Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 110

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Motions Without Notice

Membership change for Children and Youth

Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource

Operations and Rural Development (continued)

Hon. D. Donaldson

J. Rustad

J. Sturdy

C. Oakes

D. Barnett

S. Thomson

Estimates: Other appropriations

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 7 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

Hon. S. Robinson

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment

Act, 2018

Hon. A. Dix

L. Throness

Hon. K. Conroy

D. Barnett

Hon. K. Chen

S. Furstenau

T. Shypitka

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy (continued)

M. Morris

Hon. G. Heyman

P. Milobar

T. Shypitka

TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2018

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH

COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move the following motion:

[That Ronna-Rae Leonard, MLA be appointed to replace Jennifer Rice, MLA as

a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth for the 3rd

Session of the 41st Parliament.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

Forests, Lands and Natural Resources. In Committee A, I call continued debate of the

estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,

LANDS,

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

chair.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

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

(continued) .

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ve got a couple of additional pieces of information that I’d like to

put on the record. I’ll go from the furthest back to the most

recent.

This one goes back to March when the member had a question in regards to

the $191 million that was part of a federal allocation to support softwood

lumber jobs through litigation. I just wanted to put on record some additional

details that we’ve learned from that. The federal budget announced, of $191

million, for softwood lumber was a five-year commitment to Global Affairs

Canada and Natural Resources Canada to support softwood lumber jobs, including

through litigation under the World Trade Organization and the NAFTA dispute

settlement mechanisms.

This funding is not meant to go to the provinces and is separate from

the previously announced softwood lumber aid package of $867 million. As

stated, the money goes to two federal agencies for their operations related to

the softwood lumber trade case, particularly litigations. That was

one.

Working my way up to more recently, we were talking about the water

levels in Okanagan Lake. I believe it was yesterday that I informed the

assembly that the lake levels were now 25 centimetres lower than was the level

last year. Those levels are changing daily, so I wanted to make sure that we

kept members who have interest in this, due to constituencies,

updated.

As of April 1, the level of the lake was 30 centimetres lower than at

this time last year. It continues to drop on purpose in order for us to manage

the spring freshet. Today it’s 41 centimetres lower than what it was at this

time last year.

Finally, the member for Peace River South had a comment about the

importance of the Wolverine Forest Service Road just before we broke for lunch.

I wanted to relay a couple of things that I can add to an answer on that.

Although we do have limited capital funding to maintain bridge structures on

the 12,000 kilometres of forest service roads across the province, priority

number one is rural community access. Second is rural resident access, and

third is high-value recreation access. So many of the points that were made by

the member.

Our staff have engaged with the snowmobiling club, the Tumbler Ridge

riders club, over the last six months. We’ve been able, through regional

operations, recently to provide $9,000 to the snowmobile club to hire

engineering consultants to undertake a review of the curved bridge structures

to determine options for maintaining or restoring. We’ve got an independent

engineering consultant coming to the same conclusion that our engineers did,

that current load rating is not high enough for safe snowmobile access. So

we’re working with the snowmobile club on that topic.

We’ve got a few other points that I’ll put in a letter to the member. I

just want to make sure that he knows and the House knows that we’re aware of

the issue and working on it.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that information, particularly the update on the lake in

the Okanagan. As I’m sure the minister is aware, with the snowpack levels in

excess of 150 percent, there’s certainly some concern by the folks there.

That’s good to hear — the update in terms of the continued creating of some

room within the lake.

A couple of quick questions. We’re going to start off carrying on with

the wildlife, and then we’re going to go into a little bit of forest health and

then a wide range of things that we’re going to try to cover off in the time we

have remaining over the next number of days — or hours, depending on how things

go.

Starting off, once again going back to this stakeholder engagement

that’s happening today through Thursday. Is there opportunity for anyone who is

not necessarily invited to be able to attend, if there happened to be an

oversight in terms of groups or representatives? I’m thinking, in particular,

about…. You know, there’s more than just the Guide Outfitters of B.C. There’s

another guide-outfitting organization.

[1:40 p.m.]

There are others that may have an interest in attending. So I’m just

wondering if there’s opportunity for anybody else to be able to drop in to be

able to attend that session, whether it is a delegate or to observe.

Hon. D. Donaldson: This isn’t a closed session. We want to try to accommodate as best we

can. The only caveat is that if they aren’t able to come to the first day of

the session, they might miss some of the context.

Having said that, I would encourage them to contact our ministry, and

we’ll put them in touch with the Fraser Basin Council who are organizing this.

Afterwards, I’ll supply the name and the contact to the member so that they can

make sure that those who are interested can get in touch with our ministry

about where they might be able to be slotted in.

J. Rustad: Obviously, this is about caribou and caribou recovery. From the caribou

recovery program discussion paper, which, I believe, was part of this, on page

17, it talks about predator control. It says: “Wolves are the caribou’s

principal predator in British Columbia, and high numbers of wolves are

associated with declining caribou populations.” Predators are obviously a

significant challenge for caribou, as is recognized in the report, but they’re

also a significant challenge for many ungulate species in the

province.

I’m curious. Wolves are one form of predator. Does the ministry have a

list of what other species, what other animals, might be included as being

predators in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Primarily, the predators that our biologists are concerned about are

wolves and, in some instances, cougar. But the wolves, especially in mid to

late winter predation, when the access is set up on the snowpack either through

sledding or from just the ability of the snow to support the weight of the

wolves to get into alpine access and elsewhere, is the major

concern.

Predator control. The number one topic is wolves and, to some degree, in

some areas, cougar.

[1:45 p.m.]

J. Rustad: The reason for asking is I’m wondering if grizzlies are considered to be

on that list of predators.

Hon. D. Donaldson: We know that bears — black bears and grizzly bears — do predate on

caribou, mainly when it’s in calving season. But our biologists have

determined, to this point, that they aren’t a driver of population numbers in

that regard.

J. Rustad: I think we have a situation where obviously caribou herds are in

decline, and all species that prey, whether it’s on the calves or the adults,

are a potential risk. Strategies need to be put in place in terms of

mitigation. It’s clear from the report, the discussion paper that’s out there,

that the principal predator, of course, is wolves. We certainly agree with

that. But there are other predators.

I can recall many stories in the past, in historic years — 40, 50, 60

years ago — when there were ungulate populations that had gone into decline. It

was associated with large packs of predators, wolves primarily, but others that

are in the area. The way to manage that was to significantly reduce those

predators. Within a few years, the ungulates came back. It is one of the most

effective strategy tools.

I recognize there are other things, such as penning and other programs

that have been in place, but is the ministry considering serious action, in

terms of resolving this challenge in those areas where we have species that are

at risk, such as caribou, in order to significantly reduce the loss due to

predators?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member is correct in that predator control is one aspect of managing

wildlife populations, regarding sustainability. Predator management is a

legitimate tool. I believe that we are part of, now, managing wildlife, and

that’s one of the tools.

He also touched on other tools, like maternal penning. Also, we know

that habitat conservation is the primary tool that we can use in order to

ensure that nature runs its course and we have healthy wildlife

populations.

The evidence thus far, when it comes to caribou, is wolves are the

primary predator. That’s why we’re instituting predator control programs, but

we’ll keep an eye on others as they arise. Wolves are the primary focus on the

predator control program currently.

[1:50 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I would suggest that there are certainly programs and initiatives that

are needed around habitat, but there’s a short-term, immediate need. Habitat

and habitat conservation and strategies around that will take time to be able

to help recover. But a hungry wolf won’t wait, and it will take down whatever

it can take down.

The question is, given the potential threat from the federal government

and the declining populations, whether the minister believes this would require

significant intervention to deal with the predators — to deal with wolves, in

particular, but other predators — in order to be able to stabilize the caribou

population and allow for other programs, such as habitat restoration and other

work, to be able to take effect.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, we want to manage the caribou populations in B.C. in order to

achieve sustainability and avoid any intervention by the federal government

under the Species at Risk Act. We are using all the tools at our disposal, and

one of them is predator control. The primary focus for that…. The evidence so

far is that wolves are the primary predator when it comes to caribou

populations.

We consider that we have made significant intervention around

controlling the wolf population. Of course, it’s a herd-by-herd decision point,

based on the severity of the population decline around different populations in

the province. Hand in hand with the predator control, when we’re talking about

wolves, is monitoring the effectiveness of that. Also, considerations are made

for the natural predator-prey interaction in populations.

All those are taken into account. We certainly have the tool at our

disposal and are using it, when those other factors come into play, to actually

embark on predator control.

J. Rustad: I’m reminded of…. I think it’s a southern caribou herd down in the

Kootenays, if I have the name correct. There was an attempt at that point to

relocate some caribou down in that area. I think there were 20 caribou that

were relocated into that area and tagged and tracked. I think three of them

took off across the border and headed south, and the other 17 were meals for

wolves.

This is why I’m asking about this, obviously. We’re in a situation where

this is a serious, potential issue — well, not potential. It is a serious

issue. But it also extends far beyond that.

As you know — I’m sure the minister must know — other ungulate

populations have come down significantly, including moose and deer, in many

areas of the province, in the Cariboo, even through my area. At the same time,

we are seeing very large packs of wolves, large numbers of predators, through

the area.

I recognize that the ministry is doing work around caribou and trying to

do its best around that. I would suggest that predator control may be something

that could be enhanced to be able to help. I think consideration also needs to

be extended into other areas where we have significantly declining ungulate

populations.

The question to the minister is whether or not the ministry is prepared

to take steps to enhance or to initiate significant predator-control programs

in areas where we have very low numbers of moose, deer and elk

populations.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I guess the short answer…. I’m going to give more than a short answer

because this is of high interest. If the evidence is there that predator

control would be a valuable and main management tool in order to address an

endangered population or a declining population, then of course we have the

opportunity to use that tool. That’s the short answer to the member’s

question.

There are lots of points. I mean, we’re prepared to take those steps if

the numbers warrant it. In relation to moose, the wolves are sometimes the

primary driver of the decreasing population, but we’re confident we have

habitat in the mid- and long-term that’s available to provide for improved

moose populations. That’s something we’re monitoring.

As well, there are other mechanisms, appropriate hunting mechanisms, to

ensure that the ungulate species is sustainable. We’re engaged with First

Nations around the trapping of wolves when it comes to caribou. The

wolf-management plan really addresses caribou and predation on livestock.

Again, we’re prepared to take steps where the evidence presents

itself.

As far as that initial comment, those caribou that were transported down

to the southeastern part of the province — I believe it was the Selkirk range —

came from Stikine, from Spatsizi. I don’t believe it was just wolves. There was

cougar predation, as well, that we lost them to.

J. Rustad: I agree. Cougar have a taste for caribou meat as well. Thank you to the

minister for that.

Just one quick story for the minister to think about. It was in the

early 1950s, and the McLeod Lake Indian Band were struggling. They didn’t have

a lot of food because the moose populations at the time had been decimated in

the area. The ministry people back then went into the area and discovered there

was a pack of 38 wolves that was in that area. They did predator control, took

out that pack of 38 wolves, and within three or four years, there was an

overabundant moose population back in the area. That was before there was a

whole lot of activity that was damaging the habitat. There was tons of habitat

in the area.

[2:00 p.m.]

There’s lots of evidence to suggest what needs to be done here. I agree.

There needs to be work on the habitat side. But we’ve got a significant

situation, particularly for First Nations around the province, where the

declining moose, deer and elk populations are making it difficult for them to

be able to carry on with their traditional hunting.

It’s also, of course, something that many people around the province —

resident hunters that like to go out and to be able to hunt to fill their

freezers and supplement food for their families — are having challenges,

because of declining populations. There needs to be significant effort around

the management and looking at this particular issue.

To that end, I want to ask, actually, another couple of questions around

the budget for this. I know the additional $14 million — $1 million this year,

$3 million next year and $10 million the third year. As the ministry is

developing a plan, I would like to have seen that initial $10 million committed

right away so we could see work starting right away. But I understand you want

to take some time to study and consult and all of those things, among so many

of the other consultations that are going on at the moment.

I guess the question around this is…. There are fees that are paid by

hunters on an annual basis. It was $9 million to $10 million, I think it was,

as of a year ago. I’m not sure what it is in this current year going forward.

Is the ministry prepared to commit those fees to wildlife management on an

ongoing basis so that there is a steady, consistent funding model for that? And

through the consultation process that you’re looking at around wildlife and

wildlife management, is an opportunity for an independent body to be able to

manage wildlife being considered as one of the options?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m excited to say work is starting right away. In year 1, the $1

million is definitely for starting the process around input for wildlife

improvement and habitat conservation. It’s also about investing in priority

pilot projects. So you can see we’re ramping up.

Just to be totally forthright, we wouldn’t have the capacity in-house to

start right away on entirely the $14 million in this first year because we have

an obligation to collect the information that was spoken about earlier from

regional and people locally who have knowledge on the ground. We want that

information to inform the bigger wildlife management strategy that we’re

working on. We want to be able to engage with First Nations as well. That’s not

only time-consuming, but it’s realistic, and I think it’s a good

approach.

[2:05 p.m.]

As far as the bigger picture, at the end of this three years, yes, part

of what’s being contemplated is an independent body to guide wildlife

management in the province. Part of that is a recognition that when there have

been other of those types of bodies created, there’s an ability to multiply the

financial resources, not simply what the province has. Those independent

bodies, the way they’re structured, can sometimes bring in federal dollars that

aren’t available, foundation dollars that aren’t available and dollars from

stakeholders that aren’t available, necessarily, in a provincial

government–only setting.

That’s part of it. Those are the kinds of discussions we want to have

around the province with those interested in wildlife management and with First

Nations. That’s where we’re going to get to.

J. Rustad: I did mention the Selkirk herd. Just out of curiosity, how many caribou

are left down in that area? I had heard a very low number, but I’m just

wondering if the ministry’s got updated information on that.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I need to correct myself. I got my ranges wrong. The Purcell range is

where those from the Spatsizi ended up. The member was talking about….

Subsequently, most of them didn’t survive.

As far as that southeast portion of the province, we can have an updated

number for you by the end of the week. It’s very low. We don’t have the updated

information, but we’ll get it to the member. It’s of grave concern, the numbers

there, though.

J. Rustad: I look forward to receiving that information. I didn’t think you would

have it at the fingertips, but it was one of those questions that just came to

mind that I popped in.

Going back to the funding model, the one question I asked around the

funding and the wildlife that wasn’t quite answered was whether or not the

minister would commit to the hunting tags, the revenue that comes in, as an

ongoing funding model for wildlife management.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes. I’m aware that’s…. One of the proposals that has been floated out

there is around using the money that comes in directly from hunters, when it

comes to tags and associated government fees, to be dedicated to the wildlife

management pot.

That’s something that we’re going to discuss with all stakeholders as

part of this process. I’m sure we’re going to get into it pretty soon here, in

the first year, around what that model could look like. Of course, in the end,

there’ll be recommendations. It’s also within the purview of the Minister of

Finance to make a dedicated allotment like that.

What we’re also interested in is growing that pie and growing that

revenue generation through being able to manage the population, such that we’re

able to have more tags issued. So that’s also part of it.

You’ll recognize that at year 3, the amount that we have to dedicate

towards this wildlife strategy is similar in funding to what’s being brought in

currently with the tags. But as I say, once again, we want to try to grow

that.

J. Rustad: I do recognize it’s similar in terms of where it’s at. The reason I’m

asking the particular question, of course, is because many residential hunters,

guide-outfitters and those that enjoy the opportunity for wildlife would like

to see some dollars put into management. There may be opportunities to talk to

them about that.

They would want to make sure that what they would be paying in terms of

fees would be dedicated. Now, controversial — maybe they wouldn’t want to do

that. But the reality is that if they know it’s going towards conservation….

Conservation is a huge value for all hunters, I would argue. They enjoy the

wildlife. They enjoy the outdoors. They enjoy the opportunity, and they want to

see that opportunity carry on. To that end, conservation, of course, is an

important component of hunting. My hope is that that would be able to be

recognized at some point in some way, whether it’s through legislation or

otherwise.

Speaking of that, in terms of conservation. I know we have many

instances where we have conflicts between animals and humans, and we have to

bring in conversation officers to either trap and relocate or eliminate the

animal. That is creating a challenge. Last year I know there were a number of

instances, particularly with bears.

I’m just wondering how many animals had to be destroyed — in particular,

bears and grizzly bears — by conservation officers or other enforcement

officers due to conflicts with humans, whether in urban or in rural

areas.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m just trying to dig through some information there. Primarily, the

ministry that’s responsible for keeping the kinds of records that you’re

looking for is the Ministry of Environment. They deploy the conservation

officers in the instances that the member described.

We can get those numbers for him. Considering the Ministry of

Environment estimates are being canvassed at the same time, I understand you

might not have a chance to ask that question. So we can get those numbers for

him.

The one area where we have more of the direct involvement, although we

get apprised by Ministry of Environment staff about those numbers, is the

livestock protection program. That’s not provincewide, but in the areas where

we’re running that, last year there were 850 calls. That involved wolves,

coyotes and bears. Again, we can break that down for you. We don’t have that

number here because it’s the conservation office that takes care of the bear

numbers.

J. Rustad: There may even be an opportunity yet for me to ask that question of the

Minister of Environment, but I appreciate the offer by the ministry and by the

minister to be able to provide that information from his colleague from the

Ministry of Environment. I’ll look forward to seeing that.

One other question on grizzly bears and bears. As I’m made aware, one of

the food sources that grizzly bears like to eat is huckleberries. That happens

to be one of my favourites as well, like many other people. Huckleberries is

one of those types of things.

Particularly in the Kootenays, there’s been some concern with regards to

people from down in the States, some local people as well, that go out and

harvest the wild huckleberries for commercial purposes. There’s no permitting

around it. They just go up and pick the berries and take them across — whether

they make jam out of it or sell it directly. Of course, it’s a significant

number of huckleberries being taken in some of the areas of the Kootenays where

there’s also some concern around grizzly bear levels.

I’m curious as to whether or not the ministry is planning any particular

efforts around looking into the issue of the harvesting of huckleberries and

the potential destruction of the plants and that particular damage to habitat

and whether or not the ministry is considering any type of action that might be

able to help preserve those types of areas for grizzly bear habitat.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’re aware of the situation that’s been described. The unmanaged

commercial huckleberry picking in East Kootenay emerged in August 2017,

obviously, because that’s when the berries ripen. I know and won’t call it

anecdotal, because it was apparent up in the area in which I live, that there

was commercial harvesting of huckleberries going on. People who normally went

out to harvest those berries, similar to the member — they’re a great-tasting

berry, my favourite pie — went out and found that the areas they usually use,

close to roadsides, for instance, had already been picked by people that came

and used it commercially.

There are provisions under the Forest and Range Practices Act around the

ability to manage a commercial harvesting activity like that on the land base.

We’re doing a policy review on it right now.

It’s important. You’re right. It’s important for grizzly bear habitat.

There are a whole number of policy measures that we could use to ensure that

that commercial picking doesn’t impact not only grizzly bear habitats but also

the ability of locals — it’s our people’s own backyard — to harvest those

berries as well.

J. Rustad: I won’t reveal my special patches where I go to get huckleberries from

time to time. I want to move on to another question and then come back to some

forestry stuff, some local stuff, and then get into a few other components in

the remaining time that we have.

Wetlands and strategies around migratory birds — in particular, ducks

and geese and swans and these types of things. There’s a desire, particularly

by some groups, to look at some policy and strategies around wetlands, around

the preservation of wetlands and enhancement. I’m curious whether or not the

ministry is doing any work with the Ministry of Environment with regards to any

strategies around wetland, wetland management or wetland

enhancement.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: From my days studying wildlife biology, which I have an undergraduate

degree in…. I was joking that it was post-Darwin, but it was a while ago. The

understanding is that wetlands are extremely valuable habitat for supporting

the entire ecosystem. A huge amount of biodiversity is associated with wetlands

and the interconnected structure around them, and a huge amount of bioenergy is

stored in those systems. So we are working with the Ministry of Environment in

their efforts around conservation of wetlands.

The province is such that…. I know the member has had an opportunity to

travel around many parts of the province, especially in his years as an MLA.

There are many localized opportunities to conserve wetlands, and we have

habitat biologists within our ministry who are well aware of that and have used

that information in wildlife management areas in order to conserve wetlands.

We’re having discussions with MOE about stepping up those efforts.

Of course, I want to highlight the fact that it is the 50th year of

Ducks Unlimited working in B.C. with the provincial government, a great year to

celebrate the kind of work they’ve done in conserving wetlands as

well.

J. Rustad: First of all, thanks for that, and thank your staff for the ability and

for the questions we were able to canvass on wildlife.

We need to move on to some other topics. We’re going to move and talk a

little bit about log exports and old growth, old-growth management. Just a

couple of questions, and then we’re going to be bouncing around a little bit. I

am going to turn the floor over to my colleague from Sea to Sky to ask a couple

of direct questions around topics in his area and then come back to those

topics.

J. Sturdy: To the minister, I appreciate the response with regard to Bowen Island

that I asked prior to the break. I wasn’t able to attend to hear the minister’s

response, but I did read it in Hansard . The minister has acknowledged,

I think as we all do, the sensitivity and the complexity of operating on a

place like Bowen Island, and the minister suggested that he would like to, in

conjunction with BCTS, provide an opportunity for additional consultation and

dialogue with residents of the island. I wonder if the minister could let me

know what that might look like and when we might see that consultation taking

place.

Hon. D. Donaldson: We have some staff coming in, so I’ll get to that in a second so I can

give accurate information.

[2:30 p.m.]

I’m glad you were able to read the transcript over the last three weeks.

We were making a joke that we’ve gone two months now in these budget estimates,

March and April.

The process is just unfolding, but instead of getting into a lot of

detail on what it’s going to look like and the timeline, what I can offer to

the member is a briefing, from a senior staff person, to enable you to convey

that information in a much more accurate manner to your constituents. We’ve got

a number of opportunities and a number of strategies, but I think the best

avenue would be a briefing to you, and then we can go from there.

J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister. Part of what the minister did talk about,

though, was that it might not be in the best interests of Bowen residents to

have the area removed from the timber-harvesting land base. That was the

suggestion, and the proposition went along with a number of suggestions on how

that might be accomplished.

He mentioned wildfire, and I certainly appreciate that. I’d actually

highlighted that to the Bowen residents in the past. But I was wondering if we

could understand how we go about determining that the removal is not in the

best interests of the residents. It’s a fairly subjective thing, and I wondered

how we could approach that.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Really, if we retain it in the timber-harvesting land base, yet

recognize that we’re not going to be harvesting in the foreseeable future, or

ever, then it really just puts pressure on additional and adjacent areas and

communities.

I guess, as a follow-up, I would ask the minister if he would consider

the possibility of removing it from the timber-harvesting land base as an

option. Has he given any consideration to how that might happen? Or is it just

not on the table?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member brings up a really pertinent question about how you go about

these decisions and what the best societal outcome is for a certain area,

regarding whether it’s timber harvesting or other values.

What I can say is that the best way to reach those decisions is

understanding the concerns and sharing information. That’s what we’re

committing to — that through consultation, we’ll share the information that we

have about what the drawbacks might be of removing that from the

timber-harvesting land base. Likewise, we want to be an open avenue for

understanding, in a deep way, the concerns of people who would rather see it

removed from the timber-harvesting land base. That way we can get to a point

where you can make a decision based on the shared information.

What I’m saying is that’s outlining the basis of the process that we’re

going to undertake. That consultation, obviously, hasn’t occurred yet, so I

can’t make an opinion on if removing it is an option. I just want to make sure

that the member understands, and he can relay to the constituents who, I

imagine, will be hearing from him — and also reading, possibly, this transcript

— that we want to hear from them. We want to share the information about the

options that we have with those concerned.

J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister. I will look forward to that briefing so that I

can communicate that to my constituents and we can begin that dialogue. I think

it is an important dialogue to have.

Moving on to other…. Bowen is actually not in the Sea to Sky natural

resource district, but it’s obviously very much connected to it. Typically, the

available timber in the Sea to Sky natural resource district is mature hemlock

and balsam stands. I think it’s fair to say that in the Sea to Sky, the

development harvesting costs more often than not, generally speaking,

significantly exceed the domestic log prices.

Interestingly, from what I’ve seen, export opportunities are commonly

blocked for strategic domestic log-buying reasons. We’ve even seen

circumstances where people have blocked hemlock and balsam in order to acquire

cedar cheaper. It’s a very complicated process that I know the minister is

certainly aware of.

The result is that our licensees and BCTS have been significantly

undercutting in the Sea to Sky natural resource district, just because the

numbers don’t work. The numbers don’t work for the domestic market, anyway.

Fundamentally, without processing…. We don’t have processing in the Sea to Sky,

generally speaking. We have some small processors, but if we don’t harvest, we

don’t work. I think it’s important to support and to emphasize that the

viability of the district licences, most of which are First Nations’, are to a

large degree at risk here.

To further exacerbate the problem, the newest appraisal manual that

determines stumpage has resulted in significantly increased costs for the Sea

to Sky district. I believe the effect of the appraisal manual revisions was

anticipated to increase coastal stumpage rates by $2 to $3 per cubic metre, on

average. The result in the Sea to Sky, however, has been an increase of

anywhere from $5 to $11 per cubic metre. In the specific instance of one

smaller First Nation, the N’Quatqua, the stumpage rates have been enough to

render the blocks that they’ve developed unviable. I’m told Lil’wat will be

facing the same issues in the very near future.

[2:40 p.m.]

I wonder if the minister has had the opportunity and is willing to

address this disproportionate burden on Sea to Sky natural resource district

licensees by making changes to the manual that will make them competitive with

other licensees operating in the same coastal region.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I believe, at some point in the question, the member outlined that there

are complexities. I must say that’s why it’s taken a lot of time to answer the

question.

There are a number of components there. Of course, the member did a good

job of outlining the context. Any licensee…. When it comes to undercutting,

they have a five-year cut period, so the total annual harvest can be harvested

annually over those five-year periods. Depending on the market conditions and

other conditions, the licensee has a bit of an opportunity for flexibility

there. That’s one thing.

He is correct that as of December 15, we were able to convey and provide

a new appraisal manual for licensees.

[2:45 p.m.]

We have the ability to adjust that on a quarterly basis, depending on

lumber prices, for instance. So there is an ability of responsiveness in that

system that could have an impact on those people that are harvesting the less

desirable timber and the less viable hemlock and balsam. It’s not less

desirable; it’s just less viable, usually due to location.

We’re doing some quick work, since that December 15 issuance of the

appraisal manual, to identify additional opportunities for those licensees who

are working in less viable hemlock-balsam stands. The member makes a good

point. In the absence of exports, some of these stands become less viable. But

we have the surplus test. We have a system for assessing

exportability.

I also have the understanding that export of logs is always part of a

viable industry, so there is a role to play with the export of wood. By the

same token, we’re very aware of the public’s concern and workers’ concern and

communities’ concern about what’s perceived as an overexport of

logs.

All those factors play in. I can understand the viability concerns that

the member raises.

J. Sturdy: Well, in terms of specifics, I think currently we’re looking at about

$85 a metre for harvesting costs for domestic hemlock and balsam to get it to

tidewater, and the local market is $60. So clearly, that doesn’t work. It’s a

bit perverse, frankly, that that export opportunity and that higher value

provides opportunity to in fact, in some respects, subsidize the domestic log

supply locally.

I know there’s much other work that needs to take place, including

developing additional innovations and technologies to make these products,

especially from the hem-bal side, more valuable to people — and understanding

the wood, understanding what can be done with it. I think keeping an access to

a market and keeping those logs going into other jurisdictions so everybody

better understands how those logs can be taken advantage of is certainly

important.

With regard to the Sea to Sky specifically, and recognizing that the

Skwxwú7mesh and the Lillooet and the N’Quatqua and the In-SHUCK-ch have the

vast majority of the tenure in the area, yet increasingly their tenures are not

viable due to the limitations on export, the blocking that is taking place…. In

fact, I’m happy to provide the minister with some of the documentation around

how other licensees in the coastal region, with processing, who are

undercutting their own tenures, are then blocking export for these First

Nations who don’t have a resulting access to export market.

It’s a very difficult situation. We’re also losing reinvestment. We’re

losing an opportunity to retain people in the industry or to have people

understand that forestry is one of the most renewable and green business

opportunities we have in this province. Yet they don’t see a future in

it.

I’d very much like to maintain forestry as an important sector in the

Sea to Sky. It’s under tremendous pressure already. Yet with the stumpage

costs, this is something that is really putting the industry at risk

completely.

[2:50 p.m.]

I wonder if the minister has any plans or there is anything that could

be put in place to support these licensees and tenure holders who are

specifically First Nations to have access to markets so they can at least cover

their costs.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just as an opening remark, I certainly wouldn’t characterize any of the

discussion that we’re about to have or have had with the term “subsidization.”

I’m sure the member knows why that is a very sensitive topic. I want to make it

clear and on the record to not construe any of what we’re doing in the forest

sector or in this discussion as related to subsidizing.

Having said that, absolutely, we want to ensure that B.C. logs are

processed in B.C. mills and provide B.C. jobs. That’s a goal of our government.

We want to see that happen. If there are scenarios that are similar to the ones

that the member has described around undercutting and blocking and not

processing to full capacity, then those are the kinds of things that we

absolutely don’t want to see happening.

We want to see the resource, the publicly owned resource, used in a way

that’s going to benefit the communities, primarily, and the public and then,

generally, into the revenue stream for the province. There are a number of the

complexities on the coast. The market value versus the logging cost, which has

been highlighted by the member. There’s operating conditions. There’s First

Nations concerns. We’re taking all this into account in policy

deliberations.

We have to consult and work with industry and communities and with First

Nations on it. These aren’t especially new issues. It’s something that is a

result of a number of years that we’re faced with now. And we want to get to a

solution. So I welcome the inputs like we’ve had today from the member as well

as working on some solutions.

We know the challenges. That’s for sure. People are very good at

articulating the challenges. It’s the solutions that I’m interested in —

realistic and doable solutions. That’s what I’m focused on, and that’s what

we’re focused on. I can’t give, today, an answer to the dilemma that has been

described by the member, but I want him to know that we’re working on it. It’s

something that’s — as I said, I’m solutions-oriented — realistic and

doable.

[2:55 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: Okay. I will provide one suggestion, then, and a solution. That is to

reduce the stumpage rate down to the average of $2 to $3 from the $5 to $11

that is being felt in the Sea to Sky natural resource district.

To move on slightly here…. Perhaps we can cover some of that in some of

the briefing that we, hopefully, are able to arrange with regard to Bowen.

Perhaps there we can cover some of that so I can better understand it. As much

as I do have conversations and engage with the industry on this, I find there’s

always more to know and certainly more to understand. There are so many levels

of this.

This is a similar issue. It’s specific to cottonwood. As the minister,

I’m sure, understands, there is no domestic buyer of cottonwood, at least to my

knowledge, not on the south coast. Scott Paper was a buyer a number of years

back, but they no longer purchase logs. Yet there is an opportunity to create

an international or export market for this product, because it is in demand in

other jurisdictions.

The challenge with creating a solid customer relationship with producers

— specifically in my region, because that’s what I’m most familiar with — is

the fact that they cannot supply logs on a consistent basis because they get

blocked. Believe it or not, they get blocked.

An ancillary benefit here, not that the blocking’s a benefit, is that

much of the agricultural land in the region is under cottonwood. To clear that

land to put it into agricultural production is incredibly expensive, in the

neighbourhood of $10,000 an acre — to harvest, dig stumps, pick up sticks and

get it ready to plant. If there was an opportunity to sell those logs at a

profitable level, they could cover the costs of clearing land for agriculture.

There’s potentially a win-win here.

I wondered if the minister would consider the idea of eliminating the

surplus test on cottonwood for a fixed period of time, specifically in my

region — and I leave it to the minister to look at other regions — for the

benefit of creating long-term business relationships as well as the benefit of

creating opportunity to create or clear agricultural land and bring it into

production.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Although cottonwood is not specifically exempted from the surplus test

like cedar would be, staff inform me that we have no evidence of the blocking

of cottonwood when it comes to the surplus test. I’d be happy to meet, maybe in

the same conversation we’re having on the Bowen Island issue, so that we can

get some more details or evidence of blocking.

We’re open to any ideas. I mean, I know the use of non-traditional

species is important for some manufacturers. Cottonwood is one that escapes me

a little bit, about how it’s being used for domestic purposes.

As the member knows, it’s not as commonly available or highly available

as other species that are used more in the creation of products, because it

generally grows in riparian areas — lots of cottonwood up where I live and lots

of it in the flood zone and the low-lying areas. That constrains, oftentimes,

the ability to harvest for other values.

If you want to meet a little bit more on the evidence of blocking and

the issue you’re bringing, I’m happy to have those discussions and staff is

happy to have those discussions.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister. Appreciate that.

I think that the idea of exempting it from the surplus test for a period

of time would allow us to create long-term customer opportunities that don’t

exist right now, because we can’t reliably deliver to our international

customers.

I look forward to the meeting and the briefing where we can discuss this

further. Hopefully it will be timely, as I understand, or I’ve been told, that

we’re not able to set up a time to meet with the minister before the end of

session. Hopefully this meeting actually takes place in advance of that — in

fact, in the next little while. I’d appreciate it so that I can bring this back

to my constituents.

Hon. D. Donaldson: We can arrange a meeting with senior staff within the next two weeks,

and depending on my schedule, I’ll see if I can attend. I think it’s really

important for you to be able to flesh out some of those details — around the

consultation process on Bowen Island and the issue around cottonwood and the

other topic on stumpage rates in the Sea to Sky — with senior staff. That’s

extremely important.

C. Oakes: I’m just seeking some clarification on comments that were made in March

in respect to a constituent file that I’ve brought forward in this House on

multiple occasions — a guide and outfitter, Stewart Fraser.

I would quote that in response to multiple questions I started to raise

both in the fall estimates as well as prior to March, the response back from

the minister was: “On this specific case, if you would like to encourage the

individual to get in touch with the ministry, we’d be happy to meet with them

about the challenges they’re facing.”

Further, in another question, a similar question, from this constituent

around guide and outfitting: “We’re also working with the guide-outfitters on

options around permitting and fees and those kind of things. So we’re open to

creative thinking around this.”

A final comment from the ministry in quotes from estimates. Again, in

reflection of concerns I’ve raised from our constituent Stewart Fraser: “I

would encourage the member to ask the individual to get in touch with us

directly, and we can explore options.”

[3:05 p.m.]

My office has tried to make those arrangements with your office. Stewart

Fraser has contacted your staff directly to, again, set up that meeting with

the minister. We are being told that we will not be able to meet with you for a

meeting. Hunting season…. Stewart Fraser requires this information prior to May

14, when hunting season starts.

To the minister: how should we best set up this meeting that the

minister suggested we do?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Our local regional executive director and the ADM responsible will reach

out to Stewart Fraser and arrange to have a meeting, depending on his schedule,

in the next couple of weeks.

That would be the most productive start, to meet with senior staff at

that level in order to make sure all the information is accumulated about

refunds on permits and about the impacts of the wildfire on his operation. So

that is what I’m offering up to your constituent, through you. Then once that

meeting happens, we can go from there.

As far as meeting with me, it would be more appropriate for him to meet

with senior staff in order to get that information to them and make sure he

brings that information to them. They’ll be reaching out to him.

C. Oakes: I appreciate that. But again, Stewart Fraser…. When we canvassed this

prior, the minister suggested that Mr. Fraser contact yourself. I think it is

very pertinent that he has that conversation with you, as it has been reflected

in prior comments that the minister has made.

[3:10 p.m.]

With all due respect, it is a hope that the constituent could meet

with…. Even through a phone call. He’s happy to meet you in Kamloops when you

are there.

He has offered multiple options to meet with the minister, but it’s

critically important. The minister has said that he is open to hearing from

guide and outfitters. I know that they have made that request. To the minister:

I think it’s important that you hear what the guide-outfitters — and,

specifically, Stewart Fraser — have to say.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I definitely am always encouraging guide-outfitters, and especially

through their association, to get in touch with me. I always enjoy the

conversations I have with them. They are people who share a love of the land

and a stewardship of the land, and it’s something I share with them.

As far as setting up a call, I’ll take that to my staff and see if we

can set up a call. At the same time, though, it’s important for them to meet in

person with senior staff because, to be totally forthright, they’re the ones

that have much more information at their fingertips around providing direct

answers to Mr. Fraser.

I’m certainly able to arrange a call with him to hear directly his

concerns from what he has experienced. I don’t know what my

schedule looks like

in Kamloops for an in-person meeting, but definitely we can set up a call, and

we’ll see what happens as far as Kamloops. I’ll have a look at the

schedule in

Kamloops as well.

J. Rustad: As much as I want to go into talking about exports and blocking and, you

know, undercuts and these type of things, I think we’re limited a little bit in

time. But I do want to ask the minister particularly about old growth on the

coast. Just a question or two with regards to that.

There is a movement. I think a number of environmental groups and others

are suggesting that there should be a moratorium on old-growth harvesting of

timber on the Island, on the coastal area. I’m wondering, first of all, how

much old-growth area has been protected on the Island? You may not have these

exact numbers, so you can get them to me down the road. I’m okay with that. How

much old growth is being protected, and how much old growth is left in terms of

the overall area of the Island?

Then it’s whether or not the ministry is considering this request from

these groups to put in place a moratorium on any additional harvesting of

old-growth timber.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I have some interesting and pertinent facts for the member in

response to his question: 40 percent of Vancouver Island’s Crown forest lands

are old-growth forests, with 38 percent of that currently protected or

reserved. That translates into 520,000 hectares.

As far as our approach on Vancouver Island when it comes to old growth,

we’re very aware of the concerns expressed by those who value and are

interested in old growth. We have initiated, over the next 12 to 18 months….

What we’re doing is developing a non-legal trial policy for coastal B.C. on the

retention and protection of big trees. That’s something that’s of interest and

that we’re working on through industry and also with B.C. Timber

Sales.

Definitely, there’s a lot of old growth protected on the Island, but we

are aware of people who are concerned about the old-growth values. We’re

working with them and industry to look at the retention and protection of big

trees.

J. Rustad: Thanks for that answer. I mean, I just find it interesting. This was

something else that was an interesting question that came up at COFI, the

Council of Forest Industries, where it talked about if there was a moratorium

on old growth from the Island, the coast, I think it would mean a 25 percent

reduction in the harvesting levels for that coastal area. Obviously, that’s

pretty significant in terms of whatever policy that may be in place.

But it raises the question…. I think the minister just talked about

developing a policy and a discussion around what this would be. How many

engagements are there within the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource

Operations with various groups around the province on forestry and wildlife and

all the other aspects of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource

Operations and Rural Development?

My apologies. I meant that to be specific topic engagements. Obviously,

there are engagements happening every day with First Nations and other groups

and stuff like that. So it’s more around, very much around, policy discussions

and engagements that I’m asking this question about.

Hon. D. Donaldson: We engage — you’re right — on a day-to-day basis with First Nations and

licensees and communities. Those are routine.

[3:20 p.m.]

We also have many policy initiatives that were in our platform — ones

that relate specifically to the ministry I represent in regards to ensuring

that we process more B.C. logs in B.C. mills, that we look at engineered wood

products, around land use planning, around wildlife management. There are many,

many engagements on the broad area of interest that this ministry touches

on.

What I want to say and am going to say is that this government feels

it’s important to talk with the people who are most impacted by policy

decisions first, before making policy adjustments. We’re advancing many new

policy initiatives in order to enhance the forest sector, in order to ensure

wildlife populations are sustainable, to work on certainty around the land base

with First Nations.

These are all major initiatives that needed attention when we came into

government. It is taking the approach that the people on the ground, in

communities, are the ones that deserve to be consulted because they are the

ones that are going to ultimately bear the impacts of any policy change,

positively or negatively.

J. Rustad: I fully support going out and doing engagements and discussions. After

16 years, I find it curious that there’s a whole bunch of discussions, when

they had all of the answers in the past. But, having said that, I’m wondering

if the minister could table a list or provide me with a list of papers that

have gone out or various groups that have been put together or other types of

initiatives around policy that impact on FLNRO, so I can get a total

list.

I know there have been a number of announcements, both in the ministry

and outside the ministry, around this. It would be nice to have one

consolidated list of these engagements so we can have an opportunity to be able

to make other people aware who may not be aware of these so they have an

opportunity to input. It’s also to be able to track timelines and inputs and

components to have some sort of idea of just where the direction within the

ministry might be going.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Certainly, we can put together a list in the spirit of transparency and

openness. Also, I appreciate the offer of the opposition MLAs getting the word

out around the different processes that we’re embarked upon. So we’ll put a

list together, from my ministry’s purview.

I appreciate the member’s comment about after 16 years having all of the

answers. I come from the perspective, and from a government, that we don’t have

all the answers. So we’re going to get the answers and on-the-ground

perspective from people to the issues that they’re facing within their

communities.

J. Rustad: Well, I’ll leave the politics alone on that because there are too many

other things to talk about at the moment. In any case, hon. Chair, thank you

for the opportunity.

I want to switch to another topic. In particular, I understand that

Catalyst Paper is either taking downtime now or is scheduled to take downtime.

I’m wondering if the minister could confirm that and if the ministry is aware

of what length of time that Catalyst Paper may be down for.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, we’re aware of the situation with Catalyst. We’re very concerned

about the situation that they’re facing.

[3:25 p.m.]

The information we have is that on approximately May 14 the Powell River

Catalyst mill will be on curtailment for three weeks. We’re not anticipating….

We’ve been told by Catalyst that it’s a temporary curtailment, with no loss of

jobs in that three-week period. It’s shutting down one of their lines of

production, and that line of production has to do with uncoated groundwood

paper.

There are a couple of factors at play here. One of them cited by

Catalyst is fibre supply, and we’re working on that situation. The other is the

unwarranted, unjust and unmerited duties that have been applied recently by

special interest groups in Washington state and endorsed by the U.S. Department

of Commerce in August.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the opportunity I had to be on the call talking with the

federal counterparts with regards to the groundwood pulp. The supply,

particularly the fibre supply, the chip supply, is the component here that I

wanted to ask a couple questions on.

Specifically, back when we were doing estimates last month, three or

four weeks ago now, I had asked the minister with regards to the shortage of

railcars and the fact that there was a difficulty moving forest products to

export markets — as well, of course, as moving various products around, which

would include moving chips to facilities like Catalyst. At the time, I believe

the minister had responded and said that they weren’t aware of any particular

serious issue.

We’ve seen now the report that the number of exports over the last

quarter down to the United States is down dramatically — I think 20 percent or

in that category — with regard to the softwood lumber exports. We’re seeing

Catalyst in a situation where it doesn’t have the chip supply it needs because

it can’t get the product that it needs. I’ve talked to a number of mills, a

number of licensees — and I’m sure the minister had a chance to as well — over

this period of time, and with COFI about their challenges in their yards trying

to get product moved and the components.

I guess the question is…. Given that the minister didn’t think there was

an issue associated with CN in the past — obviously, there has been quite an

issue associated with the forest industries — is the minister engaged with the

federal counterpart with regards to the availability of railcars and the

movement of forest products? What steps is the ministry asking the federal

government to take with regards to their jurisdiction over rail and rail

traffic so that our interests in the forest industry are being looked

after?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: These are some systemic issues that our government has

inherited.

[3:30 p.m.]

We are concerned about the transportation of product, especially the

lumber exports, which were what was highlighted at the Council of Forest

Industries annual meeting in Prince George that we both attended. CN was mainly

the transportation company that was highlighted as far as railcar scarcity. I

sat with the CEO of West Fraser and the CEO of Interfor, and we had a very good

discussion around the impacts of that.

My counterpart here in this government, the Minister of Jobs, Trade and

Technology, has been engaged on this issue with his federal counterparts.

They’re the ones that need to put pressure on CN. I know that at that COFI

meeting, both the CEOs of West Fraser and Interfor and other major licensees

had a direct meeting with Minister Garneau on this. So those avenues are being

explored, as I said, through the Jobs, Trade and Technology

Minister.

As far as the actual Catalyst issue and the supply of fibre in the form

of chips, the chip supply, from what I understand from staff, is not a matter

of railcar scarcity. When it comes to the mill at Powell River, it’s not an

issue of the transportation and the lack of railcars to transport that to get

that product to that mill. I’ll leave it at that for now.

J. Rustad: I was talking with some of the south coast industry this morning, and I

was led to believe that the supply of chips coming in, in particular from some

of the Interior or other places, was a factor for Catalyst.

Regardless of that, the railcar issue is certainly an issue. As was

canvassed in question period today, there is a tremendous amount of resources

used by the two major rail lines in Canada, being CP Rail and CNR, that are

going towards the movement of oil. Obviously there’s a huge demand. It’s

impacted on wheat. It’s impacted on forest products. There have been winter

issues. There have been other issues. But the reality is that our forest

industry has been taking a hit.

Now, given where lumber prices are, the forest industry is not a

critical issue. But it is a very important issue for the industry to be able to

move more product to market, to be able to meet its obligations, as well as to

be able to take advantage of prices in markets that we currently have.

Certainly, if there was availability of more cars — because certain products

aren’t being moved by rail but moved by other safer means — that would be

significant.

Once again, the question I had around the previous question was the

steps that are being taken. I understand the Minister of Jobs is being engaged,

but this is a significant component for forestry. So I’ll ask again: what steps

is the Ministry of Forests looking at in terms of not just the current impact

but long-term supply — of the ability of the industry to move product in this

province by rail?

Just to go back and give a little bit of history, there was a situation

many, many years ago, back in the ’80s, when B.C. Rail went on rotating strikes

through about six weeks, which really backed up the forest industry. At that

point, the forest industry said: “We won’t be held hostage again, and we’ll

start moving more product by truck.” Obviously, by truck, there’s more expense.

There are more problems and more issues around it, whether it’s greenhouse gas

or otherwise.

The point is the forest industry, at that point, was 85 percent, 90

percent moving by rail and moved down to around 65 percent moving by rail,

because they needed to have other options. If we can’t resolve this issue

around railcars, industry is going to have to look at other options once again,

in terms of moving product around.

[3:35 p.m.]

I would ask if there is a strategy in place or if the ministry is

considering a strategy of engagement both with industry and with the rail lines

and with the federal government to look at what a long-term strategy will look

like to be able to ensure that our forest products can make it to market and

keep the industry healthy.

Hon. D. Donaldson: This lack of railcars at certain times of the year is a seasonal issue

that affects all shippers who are shipping by rail. This is a topic that was

also faced previously by the government that this member represented at the

time. It’s something that we’ve inherited from that government as well as

federally, and we’re very concerned about it. As I said, I sat at COFI and

heard the stories from CEOs about the amount of product that was sold and

waiting to be shipped, and this is an export product. This is

lumber.

My position in this ministry is to support the forest sector and also to

collaborate with the ministries within this government that are focused on the

export issue. That’s primarily the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology, as

well as the Minister of Transportation. They’re having extensive dialogues with

the federal government, and we’re working with the federal government to exert

pressure in a federal jurisdiction, which is rail transportation.

If the member has some further suggestions on how to advance it, I’d be

all ears. It’s not something that’s lost on us. It’s not something that’s new.

It’s something that was faced by previous governments as well. It’s something

that we’re working on.

J. Rustad: I’m glad to see that the minister is concerned about it. It’s a

significant change from where it was four weeks ago in estimates, but in any

case…. We’re going to do a little jumping around here.

I’ve got a couple of questions from my colleague from Cariboo south.

That’ll be followed by a question from one of my colleagues in the Okanagan.

From there, I want to go in to canvass briefly, if we can, the issue of land

resource planning. With that, I’ll turn the floor over to my colleague from

Cariboo-Chilcotin.

D. Barnett: Yesterday afternoon, Minister, in estimates, we discussed

guide-outfitters. I quote from your comments: “We’ve asked for documentation

from the guide-outfitters impacted by wildfires, on their losses. We’re

awaiting that information so that we can have further discussions with them,

but we’ve got to get that information first.” The Red Cross has been there as a

business, and they got what is available. “Contact our rural development

representatives in their area, and they can be helped to walk through the

process, as well as through FrontCounter B.C. So there are many avenues for

that access.”

Well, believe it or not, people are at home watching these estimates.

Guide-outfitters are. I have had a couple of calls from guide-outfitters since

these comments were made. They went to FrontCounter B.C., and FrontCounter B.C.

told them they knew nothing about rural development. They knew nothing about

any place where they were taking impacts from guide-outfitters as to their

losses.

[3:40 p.m.]

My question to the minister is: where are all the rural development

staff situated? Where do they go to get help? You said here that you were

taking impact statements and impact of losses. Where do they go to get this

done? Who is there to help them? You just said — and I congratulate you —

you’re solutions-oriented. This is a huge issue. Guide-outfitters in my region,

in Cariboo North and south of me, in the Kootenays, were all impacted in some

way by fires. We need concrete solutions. We’re here to work with you for

solutions, but we need to know concrete answers. Where do we go, and how do we

get help?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Housed in the district offices — our district offices in Williams Lake,

100 Mile House, Quesnel and Kamloops — are community recovery managers. We can

get the names for the member of those community recovery managers in those four

communities, and contact information. We’ll make sure the FrontCounter B.C.

staff who aren’t aware of that will have that information as well. But

generally speaking, FrontCounter staff should be aware of that. If they’re not,

then we’ll make sure they are.

D. Barnett: Minister, they did go there this morning, a couple of guide-outfitters,

and they got a response that they knew nothing. Back to the question from your

statements. As you are waiting for their impacts…. They understand, these

people, that there would be some help for them, from what you said

yesterday.

Who do they give these statements to of their losses, and what help is

going to be out there for them after they give the statements?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the question. We want to make sure that we try to have a

streamlined interaction between guide-outfitters who are seeking remedies

around impacts and losses and the provincial government support teams that are

in place. We do have a specialized, specific cross-ministry team that’s in

place to work with individual guide-outfitters and through guidefitters

associations.

I realize that some guide-outfitters are not part of broader regional

associations. They’re in place to work with both individuals and the

associations. What we’ll do is make sure that the community recovery managers

are ready and in touch with the cross-ministry team. I wouldn’t want to see the

situation where a guide-outfitter comes in to provide, as the member said, a

statement about impacts and losses and simply is told by the community recovery

manager: “Well, here’s the number for the next person on the line.”

We want to make sure that that’s streamlined. So that’s what will

happen. We’ll make sure that the community recovery managers are in touch with

the cross-ministry team so that when the guide-outfitters come in, they’ll be

able to deal with the person and the team that’s in place to take those

statements about impact and losses.

D. Barnett: Thank you for that.

We talk about solutions. We, as the front line in our communities, would

really appreciate this information so that we can be of assistance. The more

knowledge we have, the more assistance we can give to our guide-outfitters and

to your ministry, the sooner we will move forward.

You made an announcement — or the Premier did — in Prince George of $139

million from the Forest Enhancement Society, $99 million for the Cariboo

region. I understand $30 million of that is for First Nations.

My question is: what are the projects? How many projects? In which

community? How can a community apply for mitigation funding? The process, the

time frame? When will the project start? Is this one year? Will this be

continuous over the next five years? We know there is over $2 billion worth of

damage on the land from the wildfires of 2017.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for highlighting this investment in rural communities, to the

member. That $139 million referred to approved projects, approved by the FESBC,

the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C., board. They made that announcement just

last week. These were dollars that were in our existing three-year fiscal plan

to FESBC.

As the member might remember, it’s an arms-length organization that was

set up in the day that her party was in government. Its focus is on engaging in

capacity-building, wildfire recovery, wildfire risk reduction and mitigation

activities. Part of the reason behind FESBC being set up at arm’s length from

government was in order to try to multiply government dollars that we’ve

allocated towards it.

[3:55 p.m.]

As I said, the $139 million was approved projects by the FESBC board.

The member is correct that $99 million of that was targeted to projects in the

Cariboo. We can provide the member with a list of projects. That’s no problem.

We’ll get that to her as quickly as we can.

The nature of the projects are…. As far as the length of period that

they cover, it’s multiple. Some are one year. Some are four years. So there are

multiple projects in that.

In addition, some of the questions were lengthy and lots of points in

the questions. But how communities, for instance, can apply to the FESBC

funding envelope — that’s possible. They have periodic intakes. I can’t

describe to you when the next intake is, but they do have a website that

describes that information.

I can also offer to the member, because it’s of particular interest to

her, considering the damage that was done in her constituency and neighbouring

constituencies…. We can get an individual from Forest Enhancement Society of

B.C. to get in touch with you to describe the intake process and the

application process.

D. Barnett: Thank you. I look forward to the list, and I’ll wait for the Forest

Enhancement Society call.

S. Thomson: I’ve just been given the opportunity for a very quick question and, I

hope, a quick response as well. You shouldn’t have to change up staff to be

able to respond here.

As you know, in the Okanagan, we’ve got a very, very significant issue

with respect to dock replacements as a result of all the impacts last year on

individual homeowners, businesses and things with all of the damage done to

docks.

Firstly, the positive side of it. We really do appreciate the response

and the extra resources and have heard that there’s good turnaround time in

terms of dealing with the applications and things like that. So sort of a

general thanks for all of the work that’s being done there.

But there’s always a but in this, and there are a growing number and a

significant number of applications that have created real challenges. It all

relates to what we believe is a very prescriptive application of the policy, a

prescriptive approach that doesn’t result in common sense being applied in

terms of the approval process and the application process.

We’ve got a request in to your office for a meeting. Rather than go

through today all of those specific applications and the individual examples,

the request simply today is to have the opportunity for an early meeting with

you to review those specific applications and look for the commonsense types of

solutions in those cases that would provide the answers within the parameters

of the existing policy. We think there are ways to do this that don’t appear to

be considered, currently, with a prescriptive approach.

On behalf of the Okanagan MLAs, particularly from our three ridings

around Kelowna and on Okanagan Lake, I wonder if we could have that opportunity

to review a number of specific files at a very early opportunity. As you know,

there are also timing windows with respect to dealing with these. Our concern

is that we’re going to miss the windows and that we’re also putting a number of

property owners through a lot of additional process and cost and everything, in

their application process, that really just doesn’t seem to make

sense.

So just on behalf of the group, our request is for an early opportunity

to meet and review those specific files. We can provide the list before the

meeting, but what’s mostly requested here is a very early opportunity to do

that.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: First off, I want to welcome back the member. It’s good to see you back

here in the Legislature. Nice to see you. It’s good that you appear to be in

good health, and I wish you the best as far as your health goes.

I can reinforce what the member said. We had extra resources put towards

this topic. The team that we had in place, the flood recovery team, as I

mentioned — I believe it was yesterday — has been extended and will remain in

place until at least the end of September — September 30 of this year. That

should help. As well, the temporary staffing uplift for an auxiliary term for a

dedicated natural resource officer is in place. I know that the member

recognized that work that’s been done.

As far as some specific cases, where the member typifies it as maybe

prescriptive rather than common sense in policy application, I definitely would

be willing to meet about that. The first step would be to make sure that the

files that are of concern are forwarded and that senior staff will meet with

you and other concerned MLAs within the next week or two. Then, if there are

other considerations after that, I’d be willing to meet. Of course, it’s much

more, I think, efficient and effective for you to meet with senior staff right

off the bat, and perhaps we can get resolutions more quickly that

way.

There is that balance — and I know you know it, having been the minister

— between prescriptive policy and environmental considerations. I appreciate

your perspective, and when you talk about common sense, I know that you know

the constraints within legislation and you know what common sense

is.

I want to make sure that you know to get the files to us. The senior

staff will meet with you and other concerned MLAs on those files. Then, if that

doesn’t bring about resolution, I’d be happy to meet after that.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that answer. I actually want to go back to one quick

follow-up on FESBC and the funding around that. You know, I understand the

funding, I understand the decision, and I think it’s appropriate that the money

be spent, obviously, in that area. The impact of the fires was significant, and

it’s good to see those dollars going.

As the minister likely understands and knows, that money was be put in

there for…. There were many other needs and many other interests around the

province that that money could have been allocated towards. We obviously had an

emergency situation that came up because of the forest fires, and money needs

to be spent.

The question is: why weren’t there new or additional funds put in to be

able to handle that emerging issue? And will the existing or the other

priorities that that money was put in for have to take a back seat for a period

of time until such time as there may be an additional infusion of cash into

FESBC and the good work that they do?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I do like to talk about this because it’s a successful investment in the

land base and in rural B.C.

In this most recent independent announcement by Forest Enhancement

Society of B.C. around funding, there was a focus on the Cariboo. That’s…. I

guess I’ll use the word “coincidental” in that FESBC is set up for land

recovery, and a lot of that had to do with the mountain pine beetle impacts in

the Cariboo before the wildfire situation of last year.

There’s still significant funding remaining in FESBC for other parts of

the province — in this last announcement, $34 million for investment outside of

the Cariboo. As well, we have the $50 million increase in the budget for

wildfire resiliency around the province. So we do have significant resources

available for all parts of the province.

I’ll just finish off by saying that FESBC, through our forest carbon

initiative, is hoping to partner with the federal government’s low-carbon

economy initiative in order to multiply provincial dollars even further. That’s

something that will happen that wasn’t part of this recent announcement, but we

hope that’ll be something that we’ll be able to announce in the coming

year.

J. Rustad: Sticking on the topic the minister just raised around the $50 million

that’s available for the mitigation, I guess…. It’s not mitigation —

reparation. I can’t remember exactly the words that the minister

used.

Can the minister provide some details? That’s spread over three years. I

know it’s $10 million this year and then incremental increases over the next

two years. Can the minister provide some detail as to where that money will be

allocated and what the thinking is behind it? I’ll leave it at that.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’re very excited that we were able to secure this budget uplift when

it comes to increasing community resiliency in regard to wildfires. The member

is right. It’s a $50 million commitment over the next three years — $10 million

this year and $20 million per year in each of the next two years. We are in the

middle of designing the rollout of how that investment will happen. It’s

investment in rural areas of the province, which is very important.

That will particularly be informed, that rollout, around recommendations

that arise from the Abbott-Chapman review, the independent review. But it’s

also informed by our ongoing efforts in SWPI, through the UBCM, and through

FESBC that we just discussed.

I’ll give a general outline about how we anticipate, in a broad sense,

this money to be allocated. We’re going to target two components. One will be

dedicated streamlined funding for local authorities, First Nations and

Indigenous communities to undertake planning, capacity-building, engagement,

and implementation of resiliency and preparedness tools — for example, fuel

treatment, land use planning policy and bylaws, education and incentives to

participate. That’s a nice category, and I’m sure that the Abbott-Chapman

review will have some additional suggestions that fall within that

one.

The other component is target investment for provincial priorities and

critical assets necessary to maintain community resiliency, such as power,

communications, water supply and rural commercial entities such as ranchers and

mountain resorts. We know that some of that was under threat this past fire

season, so we want to target some of the investment in that as far as

protecting those into the future.

J. Rustad: I seem to recall, when that member was in opposition, talking about the

significant need for more resources than that around wildfire resilience.

Regardless of that, we need to move on to another topic. There are a few last

little things I want to try to cover when I can here, through this,

particularly land resource management planning.

Back in the ’90s, I was in the private sector at that time and involved

in LRMP and some of the mapping and processes. The minister, I believe, has

talked about revitalizing that land management planning. I’m wondering if the

minister could provide this Legislature with some details with regard to the

intent of revitalizing these and what the minister is hoping to

achieve.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Again, another exciting endeavour, part of my mandate letter from the

Premier and an area where we were able to secure additional financial resources

for our ministry as well as the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and the

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Those three ministries, but primarily ours, will be the ones investing

$16 million over the next three years to modernize land use planning. Our

ministry will expend approximately $1.8 million in this fiscal year, $5.7

million next year and $7.3 million approximately in the final year.

The intent. I appreciate the clarity of the question. Intent and

outcomes — those are the kinds of things that are obviously always important to

address. The intent involves the fact that many of the land use plans have not

been updated — sometimes, in 20 years.

Definitely they’re dated from the aspect of over those ensuing decades,

there have been tremendous impacts in certain parts of the province at the

landscape level — disturbance, for instance, through wildfires or mountain pine

beetle. Those have all happened in a more significant manner in the last couple

of decades. There have been impacts from climate change that have been part and

parcel of that as well.

There has been a focus from the federal government on species at risk.

That’s all in the intervening years. There have been increased concerns around

water sustainability that weren’t addressed in a significant way in many of the

original land use plans.

I think, very importantly, there have been successive court cases that

have outlined to a more certain degree Aboriginal rights and title. In many

cases, that was not considered in original land use plans, so the land use

planning process that we’re embarking on is definitely a major tool when we

consider reconciliation.

[4:20 p.m.]

The outcomes that we’re anticipating and that we’re working towards are

increased certainty on the land base — which is good for communities, good for

First Nations, good for industry — and improved stewardship of the land,

considering those factors that weren’t high-attention subjects in the original

planning processes.

J. Rustad: I agree it’s been a while, but there are obviously significant issues

around land use management planning, particularly with First Nations, as the

minister has mentioned. The need to resolve land claims issues with First

Nations could play a very significant role in terms of whether land use plans

are even valid today in some areas.

So the question to the minister would be: does he feel that land use

planning can be successful, given that First Nations were not involved with the

original plans, I believe, when they were started up in the 1990s and may have

started even before then?

The need to be able to resolve the title question may override existing

plans or the ability to be able to update the plans. So how is the process

going to be able to move forward, in light of the fact that the underlying

question of land and title will likely play a very significant role in terms of

the discussions of process now that First Nations will be included?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I believe the question was: can we be successful in land use planning,

considering the context of Aboriginal title? Yes, I do believe we can be

successful. For me, there’s greater risk in not trying to undertake a renewal

of the land use planning process than there is in just waiting. It’s too risky

a situation to hold off on this on the concern that we might not be

successful.

I do believe that we can be successful. Why do I believe that? It’s

based on the fact that the collaborative approaches that have been taken in the

past…. I’ll highlight some of them that the member will be familiar with. Some

of them started many years ago; others more recently.

For instance, the relationships our ministry staff have developed with

First Nations in processes like the Great Bear Rainforest, the marine planning

partnership, environmental stewardship initiatives. Those relationships have

shown that a collaborative approach can lead to the outcomes that I described

in the last answer, around certainty on the land base, reconciliation and an

approach that brings First Nations in early on in the process. That’s what has

been lacking in the past.

[4:25 p.m.]

There is complexity. There’s no doubt about that, and I think that the

member is aware of that in his previous role when he was Minister of Aboriginal

Relations. There is complexity, but that’s why we’re working on this in

conjunction with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. We’re

going to take a phased approach, and we’re going to ensure that First Nations

are involved in this first year in the design of the process.

From what I’ve seen of successful applications of land use planning, I

think this is an opportunity to move forward together with First Nations and

non–First Nations to make sure communities benefit and industry has some

certainty.

J. Rustad: Having seen the process of land use planning — in some cases, taking a

decade or longer in terms of the discussions — ultimately getting to some

agreements simply by the fact that people were worn down from lengthy, lengthy

conversations between all the stakeholders on the land base…. I never, of

course, want to refer to First Nations as a stakeholder, but back in those days

when all of that happened, First Nations and the complexity of title were not

part of those discussions. It will be entertaining. It will be interesting, I’m

sure, in terms of how this proceeds.

I guess the question to the minister around this…. Given all the

complexities of the existing ones, the challenges of bringing all those players

together to the table and having the conversations and then adding in the

component, the rightful component, of Aboriginal title and rights to that, what

performance measures has the minister put in place in terms of this process and

expectations for completion or time frames associated with land

planning?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The important part of designing how this is going to roll out is in

partnership with First Nations, stakeholders, industry and the public, so those

will be how we define and come together on performance measures around the land

use planning initiative.

I also want to point out that there’s been a lot of data sharing and

gathering and trusted data between, for instance, First Nations and non–First

Nations, between First Nations and this ministry. Those are the kinds of areas

where we can move ahead, where values and data sharing on the landscape have

already been worked on and shared. Those kinds of places set it up for a more

condensed land use planning process. It’s not like we’re starting from scratch

in some areas. We do have the initial land use plans that were already done, so

we’re looking at scalable planning projects that need a wide range of land use

needs and aren’t responsive to current land use issues and drivers.

I believe there’s going to be areas where we can move ahead quickly and

get some demonstration of how this works in a positive manner, and that will

make it easier for the areas that are more complex.

[4:30 p.m.]

We’ve had a request for a five-minute recess. We’re willing to take that

on, unless we’re getting closer to completion.

J. Rustad: Given the time, I will avoid…. I know we want to wrap up. There are

other things that need to be done. There are many more questions that could be

asked around this ministry.

I want to thank the minister. I particularly want to thank the

minister’s staff for all the efforts. I know there’s been some back and forth

and rotating doors. The thing is rotating as people come and go on a regular

basis, but staff have been great in going through this process, and I want to

thank you.

I’ll avoid my closing political comment if the minister will do the

same, and we’ll wrap up here. Once again, thanks for the process.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I wanted to, in my closing comment, say that I appreciate the experience

and the perspectives brought by all MLAs who’ve asked questions in this

process. Many of them relate to areas of the province that I have a great

interest in, and on subject matters. And we are embarking on some new

initiatives. I look forward to the support of the critic on the other side and,

also, providing additional perspective that is needed from a member of the

official opposition. I look forward to working together.

Vote 28: ministry operations, $473,452,000 — approved.

Vote 29: fire management, $63,986,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:

OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 50: Forest Practices Board, $3,845,000 — approved.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that the committee rise and report completion of the resolutions

and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural

Resource Operations and Rural Development and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:33 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported resolutions, was granted

leave to sit again.

[4:35 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 7; L. Reid in the

chair.

The committee met at 4:38 p.m.

section 1.

M. Lee: Thank you, first of all, for arranging the briefing on this statute. I

would like to just go through a number of questions, particularly for this

section, and just for the record as well.

Can the minister explain the types of reports that are contemplated by

the existing provision of the Crown Proceeding Act, under

section 15, that will

not be the subject matter of this revised and proposed report under the

amendment? Specifically, the report, as you have set out, includes sections

that reference 13(4) and 14(4), as opposed to the other certificates under that

particular provision under

section 15 in the Crown Proceeding Act.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that the reports are the same. It might look like it’s been

narrowed, but the application of the sections is the same under the revised

text as it was under the old text. So there are no reports that this does not

apply to, if I understand the member’s question correctly. There’s no change

intended here in terms of the reports that it applies to, which would be the

same, despite the fact that it appears to be more narrow.

M. Lee: Perhaps another way to come at the question is the language in the

proposed amendment refers to the report being tabled by the Attorney General in

front of the Legislative Assembly. That would be as opposed to tabling the

actual certificates that, previously, the comptroller general provided to the

Attorney General. Is there going to be more information in this report beyond

the certificates?

Hon. D. Eby: It might be useful to take a step back before I attempt to answer the

member’s question.

This is intended to ensure that the legislation reflects what the past

practice has been. It has been the practice that the Attorney General’s

ministry prepares, in the fiscal year, this report about money paid out and

lays the report in front of the Legislative Assembly. That’s been the way that

it has worked.

The legislation, though, says that it’s the comptroller general that

does it and that it involves certificates. That has not been what has been

happening in the Legislature. So the intent is to actually get the legislation

to map up with what’s been actually going on in the Legislature.

The member will see no difference, in terms of the practice in the

Legislature, in any past reports that have been laid in front of the

Legislature under this new provision compared to the old one. The issue was

that what was happening before was not consistent with what the legislation

said was happening, which was that the comptroller general should be the one

preparing the report and that it involves certificates and so on.

The reports will contain the same amount of information as before, and

what this does is it just makes the act comply with the practice.

M. Lee: Just to clarify further — I appreciate the response — the obligation

under the current provision is that the comptroller general provides these

certificates. In the practice, is that a change at all in terms of the proposed

amendment to that

section of the act? Will the comptroller general continue to

provide that information?

Hon. D. Eby: The issue has been that it has not been the comptroller general

preparing this. It has been the Ministry of Attorney General attending to

this.

The Crown Proceeding Act report is a report detailing the money paid out

to satisfy judgments and settle claims against the government so that there’s

accountability to the public. The public knows how much money has been paid out

in relation to these judgments. It’s prepared by Ministry of Attorney General

staff who have that knowledge because they’ve been involved in the process —

either settling claims or there have been awards against government in courts,

tribunals or so on. They have been preparing this report, passing it up to the

Attorney General, who then tables it in the Legislature.

The comptroller general is certainly involved in terms of overall

financial responsibility but in terms of actually preparing the report has not

been involved. So to have the legislation applying accountability to the

comptroller general, when in fact it’s prepared by Ministry of Attorney General

staff, is not an accurate representation for the public about how it happens,

and we wanted to have legislative authority for what was happening in here to

ensure that the law reflected actual practice.

I hope that that addresses the member’s question.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

[4:45 p.m.]

M. Lee: On

section 2, in terms of the appointment of officers, we look at the

existing provision in the

Interpretation Act. Subsections 20(2), (3), (4) and

(5) are not carried over into this proposed amendment. Those provisions deal

with, in effect, delegation of authority — where the deputy minister is, for

example, under sub (2), not able to be present or unable to act. Have these

provisions been dealt with elsewhere?

Hon. D. Eby: We’re just looking at the act. In the version we’re looking at,

section

20 has three subsections. I wonder if the member could just clarify for us what

he’s looking at there.

M. Lee: Maybe a carryover to the actual section.

Section 20 in the existing only

has the three subsections. It’s probably something just to confirm.

Hon. D. Eby: In the proposed text in the bill,

section 20, under “Appointments of

officers,” has five subsections. That would replace the old text, in which

section 20 has three subsections.

The intent here is to set out, in a single section, the rules that apply

to the time of day at which an appointment made under a statutory authority

takes effect or terminates. Currently

section 20 of the

Interpretation Act is

about the time of day at which an appointment or its termination is effective.

section 4 of that act — the same act, the

Interpretation Act — about when an

enactment or its repeal commences, they might both be engaged. It’s hard to

figure out which would appropriately apply if it came down to a matter of when

the statutory authority for the appointment was engaged.

Sometimes in law, there are these very fine points about exactly when

the person was appointed. Currently there are two sections that could

potentially be used.

Section 20 and

section 4 could be in conflict about when

the person was actually appointed or when the appointment ended. So we’re

bringing it all into a single

section here, in

section 20. It’s grown a little

bit — it’s now five subsections — but it’s meant to clarify when an appointment

takes effect for an appointment of an officer.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

M. Lee: On

section 3, with the

Interpretation Act, again, a number of

provisions, of course, have been changed. I appreciate that this has been to

clarify the calculation of various reference periods. I’d just like to ask the

minister the purpose of the addition of subsection 25(4) and how that is

different from the approach that is under the proposed 25.5?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: We might take a few goes to get through this. It is highly technical and

not a little bit complicated, but it’s meant to make things clearer.

Under the old section, 25(3) referred to: “If the time for doing

an act

in a business office falls or expires on a day when the office is not open

during regular business hours….” So “falls” was taken out and moved to a

separate section. What was attempted to be done here is to ensure that

“expires” applies…. I’m going to try this again. If a period begins or ends in

an act, then

section 25 is the governing section. But if the act talks about

something falling on a certain day, then you’re in

section 25.5.

M. Lee: It’s fair to say that 25(3) under the current act is consistent with

what’s proposed under 25.5. So going back, then, to what’s a new provision

under 25(4), I’d just like to ask: is that a change in approach under this

legislative

interpretation act — to go to the concept, under 25(4)(b), that

where the period, as the case may be, for doing

an act is on the previous day,

you basically go back one day as opposed to going forward? Previously, under

the

Interpretation Act,

section 25(3), you go forward by one day to the next

day that the business office is open. My reading of this provision suggests

that we go back to the previous day. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. There is a minor policy adjustment here. It’s

reflected in

section 25(4)(b)(i). If you’re going back and you’re counting….

Basically, it says to somebody that if you knew the office is regularly closed

on a certain day, you can’t benefit from a provision that gives you more time

or an

interpretation that gives you more time if you acted in a manner that

just ignored the fact that the office is regularly closed on that

day.

It does necessarily result in shorter periods whenever the determination

results in a date that falls on a holiday Monday or a Sunday, because on

reaching Saturday, the direction changes and the date moves back through the

holidays to the next day the office is open during its regular business

hours.

[4:55 p.m.]

The member is right. It is really intended to not allow someone to

unintentionally benefit by relying on the fact that the office was closed. They

should have reasonably known that it was going to be closed because it’s

regularly closed on that day.

M. Lee: Thank you for the explanation. I just want to note for the subsequent

consequential amendments to various other pieces of legislation in terms of how

periods work…. I’d just like to ask the general question to the minister. Has

this provision been tested to ensure that we’re not prejudicing by shortening

periods, through uses of examples to test these various periods as to how it

might play out?

I take the point that we are talking about regular business hours.

Typically, that might be contemplating around banks or government offices or

other places of work. But to the extent that it plays into other pieces of

legislation — like the Election Act, for example — I ask whether his staff has

been able to test some of that out to ensure that there isn’t undue prejudice

to any individual who might come into contact with this provision.

Hon. D. Eby: Staff have looked at different applications of this and at things like

the Vancouver Charter notice for hearings. One of the policy decisions that was

made was that the person who is giving the notice is…. If you have to give

notice ten days before a council meeting, for example, you could potentially

set it up so that you only had to give seven days if it fell within a certain

range of holidays. We wanted to make sure that the person who is entitled to

the notice period — in this case, the ten days — actually gets those ten

days.

It does put a burden on the other party to pay attention to when the

holidays are. But we think that that is properly where the burden is placed, as

opposed to placing the burden on, in this case, the city, which then only gets

seven days when, under the law, they should be getting ten days. That was the

policy decision that was made, and the staff looked at different scenarios to

ensure that that was a fair application of the

interpretation.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

[5:00 p.m.]

M. Lee: Under this provision…. The use of the term “foreign enactment” was

something that was discussed during the briefing. I’d just like to have the

minister respond, in the context of this committee proceeding, as to some

examples where foreign enactments are actually the case in our B.C.

legislation. If he could share with the House some examples where that

occurs.

Hon. D. Eby: You learn something new every day. I thank the member for the question

because it’s enlightening.

I would have said that this was in relation to

interpretation of

contracts, but it turns out that we do adopt foreign enactments in B.C. In

particular, as an example, we have incorporated Environmental Protection Agency

regulations from the United States, around wood stoves, in our legislation here

in British Columbia. In addition, previously, British Columbia has incorporated

emission standards for cars similar to California.

So those are a couple of examples around technical environmental

standards that have been adopted in domestic B.C. regulation that are foreign

enactments.

M. Lee: On this same provision, under the proposed amendment in subsections (2),

(3) and (4), there are provisions relating to domestic enactments. I’m just

wondering — the nature in which those sections are drafted — whether they are

applicable as well to foreign enactments.

Hon. D. Eby: No, (2), (3) and (4) refer to domestic enactments and should not be read

to include foreign enactments.

M. Lee: There’s no need, then, to have those subs (2), (3) and (4) in the case

of foreign enactments?

Hon. D. Eby: The member has picked up on a distinction in how British Columbia treats

domestic enactments versus foreign enactments. We adopt foreign enactments on a

static basis. So as of the day that the law or regulation comes into force, the

enactment as it stood on that day in the foreign jurisdiction is as if it’s

frozen in time in British Columbia in terms of application here.

Domestic enactments are adopted on a rolling basis. That means that as

the federal government updates their laws or amends their laws or regulations

and we’ve incorporated it into B.C. legislation, or another province does so or

British Columbia does so, that is incorporated on a go-forward basis. It’s the

current version of the statute domestically.

It is a different treatment between the two laws, and that’s a

distinction that the member has rightly picked up on.

M. Lee: Just a small footnote, while we’re at it. The consideration of Bill 11,

which the Attorney General tabled for first reading in the House yesterday,

does refer to UNCITRAL in terms of the model of arbitration that’s

there.

[5:05 p.m.]

I presume that that might be considered to be a foreign enactment.

That’s my first question. If so, what the Attorney General just ran through is

something to consider in terms of it wouldn’t be a live

interpretation. It

would be something that would be static. That may be a question we come back to

in the context of discussing Bill 11, but I just want to note that and see if

the Attorney General had any comment at this time.

Hon. D. Eby: Bill 11 — and we will definitely address that in committee stage — is an

example of us incorporating a model law from the UN, UNCITRAL. I’m trying to

think of the full acronym. It’s the UN body that deals with international

arbitration rules.

The bill actually takes that model law and adopts pieces of it for

British Columbia. It becomes a B.C. statute. It is a domestic piece of

legislation. If Bill 11 said British Columbia adopts the model statute of

UNCITRAL, the member, I think, would be right. I mean, the UN is kind of

different. It would be a foreign enactment. It’s not a British Columbia

enactment, and it would be adopted in a static way.

I don’t know if it’s the best example because it’s not actually a

country. But that particular bill is actually an adoption of the model law in

its entirety. It becomes a domestic statute. So not the best example of a

foreign enactment.

A better enactment — I’ll just draw on staff again — would be where the

B.C. regulation says that B.C. adopts the EPA standards for wood stoves. That

would be a foreign enactment frozen in time, and it wouldn’t be up to…. If the

EPA later changed their wood stove regulation, we would still have the old

version until such time as B.C. updated its statutes.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

M. Lee: I know that we just had the conversation about the example where

extending time, under subsection 25(4), for example…. The analysis had been

done. I just want to note it in the discussion of this particular

section.

Perhaps the Attorney General could summarize, just for the sake of this

particular provision, that that modelling has been done by staff and that the

purpose is something that the ministry feels is fair to individuals who are

dealing with this particular provision as they need to.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. There is a policy change in the repeal and

replacement of

section 25, and it’s reflected in the proposed

section 25(4).

That provision requires that if a period begins or ends on a day when the

business office in which something must be done is regularly closed and the

reference day is after the period, the thing must be done on the previous day

that the business office is open during its regular hours.

The purpose of this is to allow people who are bound by legal

instruments other than enactments to agree to apply the new provision and,

failing agreement, applies the old provision to instruments that have

unfulfilled obligations on the day this

section comes into force.

The purpose of the second transitional provision is to apply the former

rule to determinations at the beginning or the end of periods of time if the

reference day occurs before the day this

section comes into force.

Sections 8 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

M. Lee: In terms of the amendments to the Cooperative Association Act, I just

have a few questions to the minister in that respect. First of all, I will

point out that….

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: We have different staff for this section. It’s Ministry of Finance. I

just wanted to thank Dawn Leroy and Tyler Nyvall for their assistance in those

initial sections. We’re bringing in the Ministry of Finance staff just to

assist me here. I welcome Jill Sinkwich to join me here from the Ministry of

Finance for these sections. We’re good to go.

M. Lee: Just to start, just a minor typo that could be addressed is under the

amendment subsection 36(e), the reference to “by adding the following

subsection.” Sub (3) should be (iii) as opposed to the number 3. I believe,

when you look at the actual legislation, that sub (iii) is what would be

reflected, just from a numbering format point of view.

Hon. D. Eby: We’ll have a look at that. I believe that that is actually correct, the

36. You see sub (1), sub (2) and sub (3) that are not Roman numerals. The

current draft in the bill — sub (3) is actually the third major subsection and

does not modify 36(2)(e), as Roman numeral (

i) and (ii) do.

We’ll have a quick confirmation of that, but that’s our understanding.

If the member has other questions on this section, then I’d welcome them while

staff have a quick look. If not, we’ll just take a second and confirm

that.

M. Lee: Just moving on to some questions. Under 36(2)(e), under the proposed

amendment, makes reference to prescribed conditions. There is a subsequent

amendment that we’ll be reviewing coming up under

section 19 of this amendment

act, but I’d just like to discuss what types of prescribed conditions might be

applicable here in terms of termination of a particular member?

Hon. D. Eby: An example of an intended condition is the condition that the housing

cooperative pay filing fees to the court, and then they may ultimately get

those fees paid back. But that is an example of a prescribed condition that is

reasonable to anticipate under a

section like this.

M. Lee: The change to broaden the reference to a person whose membership in an

association under subsection (

a) of 36…. When we look at the definition of

“member” in the act, it includes a joint member. When this provision is amended

under the proposed amendment, I wonder whether there’s any need to pick up this

term, “joint member,” in terms of how, presumably, individuals or persons….

Persons, of course, are not just defined as individual persons but can include

other

definitions. Is there any contemplation of that as the ministry might

have reviewed this particular proposal?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The intention behind this change is to make

section 36 consistent with

section 37, which also refers to a person rather than a member. Part of the

reason for this is that if an individual’s membership is terminated, they are

no longer a member. They are a person. To avoid confusion between sections

where there are different terms and also for greater accuracy, referring to a

person with membership in an association — as opposed to a member, because the

member may be terminated — was thought to be more helpful.

The member raised an interesting question about joint membership, where

two individuals may hold one membership. The

section is intended to capture

that, because the effect would be the same. It would be a person whose

membership is proposed to be terminated even in a joint scenario.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

section 19.

M. Lee: This provision of the Cooperative Association Act provides under

section

211 the power to make regulations. Are there any particular limitations on this

power-making authority in terms of the types of conditions?

The Attorney General has given a helpful example of a prescribed

condition, but perhaps he could share with the House a little more in terms of

the thinking around when this particular regulation-making power would be

applicable to the kinds of provisions of that act?

Hon. D. Eby: The member rightly notes that this is an ancillary provision to the

section that we’ve already discussed providing a regulation-making power in

relation to these conditions. I can advise the member that the only condition

that we’re currently considering is in relation to requiring the cooperative to

pay court fees in advance, as a condition. That’s something that we’re looking

at doing.

The member is right. It could include other conditions, and one would

assume that those would be in relation to protecting the interests of a member

whose membership is being considered here, ensuring fairness in that process if

there was some sort of an issue that was raised. But this

section is currently

only contemplated to provide…. Well, the only condition we’re currently

considering is in relation to the court fee issue, but it could potentially be

used for other conditions before termination.

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

M. Lee: Just getting down to the Building Act amendment here. This is, again,

something that there’s been some discussion about. I’d like, for the purpose of

the record, to give the opportunity to the minister to describe the purpose for

having the Regulations Act not apply to the building regulation under the

proposed amendment, sub (3).

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I’d like to introduce that I have Jarrett Hutchinson here today with me

— he’s the director of building regulations — as we move through this part of

this bill.

Section 20 speaks to disapplying the requirement to have the…. The

disapplication of the building regulation requires publication of a notice in

the Gazette if a building regulation is enacted, amended, repealed or

replaced.

M. Lee: I note, of course, and agree that is one part of this proposed

amendment. I suppose one area of concern might be when the Regulations Act is

no longer applicable to building regulation. Under the Regulations Act,

section

2, it states that before a regulation is enacted, it must be submitted for

examination to a person designated by the minister.

Without that review, would that suggest…? In the area of building

regulation, what will be the impact in terms of removing that

oversight?

Hon. S. Robinson: Part of what goes on in developing a building act is sort of a whole

national process that occurs. It’s pretty significant, it’s pretty rigorous,

and it’s pretty technical. So these codes, because they’re highly technical,

they’re regulations consisting…. Our regulations consist of about 95 percent of

the model national codes. Part of what happens is that it’s already gone

through a very rigorous process.

The proposed legislation will amend those three existing acts to state

that the Regulations Act does not apply to these codes. There’s a significant

amount of legislative time that goes into this additional review that isn’t

really necessary. The legislative review is still available should there be

certainly some challenges or some concerns, so we can make sure that that

happens.

Again, this is sort of an additional process when it’s actually already

gone through a very significant process nationally.

M. Lee: Just to clarify, when the minister states 95 percent, can you give the

sense of the other 5 percent? What does that pertain to?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m very proud of the fact that B.C. is forward-thinking and very

progressive around some of our building standards. In things like wood-frame

construction, we’re a little bit further ahead than the national code.

are a couple of examples of where there’s a little bit of extra effort that we

go into our building.

M. Lee: This will not preclude the ability, of course, of the government to

continue to develop local standards, just without that Regulations Act

applying. Just to confirm that this should not impair that ability to continue

to develop local standards in that matter.

Hon. S. Robinson: Absolutely not.

Section 20 approved.

section 21.

M. Lee: A similar question, in terms of the confirmation of the purpose of

removing the applicability of the Regulations Act in the way that’s being

proposed.

Hon. S. Robinson: The building code is under

section 20, and the Fire Services Act is

under

section 21. It applies in the same way, for the same reason.

[5:25 p.m.]

M. Lee: For

section 21, in terms of the Fire Services Act, it’s the same

rationale? If we can just give a little more explanation for the rationale for

that.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the question. Yes, it’s for the same rationale. It’s gone

through a very rigorous process nationally. It’s already been through a

legislative review nationally.

To go through and use up staff time here to do it yet again when it’s

all been a work-through is not the best use of resources. I’m sure the member

opposite agrees. This is another way of being more efficient with the resources

that we have, given that it’s all already been identified and reviewed,

legislatively, nationally.

M. Lee: Just as we say that, is there any periodic subsequent review — once it’s

established as to whether those regulations, safety and otherwise; even though

I appreciate they’re national standards — just to ensure in terms of whether

those standards are the ones that British Columbia would want to have in place

or whether we’d want to have a higher standard.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the member that British Columbia engages in the

national process so that when it comes back nationally we’re comfortable with

what comes back. But should there be a time when British Columbia chooses to

move a little bit more forward, we certainly have the opportunity to be more

stringent.

Sections 21 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 7, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[5:30 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — COMMUNITY CARE AND

ASSISTED LIVING AMENDMENT ACT,

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. A. Dix: I move second reading of the Community Care and Assisted Living

Amendment Act, 2018, Bill 5.

We know that families want access to as much information as possible to

make the best choices for their children, parents and other loved ones. The

legislation, Bill 5, has been introduced because we know families want access

to that information to ensure, under all circumstances, that they know what we

know when they’re making choices, whether it’s putting their child in child

care or supporting family members as they might enter assisted living or

long-term care.

In the past, they did not always have access to the details they needed,

as we know. Information on licensed community care facilities and registered

assisted-living residences can sometimes be difficult to find under the current

statutes. A family may not know if there have been any investigations or

substantiated complaints about the loc