2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 35, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act (continued)

R. Fleming

M. Dalton

A. Weaver

D. Donaldson

D. Routley

Hon. S. Thomson

Bill 4 — Fire Safety Act

Hon. T. Stone

Hon. N. Yamamoto

M. Farnworth

D. Plecas

D. Donaldson

Hon. M. Morris

S. Chandra Herbert

M. Hunt

Hon. T. Stone

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 3 — Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016

M. Mungall

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. M. Polak

G. Heyman

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development (continued)

S. Robinson

Hon. P. Fassbender

M. Mungall

D. Eby

S. Chandra Herbert

[ Page 11619 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2016

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Guy Dauncey, who’s in the gallery today. Guy was recently elected a fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. The Royal Society of Arts is a London-based British organization committed to finding practical solutions for social changes. Their mission is “21st century enlightenment, enriching society through ideas and action.”

Guy joins a worldwide network of innovators who have received this prestigious award. The royal society was founded in 1754 in Covent Garden, London, based on the belief that the creativity of ideas could enrich social progress. He is in good company, along with Charles Dickens, Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin, John Diefenbaker and Stephen Hawking.

Guy is an author, speaker, organizer and consultant who specializes in developing a positive vision of a sustainable future and translating that vision into action. Guy epitomizes the aim of the RSA to bring about positive social change. He has worked tirelessly since the 1970s towards achieving a brighter future and a sustainable planet.

Please join me in welcoming Guy Dauncey to the House today, in recognition of this incredible honour he has received.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 2, and in

Section A, continuing the estimates for the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Minister Responsible for TransLink.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — GREAT BEAR RAINFOREST

(FOREST MANAGEMENT) ACT

(continued)

R. Fleming: I appreciate the opportunity to continue remarks on Bill 2, which I began before noon.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

I think that at that time, I was getting into a bit of the history of what may make up what you could call an unlikely story in terms of the Great Bear Rainforest assembly — how it was born out of conflict that was international in its scope and dimensions and, of course, the conflict that it generated within the province.

[1335]

That’s why I think that members of both sides of the House in this debate…. Many of their remarks could be difficult to distinguish from one another because we’re talking about something that is a success for British Columbia. In this case, we have created something that will last forever, for future generations. It has been an accomplishment of both parties, beginning with one government and successfully being…. Instead of a complete reversal, we have seen a continuation of momentum towards higher levels of protection and better systems of management — ecosystem-based management — in the six million hectares or so that encompass the GBR.

I talked a little bit about what was going on in the 1990s in this province, which, of course, flowed from the 1980s — very bitter decades where forestry, instead of being a source of pride and wealth that would be shared with every British Columbian, became a bitterly divisive sector of the economy that pitted conservationists and environmentalists against forest workers and forest companies.

That was something that had to be solved. In fact, one of the things that the incoming Harcourt administration both campaigned on and pledged to create processes to overcome was the phenomenon of the war in the woods in British Columbia, the valley-by-valley struggles that plagued our province, that were divisive and disruptive to communities. It also was the beginning, really, of a debate and a massive shift in thinking about forestry, about resource management and about ecosystem protection in B.C.

All of that was going on, and I spoke to that briefly already. There were some things that were happening at a higher scale that I think are important to this discussion, to this understanding of why we have Bill 2 before us today. That was that in 1992 Canada became the first industrialized country in the world to ratify the United Nations convention on biological diversity. That was a commitment that was made by our country before that international body, following that. It was not universally loved by all parts of the country, all provincial leaderships.

By 1994, in fact, there was a consensus, and the text of the UN charter on biodiversity was endorsed and ratified by legislatures throughout Canada, like ours. So you had an international pledge by Canada to protect areas of the land base, to set aside pristine areas, and you had provincial endorsement of that. And then we had areas of British Columbia that had been identified but were still the source of conflict around conservation proposals.

The Great Bear Rainforest. It’s interesting…. First of all, the moniker, of course, for this region now rolls off the tongue very easily. It’s terminology that all British

[ Page 11620 ]

Columbians understand. They know where the geography is, and they know of its importance.

It was actually a creation of environmental campaigners who wished to convey the significance of this area of British Columbia that had been largely untouched by industrial development, was unique in terms of its biological diversity and was incredibly substantial in terms of the size of the area. I think the number of watersheds contained inside what became known as the Great Bear Rainforest…. That was what the campaign was about, by Greenpeace and other organizations, both domestic and international environmental campaigners.

The credit really goes to those who, I think, were able to raise an incredible amount of awareness about the unique values, natural values, the idea of having a land use process that resulted in what the GBR was all about. For a long time, you couldn’t get everybody to sit at the same table in British Columbia.

[1340]

The government had, I think, very good intentions and brought science-based information and advice. Ultimately, that was part of the decision-making under the Harcourt administration around land use planning and processes, which was the precursor that led to the GBR.

But for many, many years, as I was saying, we couldn’t get everyone at the table. First Nations started to appear. We had a brand-new treaty-making process in British Columbia as well. That was an engagement that many First Nations began to participate in.

But the environmental groups — many of them felt that if they gave up the valley-by-valley campaigning approach, which had been successful for them on many, many occasions, they would be sitting at a table while ecosystems they were trying to protect from logging would be logged off. There was suspicion.

I have to say that I don’t have a full appreciation of the entire story about how some of these areas of mistrust were managed and eventually overcome. I think there are a lot of individuals who come from government and from business and from the environmental community that, through sheer force of personality and reason and relationship-building, were able to contribute to moving in the direction towards this conservation area. It took a long, long time.

I think that in terms of one of the benefits that Premier Campbell expressed in the years following 2001 — when it was made clear that he had no intention to reverse the directions set by Premiers Harcourt and Clark — there was this desire to create a new relationship. So the GBR had a lot of details filled in. One of them was that there would be some logging activity that would continue there. They’d be in identifiable management areas.

These have been skirmishes and disputes right up until the point that we’re discussing this today. There’s no question about it. But there were a lot of details added into the conservation area as we went.

One of the principles that was put in there around this new relationship was that First Nations people were going to have access to timber and jobs. That was incredibly significant. That was essentially a major reform of the tenure system, if you like, that was finally being inclusive to economic development opportunities for First Nations.

We now have something like 70 percent of the old-growth and forest canopied areas in the GBR absolutely protected. We have working forest areas that are selectively logged using ecosystem-based management techniques, light logging techniques, in the remainder of the lands.

We have industry leaders that have been able to conclude these decisions with their counterparts in the environmental sector — organizations like the Sierra Club and others. They have agreed — using the same scientists, looking at the same information — about where the significant conservation areas are within the GBR and how best to manage them.

We have had a lot of discussions about bringing more integrity and strength to the species-at-risk legislation that the province of British Columbia has, to complement what the intentions of the GBR are. Those haven’t been concluded by any stretch. We continue to have an incredible need in the province of British Columbia for more conservation officers and conservation efforts and, once species at risk have been identified, creating rescue and recovery plans for species that could go extinct, including in the GBR.

Those are all real live issues that continue. But we do have a listing process for these systems. We do have legislation that has been reviewed in British Columbia. We have federal and provincial laws now.

[1345]

Many will argue — and I think I’m sympathetic to it —that that legislation needs to be improved so that we are, in fact, doing what’s most important, which is having strong land base decisions to protect the habitat that supports the species at risk. That is the greatest risk to biodiversity in British Columbia.

I mentioned earlier in my remarks that British Columbia has a significant onus internationally and on this continent to be a leader and be effective at preserving biodiversity, because we have the greatest amount of biodiversity of any jurisdiction in North America.

Habitat loss is the greatest threat to B.C.’s biodiversity. Something like 86 percent of species at risk in British Columbia are affected by loss of habitat. That speaks to why the Great Bear Rainforest is so critically important and why other areas in the province of B.C. ought to have the similar attention of government — this one and the next one — to identify and to protect habitat areas.

One can think of four risk areas where habitat loss is a real and present issue in British Columbia. You’ve got right here, on southern Vancouver Island, a habitat loss that is threatening the viability of species diversity. The

[ Page 11621 ]

Lower Mainland of southwestern B.C., of course, and parts of the Rocky Mountain Trench have been identified as areas that need higher levels of protection and management.

One that I’m familiar with and I think is very interesting is the Okanagan Valley — interesting because it contains one of Canada’s only desert ecosystems. There is an active live proposal there by Parks Canada to create a national park in the Similkameen area of the Okanagan, and there would be tremendous benefits from there.

This is a well-studied proposal. I know the province has currently walked away from the process on this, but we have a new government in Ottawa, and I think there is interest there in working with people who live in that region, where it is well supported, to see if that national park proposal can be revived again.

Obviously, tremendous benefits there — in terms of habitat loss, a national park would offer the highest level of protection possible. Again, in terms of First Nations and local communities deriving economic benefits, which is a feature of the Great Bear Rainforest agreement, a national park in that part of the southern Okanagan would also help create jobs for First Nations people and incredible tourism potential.

Don’t take my word for it. Just look at the benefits that have accrued to Newfoundland and Labrador. Since they have had significant national park investments in that jurisdiction and marketed it effectively, they’ve had a massive increase in tourism visitation there and all of the good things that flow from that in terms of growth in GDP and jobs and opportunities for small business.

That’s the interesting thing about conservation and about environmental protection: to get to this agreement, people had to get past the idea that there is a zero-sum game of doing things the old way, in terms of the logging practices that previously went on in this area, or embracing a new approach, the ecosystem-based management approach, which is at the heart of this agreement. That was a debate we couldn’t get past for a long time.

I think the proof, now, of its success is that we do have economic activity, resource harvesting, happening in the GBR at the same time that we have created a binding, legal framework around how that land is managed, on the basis of a process that involved everyone and, in British Columbia, created that rarest of situations where there was an actual consensus of all of the stakeholders and people involved in the development of that deal. That’s something we should bear in mind for other opportunities that present themselves in British Columbia.

The importance of conserving areas of B.C. that are viable…. The forested area that we’re talking about in the GBR is a significant carbon mitigation benefit to the province of British Columbia.

[1350]

There are others in B.C. that are going to be critical to a climate action strategy that works — that can account for emissions and can store carbon and prevent it from being released into the atmosphere. That’s what countries around the world have put their minds to do. That’s what the recent summit, again, created an international declaration to do. Right here in British Columbia, there are additional opportunities to do just that. We need to look no further for inspiration on that than the GBR.

There are other parts of British Columbia where a similar benefit could accrue to our jurisdiction around conservation. They also provide…. I want to stress this again. Environmental protection is not an anathema to economic development. In fact, it goes hand in hand with it. I’ve given some examples of that today. I think the GBR is an exemplary one. The contents of Bill 2, in terms of what amendments, what additions to the Great Bear Rainforest…. The legislation that governs activity in the Great Bear Rainforest helps to build further upon that.

I will just conclude by speaking to what I expect will be unanimously passed in this House. Again, to just reflect upon what an incredible and unlikely positive outcome based on, at the outset, a bitter, divisive conflict in B.C. — a requirement to change the mindsets by all of the different actors in our economy and in communities around B.C., which was a source of contention and even hostility in parts of B.C. over many years.

People were committed to getting an outcome that was good for jobs, that was good for conservation, good for the environment, good for biodiversity and all of the commitments that we made internationally, which sometimes we pay lip service to and fail to put concretely into action.

It’s a tremendous, tremendous success story to see the Great Bear Rainforest internationally recognized in this day and age by jurisdictions all over the world. We did it here in British Columbia. We overcame great adversity. There are so many people that played pivotal roles, who are unsung. They come from industry; they come from the environmental sector; they come from local government; they come from the provincial ministries — people with incredible skills who had the patience to try and build a consensus.

Here we are, in the year 2016, having made giant steps in 1999 and 2000, further steps in 2001. The measures were taken in 2006 around further definition of ecosystem-based management and logging restrictions. In 2009 — again, the amendments. And in Bill 2, we’re revisiting what has been a tremendous work in progress but one that was not obvious at all in terms of the conclusions that we reached.

I look forward to hearing discussions on some of the details of the bill, between the critic on the opposition side and the minister. Here at the second-reading stage, I’m very pleased to have added my voice to members on all sides of the House about this tremendous source of pride, the Great Bear Rainforest, for all British Columbians.

[ Page 11622 ]

M. Dalton: It’s a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in favour of Bill 2, the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act.

Just to begin with, B.C. has one of the highest percentages of parkland and conservation areas anywhere in the world. It’s something that we as British Columbians are proud of. It’s not something that’s done willy-nilly. There’s a lot of engagement with the public, with First Nations and with interested parties, and this has been evident as we’ve gone forward over the years with the Great Bear Rainforest.

[1355]

This is truly a global treasure. Our province has different monikers, including what’s on our licence plate — “Beautiful British Columbia,” “Super, natural B.C.” This rainforest, the Great Bear Rainforest, certainly epitomizes this.

A few months ago I was in Maui, and I was talking with some Hawaiian residents who had visited British Columbia. They just went on and on about the beauty of British Columbia. That’s something that wherever you go in the world, when you meet people who have visited our province, you hear the same thing: how enamoured they are with the nature, with the beauty, with the greenery of British Columbia.

The Great Bear Rainforest covers an area of about 400 miles in length, from north of Vancouver Island, on the mainland, going up to the Alaska panhandle. It’s covering about 32,000 square kilometres, which is about the size of Switzerland. The Great Bear Rainforest makes up about one-quarter of the world’s coastal temperate rainforests. It’s one of the most pristine wilderness environments in the world.

Quoting from Hello B.C., it says that it’s “a vibrant and diverse ecosystem…a place where the waters teem with an abundance of marine life, including whales, sea otters, dolphins and sea lions. Lush forests rise from the water’s edge and carpet the landscape in green. It’s a labyrinth of fjords stretching inland to the glacier-capped Coast Mountains, and towering granite cliffs give way to the fertile estuaries where bears and eagles gorge on salmon that have returned to their natal streams.”

I spent a number of years growing up across the waters from the Great Bear Rainforest, on the north tip of Vancouver Island. Dad was in the military and lived in Canadian Forces Station Holberg. Dense, lush vegetation — there are ferns, towering Douglas firs and lots and lots of rain. For footwear, normally we wore, as kids, rubber boots, because it rained so much.

One of my fondest memories was with my dad. I think the first time I went there was 1968, when I was eight years old. We went to San Josef Bay. It was a four-hour hike at that time along corduroy roads that the Danish settlers had set up years earlier. There was a colony that was set up that, after the First World War, disbanded because it was so remote. When you get to San Josef Bay, it’s just beautiful — very sandy beaches, similar to Long Beach with the high breakers.

Or you could have gone up to Cape Scott. That was about a 12-hour hike at that time. Now it’s a lot shorter.

The reason I’m bringing this up is that a number of years after we moved from that base to Canadian Forces Station Chibougamau, in Quebec, this area was made into a provincial park. The old-growth forest remained there. It was extended years later, and you have the North Coast Trail, which is similar to the West Coast Trail that we have in the southern part of Vancouver Island.

I know that, as a child and looking back, it was one of the most serene and meaningful places, actually, that I can think of — that area, up in the Cape Scott area. I’m very thankful that the province has preserved this area for British Columbians, some 50 years after I first went up there with my father and gained a real appreciation for the outdoors.

We’re doing something similar in the Great Bear Rainforest. I remember, in the time living up in north Vancouver Island, that there were tracts of land that were cut, and I was disappointed, as a youth, seeing the areas cut. Having gone back there afterwards and over the decades, the untrained eye would not even know that there has been cuts. I’m happy that there’s a park there but that, at the same time, there’s room for logging and for our economic well-being.

That’s, again, similar to what is happening with the Great Bear Rainforest. National Geographic hails the Great Bear Rainforest as “one of its best trips.” This was done a couple of years ago, in 2013. “It’s a place that draws the serious adventurer, the casual explorer and travellers seeking to connect with nature and experience a cultural, spiritual and sensory journey.”

[1400]

We’ve gone through a long, thorough process to reach the place where we’re at today, one of collaboration by many diverse groups. It’s our responsibility to make sure that we leave our province better off for the next generation, and this forest management agreement does just that. This is a monumental agreement acknowledged around the world for its significance. This agreement preserves the pristine wilderness of the Great Bear Rainforest while also continuing the ancient tradition of making a living off of the land.

This act will create special forest management areas where commercial timber-harvesting activities will be prohibited. This agreement promises to protect 85 percent of the regions of the old-growth forests, with logging in the remaining 15 percent.

The ecosystem-based management in the Great Bear Rainforest is a collaboration between 26 First Nations, the province, forest companies and environmental groups. It’s a remarkable achievement. These key stakeholders and First Nations partners collaborated with the government to create the policy framework for the proposed legislation.

[ Page 11623 ]

The environmental groups and forest companies include, from industry, the Coast Forest Conservation Initiative, B.C. Timber Sales, Catalyst Paper, Howe Sound Pulp and Paper and Western Forest Products. From environmental groups, we have the Rainforest Solutions Project, ForestEthics Solutions, Greenpeace and Sierra Club of B.C.

When it comes to commercial logging in the region, the amount of protected old-growth forest in the area will increase from 50 percent to 70 percent. It will include eight new areas set aside for logging.

This act will establish new timber supply areas and reconfigure existing ones in order to better reflect the boundaries of the Great Bear Rainforest. For coastal forest companies operating in the area, they will benefit from certainty that will come from having a secure land base.

Forest companies will have a defined forest management area of 15 percent where logging can occur. The act will create a stable land base that will support an allowable annual cut of 2.5 million cubic metres over the next ten years. This is a decrease of the existing allowable annual cut, or AAC, of about 3.2 million cubic metres per year. This will provide certainty for jobs, investment and the markets.

The chief forester was involved in the forest analysis that contributed to the recommended AAC, and he also participated in discussions for the Great Bear forest range management area during the ten-year allowable annual cut adjustment period.

This agreement recognizes aboriginal rights to share decision-making and improves economic opportunities for 26 First Nations that reside in the area. The protection of 85 percent of the old growth and second forest growth preserves land and cultural, ecological and spiritual ties, which are so vitally important to the people who have lived there for millennia. It also includes more protected areas for freshwater ecosystems and the diverse species that live in the region.

The remaining 15 percent of the region will help support coastal logging and economic opportunities for the First Nations who live in the region. They can continue their ancient tradition of making a sustainable living off the land.

First Nations will now have significantly increased participation in the forest sector, providing economic opportunities and jobs for their communities. This agreement not only leaves the great treasure of preserving the Great Bear Rainforest, but it also is the result of collaboration between First Nations, industry, government and NGOs. That’s the big success.

I want to congratulate everyone who was involved in this process over the years. Their hard work and dedication have paid off, and we now have this great beauty of our province protected.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise with my colleagues on both sides of this House to support, as well, Bill 2, the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act.

This is truly a remarkable event when we find 26 First Nations, the province of British Columbia, several — in fact, numerous — non-governmental organizations and forest companies coming together to reach an agreement in terms of what can be logged, what will be logged, what should not be logged and how logging should be done in an area on the west coast of our province known as the Great Bear Rainforest.

[1405]

The bill before us, Bill 2 — let’s be clear that this bill is really a bill about what can be logged, what can be cut. It leaves a lot, as we’re seeing from other bills, up to regulations that will be put forward through order-in-council at some point in the future. I don’t want to diminish the importance of this bill, of course, but again, I want it to be very clear that what we are debating is what can be cut in the Great Bear Rainforest, rather than, in some sense, the ways in which we do cut or the overall ecosystem-based approach to forestry that’s being taken.

Let me also acknowledge that, as with any bill or any agreement, there will be those who think that government gave away too much. There will be those who think that government didn’t give away enough. There will be those environmental groups that think this was a sellout. There will be those environmental groups that think this is a great success.

This is true of every agreement that is made. But what’s important to recognize is that we were not at the table. Who was at the table? Well, 26 First Nations, a number of environmental groups and a number of forest companies. To get agreement on this is truly an important event.

G. Heyman: With respect to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Heyman: Thank you very much, and thank you to the member.

Joining us in the gallery above me today is a grade 5 class. In fact, the class is split in two from Talmud Torah School in Vancouver-Fairview. I met them at the door. They’re accompanied by teachers Lisa Romalis, Becky Chan and Nicole Andersen.

This is almost a school within a school. There are 75 grade 5 students. We had a very brief discussion about the bill that we’re debating right now, and they’re pretty excited about being here for such a momentous occasion. I hope the House will make them very, very welcome.

Debate Continued

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to sit down and allow the member for Vancouver-Fairview to introduce

[ Page 11624 ]

a class, because it is so incredibly important that we engage our youth in our democracy.

Thank you to the member, and thank you to the class for being here, even though I can’t see you up there.

On to the agreement that we’re debating, Bill 2, Great Bear Rainforest Act. I’m sure that each and every young person in that class is going to go home riveted to the screen and watch all debates today and make sure that they study this, because there will be a test on Friday next week on what you have learned about the Great Bear Rainforest. I’m just joking.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: There’s no test. I’m only joking.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Oh, it’s Good Friday, of course. It’s a holiday.

Coming back to the agreement, as I mentioned, there will be some who don’t think enough was given. There will be some who think too much was given. But I say to those people and to those groups: “You were not present at the table. I was not present at the table.” Those who were present at the table — 26 First Nations, the province, non-government organizations, forest companies — came to an agreement, a monumental agreement, that protects vast areas of our Great Bear Rainforest.

Now, the issue of protection is a complex one. As we know, the forests make up more than half of the Great Bear Rainforest — a total of 3.7 million hectares, or 9.1 million acres. The land use orders in this bill identify 1.36 million acres of managed forest that will support a sustainable harvest, which creates stability for First Nations, workers, communities, investors and customers alike.

One-third of the Great Bear Rainforest is fully protected in parks and conservation areas, and about 9 percent of the total — that’s about 15 percent of the forested area — is available for timber harvesting in the managed forest. The managed forest comprises 550,000 hectares, or about 1.36 million acres, where harvesting of old growth and second growth is guided by ecosystem-based management.

[1410]

We’ll explore at committee stage what this government’s

interpretation of ecosystem-based management is, but I would like to outline the subtle differences between the various land use zones. It is complex, and it is something that I think that not all will appreciate.

Hon. Speaker, 471 hectares are fully protected in what are known as parks and protected areas. Now, protected areas generally have one or more existing or proposed activities that are not usually allowed in a park — i.e., perhaps a proposed industrial road, pipeline, transmission line or communications site. Allowable activities and management direction are determined by specific provisions and special conditions when the area is established as well as relevant sections of the Park Act and the Park, Conservancy and Recreation Area Regulation, as identified in the order-in-council.

Conservancies are also being used. Now, 1.5 million hectares, or about 3.7 million acres, are in a designation that protects ecological values and recognizes the importance of specific areas for First Nations.

What are conservancies? Well, conservancies are slightly different, again, from the protected areas. They are Crown land set aside for four things: “(

a) the protection and maintenance of their biological diversity and natural environments; (

b) the preservation and maintenance of social, ceremonial and cultural uses of First Nations; (

c) the protection and maintenance of their recreational values; and (

d) the development or use of natural resources in a manner consistent with (a), (

b) or (c).” As I say, conservancies are a designation that protects ecological values but that recognizes the importance of specific areas to First Nations.

Hon. Speaker, 764,000 acres are being designated biodiversity, mining and tourism areas. These are areas where the primary use is biodiversity conservation and protection of ecological and cultural values, but commercial forestry and hydroelectric generation linked to the power grid are not allowed.

Then there are the special forest management areas, 675,000 acres of which are preserved. These are areas where hydroelectric generation, mining and tourism development are allowed as long as they maintain ecological integrity. Commercial forestry is not allowed. It is expected that some of these will become biodiversity, mining and tourism areas or conservancies over time.

So the land plan and the land use zones are quite complex and lead to a rather beautifully coloured map — which I’m not allowed to show, as it would be considered a prop — which we have to consider when we look at the Great Bear Rainforest.

When I quote a couple of leading voices on this agreement, I think it’s important to recognize that there is widespread support. Vicky Husband, as we all know, one of B.C.’s leading environmental voices: “‘It is impressive that environmental negotiators were able to get so much when government wanted to give so little.’ But she is dismayed the deal has allowed the government to cast itself as green, when it is still allowing ancient forests to be logged and grizzly bears to be shot.” So there is support, but qualified support.

Rick Slaco, who chairs a group representing the logging companies in the region, stated: “What we’re getting for it is a dedicated land base, a defined amount of harvest, a harvest that is conflict-free, a harvest we can plan our business around. It comes with a social licence.” He also noted: “The significant part of this agreement for the forest industry is that we’re still going to cut trees down. We’re going to cut down less of them” — he should have

[ Page 11625 ]

said “fewer of them” — “and cut them down in a different way.”

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I’m glad that the class has now left. I was just correcting the grammar for them there. I should add a [sic] for Hansard there.

“We didn’t do this to go out of business,” he says.

We have qualified support from Vicky Husband, a well-known name. Frankly, to get qualified support from her is quite a sign that this is a deal that has got widespread support in the province — and from the forest industry, as well, when so much land is preserved, is also quite a significant coup that we have.

I do caution some temperance on the rhetoric that we’re hearing from the government. I recognize that the government is proud to bring this to us today, as we are all proud in British Columbia to be able to support this.

[1415]

However, statements like, “We’re green world leaders; this is our gift to the planet,” are a little tough to take from a government that’s purporting to develop an industry that the rest of the world is either moving away from or already has a glut of supply in.

Let’s not forget, too, that in fact, the deal that saved the Great Bear Rainforest has actually been announced something like 15 times already over the past number of years. While an often-cited announcement, it is important to recognize that it is this government and this Legislature that has the honour of being able to prove it today.

While I do caution the temperance, government doesn’t need to oversell this. This sells itself. There’s no need for rhetoric to say how great government is in doing this. This sells itself. We will praise this agreement on this side of the House as much as anybody. So I suggest that in some sense, credibility is lost a little bit if government touts its own success. Let others tout this success, because this is a success, and we are here to actually support government on this.

But it is not the thing that makes B.C., in giving a gift to the entire world, green leaders of the world. It’s an important step, an important conservation step, a historic agreement that puts the rights of First Nations front and centre, the rights of ecological systems there front and centre. We’ll explore this in more detail at committee stage.

As I mentioned, this bill really is about very specific details focused on determining the allowable annual cut and forest licences, tree farm licences that will be affected. It’s not light reading for grade 5 elementary students who may attend it here. The summaries are much easier to grapple with. As the government has suggested, this bill will “enable implementation of unique ecosystem-based management rules to the Great Bear Rainforest that move beyond current legislation while ensuring normal rules under the Forest Act still apply.” This is important, but we need to explore what government is thinking ecosystem-based management means.

Government also is suggesting that this will “legally establish a Great Bear Rainforest area and assign an initial allowable cut of 2.5 million cubic metres per year for ten years for the entire area. After ten years, the allowable annual cut would be determined by the chief forester under

section 8 of the Forest Act, as is the case in other management units” — again, something that needs exploration at committee stage as to what government is thinking here in the longer term.

The government says this agreement will “establish new timber supply areas and reconfigure existing ones to better reflect the boundaries of the Great Bear Rainforest” — again, something that we’ll explore further at committee stage with respect to what the boundaries are, and how they are defined, of the Great Bear Rainforest.

The government also says this bill will “provide for the designation of new special forest management areas that prohibit commercial timber-harvesting areas.” Again, here we’ll seek information further as to what commercial means in this regard and how the different land use zones come into play.

Government says that it plans to “enable regulations to specify where forest practices may differ from those under the Forest and Range Practices Act and regulations.” Again, this needs to be explored more comprehensively in the committee stage.

Finally, this bill, government states, will “allow the minister to set ‘partitions’ at the licence level, where partitions can be set to ensure a certain portion of a licensee’s annual cut is directed in a particular geographic area or restricted to a particular tree species” — again, a topic that I think needs to be explored further at committee stage.

In conclusion, I, like the rest of my colleagues in this chamber, am delighted to stand and support this historic agreement. I look forward to committee stage, to explore some of the thinking of government as we move towards a discussion of what it has in mind with respect to the regulations that it is empowering in the introduction of this bill.

[1420]

I leave government with a final note. Let us celebrate your successes well. It is far better than when government touts its own successes too much, because people don’t actually value and appreciate the success when it is done that way. It is better when others call you world-class. It is better when others congratulate you. When one congratulates oneself or one calls oneself world-class, it makes one wonder if you are world-class or whether we should be congratulating you.

D. Donaldson: I rise to take

part in the second reading debate of this bill, the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act. It’s

an act that establishes the forest

[ Page 11626 ]

management area for the Great Bear Rainforest and gives authorization to cabinet to make decisions about forest harvesting in the affected region. It also authorizes the minister to grant relief from penalties under the Forest Act for contravening cut control limits if actions taken under this act contributed to those contraventions.

It’s an area of the province that actually spans over three million hectares. The very northern part touches on and is part of the constituency I represent, Stikine, the part of the Great Bear Rainforest that abuts the Alaskan Tongass rainforest. I’m quite familiar with the area from the land perspective — not as much from the marine perspective.

What this act does is it speaks to forest management. Under the proposed bill here, 15 percent of that over three million hectares will be open to logging, which amounts to about 550,000 hectares that the forest industry has to work with. The other 85 percent of coastal temperate rainforest is in various forms of protection from industrial activity, but mainly from logging.

As many of the speakers on our side have pointed out, this act been a long time in coming. It’s based on an agreement and quite a process involving many different perspectives and many different stakeholders and many different world views.

I recall Rick Jeffery, when he was one of the chief negotiators for forest companies when the work was being done to come to a consensus on what should happen on the land base, having a certain perspective. Now he’s the CEO of the Coast Forest Products Association, and he says, of this agreement and this act: “It provides a certainty.” That’s important, because it provides certainty around access, and that certainty around access provides certainty around investment as well. The ecological integrity will be protected under this act, and human well-being will be taken care of as well.

It is the largest tract of intact temperate rainforest in the world. I think, oftentimes, when you live in an area like that, like I do, it’s hard to appreciate how significant your own backyard is. If you look around the world, this is very significant. It’s very significant for current generations but also for future generations, when we’re dealing with issues of enhanced climate change, issues of biodiversity and all of those kinds of issues.

You know, we have a bit of an idea — many people have an idea — that we know everything about the natural world that needs to be known. And yet we find new discoveries every day in the natural world. The discoveries are only able to be found when we deal with intact ecosystems.

[1425]

All of the products and the various medicines and the various solutions that we have to challenges we face today are based in the natural world. If we eliminate large tracts without knowing exactly what the future worth could be in areas like medicine and others, then we are limiting future generations’ ability to find solutions and to overcome future challenges. It is important, what we’re talking about here today, and it is important that we are ensuring that over three million hectares are going to be kept relatively intact, based on ecosystem-based management principles.

The creation of this area that’s described under the Great Bear Rainforest Act, this bill, goes back a long ways. I actually had some involvement. I was working, in late 2000 and early 2001, on the joint solutions project, which my colleague has described in his two-hour address to this bill. It was one of the ways that the different stakeholders were trying to come together to arrive at some common ground on what the future of this land and coast should be. My role was a community economic development lens on what human well-being could be derived from this intact land and coastline.

CED, community economic development, principles are principles where local people should have the largest say over what happens in their own backyards, from an economic development perspective, and should be the principal drivers of that economic development. CED principles are principles of justice and equality and that power is shared. You know, what we’ve seen as coming out of the agreement and the Great Bear Rainforest Act is that some of these CED principles have infiltrated into what’s happening on the land base.

I think of Rick Jeffery talking about how it provides a certainty, this agreement and this act, for the forest industry, but it also provides certainty for other economic generators for communities on the coast. I think of the bear-viewing industry that has expanded incredibly along the coast. That’s resulted in tens of millions of dollars being spent and distributed in local communities.

We had a presentation night hosted by many of those companies that are focused on the Knight Inlet. Again, it’s the CED principles that were part of this agreement and around ecosystem-based management that allows for non-extractive economic uses of the land base as well.

G. Heyman: With respect to my colleague from Stikine, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Heyman: Again, thank you to my colleague from Stikine.

Joining us in the gallery above is the second group of students from the Talmud Torah school, grade 5 students from the school in Vancouver-Fairview. They’re joined by teachers Lisa Romalis, Becky Chan and Nicole Anderson. They are having a quick but exciting tour of the Legislature.

They were asking me earlier who would be in the House. They’d heard about the Great Bear Rainforest and I think are happy to be able to witness a small piece of the debate on this historic achievement.

[ Page 11627 ]

I hope that my colleagues will join me in making the students very, very welcome.

Debate Continued

D. Donaldson: Those days when I was involved with the joint solutions project, back in late 2000, early 2001, were very, very intense days.

[1430]

There was a lot of disagreement amongst the stakeholders, the various people who had an interest in this Great Bear Rainforest land base — whether it was large forest companies, whether it was people in smaller communities who were dependent on logging, whether it was First Nations, whether it was other people in communities along that coast who had an interest in intact ecosystems. The provincial government was at the table as well. These were very, very intense times. As I said, forest companies and environmental groups were represented. But people remained at the table.

In 2001…. This was the year that I left working on the joint solutions project. It was around this time that the forest companies agreed to suspend logging in the area and environmental groups agreed to suspend their boycott activities of the forest companies that were operating in that area. At the same time, indigenous leaders became engaged by the provincial government.

Although this had been going on for a while and there were conflicts, by 2006, an agreement was in place around ecosystem-based management on the area known as the Great Bear Rainforest. Now we have, ten years later, the actual act that will govern the logging activities and where they can occur in the Great Bear Rainforest.

This was, I guess, what could you say is an ultimate example of a consensus-based approach. Its genesis was out of conflict around different world views and different perspectives on how the resources in the Great Bear Rainforest could be used or observed or not used. But over time and over incredible dedication on pretty well everybody’s behalf who sat around the table, a consensus and agreement was reached in 2006.

A lot of that grew out of relationship-building. Again, my colleague has talked about that. Over the years, people at the table came to know each other as human beings, really, not as people who were representative of a single point of view.

Like most people, there are complexities, and there is a spectrum of values. You can hold one value and another value, and they might not combine often. But by people getting to know each other around the table over a number of years and in oftentimes high-pressure circumstances, an agreement was reached in 2006. This bill, ten years later, puts meat on the agreement that was reached from the forest activities point of view.

Many First Nations traditional territories are covered in the Great Bear Rainforest, and they’ve become signatories to the agreements and supporters of this act as well.

The supporters of this bill are quite diverse. We have organizations such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and ForestEthics. We also have the Coastal First Nations and forest companies led by the Coast Forest Products Association that Rick Jeffery now heads. A pretty wide spectrum of interests there represented who are supportive of this bill.

As Richard Brooks, the campaign coordinator for Greenpeace Canada, points out, this agreement — and now this act and this bill that we’re considering today — holds out hope for other areas currently in conflict to move towards collaboration. I want to talk a little bit more about that in relation to this bill, because I think there are some lessons to be learned that need to be applied more widely.

It’s still going to take eyes on the ground. I have no doubt, with the interest that we’ve seen over the last 16, 17 years, that there will be a lot of interest and eyes on the ground.

[1435]

The ecosystem-based management approach is not just about logging — we’re seeing this Bill 2 deal with the logging part of it — but other industrial uses of the land base, as well, like mining and energy production, and also the non-consumptive uses of the land, such as the bear-viewing industry that I referred to before.

There’s going to be a lot of need for eyes on the ground to ensure that the intent of this bill, Bill 2 that’s in front of us, is actually carried out. I look forward to the committee stage and to hearing from the minister, from a provincial perspective and from his ministry’s perspective — or her ministry’s perspective, depending on who’s going to be actually responsible for eyes on the ground — how that’s going to transpire, because that’s definitely something that’s going to be needed.

As we know, there’s going to be a ten-year review after this bill is passed — that’ll be in 2026 — so again, important to hear more detail on how that review will be conducted and how it relates to the amount of logging and where it can occur, because things do change over time.

I want to get back to what I think are the really interesting and significant parts of Bill 2 and what it represents. It represents that certainty aspect that Rick Jeffery talked about from the forest industry perspective and the ability to reduce current conflict and move towards a more collaborative approach that Richard Brooks from Greenpeace Canada talked about in relation to this bill and this agreement.

I think what this bill gets at is that it’s not an either-or approach. It’s not: either we have industry with jobs, or we have concern about the environment and no jobs. It’s not an either-or. Oftentimes these kinds of conflicts over the land base are presented as that. Really, what this bill, and the agreement it’s based on, typifies is a sharing of the land base and how, sometimes, competing activities

[ Page 11628 ]

can occur on the land base. Sometimes there are activities that are mutually exclusive, but in this case, we’re talking about how the land base can be shared.

It reminds me of the land and resource management plans that were initiated in the 1990s that were exactly about that. They were initiated by the NDP government in the 1990s to try to overcome conflicting uses of the land base and conflicting views about how the land base was managed. Primarily, in those days, it was around industrial logging activities.

I, as well, in 1991 and 1992, worked on land and resource management plans in the Morice forest district, in the Bulkley forest district and in the Kispiox forest district as an independent consultant. Those were extremely worthwhile enterprises, worthwhile processes initiated by the NDP government of the day.

Those documents are still worthwhile today. I mean, they get updated now and then, but they are the basis of how we operate on the land base. Again, though, they primarily focused on forestry. One that I was involved with specifically…. Generally, I was involved with the Morice, Bulkley and Kispiox LRMP when it came to public consultation around the forestry aspect. The one in Kispiox, also, an offshoot of that, was the land use plan that created the Babine River corridor.

[1440]

That is an incredibly important corridor for grizzly bears. They come from miles and miles away. Just like the bears in the Great Bear Rainforest are integral to that agreement, the Babine River corridor grizzly bears come from hundreds of miles away to use the Babine River corridor area during salmon spawning. It’s an important, obviously critical, part of the grizzly bear diet.

That process was around how we get to the fact that we need to have industrial logging activities to support human well-being, as Rick Jeffery put it. But we also recognize that there’s a need for continued biodiversity — with the grizzly bears. That was what that process was about. It worked quite well. Now we have the Babine River corridor, we have the Babine River trust, and we have lots of eyes on the ground in that area as well.

The issue that gets back to Bill 2 is that this was a process initiated by the government of the day, the NDP government, to try to reduce conflict and try to work out how we shared the land base.

Many of those land and resource management plans did not have a very rigorous component to other activities on the land base. They had a lot of focus on forestry, just like we have in Bill 2 — and the bill we’re considering today is, really, a forest management act. But the LRMP process did not have as much rigour when it came to sharing the land base around mining activities, for instance, or, what’s become even more prominent in the last five or six years, energy production. That was not even a topic, really, under the LRMP process back in the ’90s because a lot of the alternative sources of energy hadn’t been well-thought-out or well-planned-out at that point.

There is still a need to revisit land and resource management plans just the same as in Bill 2. We’ll be revisiting Bill 2 in ten years. It’s in recognition that priorities change and techniques change and things change over time. The LRMPs, although focused on forestry to try to reduce conflict, did not have a lot to say about mining, energy production.

Water use is becoming a very important topic these days. We know what’s happened in California, and with enhanced climate change, we know that this can be an issue into the future. It’s an issue now.

Those kinds of land and resource management plans that were initiated in the ’90s are similar to what we’re looking at today with the Great Bear Rainforest agreement and now the Great Bear Rainforest Act. What I would like to see is that the LRMPs that laid the foundation for trying to reduce conflict on the land base…. I would like to see this government be more interested in updating them to include more of the land uses that we see becoming more prominent these days.

It’s not something that is unknown to this government. We have this Bill 2 in front of us now, which is a bill that I will be supporting. It’s a demonstration of consensus, it’s a demonstration of sharing of the land base, and it’s a demonstration of adding certainty and reducing conflict.

This government, and I will give them credit for this, also undertook the Atlin-Taku land use plan. That’s an area of almost three million hectares as well, so a similar size to the Great Bear Rainforest. It’s an area in Stikine, in the northwest corner of the province, on the traditional territories of the Taku River Tlingit. The community of Atlin is also within the land use plans boundaries. Therefore, it’s called the Atlin-Taku, and the Taku River is representative of that — again, three million hectares.

[1445]

Similarly to Bill 2, it was an initiative to try to come to an agreement over competing resource extraction activities on the land base and competing uses of the land base, as a way to reduce conflict and increase consensus. That land use plan was completed in 2011. I gave the government of the day — this government — credit back in 2011. That was five years ago. I gave them credit for finalizing that plan. It had taken probably around eight years, so it went back quite a ways, to actually get in place. It’s similar to what we see under the Great Bear Rainforest agreement in 2006, and now this Bill 2, this act, ten years later.

The Atlin-Taku land use plan — LUP, as the short form is — took about eight years. The initial four years was the space and time given to the Taku River Tlingit to actually write down and quantify their traditional ecological knowledge — TEK, it’s called.

Similarly, in Bill 2, the Coastal First Nations are supporting this bill. No doubt they’re in support of Bill 2 be-

[ Page 11629 ]

cause their traditional ecological knowledge, which has been 10,000 years in the making, was considered in the Great Bear Rainforest agreement and is considered now under the Great Bear Rainforest Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Again, the Atlin-Taku land use plan that came into effect in 2011 and started eight years earlier…. About the first four years was when the Taku River Tlingit were really able to survey their oral history with elders and quantify and describe the traditional ecological knowledge that needed to be considered, on an equal footing with western scientific knowledge, when decisions were made around the land use plan.

In about 2008, the provincial government came on board in a more significant way with stakeholders. One of the stakeholders was the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. Similarly, in Bill 2, under the Great Bear Rainforest Act, we had different stakeholders coming together, facilitated by government, to try to come up with a consensus that reduces conflict and increases certainty for access and use on the land base.

In the Atlin-Taku plan, the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. came forward and was part of that table too. A lot of the competing interests on the land base…. Just like in Bill 2, where the competing interest on the land base is industrial forestry activity, in the Atlin-Taku land use plan, it was mining.

I’m talking a lot about the Atlin-Taku land use plan in relation to this bill, Bill 2. I’m giving credit to the provincial government for following through on commitments and signing the land use plan off with local First Nations and industry stakeholders in 2011. That was five years ago. Now, we have not seen any significant initiative from the current government when it comes to land use planning.

Again, Bill 2, we have people — who one would think would be at opposite ends of perspective — like Rick Jeffery, from the Coast Forest Products Association, saying Bill 2 is an example of providing certainty, and we have Richard Brooks, the campaign coordinator for Greenpeace Canada, saying it’s an example of hope, to reduce areas that are currently in conflict as we move toward collaboration.

[1450]

Unfortunately, there has been no work on land use planning by this government since the Atlin-Taku land use plan. Instead, the current approach that I’ve witnessed is one-off deals, where industry stakeholders are left to do deal by deal with First Nations, where this government does one-off deals with First Nations instead of a comprehensive approach. I think Bill 2 and the Great Bear Rainforest agreement was a comprehensive approach. That’s what we need more of.

I see my time in this second reading is coming to a close. I will be supporting this act, but what I say is that we need more encouragement for land use plans in this province in order to create that certainty, to create that consensus and to create a reduction in conflict. I haven’t seen that in recent years from this government.

I think that is something that will bode well for all users of the land base, First Nations and non–First Nations alike. Rather than having just one-off agreements and one-off deals, we should be looking at these kinds of comprehensive agreements on land use and sharing the land base, like the Great Bear Rainforest agreement was in 2006, which led to Bill 2, this act.

D. Routley: I rise to speak to Bill 2, the Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act. As previous speakers have indicated, the NDP, the official opposition, will be supporting this bill. We feel proud as British Columbians of a consensus-based agreement around probably the most contentious industrial issue that British Columbia has faced over many, many decades.

We feel pride in having been a part of the beginning of this process and having implemented many of the tools that were necessary for this agreement to finally be formalized today. Although this agreement was concluded ten years ago, it is only now, today, being formalized in legislation.

A little bit of a refresher on the Great Bear Rainforest. It’s an area of mostly undisturbed temperate rainforest that stretches approximately 400 miles, from northern Vancouver Island up to the U.S. Alaska panhandle. It is an area of over three million hectares of temperate rainforest — that’s almost eight million acres — and 1.6 million acres of that will remain active logging areas. This huge area represents one-quarter of the world’s intact temperate rainforests.

This is a contribution from British Columbia to the global effort to stem climate change. It is also a recognition of the heritage that we have been blessed to inherit, firstly from the First Nations who have cooperated and acted in the best of faith in negotiation with logging companies, with the B.C. government, with the many non-governmental organizations, the environmental organizations that have a stake or involvement in this area.

It represents something that I think is significant in many ways. Now 15 percent of the Great Bear Rainforest will remain active logging areas. That includes 550,000 hectares of land, so it’s going to be a very significant economic contributor as well. There were 26 First Nations involved in this negotiation — absolutely a wonderful effort on their part.

In British Columbia, the forests are such an integral part of our history, economically and socially. In my own life, my work life in early days, working in this province, was all related to the forest industry — planting trees, logging, working in sawmills, building houses.

[1455]

The wood of the province has been an important part of my life and a crucial part of the B.C. economy. It re-

[ Page 11630 ]

mains the number one export value in British Columbia. Over $12½ billion last year of forest-related products were exported. It remains such a vital element of our economic well-being.

But the history of it is a source of great conflict. We have seen the war in the woods in the ’90s. It was reconciled by the declaration of protected areas, the declaration that B.C. would see 12 percent of its land base made into parks. That was another example of negotiation between environmental groups, industry and government in this province that led to a peace that allowed the industry to continue.

The industry. It was a source of such great pride and strength in this province, but it had been dragged into a place of conflict and negativity. The pride that British Columbians felt who were loggers and forest workers was very much damaged by a sense that they weren’t acting in the best interests of the province. We now know, with a more mature view of this entire issue, that that is as far from the case as it possibly could be.

Forestry is our only natural resource industry that is absolutely renewable. It is the ultimate renewable industry. Managed properly, our healthy forests are the lungs of the planet and the heart of our thriving economy. This is something that we’ve, I think, always recognized as British Columbians. But we’ve been cast into periods of conflict and unwillingness to sit at the same table with each other on this issue for a very long time.

What I think is significant is that this agreement represents an opportunity to build a pattern for the future in negotiations around the forest industry and around protection of habitat and protection of endangered species.

There are, obviously, some issues that will remain contentious around this subject but also around this issue: the determination of what areas can be logged, what areas can’t be logged, will be logged or won’t be logged. That will continue to be an ongoing negotiation that, I’m sure, will have its difficult points and stressful moments.

The allowable activities on the land base will be decided case by case, through eco-based management processes that have been agreed upon by all sides. The many different values of the forest will be respected: the ecotourism values, the bear-viewing values, kayaking opportunities — these activities on the land base that are non-impactful and, in fact, create a greater sense of connection to our forest land base and show the world exactly how beautiful and how strong the natural backbone of our province is.

After a long period of unwillingness to sit at the same table, a mistrust had developed, and that mistrust, in this case, has been overcome by negotiation and years and years of relationship-building that has respected the historical legacy of the province — both First Nations legacy and the forest industry legacy of the province, the communities that were built on this resource industry. They are being recognized and protected.

We will see some logging in these designated management areas. It will be selective logging. Light logging techniques will be used, and all parties will have input into exactly how those things are achieved and carried out.

[1500]

One of the issues that is also impacted by this agreement is that the habitat of many endangered species will now be protected. One of the things that this side of the House has pushed for, for some years now, through private members’ legislation and continued calls to government, is the enactment of endangered species legislation. That is an accompanying piece to this agreement that we have great hope will eventually be materialized, if not by this government, certainly by ours when we are elected.

We recognize that endangered species legislation must include as one of its primary elements the protection of habitat. In fact, when we recognize that such a complex land base has many different elements, some more sensitive than others, some more resilient than others, and more available to industry without great impact…. As we understand this, we can have a much more mature and thoughtful debate around these issues in British Columbia. It would no longer have to be one or the other. It no longer has to be a war between the forest industry and environmentalists. We should all be on the same page.

It is the most environmentally renewable industry on the planet, and it is the strongest industry in our province.

I think such an unfortunate history has developed, where the interests of working British Columbians have been pitted against the interests of every British Columbian that cares about the environment. I think that was one of the most unfortunate periods of our province. It began, in fact, at the beginning of the province, when you look at the forest management issues, even of the day of B.C. entering Confederation. Concerns around log exports and other issues that impact the environment were strongly debated even at that time.

We come from a history, in the province, of a sense of inextinguishable resources, unending resources. You can imagine that when these communities were developing more than 100 years ago, they looked at the mountains of this province and the valleys and the carpets and endless expanse of timber and thought that no matter what we did, we could never run out. In fact, over the years, it became more and more clear and evident that that was indeed not the case. We can do harm to this environment that will take many, many generations to recover from.

Over the years, I think we’ve all come to recognize that we need to invest in our land base, to restore the land base, to invest heavily in planting trees and taking care of the land base. Our side of the House has significant issues and differences between the government side of the House on how that should be done and how much investment should be made in renewal of forests. Those things are points of debate that will continue.

[ Page 11631 ]

All of those potential sources of conflict are positively impacted by the positive nature of this agreement. I think British Columbia owes it to our natural history, our biodiversity, our role on the globe environmentally. We owe it to protect our environment. We owe it to our economy to harvest responsibly, to capitalize the natural resources of our province, but in a way that is sustainable and renewable.

[1505]

This agreement begins to point the way, at least, to mechanisms where we can discuss, where we can come to agreement, and through consensus, arrive at a place where there is not only protection for the environment but also certainty for industry operating in these regions, operating in these natural resource sectors. That allows us to…. Instead of arguing over this zero-sum game of either-or, we can begin to have a conversation about how much and where and when — and respect all the values that are at play.

This is a significant turning point. It began in the 1990s with the land use planning process. The land and resource management plans that were brought in and established by the NDP government of the ’90s. This process led to several agreements and, in fact, form the foundation of this agreement.

I think we all need to recognize that the people at the table, over these many decades, have shifted. Governments have changed. Leadership in First Nations has changed. Leadership in the forest industry has changed. Corporate roles in the forest industry have changed. And yet, still, over all this time, we’ve managed to come to some kind of agreement — against, perhaps, all odds.

We’re proud that this achievement has been realized here. But we need to remember that so much credit will go to so many unrecognized faces. Leadership in those labour organizations, unions. Leadership in government. Leadership in First Nations. Leadership in environmental organizations. So many people have contributed to this agreement who will never really be adequately recognized. I think as parliamentarians here we owe it to remind ourselves of the goodwill that has been extended by so many British Columbians to help realize this goal.

I would like to personally pay my respect and tribute to those people and recognize that they have contributed to a significant development of our province — not just an economic development but a social, environmental and natural justice accomplishment.

One of the things that we have become increasingly aware of is the human impact on the environment as represented by climate and through climate change. We can see in B.C. the effects of climate change in the pine beetle epidemic, the spruce beetle and the challenges that our salmon habitat and salmon fisheries face.

Now we recognize, also, that our healthy forests are more than just simply protected natural areas but also play a significant role as carbon sinks, absorbing carbon from an atmosphere increasingly impacted by carbon increases. What we’re doing is providing a protection, a cushion, a sink, for carbon.

We should never underestimate the global significance of the role we can play in the fight against climate change — not simply by the things that we do in our daily lives in managing our energy use and managing our emissions and controlling those but also protecting our forests so that we allow our habitat to play its natural role in mitigating and reducing the impacts of climate change.

As we go forward, of course we need to recognize that all of these issues have been such an unfortunate source of conflict in the province, and even confrontation. We still see such standoffs and clashes in other areas where such a consensus-based approach hasn’t been prevalent but could be very fruitful.

[1510]

When we look at the challenges we face even here on Vancouver Island with the logging of old-growth timber and the protection of habitat, the challenge of raw log exports versus value-added industry…. All of these things will benefit from a similar consensus-based approach. I would encourage government and industry and labour and environmentalists to extend the same kind of goodwill and positive energy to that struggle to find a solution for those issues.

At the same time that we speak of the significance of this agreement, we need to remember that we are not starting on a blank page. We have significant issues still to deal with in terms of public policy that impact our environment. At the same time that the government claims to be green leaders of the world because of this agreement, they pursue non-renewable energy projects without adequate consideration for the emissions and the impact of those.

Yes, we need to congratulate everyone involved in reaching this agreement. But also yes, we need to remind ourselves that we have a long way to go. I’m thinking right now of the legislation controlling the emissions of the potential LNG industry where, you know, we also congratulated ourselves, at least the government did, and promised the cleanest LNG industry on the planet but then excluded 70 to 80 percent of the emissions in that process.

We can’t simply have the hubris or even arrogance to claim such stupendous accomplishment without also acknowledging our failure and the challenges that remain. We need to recognize that we in this province have legislated climate change targets, carbon emission targets, and at this point, we have no hope of reaching those, particularly if the current government’s plans for non-renewable energy industries realize any fraction of the promise that they’ve made.

That does not diminish this accomplishment. This accomplishment by itself does not elevate us away from those failures, but those failures do not really reduce the significance of this agreement either. We must remind

[ Page 11632 ]

ourselves and express some degree of humility, even while we congratulate ourselves for this consensus. Even as both sides of the House agree, we need to recognize the challenges that remain.

We all need to recognize that what was done in the past is probably no longer acceptable in so many ways. We look at the practices of industry on the land base. The demands for change have been answered with environmental regulations and efforts by industry to reduce its impact. Pulp mills in my constituency use 90 percent less energy and water than they did a couple of decades ago. That’s a significant gain in reducing their impact. In so many ways, what we did before is no longer acceptable.

We can all look back at the history of these issues, including this side of the House in our time in government. We have to acknowledge that there were things that we should have done and didn’t do, that we perhaps shouldn’t have done and did do, that challenges remain, that we all need to learn and we all need to apply the best of goodwill and the best of the energy of British Columbia to reform the way we do business, to reform the way we manage relationships, to reform the way we deal with indigenous rights and recognize that our past, while it is a proud history, is also marked by failure.

[1515]

Even today, when we look at some of the issues that are happening in our province that are impacting our environment, we need to recognize that we continue to fail and fall down in our obligation to protect the environment, to develop our economy, and to do all of that in a sustainable way — not simply sustainable in terms of environment or resources but also in a sustainable way in terms of social and natural justice.

When we reach these agreements, if we have forgotten to pay respect and involve and engage and partner with indigenous peoples, then we have failed. If we reach these agreements and fail to recognize the social impacts of rural resource communities in British Columbia, then we will have failed. I think that is what sets this apart — that it is much more of a balance of environment, economy and social justice.

This is a template that we should strive to apply to all of the challenges in this province. It is something that was a long time coming, which took several decades to complete, which was in fact agreed to ten years ago and that is now being enshrined in legislation. We need to thank all of the people involved for what they’ve done.

This act will be reviewed in ten years, in 2026, and hopefully, through all these processes of negotiation and environmentally and culturally sensitive management of this area, that review in 2026 will be one that says that this was a good foundation, that we have pursued these values and extended them to other challenges in this province and that we’ll recognize what challenges and difficulties and failings we have yet to encounter, even inside this agreement and inside this land base.

If we are not willing to examine our actions not only with a view to promote our success but also to squarely face our failure to acknowledge the challenges that we have and we have created for ourselves, if we refuse to recognize our own role when we do not meet the standard of these values that are represented here, if we are not prepared to acknowledge fault, then we will have failed ourselves, this agreement and our province. This political battleground is an important struggle between different points of view, different world views, when it comes to economy and justice and social issues.

This is the place where these contentions are brought and fought. Mr. George MacMinn, who was Clerk or Deputy Clerk of this House for over 52 years, once said something to a student that I brought here on job-shadowing. He said that question period is a place very different from the community where we raise our children to work together in a civil way, to respect each other and to collaborate. That is indeed what we should try to achieve here.

There’s also an important role for this place in managing conflict. He said that there are anger and passion in this chamber so that there isn’t blood on the streets, so that when people have these issues and a complaint or grievance against their government and a sense that justice hasn’t been achieved, this is the place where we release that pressure and take action, hopefully, to resolve those kinds of issues.

[1520]

There will always be that political and partisan conflict here, but it has an important, positive role. People often complain of it, but it’s like complaining that someone else is having an argument. If you are in an argument, then it’s a very important thing; to someone else, not so much.

This will continue to be a place of contention and conflict, inside this chamber, in a healthy way. At the same time, when it results in agreements that are admirable and public policy that is positive, then we need to celebrate that and recognize that. I’ve spent a lot of time recognizing what I see as the failures of this government. So perhaps it’s refreshing to be able to say that I congratulate the government on its current role in a long-standing process, and I will be very proud to support this bill when it comes to vote.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes the debate.

Hon. S. Thomson: I’m very pleased to stand and close debate on the bill. I certainly appreciate all of the support for the bill from all members, both sides of the House, who’ve spoken to the bill and indicated their recognition and their support of the significant achievement that we have with this agreement and with this legislation.

Some of the comments and some of the submissions, I think, were a little bit of revisionist history. It was enjoy-

[ Page 11633 ]

able listening to some. I was trying to think, in my closing comments, how I might bring Father Pandosy into the closing here and my family’s journey into the Okanagan in the 1890s shortly after Father Pandosy came to the Okanagan. I don’t think they came through the Great Bear Rainforest to get there, over Mount Waddington or up that way. It was a stretch to try and figure out how to get that into the closing comments, so I won’t even try to revise history and do that.

This is a significant achievement. I just want to make a couple of comments. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head said: “Don’t take too much credit for this.” We certainly don’t. I don’t want to diminish at all the very, very significant contributions of everybody who has been involved in this from the beginning and all the way through the process — the environmental organizations, the industry and the First Nations that have all been part of it.

The member said that we need to do that because we weren’t at the table. That’s not quite correct. In this closing part of this agreement, government was very much at the table. The completion of the process and the human well-being component of it with First Nations were dealt with on a government-to-government basis. Our government, our side of the Legislature here, played a very, very important role in completing that human well-being component of the agreement that brought us to this day, to where we are here today with the agreement and the legislation.

The members who’ve made comments have acknowledged the leadership of very, very many people who have contributed to this. From the industry — Rick Jeffery and Rick Slaco. From the environmental organizations — Valerie Langer, Jody Holmes, Jens Wieting and Eduardo Sousa. The First Nations leadership that have contributed so much — Dallas Smith; Art Sterritt; Marilyn Slett; and with the Coastal First Nations, Garry Wouters. I acknowledge the contribution of a number of people within our ministry who played a very significant role — Rory Annett, Craig Sutherland, Dorthe Jakobsen.

[1525]

There was one name that wasn’t mentioned, and I just want to bring that into the record. My deputy, Tim Sheldan, needs recognition and needs to be acknowledged on the very important role that he played in the final stages of the agreements, the agreements with First Nations and all the work that got us to that final agreement and to be able to bring the legislation forward. So I just want to acknowledge that and bring that into the record.

There was also some commentary around — I’m not sure of the exact wording — that this is an incredible but unlikely outcome. I think there were doubters out there as to whether we could actually get this done. I’m optimistic and try to stay positive in all this.

I recognize the timelines that it took and that this was a long process. I can recall many, many late-night conversations and calls with key principals in this, with discussions, with meetings around “are you going to be able to get this done?” and worries, as timelines slipped somewhat as we were going through the process. We would indicate that we think we can get it done by this time. Then that would slip a little bit, because it was a very complex set of negotiations and agreements.

I can recall being on a teleconference with the international community, telling them: “We will achieve this. We will get it done. Just be patient. We’ll get there.” To the credit of everybody, they stayed at the table. As I said, timelines slipped a little bit. But everybody stayed there, and here we are. We’re in the Legislature with the legislation, with the agreement to be able to complete the process.

I have listened carefully to all of the submissions. I recognize some of the comments and questions that have been raised that we’ll be dealing with in committee stage. I look forward to those discussions because this legislation is part of it. There are elements that I know form part of the commentary that members opposite will want to address during the committee stage. I look forward to doing that when we get to committee stage.

Mostly, I’m really pleased to see the support for the legislation. I think we all recognize the meaning, the significance, the historical nature of this agreement and the legislation. I’m proud, as others have said, to be in the Legislature having this debate, coming to this stage of this long history.

It is, and will continue to be, something to celebrate. We all need to recognize and celebrate collectively on this with all of the people who’ve contributed to this over all of that period of time. I’ll look forward to the committee stage. I’ll look forward to the completion of the process.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 2.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the act be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 2, Great Bear Rainforest (Forest Management) Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 4, the Fire Safety Act.

BILL 4 — FIRE SAFETY ACT

Hon. T. Stone: I want to start off by thanking the opposition.

Actually, I guess I have to move that the bill be now read a second time — do that first.

[ Page 11634 ]

I’d like to start off by thanking the Opposition House Leader for his indulgence here. I’m just going to speak for literally a minute. Then I’m going to cede my spot to the Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness.

[1530]

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to work with the Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness. We’re the only province in the country that actually has not one but two ministers who work very closely, hand in hand, to do all that we can to make sure that the province is as best prepared as possible for the variety of different types of emergencies that can beset our province.

The new Fire Safety Act aims to modernize fire safety regulations here in British Columbia. As the son of a firefighter myself — and a fire investigator with the office of the fire commissioner — I’m very proud of the changes that we are proposing here through this legislation.

In fact, this is a piece of legislation that has not seen a substantial revision since 1979. It will improve fire code compliance monitoring, enable local authorities to appoint fire safety personnel to carry out fire inspections, establish an administrative enforcement model to address non-compliance issues and shift to more of a risk-based approach for compliance monitoring in the municipalities.

I’m going to leave my comments there. I will now take my seat. I look forward to my colleague the Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness, who is doing a terrific job on all of our behalf to ensure that British Columbians are as prepared as possible.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I am pleased to speak to the second reading of the Fire Safety Act.

In my mandate letter, the Premier noted the importance of ensuring that the citizens of our province and other governments, local and otherwise, are prepared for emergencies and disasters. Part of my role as Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness is to work with the office of the fire commissioner.

Whether it’s improving the fire safety of British Columbians or helping to improve the regulatory framework they work in, currently represented by the Fire Services Act, this legislation really hasn’t seen substantial updates since the late 1970s. The safety of all British Columbians is something extremely important to us on both sides of the House. Our government wants to modernize the regulatory framework for fire safety in this province.

The new act will replace the existing Fire Services Act and will include changes that will improve the fire code compliance monitoring by making it risk-based. It will enable local authorities to appoint fire safety personnel to carry out fire inspections, investigations and evacuations, and it will establish an out-of-court administrative enforcement model to address non-compliance issues in a more timely and effective manner.

Why do we need this legislation? Well, during consultations with a number of key stakeholder groups across the province, we heard about the importance of proposing these changes. As was noted off the top, the Fire Services Act has not seen any substantial update or change since 1979, and in the 3½ decades since, the nature of fire safety and prevention has changed substantially.

Naturally, as part of our responsibilities, we need to look at modernizing the regulatory framework for fire safety in British Columbia. Now, that was heard loud and clear as we sought the input and guidance of the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C., the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Local Government Management Association of B.C., the B.C. Fire Training Officers Association, the Fire Prevention Officers Association of B.C., the Volunteer Firefighters Association of B.C., the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association and, finally, the B.C. Wildfire Service.

Through our most recent consultations and work done in considering legislative changes in the years leading up to the tabling of this new Fire Safety Act, we are putting forward provisions that will benefit our province in a piece of legislation that would replace the Fire Services Act and, ultimately, that will help to modernize the legislation and improve fire safety throughout the province.

How does this work, and what do the changes actually mean? We are improving fire code compliance monitoring of public buildings by making the key change of replacing the current requirement for municipalities to use a regular system of inspections of public buildings with a new risk-based compliance monitoring model. This is a model where condition and use of the buildings will determine the level and the frequency of inspections.

The proposed compliance monitoring model will also provide flexibility by providing for the ability to allow the use of self-assessment in place of inspections for low-risk public buildings, with a lens towards a more effective use of local government resources, leading to an improved culture of safety and preparedness.

[1535]

It would enable local authorities to directly manage fire safety resources by authorizing them to appoint qualified fire inspectors and investigators. This would more appropriately place the control of such appointments in the hands of those who know their communities best. It would replace the current model whereby local governments request that the provincial fire commissioner make these appointments, thus reducing a layer of red tape in the process.

The new Fire Safety Act would also provide the necessary authority for effective inspections and investigations. This would include the right to enter onto or into property to make examinations, to collect evidence, to conduct tests, to require production of documents, to obtain and inspect under warrant and to issue orders pursuant

[ Page 11635 ]

to the act. Local authorities and their fire chiefs will also have the authority to direct evacuations where a fire hazard poses immediate or serious threats to life.

Another proposed change under this legislation would be to make enforcement under the act more timely and effective. To accomplish this, we propose establishing an administrative penalty scheme as a primary way of ensuring compliance with the act. Under the proposed administrative enforcement model, the fire commissioner will have authority to impose administrative penalties for non-compliance with the orders made under the act. The current legislation only provides for in-court prosecutions of offences, which is generally a time-consuming and ineffective instrument of enforcement.

In closing, I want to emphasize that these amendments serve to improve fire safety in British Columbia. The legislation will help us to modernize the regulatory framework for fire safety in the province. I’m pleased to support the second reading of the Fire Safety Act, Bill 4.

M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to rise and to support Bill 4, the Fire Safety Act. It is, as the minister has stated, an important piece of legislation. It replaces the existing Fire Services Act, which has basically been in place since 1979. This is a significant and important update, and it makes some important and significant changes.

I think the best way to describe those changes is…. In essence, what is happening is we are moving from a standardized system of inspection done by the fire commissioner to one of a risk-based assessment done at the local level by local municipalities. At the same time, the commissioner will continue to set the standards that are required. The inspections will be carried out by inspectors who will be appointed by local government and who meet standards set by the commissioner. No longer will it be that municipalities have no say in the appointment of the inspectors, and that’s an important improvement.

There are a number of issues we are concerned about that we want clarification on and that we will deal with in committee stage. We are going to be supporting this legislation.

I want to talk for a minute about why it’s important that we’re moving to a risk-based assessment system from the current more standardized approach. The clue to that is in the minister’s remarks about the act last being updated in 1979. The reality is that the world has changed significantly since 1979 in terms of construction and construction materials, the types of materials used, the technology that is used in building, our understanding of the nature of risk in terms of its relationship to fire. I think just the need to recognize that….

You may have a building that is solid, up to code. Its use has no inherent risk in terms of catching fire, for example. It’s inspected once a year. You may have another building that has multiple uses, for example, that may have different types of activities taking place that may involve the use of hazardous materials, for example. It may have been built at a significantly different time than a building next door that is completely different, and it is only inspected on an annual basis, for example.

[1540]

The reality is that the type of use, the types of materials, the type of activity that’s going on there…. Really, common sense and a risk assessment would say: “You know what? That particular building should be inspected on a more regular basis than one that has very little likelihood of being involved in a fire.” From that perspective alone, this makes eminent sense.

The development of a risk-based assessment is something that experts in the industry have been advocating for a significant amount of time. That’s a key part of how this legislation was based. It was on work that has been done in some of our institutions. I just want to get on the record the specific…. The University of the Fraser Valley — I just want to give them credit for their Centre for Public Safety and Criminal Justice Research. They did a number of studies that recommended a switch to a risk-based assessment, and I think it’s important that we acknowledge that that is a key part of the foundation.

The legislation itself has been…. An important amount of consultation has taken place. The Fire Chiefs Association of British Columbia is in support of the legislation and, importantly, UBCM.

When this was first being developed, the public policy aspect work was being done, there were questions raised by UBCM, concerns about UBCM on a number of fronts. One of them, for example, was: was this going to be an example of downloading to local government that they were going to be concerned about? The fact that they are the ones who are going to be able to appoint the inspectors addressed that key concern around UBCM’s position on the legislation.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities also raised issues around regional districts, particularly rural regional districts and their ability to actually absorb what was being done and the costs associated with it. The bill acknowledges…. The version we have here is clearly a result of having listened to what the Union of B.C. Municipalities have had to say.

Those rural regional districts are not part of this, but there will still be questions around that. In the volunteer fire departments, for example, there are still issues around them being able to meet the training standards. So we’ll be having questions to the minister in terms of how they intend to address that issue or if they see that it is a significant problem that needs to be dealt with.

Another important aspect of the bill is the issue around administrative penalties, which I think is an important improvement. Currently, under the existing legislation, if there is an issue, the only way to pursue it is through the courts. That is often time-consuming and expensive, and it’s not the most efficient use of resources.

[ Page 11636 ]

A system of administrative penalties and an administrative review in order to deal with issues that arise, I think, is an important step forward. We will be exploring those in committee stage to see how they will work, how they will be developed, how they’re going to be implemented and, if there’s a regulatory framework that’s required, when that regulatory framework will be implemented. Has the work already been done on that?

At the same time, because there are times when the administrative review system did not necessarily meet the needs of either party in a dispute, it’s also important to note that the ability to access the court system in terms of resolving disputes is also still available. Again, that is a significant improvement.

With that, I don’t have too much further to say, other than that we fully support this particular piece of legislation. We look forward to discussing it and raising some of the issues in committee stage. I know there are other members of this House who have comments to make on the bill as well.

With that, I’ll just let the minister know we’ll be supporting the bill, and there will be some questions and discussion at the committee stage.

[1545]

D. Plecas: On behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford South, I’m pleased to rise in support of Bill 4, the Fire Safety Act. This is legislation that will update the act, which hasn’t seen any major updates for 37 years. This act repeals and replaces the previous Fire Services Act. Public safety of all British Columbians is a priority of this government, and that’s why we are making these updates.

The goal of this new act is to modernize the legislation and make improvements to help ensure the safety of British Columbians. It takes into account a full range of feedback that we have received through an extensive consultation process, including ideas that were generated in previous efforts to update the legislation. The improvements made to the inspection standards and administrative penalties in this bill will save time, save money and, most importantly, protect human life.

This act changes the fire code compliance monitoring by making it more risk-based. That means that riskier public buildings would have a higher standard in terms of their compliance monitoring compared to less risky buildings. For example, a riskier facility such as an oil refinery would have a higher standard compared to less risky buildings such as an office building.

The condition and use of buildings will determine the level and frequency of inspections, and this will lead to a better use of resources. The new act will enable local authorities to appoint fire safety personnel to carry out fire inspections, investigations and evacuations.

The office of the fire commissioner is a leader in fire safety awareness and prevention in British Columbia. The office offers progressive advice about fire safety, innovative recommendations about fire prevention, and collaborative communications with fire services in our province. The office liaisons between the provincial government and the fire service provide advice on all fire safety and prevention matters. As well, the office reviews and monitors a broad scope of fire safety issues throughout the province.

To ensure that consistent advice and recommendations are provided to the public to increase fire safety awareness, we engaged in extensive consultation with various stakeholder groups and have received a full range of feedback for this legislation. Our firefighters are the ones on the ground and are the best people to provide input to the best way to improve safety.

Our local governments understand the unique circumstances in their communities. They know which buildings are considered riskier, and through consultation, we ask: “What do you need to quickly take steps to mitigate imminent danger or risk?” This act will empower local authorities to make decisions to quickly take steps and mitigate any imminent risk to citizens and firefighters.

These changes will make both citizens and firefighters safer. The changes will grant local authorities the powers that the province already has, under the Fire Services Act, to evacuate in immediate danger or if a serious threat to life or property exists. Some communities have previously passed bylaws to enable such action.

This update will follow those precedents by making this power consistent throughout the province. For example, the changes would grant local authorities the power to close buildings for preventative reasons where its continued use presents serious danger to life and/or property.

Through the consultation process, we listened to the concerns of our stakeholders. Regional districts expressed concerns around the potential increase in responsibility. We decided to proceed with the legislative changes put forth but continue to explore regional district changes. It is important that municipalities are able to take action on imminent threats. We want our citizens and firefighters to be safe.

I also want to mention that non-municipalities still retain the ability to do inspections. As well, it is important to note that Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada supports fire protection for First Nations reserves and that the Fire Safety Act does not apply to these lands.

[1550]

This act also establishes an administrative enforcement model to address non-compliance issues in a more timely and effective manner. These amendments will create a manageable and streamlined out-of-court enforcement system with administrative penalties that will improve compliance. This helps remove cases from the busy court system. It also enhances the opportunity to achieve compliance through a more expedient and manageable system.

[ Page 11637 ]

It is important to have an effective and timely enforcement system to ensure that noncompliance is corrected, in the interests of public safety. We don’t want issues to be tied up when they can be dealt with quicker, and thus, unsafe conditions will not be allowed to continue for an unreasonable amount of time.

Again, I’m pleased to speak in favour of this legislation. It’s legislation that will help improve safety for both the people of British Columbia and our firefighters, who, we all know, work so hard to keep us safe.

D. Donaldson: I rise to take my spot in second reading debate of Bill 4, the Fire Safety Act. I acknowledge that this Bill 4 will be replacing the Fire Services Act, which hasn’t had any substantial updates since 1979, so I believe it’s obvious that updates are required.

This act, by repealing and replacing the Fire Services Act, will end up requiring municipalities to establish a risk-based compliance monitoring system of fire safety inspections, among other things.

I want to address my comments in second reading debate to an area that I think we need more exploration on during this debate and during the committee stage, and that is volunteer fire departments. I’ve lived in B.C. close to 40 years now, and the only communities I’ve lived in are communities with volunteer fire departments.

It’s significant in rural areas of the province — the volunteer effort that goes into these organizations, the many friends I’ve had who’ve been on the volunteer fire departments and the incredible work they do. They put in a heck of a lot of time not only training but also maintaining the equipment and just being there when needed. I think that this bill has some implications on that. I want to explore that in second reading debate, hopefully in the comments from the minister closing the debate and also in committee stage.

In Stikine, for instance, which takes up a large chunk of the northwest part of the province — it’s the largest constituency, geographically, in the province — there is one paid firefighter, who is the chief of the Smithers fire department. The rest of the fire department there is volunteer. Telkwa has a volunteer fire department. Hazelton has a volunteer fire department. New Hazelton, South Hazelton, Stewart — these are all volunteer fire departments.

The fire coverage we do get is based on people who have a real strong sense of community and, as I say, put in a lot of hours in training and in maintaining and creating and supporting the volunteer fire department. There are fundraisers constantly just to try to keep the turnout gear in the best of shape it can possibly be, and other purchases of more modern equipment, and also to send people on training.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities, in response to this bill, said that volunteer fire departments are concerned they will not be able to afford to meet the higher standards set by the fire commissioner, due to their limited budgets. The result could be a loss of already limited service for rural areas.

[1555]

It’s not so much that people don’t want an improvement and an update in fire standards. Of course they do, and this risk-based approach is addressing that. But how are the increased potential costs going to be paid for by volunteer fire departments, who already are having an extremely hard time getting people to continually become volunteers? It becomes such an onerous task for them.

We have different areas of the bill that are of concern, from that aspect. For instance, the standards that are going to be required now for inspectors. How are those going to be enforced, as far as training goes, by volunteer fire departments? There’s going to be a risk analysis conducted in accordance with the regulations, so there’s likely going to have to be increased training around these new risk analysis regulations. Again, the people I know that are part of volunteer fire departments are amazing. They come quickly when they can, and oftentimes they’re there first, before anybody else.

I’ve witnessed in my constituency, and in Hazelton, especially, the volunteers do such an amazing job. That’s because they’ve been able to acquire some training. Now we know, through this bill, there’s probably going to be more training required. I think about…. In Hazelton, at least, they’re able to partner with some of the First Nations communities that are chock-a-block with Hazelton — for instance, Gitanmaax, where federal dollars are available for training purposes. When training occurs, then the volunteers from both fire departments are able to take it.

But a lot of communities in Stikine and in rural areas aren’t able to do that because the reserve communities aren’t as close as they are in parts of Stikine.

Again, the recognition from the government around regional districts was addressed before this bill was drafted — or at least as this bill was being drafted. The risk-based approach for compli-

[ Page 11638 ]

ance monitoring is not going to be applied to regional districts.

You know, I have a regional district — two, actually — in my constituency. The volunteer fire department in Dease Lake, for instance, will be happy to know that. I also have a community, Atlin, that has a volunteer fire department. I’ve visited their fire hall several times. They have a lot of needs for training dollars, but they’re not part of a regional district, and they’re not a municipality. They’re part of an improvement district, Atlin community improvement district.

There are improvement districts around the province. From what I’ve seen in the bill, the risk-based approach for compliance monitoring seems to be silent on improvement districts. I’ll be looking forward to hearing more about that from the minister on whether volunteer fire departments and improvement districts will be responsible for the risk-based approach for compliance monitoring, because regional districts have been exempted from that aspect as well.

Another part of this bill that I’d like to hear more about is volunteer fire departments and municipalities, which will now, for sure, come under Bill 4 and under the new standards: those municipalities — small ones, like Hazelton, for instance — that have response agreements with communities in regional districts.

[1600]

For instance, and this is where I live…. I live in Two Mile, which is in the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine. You might guess, by the name that it’s two miles from Hazelton. We, in Two Mile, under a referendum a few years back approved, and so did Hazelton, that the Hazelton volunteer fire department responds to fires in Two Mile. That went on our property taxes, and it worked out well because, for most, the decrease in fire insurance was more than what the increase was on our property taxes.

Again, I’d like to hear from the minister, either in response to second reading or during committee stage: what implications does this bill have on those kinds of agreements?

Hazelton is going to be required to shift to a risk-based approach for compliance monitoring under the new Fire Safety Act, but their volunteer fire department is providing service to a community in a regional district that isn’t going to be required to shift to this risk-based approach for compliance monitoring.

Again, what are the implications of that? Does that mean that we’ll potentially see less service in areas such as regional district communities that have these kinds of response agreements with municipalities? Perhaps the cost for the volunteer fire departments in these municipalities is going to be too high to actually continue with these coverage agreements with unincorporated communities in regional districts — the kind of agreements that exist now.

Those are important questions, obviously, because people want to have that comfort that a volunteer fire department is going to come, when needed, under these coverage agreements.

One other aspect that I want to touch on in this second reading debate…. This, perhaps, could be something that the minister can respond positively to, because it addresses the concerns of volunteer fire departments that are really, really stretched for financial resources for training and the potential increased cost that could apply under Bill 4. That is the tax revenue generated from the 4.4 percent tax paid by insurance companies on property insurance premiums.

This was a topic that has been brought up before at Union of B.C. Municipalities. It relates to this bill, Bill 4, because the implications of Bill 4, which we’ll be exploring, on volunteer fire departments could be increased cost implications. That could lead, as UBCM says, to a decrease in service, and I’ve outlined where that could happen.

The issue of how to pay for those increased training costs that could arise from Bill 4 is before us, and that’s this 4.4 percent tax paid by insurance companies on property insurance premiums. It goes into general revenue right now.

Many times UBCM has passed resolutions asking the provincial government to redirect the insurance premium tax revenue towards community fire services. This is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, this tax revenue, and it disappears into general revenue. A fraction of it — a small fraction — comes back to the fire commissioner’s office.

For instance — and this was a while ago, so the numbers are obviously higher — in 2003-04, there was a resolution from Dawson Creek that came to UBCM. It talked about…. The revenue collected under the fire insurance tax premiums was $300 million, but only $2.3 million of that went back to the fire commissioner’s office. So a pretty big disparity there.

[1605]

What volunteer fire departments are saying is: redirect that fire insurance tax premium totally back into community fire departments and community fire services, such as volunteer fire services. Then there’ll be less of an issue with the cost of new standards, perhaps, outlined under Bill 4 requiring additional training.

A lot of this training happens at the Justice Institute. You have the example of a small town like Hazelton or Telkwa having to send their volunteer firefighters to training at the Justice Institute down in the Lower Mainland. Those are huge costs. If the new requirements outlined in Bill 4 result in the need for more training, and then that training occurs in a place like the Justice Institute, then of course there are going to be some significant costs for volunteer fire departments and those small municipalities.

One way of addressing that is to redirect the 4.4 percent tax paid as the fire insurance tax premiums directly back into the volunteer fire departments. The response, so far, from government is that the Ministry of Finance says it does not believe it would be appropriate to direct the tax to municipalities to fund local firefighting. I think that most volunteer firefighters in this province would disagree with that approach. That’s a suggestion and something the minister can address — and perhaps lobby her colleagues, especially the Minister of Finance, to reverse that position.

It would make a world of difference for the volunteer fire departments in rural areas and small communities. We’ve got to emphasize: these are volunteers. They shouldn’t be expected to pay for training on their own dime. They’re doing an incredible service. They are putting themselves in danger, often, fighting the fires in the small communities. It’s something that they want to do, but the training should be covered.

[ Page 11639 ]

It could be covered easily — any additional, new requirements, different standards that will arise from Bill 4. That training for volunteer fire departments could be done through this by ensuring the revenue from the fire insurance tax premium is distributed to community fire services like volunteer fire departments.

With that, I’ll take my seat. I look forward to the response and look forward to exploring more of these topics around the volunteer fire departments during the committee stage of this bill.

Hon. M. Morris: This legislation is long overdue. The things that it addresses are things that were near and dear to me over my years as a police officer in many remote areas of the province, including Hazelton and many remote communities throughout British Columbia. People were living in accommodations that caused concern for me and my colleagues, emergency services personnel, just with the way some of these small cabins were constructed: one single entrance in, one way out only, no emergency exits.

Oftentimes all kinds of things were piled around the single heat source in the building. Sometimes the chimneys were constructed in such a fashion that every time the chimney would get hot, the roof structure around the chimney would catch fire. Even though we would implore some of these folks to address the deficiencies that we used to see, things never happened.

What made it even worse was when we would get called to the scene of a fire and find that somebody had lost their life in the same building that we were pointing out deficiencies maybe a year or so earlier on. Really, there was no way that we could enforce those kinds of things on those folks to get those buildings built again. This legislation will help us overall improve conditions throughout British Columbia so that it’s a safe environment for everyone, the folks that live across this great province of ours.

I’ve heard the member opposite, and there’s concern over increased costs. For everything we do in today’s world, there’s a cost assigned to it.

[1610]

The increased training requirements that we have for the volunteer members that work in every volunteer fire department right across this province — the standards are pretty high. We need those high standards to keep these men and women safe when they go into some of these remote environments to put these fires out. They’re dealing with a lot of different chemicals, a lot of different substances out there that we have to be wary of.

One of the major factors that was cropping up toward my latter years as a police officer in remote parts of British Columbia was drug labs and grow ops and those kinds of illegal activities that were taking place in the wilderness. Chemicals all around which nobody really knew what they were, and when something happened — a catastrophe, a fire — we would expect these men and women to go in and deal with it. So the training addresses those types of things.

This legislation will also enable local authorities to appoint fire safety personnel to carry out fire inspections. They can now go into these buildings and point out the deficiencies that they see, and they can require them to bring them up to standards to make those buildings safer for everybody. If they don’t do that, then there are going to be some administrative powers here so they can, in turn, take action against those individuals and make sure that that work gets done.

It’s a risk-based approach, we know. I certainly know, from past experience…. Sometimes you’re driving for days at a time, from one settlement to another throughout this great province of ours, in the north. It takes a long time to get there and a long time to get back. So it’s a risk-based approach. We’re not going to get to every place.

But it’s something that, if emergency services personnel — a police officer, firefighter, ambulance attendant or somebody from local government — happen to be going into a community, they might take a look around. They might see one or two buildings that are obviously deficient in safety precautions and the way they’re constructed.

It gives them the opportunity to go in and introduce themselves to the occupant and say: “You need to increase the standards here. You need to fix your chimney. You need to ensure that you’ve got a way in, an unobstructed entryway and exit from that particular building in case