Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Wednesday, November

8, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 41 — FOREST STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 41; R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 2:52 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 41, Forest Statutes

Amendment Act, to order.

M. Bernier: I'm obliged to stand up. I thought maybe the minister would stand up first. I was

excited to hear his monologue, the introduction of this bill in committee stage, but

I think we'll just jump right into it, as he seems eager to do that himself.

Maybe just start by…. I want to be able to thank the staff of the minister. We had

a briefing on this bill, and I thank them for that.

I think when we look at this bill in its entirety, it's a lot of…. I shouldn't say

complexity, because it's not really complex. It's a lot of changes that are being

made that are minor in some areas but may be important to the minister. We'll have

opportunities, as we get into some sections, to maybe dive into the intent of some

of that.

Maybe, on

section 1, my first question should be around the fact that we are looking

at, throughout this bill, quite a few…. I can't remember how many; 188 sections, I

think it is in this bill.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Actually, it's interesting. The minister has said, like, typically they put things

in regulation. I think we'll find a lot of the times, even throughout this bill, I'll

challenge that, because there is stuff going in through regulation. Unless he wants

to correct that on the record when we get to certain sections — that he wants to actually

be prescriptive rather than saying: "Leave it up to the minister for a future date."

We'll get to that at certain sections, possibly, as we get through the bill.

We are looking at the Wildfire Act, the Forest Act and FRPA, the Forest and Range

Practices Act. Now, the minister will know that…. I think — he can correct me if I'm

wrong — in his second reading speech, he talked about how a lot of this was started

back in 2017, 2019, when there was talk about modernization of the forest policy in

British Columbia.

I'm curious, though. That's four, five, six years ago. What consultation has the minister

done over the last four or five years? If he's going to be referencing work that was

done that long ago, I'm assuming there's been consultation that has taken place in

the last five years before this piece of legislation was brought to the House.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to thank the member for the question.

There has been, since the government came to power in 2017 — you'll appreciate that

I have not been the minister for that entire time, of course — a continuity of policy

consultation. I think the major step would have been the intentions paper in 2020-2021,

which set out a number of broad concerns about the forest industry and how the legislative

framework that guides it might be changed.

If the member's question is about the specific elements of this particular bill —

cultural and prescribed fire, discretionary issuance of cutting permits, and compliance

and enforcement — I do have detailed notes. I can give the member a fairly detailed

recitation of the consultation process that took place for each of the major sections

of the bill, should he wish that.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the offer. I also know that the minister has not been here since 2017.

Whether I appreciate that or not is probably up for debate at a later time. I will

maybe just make it a little easier for the minister.

Has this piece of legislation been a couple of years in the making and taken a while

to reach the House, based on the information that the minister said, on those consultation

periods? Or has there been ongoing consultation that has led us to this piece of legislation?

With that, maybe just some of the ones that jump to mind, for instance. I'm just curious.

There are a lot of different references that the minister made, as well as through

the legislation, around First Nations' abilities and involvement throughout this legislation

on some of the changes.

What recent or progressive consultation has taken place — over the last few years,

let's say — with all the First Nations around British Columbia that this will affect?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Well, let me, based on the member's question, break this down to three areas, broadly

speaking.

On the proposed amendments related to cultural and prescribed fire, let me give you

the detail. From February to March 2023, the ministry consulted and engaged with all

First Nations in the province.

On February 13, 2023, the ministry sent a consultation package consisting of a letter

and supporting discussion paper to all First Nations in the province. The letter described

the proposed changes, requested comments and feedback from First Nations, and offered

the opportunity to meet to discuss the proposal and potential impacts. Further, the

ministry responded to all requests for information meetings or clarification about

the proposed amendments. The ministry attended one in-person meeting and five virtual

meetings.

Twenty-three First Nations provided written responses, three of which expressed support

for the proposals. Three others indicated the nations did not have any comments nor

concerns. Thirteen nations responded with substantive comments or questions. However,

the majority of the responses were outside the scope of the proposed amendments. They

related instead to other wildfire and land management practices and to other phases

of the cultural and prescribed fire policy modernization process.

Let me then deal with the second broad area: the discretionary issuance of cutting

permits and road permits. Ministry of Forests staff have been engaged with First Nations

since November 2021, during which time First Nations identified the issuance of cutting

permits and road permits as a concern. Ministry staff met with First Nations in March

2023 in Campbell River, Williams Lake and Prince George to receive information and

identify specific concerns. During these meetings, the ministry received comments

and feedback on the proposal from representatives of approximately 108 nations.

The ministry initiated a consultation on June 9, 2023, with the distribution of a

consultation package, letter and discussion paper and an invitation to meet and provide

comments and feedback, to 205 nations. On June 26, ministry staff began holding online

video conference calls, which continued, on request from individual nations, until

August 14, 2023.

From June 9 to August 14, 2023, the ministry responded to 24 individual nations —

by an online video meeting, 14; by verbal conversation, one; and by written response,

nine. The ministry responded to all requests for information, meetings or clarification.

In general, the First Nations support the proposal but identified overlapping interests

and no shared decision-making ability as concerns. The nations responded with substantive

comments or answers. However, much of the input was outside the scope of the proposed

amendments, and related to other matters.

Finally, the third area: compliance and enforcement. Consultation with First Nations

on changes to the Wildfire Act, the Forest Act and the Forest and Range Practices

Act took place between July 6, 2021, and September 3, 2021, as part of the province's

broader and ongoing Modernizing Forest Policy initiative, which included the topic of strengthening compliance and enforcement

in the forest sector.

During this period, the province heard from 125 First Nations and organizations through

correspondence, meetings, information sessions and other forms of engagement. From

April to November 2022, there was additional consultation and engagement on the development

of these legislative amendments.

The ministry initiated consultation, on the specific details of its proposal to strengthen

compliance and enforcement, on April 26, 2023, sending a consultation package consisting

of a letter and a supporting discussion paper to all First Nations in the province.

The letter described the proposed changes, requested comments and feedback from First

Nations, and offered the opportunity to meet to discuss the proposal and potential

impacts.

[3:05 p.m.]

Further, the ministry responded to all requests for information meetings or clarification

about proposed amendments. The ministry held a virtual open house on June 15, 2023,

and 24 First Nations representatives participated. Staff responded to 25 individual

nations — by virtual meetings, seven; by letters, four; by emails, 12; by phone calls,

one; and by one referral to another agency.

The ministry responded to all requests for information, meetings or clarification

about the proposed amendments. The majority of the responses were outside the scope

of the proposed amendments. They related instead to other matters. There was a general

spirit of support for the proposal.

Feedback has been considered in policy development. A follow-up email was sent on

August 30, updating all the First Nations that the province is moving forward with

the introduction of three legislative amendments — under the Wildfire Act, the Forest

Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act — at the fall legislative session.

M. Bernier: Thanks to the minister's staff for having that all written out for him — they obviously

knew that that question would be coming — and pretty detailed, as to what the minister

has done on that. I appreciate that.

One of the things I want to flag through that, then…. It sounds like, through the

minister's acknowledgment, from what he just read out there, a lot of the correspondence

that he received was outside the scope of the drafting or of the intents of this bill.

That leads me to acknowledge some of the feedback that I've been getting, which will

be outside parts of this bill. We won't get into big debates on that. It's just the

uncertainty that's out there right now — the confusion or the angst around the forestry

sector, of what the intentions are of this minister and government — based on the

reality of what we're seeing on the ground, based on what we want to see in the future.

The minister can maybe just nod, or he can get back up if he chooses to. It's his

prerogative.

About cultural and prescribed fire, when he did the consultation on that — we can

get to it later on, towards the end of the bill, which is fine as well, in more detail

— it sounded like the minister said that there was not a lot of support. It sounded

like there was a little bit of feedback but it wasn't a lot of support for that section,

and some of it was outside the scope.

As the bill was being drafted, then, and in all aspects of the bill…. The minister

has acknowledged the three different acts that talked about changes here. When there

wasn't support — the minister acknowledged things that were within the scope of questions

that First Nations had — were there a lot of subsequent drafting changes made? Were

First Nations around the province given the heads-up, or an NDA, let's say, where

they were told, "This is what the bill is going to be," and then the minister made

further changes to it? Or were they part of the drafting?

I'm trying to understand what the minister is saying through the consultation process

prior to the drafting of this bill. If I'm putting words in his mouth…. Again, I'm

trying to understand what changes were made, based on that feedback, if there were

a lot of First Nations that didn't support aspects of this bill.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I just want to correct what the member said about attributing to me a comment that

First Nations, in the consultation process for any one of these three headings, said

that they didn't support it, particularly cultural and prescribed fire.

I'll just read again what I said, because I was reading, as the member likely noticed.

The ministry responded to all requests for information meetings or clarification about

the proposed amendments. The ministry attended one in-person meeting and five virtual

meetings. Twenty-one First Nations made written responses, three of which expressed

support for the proposals. Three others indicated the nations did not have any comments

or concerns.

Thirteen nations responded with substantive comments or questions. However, the majority

of the responses were outside the scope of the proposed amendments and related instead

to other wildfire and land management practices and to other phases of the cultural

and prescribed fire policy modernization process.

So there wasn't opposition expressed.

In reference to the comment about responses being outside the scope…. Typically, they

might well have been about the forest landscape planning process and other processes

that are underway as part of forest transformation. So it wasn't that they were brushed

aside. There is a forest landscape planning table, and they were referred there. That

particular policy is of keen interest to many nations who are actively involved in

forestry.

I think that answers the member's question, I hope.

M. Morris: In clause 1, under 1(a), it looks like this clause applies to removing some of the

definitions from

part 4, which is the general tenure provisions, and places them now

part 1, under

definitions and

interpretations. Do I understand from this that this

means that these

definitions are no longer restricted to

part 4 and are now applicable

to the entire statute?

Hon. B. Ralston: The answer is yes.

M. Morris: The definition "cutting permit" is repealed and a new definition added: "cutting permit

area." It expands the definition to now include proposed cutting area. I'm curious

to know at what stage of the planning process would the "proposed" part of the definition

kick in.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: This applies at the application stage. The cutting permit area is the area that is

being referred to. Then, assuming approval, all or part of the area that's being applied

for will receive a cutting permit. The cutting permit area is the object, if I could

put it that way, of the application for a cutting permit.

M. Morris: So that I have it clear in my head, the proposed cutting area is prior to the permit

being granted. Would the "proposed" part of this definition kick in when the application

is submitted to the ministry?

The proponent who's talking about putting the application in might be proposing to

cut in that area six months or a year in advance of actually putting the application

together to submit to the ministry, to get the cutting permit approved.

Is the "proposed" part of this, under this definition, indicative of the completed

application on the minister's desk prior to approval?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: At the point that the proposed area comes forward, there will be an expectation that

the applicant has made some inquiries and has an understanding of whether there will

be support for the application. When it goes forward, that'll be a consideration,

under the new rules, for the statutory decision-maker.

Simply because an area is proposed does not mean it would necessarily be approved.

You might submit a proposed cutting area that contained four blocks, but one might

not be approved, and you might get permission to go forward and cut in three of the

four blocks.

M. Morris: I appreciate the answer from the minister.

I put this out on behalf of other tenure holders on the ground — the trappers, the

guide-outfitters, adventure tourism operators — that keep a close eye on the operations

of the forest licensees throughout all the areas of the province.

When would the licensee or the applicant be consulting with the tenure holders with

respect to a proposed cutting area? Is it during the stage prior to the application,

or would it be once the application is in and it's in the minister's office?

I'm just inquiring on their behalf as to when their input would be considered.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Prior to the process being engaged at the ministry level, the forest licensee would

have an internal process. That takes some time. Companies will have, under the present

legislation, a forest stewardship plan, where there would be opportunity for someone

holding a trapline, for example. I know the member is keenly interested and is a former

representative of the Trappers Association. That would be one opportunity for input.

As of April 1, 2024, there will be a requirement to have a forest operations map.

That will be required under FRPA. In order to get approval, there'll have to be a

process of advertising it for at least 30 days, and the area that's under consideration

will have to be easily identifiable. Again, that would be another opportunity for

input from the hypothetical owner of the trapline.

The Chair: Recognizing the Third Party House Leader.

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity to ask some questions here.

I just wanted to maybe take this up and go pretty high-level with this. It's the first

opportunity I've had to speak to the minister. There has been a fairly substantive

change in focus in how the government has organized this particular ministry, with

a pretty distinct focus now just on forestry.

I'm just wondering what the minister's intention is, going forward, with this ministry.

What are the outcomes they're hoping to achieve with these changes, and how do they

align with the changes that were made in 2021?

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you very much for the question.

Yes, there has been an internal reorganization between the Ministry of Water, Land

and Resource Stewardship and the Forests Ministry. Legislation and functions that

formally dealt with water — although there were some in WLRS already, including watershed

management — have been devolved to WLRS, and also wildlife and the Land Act.

[3:30 p.m.]

The premise of the member's question is accurate in the sense that the Forest Ministry

will now focus more or less exclusively on forest issues and the forest statutes.

I think that's a natural outcome of the creation of the new ministry and its evolution.

I think that the issues that are before the forest sector and forestry generally in

the province will be better served, and I'll be able to give more attention and more

time to those issues, which are of intense public concern on occasion. I think the

forest transformation that I've been mandated to oversee will benefit from that slightly

more focused approach.

A. Olsen: What was the rationale, from the minister's perspective, to move this specific set

of amendments that we see in this bill in front of us?

Hon. B. Ralston: The three broad areas, I think, are consistent with what has been heard in the broad

consultation and public representations that have been made by First Nations, by the

industry, by communities. It's a desire, certainly, on the cultural fires side, from

the Indigenous community, that was previously proscribed, prohibited. This will enable

traditional knowledge to be used in a different way and a more effective way.

Secondly, on the issuance of permits, both road and…. Frequently, issues have arisen

in that consideration of that process that have not been able to resolve. This will

give the statutory decision–maker and the district offices more tools to resolve issues

at the local level. That will, I think, be welcomed by all participants in the process.

Thirdly, on compliance and enforcement, that's an issue. If you make a law and people

can break it at will, then it doesn't have the same force, and people are less likely

to pay attention to it. At least, that's the basic premise of most of the reputable

criminologists. They would say so, so that is something that has been broadly supported

and desired.

These amendments are a response to public concern across the Peace about important

issues in the sector.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for those responses. Why are we not seeing any of the potential

necessary legal changes or the changes in the acts with respect to the old-growth

strategic review in these amendments?

Hon. B. Ralston: I would agree with the member to the extent that these are not included specifically

within these amendments, but they nevertheless support that general direction.

[3:35 p.m.]

Previously, without discretion, the statutory decision-maker couldn't make a decision

to say: "I'm prepared to issue the permit, but this old-growth stand here…. I won't

give permission to log that particular old-growth stand. I won't give permission to

have the road permit be allowed to pass through this particular part of the cutblock,

because there's an important cultural site there."

This gives that discretion, and it's consistent with the old-growth strategic review,

and I think it will advance the goals that are set out there.

Secondly, on the issue of compliance and enforcement, the amendments will give the

power not to simply assess a penalty or a fine against someone who breaks the rules

but will also enable an order to be made for damages, I think they call it in the

act, or reparations. So if you unlawfully log something that you're not supposed to,

a stand that you're not allowed to, there is a mechanism for assessing not just a

penalty but the value of what you have destroyed, insofar as that's possible.

That will have a potentially substantial deterrent effect, I'm reasonably confident,

against that kind of activity. We hear of people heading into forests and logging,

on Vancouver Island, old-growth cedar right beside the roadside. There will be an

opportunity to assess much stronger penalties against people like that.

A. Olsen: There were changes to the Forest Act and FRPA in 2019, 2021, and now we're seeing

these changes. Can the minister maybe characterize where the regulation-making process

for those previous two acts is at? Has that work been completed?

I know that when the government made those changes in 2021, the regulation hadn't

been completed yet. Can the minister maybe just provide a little bit of an update

for us as to where we're at with the regulation changes? Are we all up to date? Where

does that stand?

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for the question. The 2019 amendments will culminate, in the regulatory

sense, with the forest operations map, which will come into effect April 1, 2024,

as I mentioned earlier.

[3:40 p.m.]

On the 2020 amendments: these are very major transformative changes to regulation.

This will be transformative in the sense that forest landscape plans will be implemented.

There are four pilots. I've got the names of two of them: Nadina, which is near Burns

Lake, and Quesnel. There are two other names that escape me at the moment. They are

pilots. The way in which they operate is informing the writing of the regulation going

forward.

There is money in the budget for another eight forest landscape plans, of which five

have been selected and another three will be selected shortly. That's the forest landscape

planning table I spoke of earlier.

That process is ongoing. It will have regional variations, obviously, in a province

like British Columbia. But that's the intention. The way in which regional plans are

made will be transformed by the implementation of this regulation.

A. Olsen: It's important to understand the picture of forestry that this ministry sees once

those regulatory-making pieces are finished, from the work that was done in 2019 by

a previous minister and in 2021, which was done by yet another previous minister,

and how that fits into the work that's being done here.

It'd be nice to hear from the minister how he sees the forest sector looking and the

way that it is operating in this province. It's one of the four paintings in the rotunda.

It's one of those kind of foundational industries. It has now been given the space

in the ministry to be the focus of the minister and of the staff.

How does he see this ministry operating once these regulatory pieces are finished?

This law is part of that package of changes that has happened — as the minister pointed

out, very substantive changes — from 2019 till now. I think it would be good for British

Columbians to hear from the minister how he sees it operating.

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member very much for the question.

I think there's no doubt that these are profound changes in forestry that the government

is advancing. Certainly, that is my mandate. They engage what is an historic foundational

industry in the province in new directions. It involves industry. It involves First

Nations. It involves communities.

The general direction is away from an exclusive focus on timber values towards broader

values such as biodiversity, wildlife concerns, community balance and First Nations

reconciliation, essentially returning the public interest as the most important aspect

of how the forests are regulated within the province.

Those partnerships, with First Nations reconciliation, work with industry to clearly

define the role of industry and where jobs and resources will be found and where forest

activity will take place. All of those are very long-term, profound changes that are

consistent with a different vision for forestry that the predecessor ministers, which

you've mentioned, advanced and that I'm obliged to advance on behalf of the government

as well.

[3:45 p.m.]

I think we're expressing a long-term concern for the public interest in forestry being

represented, for economic well-being and for biodiversity and ecological balance.

A. Olsen: I have two more questions. I'm going to ask them as one and then just pass it back

to my colleagues.

In light of that, and in light of the aspects of this bill that talk about prescribed

burns and other ways to view landscape management and operations…. There are, in light

of the minister's response with respect to biodiversity and ecosystem health and wildlife,

two aspects of forestry that I am quite concerned about. I'm wondering how the minister

sees it.

The application of clearcutting on the land base is very destructive for a lot of

the values that the minister just noted. So the first question is: does the minister

see the use of clearcutting entire ecosystems or entire parts of ecosystems to be

a part of the future of B.C. forestry?

The follow-up to that would be on the type of planting that occurs in those landscapes,

either landscapes that have already been clearcut or landscapes that will be clearcut

in the future. I don't want to leave the sense that I believe that we're just monocropping,

because I don't think that we are. But we're certainly not planting these fire-resilient,

biodiverse forests. In many respects, we call them tree farms. We have tree farming

happening.

I'm just wondering if the minister could talk about the future of clearcutting in

the province and then, as well, how we are replanting those ecosystems so that they

can be more fire resistant through what the experts are talking about in terms of

replanting — things that more closely resemble forests than future timber supply,

as the minister suggested.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I propose to answer the question by dealing with the silviculture question first.

Certainly, in the chief forester's office, which advises the ministry broadly, there's

a

section where these kinds of questions about what kind of replanting should take

place…. I know the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, in his second reading speech,

raised that very question.

In a natural forest, there are sometimes deciduous species that help the resilience

of the forest, and if you simply plant — I think this was the example that he used

in his speech — a pine, that might not be the best approach in the long run. Those

considerations are being actively considered.

In the recommendations of the old-growth strategic review, there was recommendation

No. 12, which talked about innovative silviculture systems. Some grant money was given

to an institute in Smithers to work on those questions, in conjunction with the chief

forester's office. As I understand it, that concern is understood and is actively

being addressed.

On the first question about clearcutting, one of the advantages of creating some discretion

in the issuance of permits and implementing a forest landscape planning process is

that there may be some cases where clearcutting is the best process, constrained by

the plan. Or it may not be, but there will be that discretion to make that decision

through a forest landscape planning process.

That's a real advantage, and it will help us achieve our goals of transformation and

respecting the other range of values besides timber values, in the long run, that

we advocate.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. Morris: Just some clarification. I know we touched on it a bit under clause 1 here. With reference

to the added definition of "forest operations map…."

[3:55 p.m.]

When I was going through this, I was looking feverishly for

section 15.1 under the

current act. Of course, it's not there, because it was under the amendment from 2019.

I've heard the minister's explanation on that. I'm glad to see it's coming into force

and will be part of the forest landscape planning.

I'm just curious, though. We talk about the fundamental changes that are coming, and

this part will come in on April 1, 2024. But I'm wondering if the minister can give

some rationale as to why it has taken this long to get to this particular stage. We'll

probably get into more when we get into the transition clauses towards the end of

this particular bill here, but this does seem to take quite a while to get to this

particular point.

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for the question. It's a question that I myself sometimes ask of

staff.

In order to put the map system together — it's an online system — it required some

systems development. It enables licensees to comment online about the proposed map

of four areas contained within their licence, so it has taken time to develop.

Of course, given the importance of this, one wants it to be done well and to be done

right. But it is due to be, as the member points out, coming into force on April 1,

2024, and it will be available across the province.

M. Morris: Just a follow-up to that. I appreciate the answer.

I know there's a lot of technicality or technical issues behind the scenes that everybody

is working feverishly on. The online operations map — will that be accessible to other

tenure holders that might be affected by the proposed cutting areas?

Hon. B. Ralston: The map will be available for comment for at least 30 days for other forest users

or tenure holders. That's the comment period, and changes might be made as a result

of those comments.

I've asked whether it would then be online after that, in its permanent form. I think

I'd rather wait to get a definite answer. It seems likely that it will be, but I've

asked staff. Just before making that comment on the record, I want to be sure that

it's right.

I can probably get back to the member before the end of our discussion — I'm not sure

whether we'll conclude today or tomorrow — to give that assurance one way or the other.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

[4:00 p.m.]

Interjection.

M. Bernier: That's right.

On clause 3. When we looked at the

definitions that were added at the beginning, there

was a big

section talking about corporate relations. Of course, in clause 3 here,

talking about the corporate relations…. What's the significance? What brought this?

This is a whole new, really, addition to

part 1.

Can the minister explain some of the background of why we needed to be bringing in

a whole definitive

section around corporate relations?

[F. Donnelly in the chair.]

Hon. B. Ralston: There were changes introduced in 2019 that related to transfers and dispositions.

This amendment moves those provisions to

part 1 so that they apply to the whole of

the act.

I'm told that they're substantially the same. There were what the drafters have called

tweaks. They're not identical is what I want to convey, but the intention and the

meaning is the same, should this ever end up in court and being interpreted.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

My colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie and I, of course, when we were looking through

this, we do see a lot of things that…. You have to go to the back of the bill to understand

what's at the front of the bill and the middle of the bill for the back. There are

a lot of places, and we….

Being somebody who's been involved, like the minister has for a while, I understand

the process for drafting, the legalities around it. But I hope he indulges us, even

though some of it's at a later point and changes. It's important, when we're at certain

sections, just to get certain things on the record, to make sure, for all those people

watching, that we're on top of this.

I'm just curious, with the minister's answer, though, saying that it's tweaked. I

think that was the minister's words. Not a lot of changes. If that's the case, what

were we trying to solve? We're moving a

section to here, as the minister said, but

was there a loophole that's being fixed? Are there concerns that maybe companies were

trying to evade their responsibility, and that's why this had to change, or was this

really more of a legislation cleanup of making sure it's matching what we're trying

to do?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Those

definitions were previously in

part 4 for transfers. Transferring them to

section

1 is to give the discretion, particularly in the area of compliance and enforcement.

If, for example, you had a series of related companies and there was a contravention

committed by one of those entities, and that entity failed to pay the contravention

penalty, this would give the discretion to say: all the other related companies you

could go after for payment of that contravention. It gives a broader discretion to

enforce the contraventions in the way that I described earlier.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Ralston: I'm being advised that I misinterpreted what was said to me, not for the first time.

What is being referred to is not a payment, but it's the right to receive other permissions.

So if you breach one and you don't pay, then you won't be able to get permissions

for other related entities that you might own. It's a more effective enforcement mechanism.

M. Morris: I've got a few more questions with respect to these

definitions and whatnot, just

to clarify things in my own mind.

Under subsection 1.3(1), can the minister tell me if he has determined what the definition

of "effective director" will be and why it's going to be added to the regulations

rather than as part of the statutory amendment that's before us today?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: "Effective director" is already in the regulations. It's been there since the 1990s.

That definition is not being changed.

M. Morris: I'll have to look that up.

The regulations…. I'm sure, but to confirm: they're the forest and range planning

and practices. No? Is there regulation specifically for the Forest Act?

Hon. B. Ralston: There is, I'm told, an effective director regulation under the Forest Act.

M. Morris: Turning now to…. It's still under the same clause. Subsection 2(

a) indicates that

"shares of the corporation are held, other than by way of security only, by or for

the benefit of the person or group, as applicable."

I'm just wondering whether this means that a person who receives shares as part of

their employment agreement falls under the provisions of subsection 2.

Hon. B. Ralston: This provision already exists. I mean, the purpose of this set of regulations is to

pierce the corporate veil and discover who's actually, genuinely running the company.

If a person…. I think it would be unlikely that a person who worked there and got

shares would be given sufficient shares to take over control of the company. That

would seem to be unlikely. But the definition is unchanged from before.

M. Morris: I do realize that this is just taken from

section 53 and moved into

part 1 of this

statute here. I have seen a few questionable transactions throughout the years, so

I'm just trying to wrap my head around some of these issues here.

Sub (

b) states that: "the votes carried by the shares referred to in paragraph (

a) are sufficient, if exercised and considered in the aggregate, (

i) to elect or appoint

50% or more of the effective directors of the corporation, or (ii) to otherwise effectively

control the operations and direction of the corporation." I'm just curious as to what

goes into….

How do we determine how a person or group can otherwise effectively control the operations

and directions of a corporation under sub (ii)?

Hon. B. Ralston: These provisions haven't changed. They're basically there to discover who effectively

controls the corporation.

M. Morris: I realize they haven't changed. I guess I'm just…. What is "otherwise effectively

controlling the operation"?

[4:15 p.m.]

Is it somebody who comes in and hijacks a board of directors meeting and inserts his

or her position in there? I'm not sure exactly what that means. Maybe you can clarify

that a little bit for me.

Hon. B. Ralston: I think this will be perhaps a classic lawyer's answer, but it would depend upon the

facts of the case. There's a broad policy objective that's sought in this kind of

legislation. As far as I'm aware, and I've asked, there is no judicial

interpretation

of these provisions that would provide any guidance.

M. Morris: I'm always baffled by lawyer talk.

Subsection (3) speaks to corporate affiliation. It's quite extensive — the provisions

that are in there. Can the minister tell me if, for an example, a First Nations band

enters into a partnership agreement with a forest licensee whether this becomes a

corporate affiliation covered under this section?

Hon. B. Ralston: In the example the member provides, he spoke of a partnership, I believe. Is that

correct? I see he's nodding yes. It wouldn't apply.

M. Morris: If a licensee offers a board position to a contract partner as part of their contract,

does this become an affiliation covered under this act?

Hon. B. Ralston: The answer is no.

M. Morris: If a First Nation has been granted tenure in an area controlled by a licensee, or

where a licensee has been operating and is probably the prime operator in the area

and has a partnership agreement with the licensee operating in the area, would the

minister be concerned that forest tenure concentration is still an issue?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The ministry would only be engaged when there was a transfer. There is what's called

a fibre concentration regulation, which is prescribed and would apply. It's a formula.

It would apply in the case of a transfer. But unless there was a transfer, the ministry

wouldn't be involved.

M. Morris: Just some clarification on that. I do know that a lot of licensees are, for lack of

a better term, courting or trying to form partnerships with First Nations who have

tenure. They've been granted 200,000 or 300,000 cubic metres a year tenure within

the operating area of the licensee. And the licensee is the only one that is going

to take benefit of that particular tenure granted to the individual.

So the ministry is not concerned that that is still a concentration of tenure to that

licensee, even though some of it might be held by the First Nations?

Hon. B. Ralston: I accept the description that the member has given about current trends in those kinds

of relationships, but it is a business-to-business relationship, and the ministry

is not involved and doesn't have any regulatory tools that would enable the ministry

to be involved. The only exception would be if there was a transfer.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

M. Morris: Clause 4 inserts a new subparagraph under

section 12(1) by adding (j.1), "cutting

permit."

Section 12(1) lists a number of forms of rights to harvest Crown timber,

including subsection (h), which is a licence to cut. It's probably already in there

somewhere in this massive amount of legislation we have in the different statutes,

but what is the difference between a licence to cut and a cutting permit?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: An interesting question. A licence to cut is a form of tenure typically issued for

small, short-term provisions such as for oil and gas or mining, where you need to

take some trees down, typically. A cutting permit is issued where a tenure exists,

and it's issued to a tenure holder.

M. Morris: Just one more point of clarification for me. So cutting permits would be issued to

volume-based tenure holders?

Hon. B. Ralston: Those permits are issued to volume-based and area-based. Basically, it would be (

a) to (

g) in the list described in subsection 12(1) — well, (

b) is repealed: (a), (c),

(d), (e), (e.1) and (g).

Clauses 4 and 5 approved.

On clause 6.

M. Morris: Under subsection 13.1(3), it states: "On receipt of an eligible bioenergy application,

the minister or a person authorized by the minister must approve the application."

The new subsection (4) states that if the application under subsection (3) is approved,

"…the minister and the applicant must, on or after the commercial operation date,

enter into a non-replaceable forest licence." It's probably somewhere in the legislation,

but I'm wondering if the minister can tell me what the definition of a "commercial

operation date" is.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: These tenures arise when an applicant has a B.C. Hydro energy supply contract. They

win the contract. They then come to the Ministry of Forests, of course, to determine

that they're an eligible applicant. Then they go back to Hydro and finalize the contract,

and then the tenure is issued. It's typically a non-replaceable tenure for less than

ten years.

M. Bernier: Still in this section, obviously, in (4.1), now it's talking about how the minister

"may." We've got a whole bunch of areas where everything's been added, where it's

"must." This one here has been added where the minister "may." If I'm looking at the

actual act, this is a change.

Can the minister explain why, in a scenario, I guess, the minister might refuse a

non-replaceable forest licence? Maybe you can give some examples there of why it would

be changed to "may." Appreciate that.

Hon. B. Ralston: Looking further down (4.1), it's in circumstances where the applicant hasn't paid.

They're delinquent on their…. If you look at sub (4.1)(a), "the applicant, or a related

person of the applicant, has not yet paid money required to be paid to the government…"

and (b), "…not in compliance with the requirement…" these are circumstances where

the licence would not be issued.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

M. Morris: Again, I'm not as familiar with this as the staff sitting at the table with the minister.

Clause 7 repeals

section 14(1)(e) — that terms for cutting permits do not exceed four

years. Is there a new time restriction replacing the four-year term?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: This is probably more complicated than it actually is, or it seems more complicated

than it actually is.

There's no change to the regime. "Cutting permit" — this language is being deleted

from this section, and it will appear in the new 52.08. So it's being taken out of

this

section applying to tenures, and there'll be one provision that applies across

all cutting permits throughout the act.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

M. Morris: Clause 8 adjusts the definition of restricted forest licence to comply with these

amendments but also provides authority for the minister to specify that a restricted

forest licence include provisions for an applicant to take steps "to obtain from other

sources the timber and wood residue needed for processing."

I think I know the answer from looking through this entire bill, in preparation, but

my question was: does this

section apply to bioenergy facilities and pellet plants

and any other plant that uses residuals?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The old provision is changed in two respects.

Sub 14.2(3) is eliminated, and there's a definition of a supplemental forest licence.

That is going to the earlier definition section. Otherwise, the provisions are the

same.

I could talk a little bit about a supplemental forest licence, since I think the member

did ask a little bit about that. They're used as alternate source of fibre on an infrequent

basis, typically where the holder acquires fibre through the open market or traditional

business-to-business arrangements but, for reasons beyond their control, those sources

are not available. They're mainly targeted towards new or ongoing opportunities for

certain sectors — secondary manufacturing, bioenergy, OSB, pulp, value-added.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

M. Bernier: Maybe the first question I'll ask here is…. In clause 9, we're talking a lot about

the different forest licences. How many forest licences, approximately, do we have

in British Columbia?

Hon. B. Ralston: There are 297 replaceable forest licences and 100 non-replaceable forest licences.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the minister being so approximate. That helps.

A couple of places, though, in….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: That's right.

I won't repeat for Hansard what the minister said.

In this clause, though, there are a couple of places where it's actually changing

the authorization, a couple of places where saying "or a person authorized by the

minister" is being removed. It looks like it's giving a little bit more authority,

I guess, to the minister.

Can we explain the rationale, then, of who these people are — a person authorized?

I look at that as a statutory decision-maker, but maybe there are others that are

authorized by the minister. So who are we removing as authorized people to give the

control to the minister?

Hon. B. Ralston: The phrase "or a person authorized by the minister" is superfluous. Under the Forest

Act

section 1.1, the minister's powers, the minister can do that and has the authority

to delegate. It's all contained within

section 1.1.

This reference is superfluous, so for, I guess, efficiency and ease of reading, it's

being eliminated.

M. Bernier: Over the last few years, then, I guess I'll say, while this minister has been in this

role, if that authority has been there, how often has the minister had to decline

or turn down a permit?

Hon. B. Ralston: There is no discretion for the minister to decline a permit in this context, so there

have been none.

Clauses 9 and 10 approved.

On clause 11.

[4:45 p.m.]

M. Morris: Clause 11 expands the circumstances the minister can use to refuse or to replace a

licence under 19(3) of the act if he feels it would compromise forest management.

I'm going to talk a little bit about this at length here as we go through.

Section

19(3) of the act says that the minister must replace the licences or amend, upon written

request to the minister. This amendment states that the minister may refuse to replace

or amend.

Maybe I'm missing something here. There appears to be a conflict between these two

authorities. Could the minister point me in the right direction?

Hon. B. Ralston: In the previous provision of subsection 19(4), there's a provision that says the minister

"may refuse to replace or amend, under subsection (3), one or more forest licences

if the minister considers that the replacement or amendment would compromise forest

management." That continues.

What this amendment adds is "in the prescribed circumstances." That is related to

a proposed regulation about enforcement where there are circumstances — that hasn't

been decided yet in regulation — where that might involve the discretion of the minister

if there were some considerations that related to enforcement.

It would give the government additional grounds to refuse to subdivide or consolidate

forest licences to improve accountability and encourage compliance. This could include

the ability to refuse for non-payment of amounts owed under the forestry legislation

framework and not paid by the due date. That's the purpose of the amendment.

M. Morris: Subsection (4)(

a) says: "if the minister considers that the replacement or amendment

would compromise forest management." Could the minister give me an overview of what

he considers the issues in forest management are?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Hypothetically, one could subdivide into units that are no longer economically efficient

and can't be managed. So that would give the discretion to refuse that subdivision,

and that would be the reference to effective forest management. Some subdivisions

would just be simply too small to be effective.

M. Morris: I'm interpreting that a subdivision is what some refer to as a soft partition, with

respect to what you can cut and what you can't cut. Maybe the minister can tell me

if I'm right or wrong on that one.

The other aspect of it… When I look at compromising forest management as a whole —

rather than just focusing on subdivisions, as the minister is referencing — what about

all the other aspects of forest management, like hydrology, biodiversity and wildlife?

Are those part of the overall scheme of forest management included in this section?

Hon. B. Ralston: I'm told that this is not a soft partition. A subdivision creates two separate units,

and all the other aspects or attributes that the member spoke of could be considered.

There's no prohibition on considering those, although — primarily in the past, I think

— it has been used to consider whether it would be efficient. But the other values

that the member speaks of could be considered.

M. Morris: I'm pleased with the response that the minister had with respect to that, because

there are a number of factors that come into play when we look at the compromising

of forest management in the Prince George timber supply area and in many of the timber

supply areas throughout the province, and when we look at the hydrological impact

of the loss of forest cover.

There's recent science out there that indicates that that if too much of the forest

cover is gone from clearcut logging, it compromises the hydrological integrity of

the watershed, which leads to flooding events in the spring. The snow melts very quickly

and rushes down. Ultimately, science has now connected it as a contributing factor

to the major flood events that we see in the spring, in British Columbia. That's one

of the factors.

The other factor: once that massive flooding takes place, the moisture is out of the

ground and the snow is gone, and then these watersheds dry out. This leads to a higher

risk of wildfire, which we've seen through many of our watersheds across the province

here. I'm just wondering whether this would be taken into consideration when the minister

is looking at the provisions, under 19(4), to refuse to replace or amend a licence

if we have a watershed that has exceeded the….

[4:55 p.m.]

Well, we'll use a tool that the ministry has available to the folks throughout the

province here. I think it was highlighted in "Extension Note 118," which was published

back in 2017. It reaffirmed that a watershed that provides community water to a community

can't have an equivalent clearcut area of more than 20 percent at any given time;

a fishery-sensitive watershed cannot be exceeding 25 percent at any given time; and

all other watersheds in the province, 30 percent at any given time.

Yet we have watersheds that are…. The Chilako watershed is one that I know Canfor

and other individuals have done assessments on there, with an ECA of 90 percent about

five years ago.

I'm wondering if these are the things that the ministry will be taking into consideration

from this day forward, once this amendment is passed or comes into force, when deciding

whether or not to issue or cancel a permit, based on some of these factors that science

is now identifying as significant contributors to flooding and fires in the province.

Hon. B. Ralston: I appreciate the member raising this particular question.

The focus of this amendment is on the issue of consolidation or subdivision. By making

the resulting tenure bigger or smaller, would that lead to more or less effective

forest management? It's not an opportunity to revisit the AAC. It's not another way

of entering into the considerations that the member has considered. It has to be fairly

narrowly focused on that consideration, or it would not be a legally sustainable permit.

[5:00 p.m.]

M. Morris: I understand that the structure is more administrative, with respect to how the operations

are laid out and are planned, but somewhere along the line, the forest management

is impacted by things like hydrology.

When would the minister entertain the significant impacts of hydrology on the administrative

part of administering forestry and forestry licences and whatnot? If he can't do it

there, then where do you do that? How do you look at something in isolation from all

these other significant factors that are impacting, the cumulative impacts of forest

management at the landscape level or otherwise?

Equally as important…. I'll throw this on the record here as well, and we'll talk

about it probably later on in here, because this does deal with the administrative

function more of forestry under the Forest Act. But these things are important to

be taken into consideration. There's no question in my mind.

I've put about 15,000 kilometres on my personal vehicle driving through the Prince

George timber supply area, the Mackenzie timber supply area, the Quesnel timber supply

area and the Lakes District as well. I've been driving into all of the retained areas,

clearcut logging all over the place, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of

hectares.

But I've been specifically looking for stick nests, because the goshawks have disappeared,

the grey owls have disappeared, the great horned owls have disappeared, and they all

use these stick nests. Under

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

You can never cut those down. There needs to be a retention — that's been in practice,

anyway — of keeping a 100-metre strip around these particular nests.

I haven't found one. I've walked into the areas. I've used my binoculars to scan them,

and I haven't found them. To me, that's concerning because I don't see goshawks and

grey owls and great horned owls anymore either. Those are only part of the species

that we no longer have available. I think they've been extirpated in many of the regions.

I think these are important things to look at, at any level of looking at the administration

of forest licences in the province here. If not here…. If the minister is seized with

the information that these things are important out there and they are compromising

forest management right across the province, how would the minister address these

kinds of important issues?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The member has raised the issue of where some of the considerations that he has set

out — hydrological, wildlife — and at what point would these be raised by a decision-maker.

There are a number of points at which these issues can be raised. The first one would

be in the timber supply review, which is conducted by the chief forester. The second

would be in the forest landscape planning process. As we've talked about earlier,

that would be a fairly detailed process, where those considerations could be raised.

Under the present scheme, it could be raised under the forest stewardship plan.

Specifically relating to wildlife, a wildlife habitat area could be created. That

was, I think, an area that was formerly within this ministry's powers. It is now a

jurisdiction of the Minister of WLRS. They have that capacity now.

M. Morris: Yeah, I understand….

[The bells were rung.]

Interjections.

M. Morris: So this

section talks about compromising forest management. The minister has to make

some decisions with respect to compromising forest management.

[5:10 p.m.]

Looking at it through a set of administrative glasses, everything is cut and dried,

but when you consider compromising forest management on the broader scale, it's like

playing the hot potato game: "It doesn't really apply to my unit, so I'm going to

toss it over to another

section or another office to deal with." Yet this is serious

stuff.

The minister talked about how we can declare a wildlife habitat area. It's too late

for that. The wildlife is…. I would say that 50 to 80 percent of the wildlife population

in British Columbia has disappeared because of the habitat loss. I think that's a

pretty serious thing.

Speaking about the hydrological impacts and the studies…. I came across a study from

about 2012 or 2009, I think, that first raised this issue for me. It identified the

fact that the loss of tree cover is leading to the rapid snow melt and the spring

freshets. Then there's a recent study out by Professor Alila at the UBC faculty of

forestry, hydrology department, that now has made these connections between the loss

of forest cover and the rapid snow melt leading to the water running downstream and

collecting into the Fraser Basin and leading to some serious issues there.

When we see the loss of life associated with floods, when we see the billions of dollars

in damage associated with these floods, when we see the billions of dollars in damage

associated with the fires because the watersheds are drying out and when we see a

loss of life with our firefighters this past year…. To me, these put government on

a pin.

The liability associated with having that knowledge and not taking steps to mitigate

those extreme issues at the earliest possible time and every possible point…. This

connects with the Forest Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act and all the other

legislation that supports this.

I think it is something that government really needs to take a look at. Not only government

but also the industries that are operating under the permits issued by the minister

for whatever activity they're involved in here, whatever that particular licence might

look like. There might be some liability associated with that as well.

I'm just wondering. Has the minister turned his mind to any of these hydrological

studies that are out? Some of them have been out for years now. They've been identified

in the Forest Practices Board reports that have come out. That's what drew it to my

attention about seven or eight years ago.

These are the things that are compromising the forests in my world, where I live —

the largest timber supply area in British Columbia — and, I know, others as well.

So I'm just wondering if the minister considers this a significant issue that needs

to be addressed at every level and at every opportunity within the respective legislation.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The member raises a number of very significant concerns about forest management and,

indeed, the future of the land in the province. That's the reason why we are engaged

in a forest transformation process. That's the motivation behind the old-growth strategic

review. It's 14 recommendations that we have accepted and are acting upon.

Certainly, among those considerations are some of the specific concerns that the member

has expressed about hydrology and wildlife habitat. I know he's not confining his

view to those but giving those as the most vivid examples of what has gone wrong.

That's the direction we're heading. Forest landscape planning is one of the mechanisms

that we're using. We've changed some of the legislation to eliminate the focus entirely

on timber values. Those other values will be considered in any aspect of that.

Certainly, the chief forester, I'm told, is aware of the studies from the UBC faculty

of forestry. He's a registered professional forester himself, obviously. He has a

section that assists him in researching that and making important decisions about

the AAC and why it might not be the same as it was before.

I don't want to minimize what the member is saying. I think these are profound, important

concerns. I share his anxiety and concern — I think it's well placed — about the future

of the province as climate change impacts us and the ways in which we can change our

forest management practices to reflect those concerns. That's the direction we are

heading, and that's the direction I'm instructed to head and advocate for when I can.

On this specific provision in this particular part of the legislation…. The primary

focus is on the effect of consolidation or the effect of division. How will that impact

the effect of forest management?

It doesn't take into account the full range of concerns in that kind of a decision

in the way that the member suggests. I think there are other places…. I'm not dismissing

his concerns in the slightest, but there are other places in the changes we're bringing

about where exactly these concerns will be considered.

Clauses 11 to 16 inclusive approved.

On clause 17.

M. Bernier: We will get to a couple of parts of this bill, obviously, where we'll be able to move

along quite quickly.

[5:20 p.m.]

This one here is just more for my morbid curiosity. There are a couple of places in

the bill that this has changed. We've gone from the wording in the initial part title

at the top of a

section where…. It actually said: "A tree farm licence must…." That's

been taken out. Every subsection afterwards has had the word added — "must."

I guess my only question is why. The intent, I guess, hasn't changed from the "must"

to a "must." It's just the technical part. If it's only because of the new

section

added at the bottom, (m), which is a "may"…. Was that because of drafting purposes,

basically, in order to quantify it, because you couldn't have "must" in the last one?

I guess that's my question there. It is a lot of work for one word.

Hon. B. Ralston: The reason for the amendment is that there's a potential ambiguity. So by adding "must"

in each subsection makes it very, very clear, other than in subsection 35(1)(m), which

adds "may." That equally makes it clear.

These are simply grammatical changes to make the meaning of the statute intended by

the drafters clear.

Clauses 17 to 21 inclusive approved.

On clause 22.

M. Bernier: I guess, 22 and 23, if the minister can just…. It's so I don't have to ask it twice

and be redundant, because it's the same thing in the subsections. In (4)(b), in both,

"in the prescribed circumstances." That, to me, seems very vague.

Can the minister give an example? So when we're talking about these different areas

and we're seeing the wording added "in the prescribed circumstances," give me some

examples of what that really means.

Hon. B. Ralston: The phrase "in the prescribed circumstances" is a reference to and enables future

regulation if that's decided to do so. This could include the ability to refuse for

non-payment for amounts owed under the forestry legislation framework and not paid

by the due date. So similar to a similar provision that we referenced earlier in these

proceedings.

Clause 22 approved.

On clause 23.

M. Bernier: My first dig I'll have today is that at the beginning of this, the minister said that

there were all these sections so we wouldn't have things — later dates, regulation.

That I'll say somewhat tongue in cheek.

Can the minister just give me an idea here, in this section, when we're talking about

pulpwood agreements: how many pulpwood agreements do we have in the province right

now? I'm assuming not a lot, but I'm just curious.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: For three of these types of agreements, the policy is to phase them out. They're regarded

as obsolescent.

Clauses 23 to 27 inclusive approved.

On clause 28.

M. Bernier: Just another question. I'm trying to quantify some of the things here. In 28, we're

talking about the First Nations woodland licences. Do we have those currently in B.C.?

If so, is this something we're going to continue on with? How many do we have? I'm

just trying to look at the intent of this one.

[The bells were rung.]

Interjections.

The Chair: Minister, you're welcome to continue.

Hon. B. Ralston: I just wanted to take that break to count the number of bells. And we can continue.

There are 25 of these types of tenures. They are still sought after by First Nations.

Clauses 28 to 36 inclusive approved.

On clause 37.

M. Morris: If I read this clause correctly, the amendment applies to licensees who, under subsection

47.72(1)(c), are supposed to process felled timber into chips or other products and

to remove those products. With this amendment now, the minister can refuse to issue

a recovery permit on one or more grounds set out in subsection 81(2).

Does this apply to licensees who leave large piles of fibre on logging sites in the

various areas?

[5:30 p.m.]

[S. Chant in the chair.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The reference is to 81(2). Similar to other provisions that we discussed earlier,

this gives the discretion to refuse a specified authorization for failure to pay or

failure to follow a specific order or direction. So it's meant to give that discretion

to those who don't follow the rules.

M. Morris: It's there for the people who don't follow the rules, which is part of the concern

that I have.

I'm just trying to figure out how broad this can be applied. When we see…. If we have

a bioenergy plant or a pellet plant that is going to a licensee for fibre, as required

under one of the sections we've looked at here…. I just can't remember off the top

of my head which one it is. We see that the licensees that they're purchasing these

residual fibres from have logging sites throughout their operating area with piles

and piles of residual wood fibre that they end up burning or that they will leave

there for years, I've seen, at some of those sites.

So I'm just wondering whether this

section applies to that through extension of the

licensee's operations.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: In the example the member provided, that might be, arguably, a violation of the waste

regulation.

If there were an investigation and a contravention found, then that would give the

authority under

section 81(2)(b)…. An applicant who is "not in compliance with, or

has failed in the past to comply with, a requirement under this act or the Forest and Range Practices Act …." That would give, perhaps, the discretion to refuse a permit.

Clause 37 approved.

On clause 38.

M. Morris: This is the new

part 3.1 that, in my understanding, hasn't been transferred from anywhere

in the statute. It thoroughly clarifies the cutting permits and road permits and improves

the discretion to approve and refuse to approve cutting permits or road permits. I'm

actually quite pleased with what I saw there.

I'm aware of situations where licensees have demanded cutting permits and road permits

and have raised the argument that district managers have no authority or discretion

to refuse them, even if they would lead to contraventions by practices that are not

consistent with objectives set by government. I've had this complaint from various

individuals.

So 52.02 determines that: "The holder of a forest licence or an area-based licence

must not harvest the annual allowable cut available except as authorized under a cutting

permit under this Part." Yet subsection (3) states that the above requirements "…do

not apply to the extent that harvesting without a cutting permit is specifically authorized

under this Act or another enactment."

Can the minister qualify this? On one hand, it says that a cutting permit is required,

and on the other hand, it says that it's not.

Hon. B. Ralston: I'm going to hope I can explain this.

Under the Forest and Range Practices Act,

section 52(1)(b), the minister may authorize

for other purposes than those set out in the other part of the act — for purposes

such as "…silviculture, stand tending, forest health, abating a fire hazard related

to wildfires or another purpose." That would not require a cutting permit, yet that

would be permitted by the minister in those specified circumstances.

[5:40 p.m.]

M. Morris: Thank you to the minister for that.

One of the other sections that I have trouble interpreting is

section 52(03). It says:

"Subject to this part and

section 209, the minister may, on application by the holder

of an agreement, issue a cutting permit authorizing the holder to exercise harvesting

rights under the agreement."

I'm just wondering:

section 209 of what statute? Or where is it?

Hon. B. Ralston: The reference is to

section 209 of the Forest Act. Looking at

section 209, it applies

where a special purpose area is created, and there are certain provisions about what

rights might be exercisable within a special purpose area.

M. Morris: I appreciate my colleague who just helped me navigate to that particular

section that

I couldn't find.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: I call a recess, and we will reconvene in a while. Probably after royal assent at

this point because we've got ten minutes and then…. We'll come back here after royal

assent, please.

The committee recessed from 5:43 p.m. to 6:07 p.m.

[S. Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, everybody, for returning so promptly.

I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 41, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2023, back

to order.

On clause 38.

M. Morris: I'll spend a bit of time. This goes back to the issue I brought up with one of the

previous clauses as well. Issuance of a cutting permit, under 52.03. It says: "Subject

to this part and

section 209" — and we went through that — "the minister may, on application

by holder of an agreement, issue a cutting permit authorizing the holder to exercise

harvesting rights under the agreement."

Subsection (2) 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 forests," on the "(

b) cultural heritage resources," on "(

c) public

health and safety and (

d) prescribed matters."

I guess I'm going to go again on this. Now, we're talking about cutting permits and

cutting down trees that are adding…. This is probably more appropriate for the discussion

that we had earlier, so I'm just going to kind of reiterate some of the things there.

With respect to "(

a) the management and conservation of forest resources," the minister

acknowledged previously that the forest resources are basically everything in a forest.

It's the complete forest. It's not just fibre by itself. It's the biodiversity. It's

the hydrology. It's the evapotranspirational aspects of a forest and all those other

things that are important.

We're talking about the issuance of forest cutting permits in this area. As an example,

in the Houston area, Canfor partnered with a wildlife biologist and a professional

forester, and they did a study on goshawks. I was afforded a copy of the study a year

or so ago.

[6:10 p.m.]

The study basically said that at one time, there were four hundred and some — and

I'm just going off the top of my head right now, but over 400 — goshawk colonies in

the operating area at one time. They're down to about 34.

The study recognized that the common practice, up until the study surfaced, was if

a stick nest was identified that was being used by goshawks, a 100-metre retention

area would be kept around that, particularly for the goshawks. And goshawks are red-listed,

the northern goshawk.

The study indicated that probably 1,200 hectares is appropriate for a colony of goshawks

to survive, which is substantially more than a 100-metre leave strip around that particular

area. To me, this is significant, and it changes the complexities around issuing cutting

permits when you look at the fact that instead of a 100-metre retention around a stick

nest, it's now 1,200 hectares that needs to be considered.

It was quite an extensive study, and the licensee operating in the area was part of

that. I don't know what their thoughts are now as a result of the study coming out

and forwarded to me. I think government also has a copy of that.

Is this something that the minister would be considering with respect to issuing cutting

permits in an area that has been reduced from 400-and-some goshawk colony nests down

to 34 — I believe it's what the number was at the time; it's perhaps even less than

that now — as a significant impact for determining whether a cutting permit should

be issued or not?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Just to address the question, I would say that this is the kind of issue that could

be addressed by a statutory decision–maker, but I wouldn't want to be interpreted

as binding a future statutory decision–maker, of course.

One would hope, though, and the direction of the legislation is that an issue like

this would be identified earlier in the process, at the landscape planning process

or at the forest stewardship level. Cutting permit is really the last regulatory intervention

before something happens.

In theory, yes, but the direction of the act is to identify important issues like

this earlier on in the process and then develop a plan taking all those factors into

account.

M. Morris: I appreciate the minister's answer.

The landscape planning process has not yet commenced. It still needs to be brought

into force, as I understand it, along with the operational mapping and whatnot. This

is a significant factor that we face right across the province today, where we have

81 species of wildlife in British Columbia that den or nest in tree cavities. These

tree cavities are anywhere from ten to 40 feet off the ground, and they occur in primary

forest, in trees that are probably 100 years old and older.

Same with the goshawk nests. They inhabit primary forest areas. They can't survive

unless there is a primary forest available for them to seek their prey. Between that

and the 81 species of wildlife that den or nest in tree cavities that are disappearing

across the province…. I look at fisher that are red-listed, and they're one of the

species. I look at the marten populations that are down probably 90 percent or more,

perhaps extirpated in many regions of the province. These are pressing issues today.

When we consider the fact that since the mid-1960s, since we started clearcutting

in British Columbia, we've probably clearcut in the neighbourhood of 20 million hectares

of forested area in British Columbia, those tree cavities have disappeared in many

parts of the province. The crunch is coming.

When we look at the primary forest we have left available in British Columbia as habitat

for the remaining few species we have and the populations we have in these primary

forests, I think there's a sense of urgency to address the issue today rather than

waiting for the implementation of the landscape-level planning mechanism process.

Government is not nimble, and by the time that comes into force and people start looking

at those things, we will have harvested a lot more primary forest out there. It takes

hundreds of years to come back. We won't be able to get that wildlife back.

I'm just looking for a sense of urgency from the minister with respect to this particular

section under this amendment — whether this can be utilized and looked at to take

into consideration the urgency to preserve a lot of these species that are facing

extirpation in the province here.

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The problem, and the concern that the member raises, is a pervasive problem. Under

the new regulation, it would be open to the statutory decision–maker to request more

information, impose conditions after inquiry, or reject.

Now, that is on the individual cutting permit level. There are other tools that are

available that already exist and are used, such as designating an old-growth management

area or a wildlife habitat area as well. That would be with the other ministry, WLRS,

as well. There are a number of other methods or tools that could be used to address

the member's concern.

[6:25 p.m.]

I sense the member has done a lot of research, thought about this topic very deeply

and cares very strongly about it. I want to acknowledge that here and do not want

to convey the impression that I'm being dismissive. On the other hand, I don't want

to usurp the jurisdiction of a statutory decision–maker or other policy-makers.

M. Morris: Again, I appreciate where the minister is coming from.

I reflect back on the nimbleness of government, having been involved in government

for many, many years. By the time we figure out a solution to this, following protocols,

we'll be in greater trouble than we are today, and we'll have more floods and more

fires and more wildlife disappearing.

Under subsection (a), this is the management and conservation of forest resources.

That's paramount. I'm not going to harp on it too much. Wildlife habitat areas — we

have government action regulations. We have OGMAs, old-growth management areas, that

we see in many areas. Although in my particular Prince George timber supply area,

the largest in the province, we have very few designated, legislated OGMAs in Prince

George. We've lost all of that.

The district manager has recently issued a directive to everybody saying we have to

retain what we have, and he's got some areas kind of spatialized for that. But it's

still going to be too little too late by the time everybody makes up their mind to

figure out how we're going to address the significant loss of wildlife that we have

in the province.

That's (a), the management and conservation of forest resources. And (b), the cultural

heritage resources, I know that my colleague from the Green Party may have issues

on that. I know many of the First Nations communities in my region have issues with

that, and they have been talking to the district manager and the forest licensees

with respect to that as well.

The other area I'm going to focus on because it's my area of expertise I guess, or

it was at one time, is (c), public health and safety. As I have watched emergency

management procedures and declarations of emergencies in British Columbia over the

past number of years related to the floods and related to the fires, it troubles me

when I see these things happening.

We have science that's probably about 15 or 20 years old now that has been connecting

the dots to the cause of these floods as the loss of forest cover in snow-dominated

regions of British Columbia, which is most of British Columbia, particularly on the

south-facing slopes, that has led to the massive spring freshets that we are now seeing

every year that have led to the collection of floodwaters in the Fraser Basin all

the way down into the Lower Mainland and the loss of life that we've seen associated

with that.

That's a public safety issue of paramount concern that I think all ministries and

all members of government, and industry for that matter, should be taking quite seriously.

The science was suggesting…. I know science is a moving element. There was a hydrological

assessment done — and this is the first time it came to my attention — down in the

Penticton area. At that time, they determined that it takes 80 years for a tree to

grow back to provide sufficient protection from the sun's radiation that it would

slow down that rapid melting of the snow.

I referred to extension 118, where it was talking about the 20, 25 and 30 percent

equivalent clear-cut areas. That was all based on how an area would be taken out of

an equivalent clear-cut area once a tree height reaches 65 percent of its original

height.

So if the original heights were 150-foot trees, then it's a pretty significant amount

of growth that has to take place. The average seral distribution that we have in my

area and throughout much of the province, the average age of the trees is 45 years

old, and they haven't met that threshold yet.

[6:30 p.m.]

But there's still harvesting taking place with these 30-, 35-, 40-, 45-year-old tree

stands, and I know a lot of thinning has to take place. We're not reducing the equivalent

clearcut area. We're actually expanding it every year as we're harvesting all these

trees.

The Anzac River watershed is another area in my riding where the loss of tree cover

probably covers about 60 percent or more of that particular watershed. It's in the

Peace River watershed, because half of my riding is in the Arctic watershed and the

other half is in the Pacific region. But, needless to say, this is creating a public

safety issue.

I was listening to the Insurance Bureau of Canada on a radio program not too long

ago where he was saying that we are now recognizing that these floods are not an accident.

They are looking at: should we be covering those costs associated to that through

an insurance program?

He's right. We know that it's no longer an accident. It's because of the loss of forest

cover associated to clearcutting and overharvesting in many of the areas that we have.

This is information that is here and now in front of us, and some of it's fairly old.

In light of public safety, I think this is an issue that government needs to really

look at.

Wildlife is my passion. But public safety…. When I see that we risk people's lives

every year through these massive floods, then we have nothing left in the forest to

buffer and mitigate the impact of these atmospheric rivers that come through from

time to time — and we'll see more and more of them with the result of climate change

— we need to hustle and make sure that we have changes in place so we don't do this.

I think it starts with forestry.

Those changes start with the Forests Ministry to start looking after that flood mitigation.

I also think that if we do that, we can rely on natural means to mitigate these floods.

We can save billions of dollars in infrastructure costs and rebuilding bridges and

culverts and everything else along the line as well.

[The bells were rung.]

Interjections.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Please carry on.

M. Morris: The other side of that is once the forest cover is gone and once the sun has washed

all the snow away, then the ground starts drying out. It increases the risk of wildfire

in many of our watersheds throughout the province here. It adds to the drought situations

that we see.

We saw the loss of life associated to firefighters this year. We saw hundreds of buildings

destroyed as a result. The Insurance Bureau of Canada is saying: "Hmm, is this an

accident?" Because we know what's causing this as well.

This is a big load on government's shoulders right now to wrestle this beast to the

ground and exercise due diligence to deal with it as soon as possible so that we can

mitigate these threats against human lives and infrastructure in British Columbia.

Again, I'm just throwing that out to the minister. Hopefully, we'll see some action

where it's not tossed from one agency to the other because of the complexities associated

to this. But I think this

section itself…. When I went through this bill and I read

this section, I thought, "Aha. Here we have a chance to actually do something positive

to start mitigating these situations that we have in British Columbia."

I guess that's more of a statement than it is anything else. But if the minister wants

to respond to the urgency with respect to public safety, I would appreciate that too.

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to thank the member for his question/statement. Again, I appreciate…. I heard

him say some of the very similar things at second reading, and obviously this reflects

a profound concern and a lot of thought and a concern for a public policy response.

I would say, at the cutting permit level, this provision is focused largely but not

entirely on the danger that comes from if you cut trees on a steep slope and then

create the prospect of landslides, which is a public safety hazard. So I think that's

what it was being thought of.

Clearly, the member has taken the ambit of public safety to a much, much broader level.

There are a number of responses.

I think the government created the new Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate

Readiness, which is designed to respond to the climate crisis and the many, many dimensions

that that brings on, whether it's flooding….

The Forests Ministry is responsible for the B.C. Wildfire Service. After the season

that we've had this year, which was the worst ever on record…. Members mentioned that,

the deaths, but the over two million hectares burned — unprecedented right across

the country.

These are issues that demand a policy response. Whether it's best to…. I share the

broad public support, government can move very fast.

So I think that we have a number of initiatives to deal with flood, with fire. They

are not entirely caused by one factor, but certainly, forests and proper management

of forests and the forest practice has a great impact on the land and consequences

that may flow from that.

Really, I just want to thank the member for raising these concerns, and I look forward

to his support for other government initiatives.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the comments from the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. I share a lot

of the similar concerns with the impact on the landscape of certain forest harvesting

practices.

[6:40 p.m.]

Certainly, as the minister knows, I and my colleague have been very supportive of

widening the scope of the decision-making within the ministry to outside of the statement

that's been in legislation to not unduly impact timber supply.

Is this a clause that opens the scope of the decision-making so it is more comprehensive

than just timber value as being the only one that's valued in our forests?

Hon. B. Ralston: The short answer is yes, and that's the reason why that step was taken. It's part

of transforming the forest management to consider other values that are set out in

the overall strategic review that we have adopted. We are implementing a number of

the provisions. We haven't completely implemented all of them, but we have certainly

made substantial progress on a number of them.

A. Olsen: The member for Prince George–Mackenzie noted the aspects around the cultural heritage

resources. Can the minister maybe outline what the process would be when cultural

heritage resources are identified within an area? What would that process be for the

statutory decision–maker in accommodating those resources?

Hon. B. Ralston: Just to set the stage for the question, the cultural heritage resources…. The term

is defined in the Forest Act and also applies to the FRPA. I'm going to quote. It

means "an object, a site or the location of a traditional societal practice that is

of historical, cultural or archaeological significance to British Columbia, a community

or an aboriginal people."

The significance of the amendment here is that the information can be requested. Sometimes

previously the knowledge was the property or the unspoken property of the tenure holder.

They knew about it, but the decision-maker would not. It gives the power to request

information and then make a decision that would reflect that particular value.

There are archaeological areas; there are cultural practices; there are culturally

modified trees. All of those things can now be considered by the decision-maker, and

there's a mechanism to find out about them in order to include that in a decision.

A. Olsen: So one of these sites is identified. The decision-maker has the information. Do they

have to…?

How does that fit within the decision-making framework? I'm assuming that the decision-maker

could choose to ignore the information and continue to proceed with issuing a cutting

permit, or are there any requirements that they need to consult or negotiate with

local nations if it's a First Nations heritage?

From the minister's definition, that would actually be a narrow

interpretation of

it. It sounds like it could be a wide variety of different cultural resources that

could be there.

[6:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I'm going to respond to the question and then move adjournment.

The member will have noted that this is a requirement — that the minister or the delegate

must consider the impact. This "cultural heritage resources" is a requirement. It

has to be considered. That would be a part of the decision.

If the statutory decision-maker, in the member's example, chooses to know about it

and ignore it without giving reasons that are substantive or intelligible or supportable,

that would leave that statutory decision open to judicial review. I think the key

part of it is the mandatory requirement to consider that, and it can't simply be brushed

aside or ignored.

If I could move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:46 p.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada