Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Thursday, November

9, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 41 — FOREST STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 41; S. Chant in the chair.

The committee met at 1:12 p.m.

On clause 38 (continued) .

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

Amendment Act, 2023, to order. We are on clause 38.

M. Morris: We're going to carry on looking at these objectives set by government and the application

of 52.05 to this. The first question I've got, though…. In going through the legislation,

I noticed

section 81.1 provides primarily the same authority. That, I believe, is

an amendment from way back about 2007. Was it ever enacted by regulation? Has it ever

been brought into force since it was put into the act?

Hon. B. Ralston: Yes, there was B.C. regulation 252/2018 that was issued pursuant to this section,

to the

section 81.1.

M. Morris: Thank you for that.

I know I've had numerous folks into my office and contacting me because of my interest

in forestry over the years, and biodiversity — situations where we've had ribbons

over top of ribbons over top of ribbons and a lot of cutting permits issued. I believe

a lot of the licensees felt that the district managers didn't have any authority to

intervene unless there was an obvious contravention, and by that time, it was too

late to do anything because the trees are down and whatever is done has been done.

[1:15 p.m.]

That's why I applaud this particular

section coming in. I think it's been a pervasive

problem throughout the province. That's why I'm sort of focusing on this one and putting

a lot of emphasis on this as the catch-all. I look at situations in my riding where

the Chilako River watershed has an ECA of over 90 percent. That was confirmed by the

main licensee working in the area and one of the other persons there as well as private

consultants.

I'm wondering. How in the world were cutting permits ever allowed to proceed when

the ECA was at that 80 or 90 percent range for decades? Still today there have been

blocks logged within the last two or three years. That's why I'm emphasizing or focusing

on this section, thinking that this might be the opportunity to start holding some

of these licensees to account for this kind of behaviour where we get these ECAs that

high.

Now, the objectives set by government. There are a number of them under the regulations,

but I'm just going to talk to a couple of them — objectives set by government for

wildlife. I guess before I go into this one, I'm going to go on a bit of perhaps a

rant. Some people might feel that. I think I mentioned this in my discussion during

second reading.

What happens to wildlife that are in a block that is going to be harvested? The simple

answer is they die. It's either in the process of logging that they die. There are

81 species of wildlife that den or nest in tree cavities in the province. A lot of

them that are contained in those cavities at the time harvesting takes place will

die. And there's a lot of movement of the logs and whatnot. Nests are destroyed. A

lot of things happen during that period of time.

The animals that are fortunate enough to escape…. There might be some primary forest

adjacent to the cut block. They will escape into that primary forest. But just about

every wildlife species that we have out there is territorial, and they'll fight to

the death for that territory that they're in. So there's no net gain of wildlife going

into that primary forest beside them.

The animals that aren't so fortunate and end up in an area that's been harvested and

the habitat hasn't grown back — they die as well. There's no food source for them.

So basically, those animals die.

These objectives set by government for wildlife were established back in the early

2000s. We have harvested a significant amount of area in British Columbia since the

2000s. But since the '60s, we've been clearcutting, and that wildlife has disappeared.

A lot of these wildlife species that we have in B.C. require primary forests in order

to survive and procreate and carry on with life. I think that's why we're hearing

such a voice from conservationists throughout the province when they see the very

little primary forest that is left, knowing that the species that are residing in

that area can't live anywhere else and they'll die. It took 200, 300, 400, 500 years

for those primary forests to get to the point where they will maintain those species.

When I look at the objectives set by government, and I'll have a couple of questions

on here for wildlife, the objective set by government for wildlife is to conserve

sufficient wildlife habitat in terms of amount of areas, distribution of areas and

attributes of those areas for the survival of species at risk.

Now, that's a legal term, species at risk. It's got to be designated as a species

at risk. And (

b) is the survival of regionally important wildlife and then the winter

survival of specified ungulate species. I guess I'm going to ask a question with respect

to that one objective, because it's important in the context that we're looking at.

What is the definition of "regionally important wildlife"?

[1:20 p.m. - 1:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I just want to emphasize once again that the legal ambit of this particular clause

is quite narrow.

The provincial objectives under

section 52.05 are not the same as the provincial objectives

under the Forest and Range Practices Act. In order to be an objective under this section,

52.05, a new regulation would be required.

The BCTS, B.C. Timber Sales, regulation that I referred to earlier is the only provincial

objective for refusal. The mandatory provision was developed when there was no discretion

under the previous regime. So with the new authority, the requirement to consider

the management of forest resources will enable consideration of broader attributes.

But that's under other aspects of the legislation, not under this one.

I hope that's clear.

M. Morris: Perhaps not entirely clear.

Under this section, "Cutting permits," it says that one of the responsibilities and

one of the things that needs to be considered by the minister is the "management and

conservation of forest resources," which are biodiversity and wildlife and all those

things that we talked about yesterday as well. And 52.05 says: "The minister must

refuse to issue a cutting permit (

a) if the minister determines that, taking into

account the prescribed matters, if any, issuance of the cutting permit would compromise

a prescribed government objective," or in other prescribed circumstances, I suppose.

From my

interpretation of this, it is pretty broad. The minister's response tends

to make me think that this is a hot potato issue where you toss it from one person

or one office to the other, because nobody really wants to deal with it.

Is the minister now telling me that the objective set by government under the planning

and practices regulations doesn't apply to 3.1 of this particular amendment?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Division has been called in the main chamber. We will recess until we return. Try

and be prompt on returning. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 1:29 p.m. to 1:50 p.m.

[S. Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 41, the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2023,

back to order. We are on clause 38.

Interjection.

The Chair: We're waiting on an answer. Very good. Thank you so much.

Hon. B. Ralston: Let me respond in the following manner. The mandatory-refusal provision in this

section

had only one provincial objective. That's the B.C. Timber Sales objective that I referred

to earlier.

What I want to say and add to that is that the new discretionary authority will reduce

the need for prescribed regulations for government objectives, as conflicting resource

values will now be able to be addressed either through the ability to impose conditions

or, if the conditions cannot mitigate the conflict, the refusal of the cutting permit.

M. Morris: This is presuming that the process in place sufficiently addresses all the other objectives

set by government in this

section here. What about those cutting permits that may

have already been approved, where new information comes to light?

Section 52.05 talks about refusing to issue a permit in the first place. By the time

it gets to this particular stage, what other authorities have refused to issue a permit,

to the point where all these other offices that the minister has referenced…? By the

time it gets to this particular section, what would have happened in the process that

would have brought it to this level where the minister has to refuse it, if it already

has been refused by every area of responsibility prior to arriving to this section's

responsibilities?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The cutting permit can only be initiated if the forest stewardship plan or the forest

landscape planning process permits it. After April 1, 2024, if it's identifiable as

a region or area on the forest operations map, then the application is made. It's

not going through a series of desks to a range of different people; it's one delegated

decision-maker. Then the decision is made.

The other aspect of the question was: how long is a permit good for, in the sense

of how long is it valid for? Until four years. There will be, in the system, cutting

permits that have been issued that were made under the old rules.

[2:00 p.m.]

There are very exceptional circumstances where an issued permit could be altered.

That's quite rare, and it involves an application of rarely used powers. In practical

terms, the new regime will lead to the new considerations, and the cutting permits

going forward will be subject to the legislative amendments that this bill will bring

about.

M. Morris: I think it's becoming clearer to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong. So 52.03 states that the minister must consider the impacts

that timber harvesting and road construction would have on the management and conservation

of forest resources, cultural heritage resources, public health and safety and prescribed

matters.

Then 52.04 speaks to an applicant applying for a cutting permit and being required

to provide information, plans, studies or analyses that the minister considers will

assist him in making his decision. Then the next step is 52.05, where the minister

must refuse to issue a permit if the minister determines that, taking into account

the prescribed matters, issuance of the cutting permit would compromise a prescribed

government objective.

In my mind, somebody applies for the permit, the minister considers the impact under

the conservation of forest resources, cultural heritage, etc., and then he asks for

the supplying of technical expertise. Then, based on that, he makes a decision under

52.05. But he will refuse it if there's a possibility that it will compromise a prescribed

government objective. Is this the right process?

Hon. B. Ralston: I agree with the member to some degree. But 52.05 is separate, in the sense that it's

not a discretion; it's mandatory. If there's a breach of that prescribed circumstance,

which is the one regulation applying to B.C. Timber Sales, then the process stops

there.

The decision-maker is obliged to not issue a permit. In the sequence of events for

the decision tree, for the decision-maker, it's very likely, although it's not prescribed,

that the decision-maker would look at that first and say: "Well, if this kills the

permit, then I don't have to go into the other considerations."

Then the sequence that you've set out…. All the other provisions are open to the consideration

by the decision-maker. There is a discretion to request documents, and if the decision-maker

decides that those documents are necessary, they must be provided, and then the decision

is made. A permit can be refused, can be granted, or it can be granted with a range

of conditions.

M. Morris: Would it be the same person, then…? As per 52.03, somebody applies for a permit, the

minister considers the impact of timber harvesting and road construction — the management

of conservation, forest resources, all those kinds of things — and then they look

at the technical things coming in, the planning, studies, analysis and whatnot, and

then they make a decision under 52.05.

If everything is good, 52.05 doesn't apply. They can issue a permit. But under 52.05,

if anything in the process has been compromised, then the minister must refuse to

issue a permit?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I think what may be a little bit misleading here is just that the sequence of the

amendments is not the sequence in which the decision would likely be made. The 52.05

consideration would very likely come at the beginning. It's mandatory. If the application

doesn't pass that hurdle, then it's dead. You wouldn't want to engage in all the other

considerations, then to come to 52.05 and say it doesn't pass that hurdle instead.

I think it's very likely, in the decision tree, that that would be put up front in

the process, then the other considerations would take place. And it is one decision-maker

who would have all that information and exercise their statutory discretion — yes,

no, or approved with conditions.

M. Morris: Okay. I'll be watching with interest when these are brought into force and see how

the process works. And as the minister says, him too. We do have a situation out there

that I think is reaching a critical state with respect to loss of habitat and wildlife

populations across the province.

Turning to 52.06, this one's pretty direct. The minister must refuse to issue a cutting

permit if not satisfied that conditions under 14.2(2) are met, which is that they

have to look around and get existing residuals, the way I understand it, from different

licensees that are processing wood or pulp.

If timber and wood residue is available anywhere in the province, would this be a

factor considered by the minister in making a determination under this section?

Hon. B. Ralston: I'm advised that this requirement is to ensure that the supplemental forest licence

is not being abused, as the purpose of this form of licence is to provide an alternate

source of fibre on an infrequent basis. For example, where the holder typically requires

fibre through the open market or traditional business-to-business arrangements but,

for reasons beyond their control, these sources are not available.

The member had an additional question whether that would be for fibre anywhere in

the province. It would have to be on an economic basis. You couldn't source from somewhere

which was not economic. That permit wouldn't be issued in those cases.

[2:10 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Just a couple of quick comments. First of all, thank you again to the minister for

indulging us with the answers to these questions. I think it's really important.

As we're going through this process, we're actually talking about all the technical

requirements. We've heard very succinctly from the minister — not to put words in

the minister's mouth — that looking at this, the intent is to try to bring more certainty

around the permitting process and the requirements within that. I would argue, I guess,

that companies and people who are making the application process would actually understand,

maybe, a little bit more succinctly what those requirements are.

Does the minister see through this process, through this bill, not necessarily the

speed…. We know the speed of permitting can be a challenge, but with this specific

section, especially around the permitting aspects of the requirements, does the minister

see more permits going out for forestry? Or does he see, maybe, that this is going

to lessen the amount of permits that will be going out in forestry activity?

Hon. B. Ralston: There are a couple of provisions of the amendments that will alter the process and

have an impact on it.

One will be the ability to ask for more information and compel the production of that

information. Where there is uncertainty about whether to proceed, providing additional

information will help resolve doubt, or not, on the part of the statutory decision-maker.

The other ability will be the ability to impose conditions. In the past, where there

was a clash, it's either yes or no. Sometimes the result would be for the decision-maker

simply to hesitate to go forward, and that would extend the permitting time.

The impact, overall, will not be, I think, appreciable one way or the other. What

we're hoping for and expecting is that the quality of the decisions that are made

will be better, and the decisions on the margin, the ones that have been more difficult

to make, will be resolved more easily.

M. Bernier: I think that's a very fair answer from the minister.

What kind of consultation…? Not to go deep into it, but I'm thinking as we're talking

about some of the changes here. The minister has acknowledged that…. Through the different

processes that are required here, especially on specific qualifications, I understand

we're trying to get to a place where everybody plays by the same rules, where everybody

understands what the requirements are. This would, hopefully, help expedite the permitting

process — when complete applications come in with all the requirements.

Looking at that, what analysis was done from a cost perspective or communication,

let's say, with a lot of the present tenure holders, knowing that maybe — just throwing

this out there — some were already achieving all of the requirements under this new

legislation piece, and maybe some weren't?

[2:15 p.m.]

Now that it's under this — as it goes through and will, presumably, be passed — will

that add extra cost to some of our tenure holders that weren't meeting these requirements

in the past? What kind of discussion took place around that?

Hon. B. Ralston: Just on the question of costs, there is already a committee dealing with licensees,

assuming that this bill passes and when it passes, to implement it with a minimum

amount of disruption. One, I think, is always aware that when there's a change, there's

sometimes inevitable slippage. For most operators, the costs will not increase.

Many of the reports that the decision-maker will now be able to request are from only

a minority of applicants who do not submit them — for example, the site plan. They're

obliged to prepare a site plan, but some of them, when they're asked to share it,

refuse. So it won't cost them any more. They'll just be obliged to share it. That

may make the process go a little bit more quickly.

I'm also advised that 75 percent of the permits are issued within 45 days.

M. Morris: For 52.07, I just wonder if the minister can give an example of a master licence to

cut and an example of what written authorization from government would override the

provisions of this

section to allow the minister to refuse to issue a cutting permit.

Hon. B. Ralston: This is a fairly special case of a licence. Master licences are issued in relation

to oil and gas purposes and are issued by the regulator — I think that's the Energy

Regulator, as it's now called — as a specified provision under the Energy Resources

Activity Act, formerly the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

This provision restricts the issuance of cutting permits to holders of master licences

to cut where the occupation of Crown land is identified in the cutting permit and

it's authorized in writing by government or is authorized under an another enactment

and harvesting is authorized as a prescribed purpose, such as constructing or operating

a pipeline.

[2:20 p.m.]

M. Morris: Thanks for the answer.

On to 52.08. It outlines the required content of cutting permits. Under subsection

(6), it states that the conditions referred to in sub (5) may include limitations,

I'm wondering if the minister could give us an overview of what that is. Does it include

OGMAs, riparian areas, wildlife retention areas, etc., or is this looking at old-growth

retention areas or something new?

Hon. B. Ralston: The examples that the member gives are the right ones in the sense that those are

things that the statutory decision–maker could specify not be harvested. The only

other provision that I would say is that in the past, those decisions have been done

by relying on reports in a professional reliance model. This will be a decision of

the statutory decision-maker who will specify, in issuing the permit, those areas

where the prohibition against harvesting is to be observed.

M. Morris: In other words, the decision-maker will be spatializing these areas as part of the

cutting permit.

The other question I have with respect to this…. I've had woodland managers in my

office where we're trying to sort out the issue of ribbons over top of ribbons over

top of ribbons, where one operator would go in, and they would leave a retention area,

and somebody else would come in two, three, five years later and take that retention

area and whatnot.

When we have multiple operators in the same geographical area…. One will get a cutting

permit with designated retention areas that might fall under this particular section,

and then a short time later, maybe that retention area was left because it had wildlife

trees or something in it. But then another operator will come in and take an area

that has been left.

What I've been witnessing now…. I drive the resource roads through the Prince George

TSA on a regular basis. Now what's happening is a lot of the retention areas that

were left — and they're small; 15 hectares, 22 hectares and whatnot — are now disappearing.

They've been taken, even though they were left originally for wildlife habitat or

some other lawful purpose under the act. I'm wondering if these things are taken into

consideration under 52.08.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The short answer is yes. Under the new scheme that's being set out, the statutory

decision–maker could say a retention area cannot be logged when a new permit is issued.

So it might very well address, in some respects, the problem that the member has raised.

M. Morris: I guess one more follow-up to that, with clause 38. Then those will be our questions

for that clause.

permit may set requirements or restrictions more stringent than the requirements and

conditions that apply to the holder under this act, FRPA or the Wildfire Act.

I'm just thinking here. When we see licensees that cut during the period when…. Under

the Migratory Birds Convention Act, it's unlawful to disturb a nest or egg of a migratory

bird like robins and any bird that flies south for the winter from May until August

in British Columbia. Yet we see logging activity taking place during that period of

time.

Although the migratory bird act says you can't disturb a nest or egg during this period

of time…, I've never seen licensees have their wildlife biologists going in to make

sure that there are no nests in place in these areas. Would this be a position where

they can bring this requirement into a permit?

Hon. B. Ralston: The short answer is yes. It would give the authorities new tools to balance some competing

values and interests, particularly issues that may be raised by First Nations during

the consultation process.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

They've given me a number of examples here. I'll share them with the member, because

I think they're illustrative of the effect of this provision.

Authority could be used to establish machine-free areas for retaining vegetation,

reducing noise, reducing soil disturbance, and others, to protect wildlife values.

These include car stereos, denning trees, berry patches.

Specified timing windows to protect wildlife at critical times of the year — spawning

fish, breeding, calving, hibernation — that are associated with specific locations

or types of locations. Streams, den sites.

Prevent soil compaction and damaged understory vegetation, which can impact important

food resources for wildlife such as bears — such as, for example, huckleberry — and

ungulates. Shrubs used for browsing.

Mitigate noise impacts on wildlife species that communicate by sound. For example,

breeding birds and ungulates during the rut.

Require low-impact road construction to allow for easy road deactivation to address

wildlife habitat concerns.

Those are some of the examples that are provided to me as to how this policy might

be applied.

Clause 38 approved.

On clause 39.

[2:30 p.m.]

M. Morris: Clause 39 repeals the new clause that was under 38, 52.05. It now introduces a new

52.05. It's a little bit more complete than the 52.05 under clause 38.

I will mention that clause 40, once again, amends clause 52.05. So we have an amendment

to the amendment to the amendment here. I'm just curious as to what precipitated this.

And was it not possible to do it under 38 only, and whatnot, or is it all part of

the transition process that the minister has in mind?

Hon. B. Ralston: The suggestion that these are amendments to amendments to amendments is accurate.

A previous set of amendments included commencement dates. Those were not enacted,

so it's necessary, in order to launch the new scheme, to amend those previous amendments

that were not enacted.

This amendment gives effect to the proposed amendment in the Forest and Range Practices

Act, 2019. The purpose of that amendment, I'm told, is to maintain the integrity of

the new forest landscape planning framework under the Forest and Range Practices Act

by ensuring that cutting permits will not be issued if the planning requirements have

not been met. The first element of the new forest landscape planning framework will

be coming into force on April 1, 2024.

Clauses 39 to 42 inclusive approved.

On clause 43.

M. Bernier: Could the minister indulge me and just explain a little bit here? It'll probably help

me for questions I might have down the road.

In 53.3, added here, under division 2 of

part 4, it's talking about cutting permits

and how they're going to be treated. The wording of it — I'm hoping you can explain

to me what that actually means. A cutting permit issued for an agreement "is to be

treated as if the cutting permit formed part of the agreement." Can you explain the

terminology there for me?

Hon. B. Ralston: This amendment ensures that cutting permits can't be disposed of — that is, sold or

transferred — independently from the agreement to which it relates. Currently cutting

permits are considered part of the agreement and can't be separated from the agreement.

This amendment maintains the status quo.

Clauses 43 to 54 inclusive approved.

On clause 55.

[2:35 p.m.]

M. Bernier: This is where I'm trying to understand the question I previously asked on 53. If a

cutting permit issued for an agreement is to be treated as if the cutting permit formed

part of the agreement — we talked about that — as per the amendment under 43, why

do we need amendments under this clause, where a minister can suspend the rights under

the agreement, cutting permit or both? Wouldn't it be enough just to suspend the rights

under the agreement?

Hon. B. Ralston: Dealing with the previous provisions where the agreement and the cutting permit were

deemed to be one agreement, indivisible, for the purposes of sale and transfer…. For

other purposes, they're deemed to be divided. So it's a question of what purpose you're

looking at the agreement for. For these purposes, they're separate.

M. Bernier: Hearing the answer from the minister, does that mean that if they can be differentiated

or separated, can one be traded off, sold differently? Or are they still kind of combined

as part of the permit process, even though what we just heard is that they're separate?

Hon. B. Ralston: Even though they are two separate, for the purposes of a proposed sale, they can't

be divided. They have to be considered as one indivisible agreement. So for that purpose,

you could not achieve the purpose that you've set out.

Clauses 55 to 63 inclusive approved.

On clause 64.

M. Bernier: Only 120 more clauses to go after this one.

In clause 64 here, this is another change, I guess, amended by adding…. It's all around

compensation. I look at this as more of the liability aspect to government, based

on some of the changes that are being made.

Can the minister explain…? Has this been an issue — where companies or tenure holders

or people with permits are coming back to government, asking for compensation for

money they've invested if a permit has been declined? Why would this

section have

to be added?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Because the scheme introduces the discretion to refuse a permit, this

section then

becomes necessary to shield the government and the decision-maker from requiring to

compensate the person or the applicant who did not get the permit that they applied

for. So compensation wouldn't be available in relation to conditions imposed on cutting

or road permits, as conditions are necessary for the industry to harvest or construct

roads while also protecting resources or First Nations values.

The alternative of any of the conditions imposed is a refusal of the permit. So neither

a refusal nor the imposition of a condition would lead to a circumstance where there

would be an opportunity or a legal opportunity to seek compensation from the government.

M. Bernier: This might be an unfair question for the minister — and he can acknowledge that, if

so — because it's asking outside of his purview of his ministry, but maybe his staff

could help. With this wording that's put in to try to hold government in a position

where they're not going to be financially liable, is this similar, maybe we'll say,

in other resource-sector portfolios, such as mining, oil and gas — other resource-based

industries that actually look for permitting through government?

I'm trying to make sure that…. I hate to say everybody on a fair playing field, in

the sense of it's a different resource base. But I'm curious if that's a similar kind

of wording that other industries have to follow.

Hon. B. Ralston: The legal structure of the forest tenure arrangements is different from other resource

industries because the forest…. This legislation will change this, but previously

the forest tenure would include the right to a cutting permit which could not be refused.

The cutting permit process is being taken out of the tenure. So it will be a separate

process that will involve the discretion that we've discussed. That will be a major

shift for tenure holders.

[2:45 p.m.]

Just for clarity, because the holding of a tenure might create an expectation that

you're, as in the past, automatically entitled to a permit, that will no longer be

the case.

Clauses 64 to 66 inclusive approved.

On clause 67.

M. Bernier: In clause 67, we've got basically a whole section, 81, repealed, substituted.

In here, there are quite a few references to a tenure holder or an applicant, I guess,

where it talks about failing to comply in the past. I didn't see, and maybe the minister

can reference it for me, how far back we go. Are we talking as far as the tenure holder

has been applying to the government? Are we talking the last two years? Five years?

There are a couple of references, like I say, that an applicant or a related person,

if the applicant has failed to comply in the past or failed to pay in the past…. Is

there a statute of limitations on this, or is it basically the entire company's history?

Hon. B. Ralston: This policy is intended to deal with what I think, within the district offices, would

be people or companies that have performed poorly in the past. They're generally known.

There's no real statute of limitations as to how far back they might reach. But a

very egregious violation a long time ago might have more impact than a minor violation

more recently. That would be for the discretion of the issuer of the permit.

Should it become an issue, it puts government on the same basis as business. If someone

has a record and you don't particularly regard them as a reliable business partner,

you may choose not to deal with them. This gives the government the right to do that.

So I think it's relatively straightforward in that sense.

Clauses 67 to 90 inclusive approved.

On clause 91.

[2:50 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Look how quickly we're moving along all of a sudden — so fast that I have to actually

flip my book back to where we were going now, with 91.

In clause 91, what's prompted the addition of failing to deactivate a road under the

road permit, to be liable for these fines? Like, we're talking about fines now coming

in. We'll have some specific questions and discussion we'd like to do around some

of these roads. But maybe we could start with that one, because there are actually

some changes here that we want to talk about in that area.

Hon. B. Ralston: This amendment is to clarify that people who don't follow the road deactivation rules

are liable to a penalty. There are, I'm told, two types of roads. One is a road, which

would be issued by road permit, from a road that goes to a cutblock. Then within the

cutblock, there are separate roads. Those are covered by a cutting permit. This is

dealing with roads under a road permit.

[2:55 p.m.]

M. Bernier: In tying to reference back between the changes in this bill and, of course, the present

bill, some of the changes can get a little bit tricky. I always look forward to after

something like this passes, and it's all put together in one piece.

I'm curious, though. When the minister is talking about those specific roadways….

I think we all live this, especially and obviously in rural parts of British Columbia

where the forestry activity takes place…. We all know of different roads that might

come off of a primary or secondary highway even and heading off into the back country

into a cutblock.

Where is the criteria or decision-making, though, when it comes to a deactivation

process? Is it the minister's view that every logging road, after it's at a cutblock

and that tenure is no longer being accessed, must be deactivated? What is the process

on determination around that?

Hon. B. Ralston: The basic principle is that a road, after it's been used for the purpose of harvesting

or logging, is to be deactivated, but there are continuing obligations. Sometimes

the road is needed for silviculture work, so you need access to the site. Then the

obligation remains on the company to deactivate when that work is finished.

A company can apply to be relieved of its obligation to deactivate, and there's a

process for that. It very much depends on the local circumstance as to what work may

be required to be done and whether the tenure holder has fulfilled their obligations

in relation to the cutblock that they've harvested.

M. Bernier: Has there been any thought process, then, to look at how other jurisdictions operate

in this sphere? I understand and appreciate what the minister said on what we've done

in the past, what we continue to do when it comes to…. Once the access by the tenure

holder is no longer needed, we look at the deactivation.

[3:00 p.m.]

There are a lot of other countries or provinces that look at, sometimes, the requirements

of those roads to be accessed for possible future — hopefully not, but they happen

— firefighting access, recreational purposes, First Nation cultural purposes. How

does that kind of come into the equation?

I understand right now what the minister is saying, because there's the liability

aspect and requirement of that road network that was built by the company or tenure

holder for access to the cutblock. Has there ever been a thought process, through

this minister or government, that there could be a greater social requirement to keep

that road network, even though it could have been built by a company — that maybe

the province would consider taking it over?

Hon. B. Ralston: There is a real debate about road policy and the use of roads. Typically…. There are

those who want the roads deactivated because they don't want the traffic. They don't

want, sometimes, the hunters that come in through the road network. They're very clear

that they want the road deactivated,

whereas there is….

The department does have all the tools that are necessary to make those kinds of decisions.

Those who have the road and want to be relieved of the obligation to maintain it and

the liability that comes with that can make a case that there are alternate uses,

community uses that the member has referred to.

There is a real debate sometimes in regions about whether you want the road open or

closed, and who wants it. It's typically the people that aren't paying for it that

are happy to have it open, and the people that are paying want to have it closed so

they can be relieved of the financial obligation.

But it is a real debate, and I think you've touched on an important point there.

M. Bernier: The minister has probably heard the same kinds of concerns that I have, especially

if you have a road that's access into a cutblock that's maybe been there for 20 years,

25 years, whatever it might be. That's a generation of not only workers but community

access.

With the minister's acknowledgment of that, I believe — and I stand to be corrected,

as always — that I could find nothing in legislation around allowing that flexibility

for government really to look at becoming the, for lack of better words, tenure holder

or the liability holder for a road network. It always seems to err on the decommission

side.

I'm curious with that, then, on a go-forward basis…. This piece of legislation, I

guess, doesn't really cover it. Maybe it does if there's a "may," rather than a "must,"

that I didn't see. What opportunities are there, through the ministry...?

Again, I want to acknowledge and completely understand that a company or the person

who has the liability of that road network will want to relieve themselves of that

responsibility. Should that always come to a government response of decommission,

at the company's expense, and be done? I think right now that is the case. But what

are the options, or is there an option, for a consultation process?

[3:05 p.m.]

I know, through a regional district, through the local governments, local First Nations….

Again, there are a lot of areas that I've been made aware of where groups — I'll use

the words "special interest groups" because in a lot of cases, that's what they are

— who have been using and accessing that network for a variety of different reasons

don't want it decommissioned. Where do they fit into the discussion?

I think the minister acknowledged, rightfully so, that it's who is paying for it.

I understand that argument. But at what place do the ministry and government fit in

by allowing that, saying that for the greater good, we are not going to decommission.

Government will take over liability or responsibility for a road network that they

figure is appropriate.

Hon. B. Ralston: The member has raised an interesting point. I've been advised of some of the considerations

that apply to the topic that he has raised.

There is, in the amendments in 2021, in the Forest Act, a provision,

section 120.1(1),

which enables the declaration of a forest service road. "The minister may declare

a road on Crown land to be a forest service road if any of the following applies:

(

a) the road is the subject of a road permit…." That's exactly what we're talking

about. That is an option.

It is a consideration for the ministry and, presumably, the Ministry of Finance. If

it's taken on, then there's a standard and an ongoing maintenance cost that extends

out into the future. That's a consideration.

There are other interests sometimes, as the member has mentioned, whether it's access

to an Indigenous community, emergency access. This has come up increasingly in just

this last summer fire season: alternate routes out in the case of a fire emergency.

Finally, there are the internal tools to deal with this, but the standard of road

deactivation is a bit variable. It's not well defined. There are different, I would

say, scales of deactivation. It's not completely wiping out the road and replanting

it and leaving no trace that a road was there. That's sometimes envisaged as what

is meant by that. That's not the case.

[3:10 p.m.]

There needs to be, probably, an application of more precise standards within that

variability to set what exactly, in any individual case, road deactivation means.

This is probably best dealt with at the regional planning level, at the landscape

planning level. I think that's the intention, going forward.

Clauses 91 to 134 inclusive approved.

On clause 135.

M. Bernier: I guess maybe a couple of questions, depending on the answers, on 135, because, again,

there are quite a few different sections that are being repealed, changed and amended.

Some are actually full substitutions that are being added in.

This

section here is, technically — in a lot of areas, obviously — talking about remedial

work and contraventions. Maybe just so I can understand as well as for others watching,

because there are quite a few different areas where we talk about remedial work that

will be required, can the minister…? I believe I know the answer, but I thought it

would be important to talk about.

What does it mean by remedial work, and what do we see that…? I know there are differences

in the circumstances, but maybe it will give the minister an opportunity to talk about

the contravention aspects and what remedial work could be required.

Hon. B. Ralston: In clause 134 that we are dealing with, the revised definition of "remedial action"

is set out and lists a variety of aspects to that definition: "repairing or replacing

a building, structure, bridge," etc.; "replicating work, including, without limitation,

silviculture treatment or wildlife habitat restoration or enhancement…re-establishing

a free growing stand on an area affected…doing any other work that the minister considers

is reasonably necessary to remedy or avoid harm…." So it's fairly broad. That's activated,

in the definition below, by a "remedial work order."

Those are the specific headings, plus the discretion for the minister to add any other

work to the remedial work order that he or she considers necessary.

[3:15 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Just trying to understand. I appreciate the answer.

Do we have circumstances when there might be a contravention where the government

does not impose remedial action or work? From a liability standpoint, I'm just kind

of curious, because we see out in some of the cutblocks or areas, where a lot of people

come back with questions.

Say a tenure holder has left, and there are a bunch of impacts to the land that maybe

should have been addressed. Some people say to me that remedial action should have

taken place, but sometimes, for whatever reason, it seems like it's not imposed, or

it's not followed through.

Does this kind of cover that off, or is there still flexibility within that? I believe

there was somewhere where it said that the government could choose not to carry out

remedial work. Well, what circumstance would lead to that? Because of course, the

public doesn't necessarily support that unless they understand why.

Hon. B. Ralston: This provision is designed to reflect a situation where there's an assessment of what

remedial action might be undertaken and whether the remedial action in one location

brings value or whether it's too expensive for the result that's received. It gives

the discretion, then, to take those funds and apply them in a separate remedial action

order somewhere else where the likely remediation is more effective and more environmentally

desirable.

It gives that flexibility. Rather than limiting the remedial action order to one specific

location, it gives some flexibility to assess where it's likely to do the most good.

Clause 135 approved.

On clause 136.

M. Bernier: It's kind of a continuation of, similarity to, what we were just talking about, but

in 136, we have another

section that's been added: "The reparation order for harm

to environmental culture, recreational and resource values." I know that in the minister's

opening comments, he kind of referenced this area — rightfully so.

I guess my first question before my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie…. I know

this is a very passionate area for him, as well, and he can articulate it better than

I. But my thought process first goes to bonding, for lack of better words.

By that, I mean that when companies are applying for their tenures, when they're applying

for their cutblocks and the permitting process that they're going to be accessing

into, what does the government do, especially under this new section, when we're talking

about possible impacts?

[3:20 p.m.]

If I'm using the minister's words somewhat, from his opening remarks, talking about

impacts that could happen in the future to recreational or cultural values, to an

area, especially if there's a contravention or what have you…. But what kind of financial

bonding, and how do we consider that to hold a company liable? We don't just, obviously,

go after a company after there could be a contravention and say: "Will you now help

out."

I assume there's a bonding mechanism that's built in that we can draw off of. If that's

not the case, is that something that's going to be added in?

Hon. B. Ralston: A little bit longer answer here. The tenure holder posts security deposits. Those

can be drawn down upon for remedial work orders, and if they're drawn down, they have

to be replaced.

A reparation order is different. It's a different kind of determination, and it's

separate and distinct from the considerations that go into a remedial work order.

Reparation orders add significant new consequences where contravention irredeemably

harms a Crown resource. They help ensure that harming important values such as biodiversity,

protected wildlife habitats or old-growth trees as a result of the contravention,

and that contravention and administered penalties are not simply a cost of doing business….

[3:25 p.m.]

Reparation orders will enable the government to set appropriate administrative remedies

for valuable Crown resources that — this is the clear distinction here — once damaged

or harmed, cannot be replaced. While these losses cannot be quantified, the proposed

approach enables the government to set the equivalent of proxy amounts to reflect

the value or loss of damage. There will be regulations designed to enable this provision.

M. Morris: Interesting new addition.

You know what? I hearken back to doing a bunch of research into the value of a forest.

How do you place a value on all the different elements of a forest? I remember reading

a Supreme Court of Canada decision between Canfor and the province over valuating

the damage from a forest fire that allegedly Canfor should have kept under control.

Part of the discussion in the documents to the court was placing a value on the biodiversity

and the trees because the province's stance was the value of the biodiversity was

lost. But nobody could come up with what that looked like at the end of the day.

When I see this particular

section here, and there are obviously going to be some

regulations attached to it, I'm curious as to how the minister will be putting a value

on a wildlife habitat feature as defined in the regulation. There are some defined

in there already.

When we see the 81 species of wildlife that den or nest in tree cavities, and there

are no longer any tree cavities, what is that worth? How long do you extrapolate the

distance out and say, how many generations of animal or bird that reside there or

lives in this area will no longer live in there? If these trees take 100 years to

get to the stage where they can accommodate the tree cavities, like they used to be

— what's the value of that?

What is the value of evapotranspiration and keeping the forests cool for some of these

animals to live in? Is that going to be considered in this particular

section here?

If it is, I'm quite elated, but I'll wait for the answer.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The member raises some very challenging questions. It's anticipated

that because of the challenging nature of these questions, the necessary regulations

would take place in two phases and would likely take more time than other regulations

necessary for the traditional remedial work orders that we've talked about earlier.

Simply because it's difficult to set a price on something, it doesn't mean that it

doesn't have value. Somewhat analogously, in legal determinations — for example, the

value of pain and suffering if you're in an accident — there is an intangible range

of values that touch your life as a result of an accident and the pain and suffering

that the accident causes. The court process does attempt to assess that in monetary

terms.

This would be a similar process — where you're setting a proxy in a range, in monetary

terms, of a value that's really intangible. It will not be easy, but I think it reflects

contemporary sensibilities about the dimension of the loss of natural habitat that

the member has referred to.

There are groups that are keenly interested in this. Particularly, Indigenous groups

are keenly interested to participate in the drafting of this regulation in a way of

attacking some of the real core values that would be expressed by this kind of regulation.

M. Morris: It's a monumental task ahead. I can certainly see that.

I see this as the beginning of looking at a complete forest, rather than this myopic

view that we've had now for several decades where we look at it only as fibre, as

a 2-by-4 or pulpwood.

When we look at the value of biodiversity, when we look at the value of the protein,

a herd of moose, deer or elk: what is that worth a pound? What is it worth live on

the hoof, in comparison to a cattle rancher's herd? And the blueberries, the huckleberries,

the mushrooms and all the other things that are included in a wild harvest?

Am I reading it correctly that this is a direction that the minister is going with

this, so that eventually we will have a value statement for the forests of British

Columbia?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I don't want to leave the impression…. To answer the member's question directly, this

is not about setting a global value on the entire forest landscape of British Columbia.

It's a bit more focused and regional than that.

For example, under the Wildfire Act, if a wildfire deemed to be the responsibility,

or the lack of responsibility, of a tenure holder or a landowner damages the landscape,

wild range or a forest habitat, there can be a penalty assessed at $5,000 a hectare.

That reflects, to some extent, the economic value. This is a different-order determination

of the reparations, which would reflect the intangible value of these natural assets.

The regulation will attempt, in the same way that a court might determine pain and

suffering as an intangible result of an accident…. The analogy is not perfect, and

I acknowledge that, but I'm trying to give a sense of how that process might proceed.

There will be an effort to place a monetary value on something that is as intangible

as the value of the natural assets that have been destroyed by the actions of the

person who has contravened the regulation or the law.

Clauses 136 to 167 inclusive approved.

On clause 168.

M. Bernier: Now we're into the Wildfire Act

section of this bill and the amendments, changes or

additions, in this case, that are being added.

[3:40 p.m.]

I have a few questions here. The minister, through his staff, knew that I would have

a few questions on this section, as well as my colleague. Maybe I'll start with why

we needed this section. Maybe the minister can explain the intent or the reasoning

to this.

We already had, under the Wildfire Act, under

section 18, the right of government

to use fire. In the briefing that I was given, examples were used for this additional

section where fire is conducted for the beneficial purposes of enhancing wildlife

habitat, reducing risk of fires, etc. This, in my

interpretation of the existing act,

is already covered off. We already had, in

section 18, under the five different subsections,

the ability for government to have and cause fire for those reasons.

So again to my question, why did we need an 18.1? Maybe I'll start with that for the

minister to explain.

Hon. B. Ralston: The purpose of the Wildfire Act generally, as it's written now, prior to these amendments,

is to prevent fires. This gives the authority to the Wildfire Service to assist others

in causing fires for very specified purposes. That's why that authority was needed.

Previously, without that authority, the Wildfire Service would not have the jurisdiction

or the authority to help assist others in setting fires for the purposes that are

set out in the act, which are…. I expect we'll deal with those in subsequent questions.

M. Bernier: I'm hoping the minister can clarify a little further, because if I understood the

minister correctly, he was saying that the Wildfire Act didn't allow for government

use of prescribed fires in the past. My

interpretation of the act, of course, is that

we've always had that opportunity. In fact, you look at all the back burns that we

do right now. That's because government has the ability, under the Wildfire Act, to

be able to do that.

Again I go to my question. If we already were able to, why did we need a new

section

added?

Hon. B. Ralston: Yes, there was a right for…. I think the

section is in the Wildfire Act already. The

government had the right to use fire, but those are authorized by the government,

and those are government personnel.

What this is giving the authority to do is to assist others, not government employees,

to use fire or set fire for other purposes, including…. It's described broadly as

beneficial purposes such as enhancing wildlife habitat and reducing the risk of wildfires.

That authority is not present in the current Wildfire Act, and that's why these amendments

are being brought.

M. Bernier: I think it's important to acknowledge, though, with the minister's words…. The authority

has always been there to do this if it's government-initiated. So what the government,

I believe, is saying through this act is that now they're allowing for others to initiate

that burn — the requirement or the request for that burn.

Maybe I'll read out…. In 18.01, right in subsection (1), it's talking about "Indigenous

peoples" meaning in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It seems

very prescriptive. By that, I mean….

[3:45 p.m.]

There are very small sections being added, with a lot of the same outcomes, which

are being looked for and which are already existing in the act, for the protection

of, maybe, wildlife or to maybe slow down wildfires. As the minister acknowledges,

it's for others….

I guess my first question on that, on the others…. Reading through this just very

small

section that's being added, it seems to be very prescriptive to Indigenous peoples.

Is there anywhere in there for non-Indigenous peoples to ask for the same thing? I

mean, the way it's worded, to me, at least, seems a little bit confusing. It's very

specific around Indigenous peoples.

Hon. B. Ralston: I disagree with that

interpretation.

Looking at sub 18.01(2), it says that "the government may assist a person or entity."

In sub (a), it refers to Indigenous people. It also refers, in (b), to "carrying out

any other activities in respect of the fire."

It is not circumscribed to Indigenous people. It's a person or an entity. That could

be a corporate person, an ordinary person or an entity. It is not confined to Indigenous

people.

M. Bernier: I appreciate it. It's for the purpose…. My questions are investigative. They're not

accusatory in any way, one way or the other. That's why I'm asking the question.

In 18.01, it starts off…. A definition, I guess, is what's right at the very beginning

of the section, where it says: "In this section, 'Indigenous peoples' has the same

meaning…."

To what the minister just read…. I'm hoping he can appreciate why some have asked

me this question specifically around this. Even though the minister says…. "Without

limiting

section 18, and subject to subsection (3) of this

section and the regulations,

the government may assist a person or entity with…." It goes on to say: "lighting,

fuelling or using a fire for any purpose, including, without limitation, a purpose

identified by an Indigenous people…."

That inlier there…. I think the minister could acknowledge why I'm getting some questions

from people. It's not definitive to say and-or. It says: "…identified by an Indigenous

people."

Yes. I know it's in the subsection underneath subsection (2). Because it's a continuation

of the section, it does bring in that lack of clarity, I guess.

I appreciate what the minister is saying. Maybe he can point to how it defines it

more specifically so those watching could understand where their ability comes in

to be able to ask for the same.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: There is an effort to make and develop a partnership between the Wildfire Service

and Indigenous people in relation to traditional practices concerning fire. That's

the reason for the wording of this.

The wording is clear. It "may assist a person or entity with lighting, fuelling or

using a fire for any purpose, including…." That does not mean…. That's an aspect of

the people or persons or entities that can utilize this provision. It doesn't limit

it to Indigenous people. It just specifies clearly within the

section that Indigenous

people are included.

It's meant to reflect the discussions that have taken place, but it in no way limits

the

section to use by Indigenous people only. I think it's an effort to draw those

two strands together. It may not have been entirely successful in the minds of some

people, but I think, on a plain reading of this section, it is clear.

M. Bernier: First of all, let me acknowledge, I appreciate that the minister and I are trying

to have this discussion to make sure it is clear. Hopefully, he can appreciate that

for those who have contacted me who maybe are not seeking legal advice based on the

wording within the legislation, the

interpretation can be a little bit foggy, which

is why it's important to make sure we ask that question.

The next question with that, though, is…. For this to come forward, obviously there

must be a huge requirement. I mean, can the minister explain, then, the intent of

this as far as who's asking for it? Has this been something that's been neglected

for a long time where Indigenous or non-Indigenous people have been asking to do their

own prescribed burns and they've been turned down because this clause was not in there?

Maybe I'll start with that, because then I'll want to investigate the intent of what

this will be, going forward.

Hon. B. Ralston: Yes, there was a wish to undertake beneficial fire in the way that is contemplated

by this section. And there were legislative barriers to that. This removes those legislative

barriers.

Interest in these kinds of solutions is growing, given the severity of the fire season

that we've experienced over the last five or six years. It contemplates preventative

beneficial techniques that can provide safety from encroachment by forest fires to

communities and other assets.

M. Bernier: Just trying to dissect this a little further, then, if we could. The ability was already

there, as we've determined here, for the government, for safety reasons, to do back

burns, prescribed burning. That was already there. The minister acknowledged that

this has come in because of other people's requests.

[3:55 p.m.]

I'm kind of interested in this. If it is about protecting communities, protecting

the wildlife, protecting some of the forest, if the government has already had that

ability, should they not have just been doing it? And if they have been doing it,

again, it leads me to why this

section is required.

But it's also from a liability standpoint. If a non-Indigenous person in my region

decides they want to do a burn, what kind of…? I don't see…. Maybe it's in other areas

of the Wildfire Act — I get that — the requirements of what they will or will not

have to do, from a permitting aspect to a safety aspect. But it's very bland in this

section on the requirements.

It's allowing other people…. I get that. Can you just remind me, please, of another

section of the act where the requirements for that application would be, and other

changes? I didn't see other changes in the act that would reference back completely

to this requirement to cover that off.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The provisions of the Wildfire Act, as the member has mentioned, do enable the Wildfire

Service to engage in preventative fires, but those are typically planned ignitions

that are done in response to a fire that might be simply over the horizon. These are

immediate tactical measures taken by the Wildfire Service to fight an imminent threat.

The preventative fire that's contemplated here is designed to be part of a longer-term

preventative planning process. It would require planning and would not be in response

to the immediate threat of an oncoming fire.

It's clear that under the act, the Wildfire Service had the power and the authority

to do the first step, but to assist others in that longer-term process, the authority

was less clear. That's why these amendments are necessary. The service will work with

other persons and entities and provide expertise and guidance on that process in order

to achieve the successful preventative results that the policy is designed to implement.

M. Morris: I've been in this province for decades, and I've seen government take the initiative

to do prescribed burns. The authority is there, and the government has done long-term

planning through these prescribed burns, although we're not doing as many as we used

to.

In listening to some of the comments the minister has made…. There's a liability factor

that's attached to this as well. I look at the heading of this particular new section:

"Government may assist with fire." I think government must assist with fire in a lot

of these circumstances, prescribed burning and otherwise.

The liability attached to allowing someone…. I'll get into subsection (3) in a second

here. All we have to do is look back in time to the Barrier Lake fire and the poor

individual that ended up being responsible for that. There are other situations here.

I mentioned Canfor and a fire that started with them and the liabilities associated

with that. It's pretty extensive.

I'm just curious. Under subsection (3), it says: "The government may not assist a

person or entity with carrying out activities under subsection (2) if the person or

entity is prohibited by law from (

a) carrying out the activities."

I know some of what used to take place up in my colleague's area in the North Peace,

with, years ago, guide-outfitters dropping golf balls out of their little super cub

and starting fires to rehabilitate the area. Of course, that was unlawful. Those fires

would just burn. They would eventually burn themselves out. That was a standard practice.

It says: "…if the person or entity is prohibited by law from carrying out the activities."

It's a no-brainer. You're not going to help that person burn. But if the fire started,

I'm hoping that government will be stepping in and trying to put it out.

It says: "…being on the land where the activities are carried out." So prohibited

by "being on the land where the activities are carried out." What does that refer

to? Does that refer to being on somebody's private property? It's posted and says

"no trespassing." You want to put the fire out, but you can't go on private land.

What is that prohibition related to, with respect to subclause (3)(b)?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Just let me say at the outset that no matter where a fire occurs, the Wildfire Service

will respond. It's not a question of limiting the response of the Wildfire Service

at all.

This

section is designed to discourage those people, for their own motives…. They

may think that they are engaging in fire for beneficial purposes — say, on private

land or federal land — but they don't have the authority to be there. The service

will not assist those people in setting that kind of a fire.

If they do, without the authority and without the assistance, the Wildfire Service

will respond. But the idea is to discourage that kind of activity without working

with the fire service.

M. Morris: I'm just going to go through this here.

"The government may assist a person or entity with (

a) lighting, fuelling or using

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

Indigenous people." To me, that's pretty significant: "…without limitation, a purpose

identified by an Indigenous people." What would that purpose be? "Without limitation"

could be anything.

[4:10 p.m.]

Is the minister suggesting that the Indigenous people can, for any reason that they

want, start a fire? Where? In their village? On property adjacent to their village

or within their traditional territory or within a treaty area or within an area that

has already been identified as title land? Is the minister, by saying this, recognizing

an existing right under

section 35 of the constitution?

This is a pretty broad statement to make, and pretty far-reaching effects with this.

I'm just curious.

Added to all this is the liability. Is that First Nation community or band going to

be liable for any fire that gets away, any damage to buildings or public infrastructure

or highways or hydro lines — any of those things? Or does government accept those

responsibilities because they have given permission to the First Nations to, without

limitation, do whatever they feel they need to do with fire?

Hon. B. Ralston: I appreciate the member's question. The key word here is the government "may" assist

a person or entity. So it's not a question of the government being obliged to support

any purpose or plan for a fire that's brought forward by any entity, including an

Indigenous nation. There's a clear discretion that the government, the fire service,

has in making a decision whether or not to participate or assist in the plan that's

brought forward.

The expectation is that given the partnership that exists, there will be agreement

before a plan goes forward and takes place. That's the purpose of the section. The

idea that there is no limitation or barriers or that the government is obliged to

enter into any plan that comes forward is simply not accurate.

The operative word there is "may," and the government has a clear discretion to support

a plan or not, depending on the perception of its value or its wisdom or its efficacy

or any other consideration that would be a legitimate consideration by the government

of evaluating a plan.

[4:15 p.m.]

M. Morris: The minister is now talking about a plan from an Indigenous group that goes to government

for approval. I don't see that in here. You know, the fear I have in looking at this

is that it says, basically, that First Nations, without limitation, can identify a

purpose for a fire. This is concerning.

So is the minister now saying that if there's a First Nations group that wants to

identify a reason for a fire within their area, they submit a plan now to B.C. Wildfire

Service, and depending on the complexities of the fire and the content of the plan,

it can be approved before they use fire, wherever they plan on using it? Who will

be responsible, at the end of the day, for any liability issues associated with that

fire?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to, just at the outset, disabuse the member of the idea that the words "without

limitation" mean that any plan that a First Nation comes forward to use fire will

be approved or is sanctioned. It is not empowering that kind of activity.

The wording is clear that the government "may assist." The government would have to,

in any plan that came forward, agree to the plan. It would also be subject to subsection

(3). It can't be carried out if it's prohibited by law.

There are open burning regulations now, and those would have to be followed. Any variation

of that that accords with, say, a traditional practice would still have to fall within

the ambit of the agreement by the government in order for the government to assist

that process.

On the issue of liability, I would say that we are keenly aware of the concerns about

liability, and we're working on that with our partners, both industry and First Nations.

M. Morris: It's even becoming a little bit more ambiguous to me with respect to the minister's

explanation on "without limitation."

In this particular section, it says: "the government may assist a person or entity

with (

a) lighting, fuelling or using a fire for any purpose, including, without limitation,

a purpose identified by an Indigenous people."

I'm concerned over that. I'm concerned over the fact that the landscape has changed.

[The bells were rung.]

I'll just finish my statement.

We have millions of hectares now of managed forests that are densely planted monoculture

conifers. We can no longer use prescribed burning to do the same thing that we used

to do 30, 40, 50 years ago. The whole landscape has changed in that respect.

I throw that out as a cautionary note. We've seen how things have burned here this

year and in the last number of years. I have reservations on this particular

section

of this bill. The rest has been pretty interesting, but this one really causes me

some concern.

The Chair: This committee stands in recess and will return after the vote in the main House.

The committee recessed from 4:24 p.m. to 4:41 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 41 back to order. We are on clause 168.

M. Bernier: I guess my first question, now that we're back after the bells there…. I'll get to

another question on it later, but I've noticed that this

section here is actually

being brought in by royal assent, where most other sections are being brought in at

a later date, through regulation. Can the minister explain why?

Hon. B. Ralston: There are no regulations that will follow, so it will come into effect immediately.

I think we've all seen, from the impacts of this particular fire season, the worst

in our history, that tools that are available to assist in prevention should be implemented

as soon as possible.

M. Bernier: Nobody would argue that tools to assist are important. I have to, with all due respect,

say that the minister has failed to convince me that this additional

section is actually

going to achieve that outcome.

I will concede to the minister. We'll see how next year goes, then, in the wildfire

season.

Since this is going to be brought into force right away through royal assent, I assume

there's some plan somewhere — that the minister figures that this is going to alleviate

some of the stress on the wildfire season next year.

I want to go back to a bit of the briefing that I had on this, which again, I thank

the minister's staff for. The minister hasn't acknowledged it this way, but in the

briefing that I received from the minister's staff, it was referenced more from a

cultural aspect, this section, in part of others. I'm not trying to put words into

staff's mouths as well.

It was really focusing, in my understanding through the briefing, around cultural

aspects to help support First Nations. It wasn't really about protecting our back

country from future wildfires. It was around cultural burns, whatever that determination

is.

It's not in the wording of the actual legislation in 18.01, but in the briefing, it

was referenced as cultural burning. Can the minister maybe explain what the thought

process was in that or, maybe leading into the writing of this piece of legislation,

the thought around what cultural burning would mean?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: First of all, I just want to correct an impression that may have been left by my comments.

I'm judging that from the member's response to my previous comments.

I don't anticipate that these changes will have a dramatic effect on reducing wildfire

liabilities or affecting the season in a dramatic way. It is another tool in the process

to engage in long-term prevention. I'm convinced that in the long term, it will have

an impact. So I just want to qualify my comments or the impression that I may have

left with the member.

The member asked what "cultural burning" means. I am reluctant to express my understanding

of that. I think the intention of the legislation is to defer to First Nations, their

understanding and their traditional knowledge of what cultural burning is. So in partnership

with the First Nations, that will become evident over the course of the partnership.

I also just want to conclude by saying that all open fires will be required to, and

must, follow the requirements of the Wildfire Act, so this new provision doesn't override

any of those requirements.

M. Bernier: Because this

section doesn't have any specifics or any

definitions or any regulations

coming, again, it leads me to really have some concern, not about the requirement

or ask for whatever the definition of "cultural burn" may or may not be but because

the minister is not able to quantify it or identify a specific. He says: "We'll have

to talk to First Nations." Does that mean we might have 203 different

definitions

of what a cultural burn is? How would the minister approach that?

Hon. B. Ralston: I agree that there is a potential for a fairly wide definition. But before the department

or the Wildfire Service will participate — relying on the subclause there, "the government

may assist a person or entity" — the people participating in that will have to be

convinced of the efficacy and the wisdom of proceeding forward. And the basic rules,

the basic requirements, of the Wildfire Act will still be followed.

[4:50 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I hope the minister appreciates I'm just trying to make sure we identify some of the

challenges here.

[The bells were rung.]

I'll pause for a second. I'll just regroup my thoughts after that interruption.

Maybe I'll start with this, too. The minister highlighted that this was the worst

wildfire season on record. Very few people will disagree with him on that. I will

say that I'm disappointed, then, if that's the case, with that acknowledgment, that

the only change to the Wildfire Act is this

section here, which will be allowing for

more burning to take place without, really, any definition or really any specifics

around how it's going to help in the short term.

The minister is aspirational, as was, I think, the UNDRIP bill, when the government

brought it forward. As they acknowledge, it was all aspirational. This seems to be

another part of it.

I think it's important just to quantify and acknowledge the fact that there could

have been a lot more additions to the Wildfire Act, if that was really what the intent

was. That's not meant to be, I guess, a political dig at the minister. It's just more

of an acknowledgment of the absence, I think, of what could have been in this piece

of legislation. Maybe we'll see something next year, yet to be seen.

I do want to go back to the whole specific around the cultural burn. I'll take the

minister's comments that he put forward. It still raises…. For me, the intent of this

section being brought forward is still a little foggy.

Maybe this. Is the minister trying to say that to date, up until whenever this passes

through royal assent…? Are we saying that there have never been cultural burns in

British Columbia? First Nations have never exercised their rights before. This was

a huge gap, and people were burning illegally. That is why we had to bring in a piece

of legislation to allow it to be done in a proper way, or is this actually opening

up the door to start something that has never ever happened in British Columbia before?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Just in dealing with the member's comments about the next fire season.

The Premier has directed and convened a task force to respond to and examine the wildfire

response and the emergency management response this season. It has already been convened.

There are a number of participants from across civil society. The intention and direction

are that those recommendations come forward not in a royal commission style, three

years down the road, but that they be focused actions that could be implemented to

help and assist in the next fire season next year.

There is a response underway. It's not a legislative response. There are really no

legislative barriers to a response that could be implemented or changed. That's not

the challenge. But the practice on the ground and the lessons learned in this fire

season will be examined by that task force.

Let me just say about this

section that, really, it's about giving the government

the ability to work with industry and First Nations where the government agrees to

do so, but to work together to find solutions that will prevent fires in the future.

E. Ross: I've been listening to this conversation regarding First Nations' cultural interests,

I guess. I've heard the words "the right" as well. This is a pretty vague term, not

only in this bill, but in other bills I've come across, whether you're talking about

the specific clauses, whether you're talking about some type of interest that the

First Nation body might have or represent, for that matter, and it not being too clear

in the definition of who represents an Indigenous governing body.

Some of the clauses speak to persons, yet the definition speaks to some type of body.

But we're not really clear on what that body is in terms of, maybe, an elected chief

and council versus maybe a hereditary chief or maybe a group of hereditary chiefs

that have formed some type of entity. I get the concern, and I do understand the intent.

But if we're not clear on this….

By the way, the cultural aspect of this is not clear in the 21st century. I'd say

that cultural burning was more of a custom, yes. But, quite frankly, our band never

did burning for any purpose. So I can't help you there. But we did have a custom of

wildlife management — of, say, killing grizzly bears, when we knew the population

was too big, and it was starting to endanger us. But I wouldn't say it was a cultural

component. I thought it was a custom to ensure the safety of our people.

Now, that didn't translate too well into the 21st century. But this one should translate

perfectly into the 21st century. But it doesn't. It's not coming out clearly in this

legislation — the wording.

The one thing I think we're forgetting here, and I think this is represented in DRIPA

as well, is that regardless of the UNDRIP interpretive aid, and regardless of rights

and title, the Crown has an ultimate responsibility to look after all of the resources

and look after the safety of British Columbians at large. I just don't see how all

this wording is reflecting that.

Even if you could define a cultural burning, you would still have to address, I guess

through the agreement, the safety of the public at large, meaning you'd have to, at

some point, include other entities, non–First Nation communities. That may be somebody

that's living out there in a cabin someplace or may be other First Nations.

[5:00 p.m.]

I get my colleague's comments around this and not being too clear. I just don't know

how we do it through the context of saying "we want to reduce forest fires." If we're

going to reduce forest fires, I feel that we need clear language in terms of what

this actually means.

My question to the minister is: do we need clear language here to define exactly what

we mean about this clause regarding burning, from a First Nations perspective, to

ensure the safety of the resource as well as the safety of British Columbians at large?

Hon. B. Ralston: I appreciate the member's question and his comments.

Cultural burning is not included in the statute. There's no reference to that language

in the statute. That's a deliberate choice, as I said earlier. There's a range of

options about wildfire on the landscape, and the statute will give the Wildfire Service

the opportunity — and they may do this or they may not — to assist in partnering with

groups that have a plan to use wildfire on the landscape, whether they're First Nations

or industry.

Clause 168 approved on division.

Clauses 169 to 187 inclusive approved.

On clause 188.

M. Bernier: Maybe I'll just take the opportunity here, on behalf of my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie,

to thank the minister and thank the minister's staff, as well, for the last couple

of days of going through this. It was very informative. As the minister, I hope, can

appreciate, through our questions and even through the answers, we feel that, obviously,

forestry….

[5:05 p.m.]

I think everybody's acknowledged that there need to be some changes. We have a sector

out there that has a lot of opportunity to continue to thrive and grow in the province

of British Columbia. I think everybody acknowledges that we need to do better, and

people are very much striving towards that.

This piece of legislation, I will acknowledge, I think covers off some of the concerns

that a lot of people have. Probably like the minister, I've not heard a lot of concerns

on many of the sections. Rather, more people have supported a lot of the aspects of

just making sure that we're all on the right page and trying to make sure that we're

doing better for the environment, for the forestry sector and for our communities

and the workers in the forestry sector.

My only question that I'll have on this, after giving the thanks that are due, is

more…. At the beginning, the minister and I kind of joked that luckily this stuff

is not in regulation. But when we look at 188 here, the majority of this is going

to be brought in by OIC. I know the minister can't probably give me a definitive timeline

or answer. I wish he could, because if it was, then it would probably all be brought

in by royal assent.

Can the minister explain, maybe, the intent of when they expect to have OICs brought

in? Understanding how regulations work, as do my colleagues, what is the intent of

this government to bring in the OICs and the regulations through the LG, to bring

all this piece of legislation actually into force and effect?

Hon. B. Ralston: For those watching, LG is not a Korean electronics company in this context. It's the

Lieutenant-Governor. I'm sure that's what the member meant.

It will be coming in, in a staged process, some of it fairly quickly. There were references

to the sections that will come into force April 1, 2024, but most of the sections

will be enforced by then for sure.

Clause 188 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. B. Ralston: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 5:09 p.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada