway on Rupert Main in between

Port Hardy and Port McNeill, not 200 feet down where we found a 400- to 500-year-old

beautiful western red cedar that had been fallen at night with pit lamps.

Like you said, you could see the batteries from the pit lamps all over the place.

So you knew exactly what had happened. That tree was almost three metres in diameter

and was also inside of a riparian zone. So I'm really happy to see the new compliance

and enforcement pieces coming out of this legislation.

It's becoming very blatant. Before, we used to have legal logging go into the back

area of a forest and come out and report that there had been illegal activity in there,

and we hadn't seen it. But now these guys are cutting 200 feet off of the main highway.

It's getting pretty blatant, and the repercussions of it were just the cost of doing

business.

[3:30 p.m.]

Now, with this new piece of legislation and the minister's ability to take a look

and add the value and extra costs to what that is, I'm hoping that it will make a

quantifiable significance to the way these people are trying to do business.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I don't have too long of a speech here. I want to thank the minister for bringing

this legislation. I want to thank the member for Prince George–Mackenzie for all his

comments today. I really value some of the historical pieces.

I also want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for Forests for all his collaboration

in the north end of Vancouver Island and for coming to do the tours to look at the

challenges that we have, and the minister, for spending so much time making sure that

our issues are looked at. I certainly want to thank him for bringing this piece of

legislation, so that we can look at how we move forward and come out of this transition

in a better, more collaborative way.

R. Russell: I appreciate the opportunity to not rise but sit in my seat here and speak in favour

of Bill 41 and these amendments.

Many of the previous speakers have acknowledged how fundamental forestry is for our

province in being, really, the fabric of many of our rural communities, particularly,

and also, even if potentially a little less visible to some, also for those urban

centres that have been built on a tradition of forestry and how we have navigated

that over the years, as I think, in an interesting and somewhat challenging position.

I think it was last week that the Premier was with us at an event with the B.C. Nurses

Union. He shared an analogy which I think fitting for today as well, and this bill:

if you're a nurse and come on shift, you end up being responsible for the well-being

of a suite of patients.

You don't necessarily know what has occurred or transpired for them in time prior,

but that is less important than simply getting to work and making sure that you are

doing the best you can to take care of them. The challenge is that sometimes, depending

on those previous decisions of the care team before you, you have, potentially, a

sick patient. It's your responsibility to take care of them and help get them better,

regardless of where they are.

Again, as a number of the speakers from both sides of the aisle, frankly, have said

already, part of the challenge with forestry in B.C. is that we have a system that

has put us in a place that really does need a hard review and revision to how we are

doing forestry.

Recently, I guess a couple of years ago, the government released an intentions paper

on how we have to go about modernizing our forest industry. That intentions paper

highlighted a number of different elements of what we need to put a lot of attention

to in figuring out how we navigate this in a good way and move us forward to make

sure that our industry is sustainable in the long term and helps sustain jobs for

generations to come.

There is a notion, particularly in polarized conversations or polarized circles, that

this is a conversation around natural resources and natural resource jobs versus environmental

protection. For many of us that are out on the ground in rural communities that are

forestry-dependent communities in a very visible way, I think there is a much deeper

recognition of the fact that this is not an either-or conversation.

[3:35 p.m.]

It is a question of how we make sure that we have those good jobs in our rural communities

and in our urban centres that are tied directly to industries, such as forestry, for

generations to come, so that we are not taking advantage of our phenomenal natural

assets and eroding future opportunity and future value in the process of doing that.

That intentions paper identified three elements of that future vision for a thriving

forestry sector in the future: (1) increasing participation with the forest sector,

(2) enhancing stewardship and sustainability, and (3) strengthening the social contract

that forestry has across our province and beyond.

This bill that we have in front of us today helps move us forward on a number of those

pieces in different ways, obviously. You've heard details already from a number of

the speakers about how this is going to do that, specifically around amendments to

the Wildfire Act which will aid First Nations and other partners with fires that are

not prohibited by law, when that's requested.

The Forest Act amendments will provide some discretion in the issuance of cutting

and road permits, which will help enhance government's ability to support conservation

and stewardship and to address First Nations' concerns in forestry activities, and

there are some added compliance and enforcement tools within the Forest and Range

Practices Act.

We have heard some good examples from my colleagues, the members for North Island

and Nanaimo–North Cowichan, about the stealing of high-value and precious trees. Enabling

additional compliance and enforcement tools will help strengthen protection of Indigenous

values and interests by ensuring that there are some significant consequences for

non-compliance and that there are appropriate tools to encourage voluntary compliance

by participants and to avoid or deter non-compliance.

There was some interesting conversation this morning, as well, around the opportunities,

I would say — I guess it was in question period this morning — with our CleanBC vision.

The part of that conversation that I find particularly interesting, frankly, is what

gets lost in a lot of this dialogue: what is out there? What is the potential for

the future of B.C. when we go down this path of a cleaner future economy and focus

more on sustainable natural resource development?

In rural communities particularly, I think that opportunity is enormous. It provides

us, if we can do it properly, with a bit of a win-win in environmental protection

and natural resource employment, those values that we hold there.

I will quote from a Business in Vancouver article. It reads:

"For starters, it fails to account for the benefits that await a British Columbia

that embraces the inevitable energy transition. One estimate is that clean energy

jobs in B.C. increase from 83,100 in 2025 to 400,800 by 2050 under a net-zero scenario,

in a Clean Energy Canada analysis. The Mining Association of B.C., meanwhile, believes

the sector will add more than $10 billion in economic impact for just those critical

mineral mines that are reaching final investment decisions in the next 18 months."

Those are the sorts of opportunities that I feel we don't spend enough time talking

about here in this House when we're looking at these kinds of opportunities to modernize,

for example, our forestry sector in a way that will support all of us in our communities

across B.C., with a brighter future for all.

[3:40 p.m.]

I will add also that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie…. I appreciate one of

his comments that…. I don't have the quote specifically verbatim here, but essentially,

he made a comment about the fact that the total value of the forest isn't just a 2

by 4 or a job. I very much appreciate that. And I feel like, again, in many of our

rural places, there is that recognition of how much value we derive from the forests

around us, both in terms of, as he put it, two-by-fours and jobs but also so much

more, in terms of wildlife, clearly near and dear to him, as well as many other things.

In my community, for example, people are very painfully aware of the relationship

between how we manage our forest landscapes and disasters, for example, in terms of

flood mitigation or easing some of the peaky flows in our watersheds, based on relationships

with how our lands are managed and how our forests are managed across that landscape.

Likewise, he made a comment about how, after two or three generations of management

for maximum sustainable yield principles, we've…. From two or three generations of

politicians, we know that now is the time to change. And my colleague from Nanaimo–North

Cowichan I think also put it well when he commented on the fact that while the best

time to fix our problems — again not verbatim — was yesterday, the second-best time

is today, obviously. So I feel like we have an alignment in terms of the clarity around

the need and the will and the importance of coming together to manage our natural

resources in a better way, moving forward.

This bill, these amendments to the Wildfire Act and the Forest Act and FRPA, I think

help provide us one more opportunity to move in that direction and to move us into

a place where we can start to take one more step towards healthier and more sustainable

forest management going forward; that brings First Nations into the conversation and

into the decision-making process in a very real way in one more opportunity to do

that; that, at the end of the day again, will ideally help both benefit our environmental

management and recognize ecosystem values at the heart of how we're managing our forests,

recognize the value of sustained employment out of the forests.

That is, of course, central to how we're making these decisions, but it's central

to this decision-making on a time frame that is more than a year or two. We want to

make sure that our children in our communities have the opportunity to have those

good jobs in the forest sector in a future generation or beyond and that our forests

are being managed from a perspective of recognizing the many values that we derive

and receive from our forests and not just, as the member for Prince George–Mackenzie

said, the 2 by 4s and a job, not just the product and the employment but things like

a healthy environment, meaning healthier disaster risk reduction and more that we

receive and appreciate from our forests.

With that, I will take my seat with, again, a statement in broad support of Bill 41.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister wishes to close debate.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you. I want to thank all my colleagues on both sides of the House who have spoken

here this afternoon. I particularly want to acknowledge the MLA for Nanaimo–North

Cowichan, who spoke, bringing his own personal experience and his extensive commitment

to forestry and the forest industry in British Columbia to bear in the comments that

he made in this chamber.

I believe that the provisions contained within the Forest Statutes Amendment Act will

go a good way towards improving how the forest economy is managed today and into the

future. As we all know, forests are essential to a healthy environment and provide

good jobs to tens of thousands of British Columbians. That's why we're taking action

to improve how we steward our natural resources, to better protect the province's

forests and ecosystems, to conserve fibre supply and to expand our use of prescribed

fire to reduce the risk of future wildfires.

I look forward to further debate, as we've heard, in committee stage. With that, I

move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Ralston: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 41, Forest Statutes Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Hon. L. Popham: I call second reading of Bill 40.

BILL 40 — SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Hon. R. Singh: I move that the bill be read a second time now.

This bill makes a number of amendments to the School Act, the act that governs public

schools in British Columbia. This bill responds to government commitments relating

to Indigenous reconciliation set out in the Declaration Act action plan and the B.C.

tripartite education agreement.

The commitments pertain to local education agreements, school choice and Indigenous

education councils. These changes requested by First Nations have been co-developed

with the First Nations Education steering committee and in consultation with B.C.

First Nations, including treaty First Nations.

The changes in this bill are intended to begin to address the systemic barriers faced

by on-reserve students, to support all Indigenous learners within the province and

to improve public education overall. These important steps along the path of reconciliation

respect First Nations authority and decision-making over the education of their children.

The changes in this bill are important because they require boards of education to

involve local First Nations and Indigenous people in making decisions about the education

programs and services provided to Indigenous children. An important step in reconciliation,

this bill will provide mechanisms for boards of education to have respectful and effective

relationships with First Nations. This will help improve the educational experience

and outcomes of all students in the public school system.

There are three policy pieces to the bill: the First Nations schools of choice, the

model local education agreements and Indigenous education councils.

The First Nations schools-of-choice provisions in the bill allow a First Nation to

designate which school their students who live on reserve, self-governing lands or

treaty lands are entitled to attend. First Nations will determine which schools their

students will attend through their own internal processes and will be required to

notify the board of education by a prescribed date.

First Nations students who live on reserve or on treaty lands will have priority to

attend the public school designated by their First Nation. If a First Nation has students

that ordinarily reside on reserve, treaty lands or self-governing lands and are boarded

outside of their community to attend public school, the First Nation may designate

a school within the district where those students are boarded.

This is an optional choice for First Nations. The intent is to support self-governance

rights and improve educational outcomes for First Nations students by allowing First

Nations to select the schools that will best meet the needs of their children.

[3:50 p.m.]

Other agreements between schools, First Nations or parents and guardians of First

Nations students respecting school choice are not affected by this amendment. First

Nations parents and guardians will still have the option to attend the regular catchment

school if they do not want to attend the school chosen by the nation.

The second area of change has to do with the local education agreements. Local education

agreements are key mechanisms for accountability and effective working relationships,

where boards of education and First Nations or treaty First Nations work together

to support students. Local education agreements govern the purchase of educational

services by First Nations from boards and set out processes for information-sharing,

collaboration and decision-making.

It is important that a First Nation can have a local education agreement if they want

one. This bill will ensure that First Nations and treaty First Nations will have the

option to apply a model local education agreement with the board of education where

their students who live on reserve or on treaty land attend public school. If a First

Nation or treaty First Nation chooses to apply the model local education agreement,

it becomes a contract between the First Nation and the board of education.

Local education agreements are intended to establish a foundation for a positive relationship

between a First Nation and a board of education to support improved education, improved

student attendance outcomes and engage on broader issues.

The third policy area this bill implements is Indigenous education councils. Indigenous

education councils are intended to ensure that boards of education meaningfully engage

with First Nations, treaty First Nations and Indigenous communities and that Indigenous

people have input into decisions affecting Indigenous students.

The bill requires all boards of education to establish an Indigenous education council

for their school district. Indigenous education councils will be independent and are

not committees of the board. The Indigenous education council should respect the traditional

protocols, laws and customs of First Nations on their land in support of a distinctions-based

approach. This bill sets out that local First Nations on an Indigenous education council

will advise boards of education on the district languages, cultures, customs traditions,

practices or history, with priority to those First Nations in whose traditional territory

the board operates.

Indigenous education councils will review and approve spending plans and reports on

grants targeted for Indigenous students. The Indigenous education council will also

advise on the spending of other grants in relation to Indigenous students. This will

ensure the funds are spent to support Indigenous students at the direction of Indigenous

representatives.

The changes in this bill have been developed in collaboration with First Nations and

treaty First Nations. The changes will provide for more effective relations between

boards of education and First Nations, and they will also support better outcomes

for First Nations students and all Indigenous students attending public school.

M. Lee: I rise on behalf of my colleague the member for Surrey South, as well as the official

opposition, to speak to Bill 40, the School Amendment Act, 2023. As we've heard from

the minister, both in her first reading speech and second reading speech, the bill

that's put forward by the government is being done to propose amendments to the School

Act to meet some of the commitments of the government, the Ministry of Education and

this minister under the DRIPA action plan, as well as the B.C. tripartite education

agreement.

We know that we'll have the opportunity, as indicated in the initial news release

by the government when this bill was tabled…. There's been significant partnership

and discussion with FNESC, the First Nations Education Steering Committee, as we've

seen with Chief Tyrone McNeil as president — the work that's been done with FNESC.

[3:55 p.m.]

I must say that for many of the larger umbrella organizations like FNESC, I've had

the opportunity, over my time as the shadow minister responsible for Indigenous Relations

and Reconciliation, to meet with a number of the leadership teams, beyond the relationship-building

that we do here in our opposition caucus with local MLAs and other critics with First

Nation leaders.

Certainly with Tyrone McNeil, I had the opportunity to meet with him at the national

AFN meeting that was held in Vancouver some time ago. That was in the context about

learning and supporting important initiatives around language revitalization for Indigenous

peoples, including federal and provincial support for those initiatives. Certainly,

I look forward to continuing to have that opportunity to speak with Chief McNeil and

FNESC, to look for those opportunities.

I know that there's always been a focus for some of these bodies in terms of the direct

government-to-government relationship. But I hope that organizations like FNESC recognize

the role that we play in this House, in this chamber, in terms of the opportunities

to review and discuss bills that the government tables, even with First Nation leadership

under non-disclosure agreements and the significant buildup that it has, that we do

have a role to play here. Certainly, I know that I have benefited from the opportunities

to have that level of dialogue in exchange.

I will say that the member for Surrey South and myself had the benefit…. Thank you

to the minister for arranging a briefing, providing an overview for this bill and

also some helpful companion documents, including a helpful chart to enumerate the

specific action items under the DRIPA action plan that are addressed by this Bill

Now we know, of course, the Ministry of Education, under the minister's leadership,

has addressed other specific action items. But the action items that this bill speaks

to, as we will review at the committee stage, include the co-development, an approach

to deliver on the B.C. tripartite education agreement commitment that pertains specifically

to legislation requiring local education agreements, LEAs, with First Nations.

I will note that that specific action item, I will acknowledge, does speak to, specifically,

First Nations.

Another example of a specific action item…. I'm not trying to be comprehensive or

fulsome in this reference, but just to give another example item. Item 4.3 of the

DRIPA action plan refers to the co-development and implementation of a framework for

the involvement of Indigenous education councils in school district financial planning

and reporting. That also is something that this Bill 40 goes to.

I will say that in the context of looking at the specific action items that are identified

under the DRIPA action plan, that only action item 4.19 refers to Indigenous peoples

beyond B.C.'s First Nations. There's specific reference to Métis and Inuit peoples. That is in the context of 4.19 as a commitment to "inclusive, universal

child care system, work in collaboration with B.C. First Nations, Métis and Inuit

peoples to implement a distinctions-based approach to support and move forward jurisdiction

over child care for First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples who want and need it in

B.C."

That does raise, just at the outset of speaking to this bill, that we will explore

at committee stage, beyond the usual questions relating to consultation and involvement

and scope relating to FNESC and other First Nations rights and title holders, others

that have already existing arrangements or involvements with local boards of education

in our province.

[4:00 p.m.]

We've certainly seen examples. For example, Chief Russell Chipps has been a trustee,

in the Langford area, on a local school board. I know of other examples where we have

that level of integration, where we have First Nation leaders being involved directly

in the education of our children in this province.

What's missing from this bill and is, by design…. This is something I would like to

speak to the minister about. This is my way of highlighting to the minister the kinds

of topics and areas that we will explore at the committee level. Why Métis peoples,

Inuit and even, for those who recognize the voice and the representation of urban

Indigenous peoples…. We've seen, just like under Bill 31….

That is really where I should be right now, in the other committee chamber, as I've

said on the previous bill to this one, Bill 41. I am missing that committee discussion

on Bill 31, but I hope to join that shortly.

It just, again, demonstrates the challenge of this government when they bring forward

bills in multiple Houses, in three different Houses. It puts, not only for the members

of the Third Party and the Fourth Party, with only two members of their caucus…. Putting

aside why they should have official party status in the first place, with only two

members, it does put the challenge on how difficult it is to ensure that we're properly

doing our roles.

Again, I seldom see members of the Third Party and the Fourth Party in those committee

discussions. This is part of the reason why they're being divided. Roles for critics

like myself…. As we see legislation that's brought forward that affects Indigenous

peoples in our province, like Bill 40 does…. It's hard to be in two places or three

places at once.

Having said that, again, for the record, and voicing my concerns about the way this

government continues to fail to manage the business of the House so that we can properly

review these bills as they present themselves….

I will say this. We've seen, in the letters between this government, the Minister

of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, a change in position in a matter of a

couple of weeks.

On May 12, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, on behalf of this

government, sent a letter that recognized Métis Nation B.C. as the representative

government of Métis peoples in British Columbia and looked forward to continuing to

strengthen that government-to-government relationship.

Two weeks later we saw a letter that reversed the government's position. So much so,

as I've spoken to in Bill 31…. The government had the view that MNBC does not have

the status or the authority as an Indigenous governing body within the meaning of

the Declaration Act, DRIPA.

I raise this as a point of reference because I fail to see anything in Bill 40 that

provides any opportunity for Métis peoples, either through Métis Nation B.C. or Métis

peoples themselves directly, to be involved in the education of their children.

I know, having met with members of the cabinet, including from the Kootenays…. Certainly

the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has deep relationships with some of those

members in cabinet who have done longtime work to help ensure that the Métis children

of our province are getting access to the type of culturally appropriate and culturally

sensitive education that they need for their peoples.

This School Act amendment specifically defines First Nation. It doesn't even refer

to Indigenous peoples. It's specifically excluding other Indigenous peoples in this

bill, which includes Métis people.

Now, I will say that is an area…. We will certainly want to explore, at the committee

stage, as to why that is.

[4:05 p.m.]

I know that we've seen repeatedly from this government specific actions and legislation

where this government…. For example, last year, a year ago, we were debating another

significant bill that implements another part of the DRIPA action plan, which is enabling

Indigenous nations, First Nations and Métis peoples to take back….

I take that back. There is no Métis child definition, of course, in that Indigenous

self-government bill when it comes to care for children. That's what I spent some

days discussing with the current Minister of Children and Family Development. As important

as that bill was, it excluded a definition for Métis children.

We've seen, with the Emergency Management Act, the exclusion of Métis Nation B.C.

as an Indigenous governing body. Now we see under this bill, a third bill, Bill 40,

the exclusion of Métis peoples from the definition. It doesn't apply.

What we're talking about is, certainly, wanting to understand, from this minister,

how Métis Nation B.C. or urban Indigenous organizations were consulted in the development

of this legislation, in view of the high population of Métis and urban Indigenous

children in the public K-to-12 system of our province.

Certainly, when it comes to urban educational councils…. They are given broad powers

to advise on programs and policies and to approve funding.

At committee stage, also, we will want to ensure that we have a clear understanding,

from this minister, as to how all Indigenous children in the public K-to-12 system

are provided with culturally safe education, with targeted funding for the needs of

Métis and urban Indigenous children as well.

We will also want to know, from this minister, the composition of these Indigenous

education councils and how they will be set up to ensure that the voting rights recognize

the distinctions-based approach that this government takes to the recognition of Indigenous

peoples in our province.

I know that when we look at the Indigenous governing councils or the Indigenous education

councils…. We'll want to see what terms of reference and scope these councils will

have. We know that it was mandatory for each school district to have an Indigenous

education council, but we'll want to be specific on the kind of mandate and scope

of authorities and voting structure and composition of these councils.

Certainly, when we look at another of the three elements of this bill, around providing

First Nations parents, having parental choice…. There's a recognition, in this bill

to amend the School Act, of the importance of parental choice.

We certainly recognize, here in the official opposition caucus, the importance of

choice. Whether it's the recognition of independent schools, faith-based schools,

home-based education, we need to have those alternatives.

Those First Nations students who are living on reserve or on treaty lands will have

the opportunity to have that designation and that level of choice in the School Act.

That, again, is going to be an area that we'll want to explore, at the committee level,

in terms of the nature and the scope and the limits around that choice and how that

will work for First Nation parents.

[4:10 p.m.]

In terms of the third element of this bill…. The local education agreement, certainly,

is part of the larger understanding of the commitments that this government has made,

under the DRIPA action plan, to understand how the government continues to work with

First Nations, and the importance of the work that's necessary, in order to have an

education system framework that provides for that local input from First Nations.

That is a model, certainly, that we want to see. Identify the rights and the authorities

of First Nations and local First Nations, treaty or otherwise, to be involved in those

local education agreements.

That provides a basic overview of the basic points I would like to raise at the committee

stage, again if I'm not caught up in a different House on a different bill.

I will say…. As we look at the funding requirements to provide the comprehensive equitable

education programs and services to Indigenous students that are contemplated under,

for example, division 2.01, "Indigenous Education Councils"….

The funding and fiscal relationship with First Nations continues to be a key item

in the DRIPA action plan. We've heard from this government their attempts to rebalance

some of that fiscal relationship. We've seen that with gaming revenues. We've seen

that with a discussion paper that was released and commented on just before last year's

All Chiefs meeting with First Nation leaders. We are on the eve of those meetings,

as they start tomorrow evening in Vancouver and continue this week, on Thursday and

Friday.

We know that in the area of forestry…. There was a discussion paper around some of

that sharing, that revenue model. I would hope that the Minister of Forests and the

Minister of Finance and the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, as

the latter has made available to my colleague the member for Kamloops–North Thompson….

We've had the opportunity to review some of the work in terms of the fiscal framework.

We would expect that with the relationship around education, there will be a more

meaningful discussion. We'll expect an update from this minister about the financial

framework discussion with First Nations, as well, when it comes to the education of

Indigenous children.

With that, I look forward to the committee review. I know that the member for Surrey

South, as the shadow minister responsible for education, will look forward to that

discussion as well.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Seeing no further speakers, minister to close the debate.

Hon. R. Singh: I would really like to thank the member for Vancouver-Langara for his comments. I'm

looking forward to having more discussion on this bill at the committee stage.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Singh: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 40, School Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. L. Popham: I call committee on Bill 34.

Deputy Speaker: We will take a short recess while we await all the parties we need to do that work.

Thanks, Members.

The House recessed at 4:14 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 34 — RESTRICTING PUBLIC

CONSUMPTION OF

ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 34; S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 4:19 p.m.

On clause 5 (continued) .

The Chair: All right, Members. I call the committee to order on Bill 34. We finished last time

on clause 5.

E. Sturko: Hon. Chair, sorry, could you refresh me? Did we pass clause 5?

The Chair: We have not passed clause 5 yet.

E. Sturko: I have no further questions on clause 5.

[4:20 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Hold on. I have some questions on clause 5.

The Chair: Okay. With the will of the House, if it's okay, we will pretend that vote didn't happen.

We'll go back to the House Leader of the Third Party on clause 5.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. Sorry. I was just notified that this bill

has now been moved into this House. So just trying to get caught up here.

I'm wanting to get a sense, from the minister, with respect to clause 5…. I'm just

wondering if he could provide a rationale, again, on why this bill is necessary.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I covered that yesterday.

The Chair: Is there a further question?

A. Olsen: Yeah, certainly, there is. I'm wondering. I understand that the minister covered it

yesterday. I didn't have an opportunity to ask these questions. I'm wanting to engage

the minister on this, get as much information as I can from him.

What I'm wondering is how it is, specifically to this clause, that this bill offers

anything that is different than what's already on the website around decriminalization.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This bill is not about decriminalization. It's about public drug use, and it's about

expanding on the exemption that's there to public places such as bus stops, for example,

and doorways to businesses' buildings.

A. Olsen: No, I understand that. I mean, it does…. It is related to decriminalization. That's

what this initiative is about.

I'm just wondering how it is different than what is already outlined with…. The information

that's on the website shows that actually the way that this was constructed, the way

that the exemption was constructed, already excluded many of those locations that

are now outlined in this bill.

So I'm just wondering, from the minister, why it is that this act is necessary, considering

many of those locations are already identified.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This legislation deals with public drug use. It's a broader group of places than is

dealt with under the exemption.

A. Olsen: I think it's important to acknowledge that when the province of British Columbia sought

the exemption from the federal government, the exemption was not broad. It was limited.

The information is already on the website that provides some clarity as to where it

is the exemption is not applicable. The challenge is that this government is now moving

a new law which articulates something that is already agreed to.

[4:25 p.m.]

Despite the minister's assertion that there is a broader definition in this law, in

this legislation, the reality is that all of the locations that are identified — I

believe, anyways — could be read into the exemption and the exemption letter that

they sought from the federal government. Is the minister suggesting that this bill

is broader than what is on the website?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is a new bill, and as I said, it broadens the exemption. Sorry, not broadens.

It doesn't broaden the exemption. It broadens the places where public drug use cannot

take place.

Once it is passed and brought into force, then the current website would be updated.

A. Olsen: I guess the problem that I have with the approach that this government is taking on

this is that by putting this into law now, basically, what they've done is they've

recriminalized the decriminalized. They've essentially responded to a public narrative,

scrambling to find a solution, when in reality it was already part of the exemption.

Now by creating this in law, rather than by leaving it just as in the exemption, by

creating….

We take a look at clause 5, with the ability to arrest without warrants and all of

those…. There's now this complex layering of public policy that is unnecessary, because

the discretion already exists within the exemption.

The Chair: Was there a question, Member?

A. Olsen: Yeah, there was a question. I'm looking for the minister to provide an explanation

as to why it is that we now have a law in front of us when the express….

Okay, here. We have a law in front of us when the expressed desire of this government

— in fact, the victory laps this government was taking around this initiative of decriminalization,

an initiative that was supported by our public health officer, an initiative that's

supported by our chief coroner…. Advocates and expert stakeholders have been suggesting

that this is part of a harm reduction initiative.

Now what's happening is that because the rest of the harm reduction initiatives were

not followed through, this government is now forced — or feels forced, anyways — to

be creating a law which recriminalizes the people that they were expressly trying

to decriminalize, and in this

section here, creating a scenario where people can be

arrested without warrant for something that they're able to….

Does the minister believe that he's clarifying the situation here, or doesn't he agree

that he's making this situation unnecessarily more complex?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I know it was canvassed extensively yesterday,

but I will repeat this for the member.

The exemption was about possession. This bill is about public use. It's about not

only the areas in the exemption but expanding where public use cannot take place in

areas that have been identified and responding to local concerns in communities all

over the province, in particular, around where families and kids gather and transportation

points –– that's why bus stops are there –– where it is deemed that it is not appropriate

for public drug use. That's what this bill is about. It's not about criminalizing

people. It's about responding to public and local community concerns.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

E. Sturko: In this clause, how would the minister describe reasonable grounds?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. It would be if the police officer saw the

person using drugs, asked them to stop and to move on, and they failed to do so.

E. Sturko: I appreciate the answer. Under this legislation, will the officer have to find the

individual committing? Do they have to be actively committing the act of consumption,

or can this be…? For example, it's quite likely that there will be someone using in

the park –– a family, a parent. They will witness drug consumption, and they will

call the police. Based on that person's witness testimony, will that form reasonable

grounds for the police to take action, or must they find committing?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member's question. I think, at this time, that question would probably

be best addressed when we go back to sections 3 and 4.

E. Sturko: I'll save that and then the little subsequent one, I think, that might exist also

under that.

Still in clause 6, under sub (2), how would a police officer be expected to confirm

if a drug is dispensed to the person in accordance with the prescription? Would they

take the prescribed drugs for a period of time and then later return them? So if the

person, for example, is found with prescription drugs that are not in a prescription

container, how will this determination be made whether or not the person is carrying

a prescription or whether these are illicitly sourced drugs?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. So as we've talked in previous things,

police do have discretion. I'll give an example. If a drug, for example, was not in

a prescription package, then police can seize that.

E. Sturko: Thank you for the answer.

Will that be clarified, or c