Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 18, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 133

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Standing Order 35

Response to severe weather events

P. Milobar

P. Alexis

S. Furstenau

K. Paddon

S. Bond

H. Sandhu

J. Sturdy

M. Dykeman

M. de Jong

Hon. L. Popham

J. Tegart

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 23 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

(continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. K. Conroy

L. Doerkson

C. Oakes

I. Paton

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 22 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

T. Stone

Hon. L. Beare

B. Banman

S. Furstenau

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2021

The House met at 1:04 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

M. Dykeman: I have the honour today of introducing and welcoming to the

Legislature an intern, right up there: Ty Huston from KPU. He is with my

office for a little bit, and I have the privilege of hosting him here today.

In February, he’s off to my alma mater of Macquarie University to study

international studies.

I was wondering if the House could please make him

feel very welcome.

[1:05 p.m.]

Standing Order 35

RESPONSE TO SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS

P. Milobar: I move:

[That, pursuant to Standing Order 35, the House do now adjourn for

the purpose of discussing a matter of definite and urgent public

importance — specifically, the response of the Government of British

Columbia to the emergency flooding and landslide situation that has

unfolded across our province.]

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

P. Milobar: Thank you.

As the member who put forward the submission to hold this

emergency discussion, I want to set the stage for why it’s so important

and the types of issues that require canvassing at this point in

time.

Over the past few days, we’ve observed a number of failures on the

part of this government, which has tried to absolve itself, once again,

by using terms like “unprecedented” to describe this event. The Premier,

the Solicitor General and other ministers have tried to convince British

Columbians that the magnitude of this event could not have been

predicted. However, there were, indeed, warnings.

On Friday, CTV Vancouver quoted an Environment Canada weather

statement, which read: “A series of moisture-laden systems associated

with an atmospheric river from the Pacific will begin arriving Saturday

evening and bring heavy rain to the south coast.” Sounds like a pretty

accurate and ominous prediction to me.

Washington state clearly took the situation seriously. On Sunday,

November 14, only two kilometres from the Sumas Prairie, Whatcom County

issued an emergency proclamation due to flooding as a result of national

weather service forecasts. By 3:40 that day, a flood warning for the

Nooksack River was issued by the National Weather Service division in

Seattle.

By Monday, November 15, you could hear the flood sirens from Sumas

and Abbotsford, two kilometres away. At 11:31 that morning, the National

Weather Service division in Seattle highlighted record levels on the

Nooksack River. By 3:30 that day, the river had reached flood stage.

Governor Jay Inslee then issued a severe weather emergency

proclamation.

Keeping an eye on what was happening in Washington state should

have been critical to the B.C. government. They should have known the

danger that could follow if the Nooksack River overflowed. And do you

know why? Because they were warned about that as well. The city of

Abbotsford issued a report a year ago outlining this very

concern.

Unfortunately, that’s not the only report this government has

chosen to ignore. We know there was a climate change risk assessment

report that this government commissioned and received in 2019. That

report warned of this very thing. It was also ignored by this

government. We know that the report was clear about the dangers and

risks we face in British Columbia, but we don’t have any indication this

government has taken any action of that report.

Speaking of the lack of action, and given the multiple emergencies

of this past year, one has to wonder why B.C. has never used the Alert

Ready system. After all, when we look at other jurisdictions…. Since

2019, these alerts have been issued 80 times in Alberta, 101 times in

Saskatchewan and 202 times in Ontario. That’s just in the last two

years.

Here in B.C., the system wasn’t used after the forest fires of

2018. Nor during this summer’s wildfire season, where we saw fire

destroy Monte Lake and nearly the entire village of Lytton, which also

tragically claimed two lives. Nor during the deadly heat dome. That

event tragically took 600 lives in British Columbia, 600 people who were

mainly frail and elderly residents. And now, in the midst of absolutely

devastating flooding and slides and other damage, it hasn’t been used

yet again.

We are in a situation here in British Columbia where not only does

this government pretend it has been warned about impending disasters; it

doesn’t even take action on prevention, on reducing the impacts of these

events on communities. It hasn’t taken action to employ the very warning

systems that, during an emergency, can stave off additional

complications and damages.

[1:10 p.m.]

British Columbians are losing faith in this government’s ability

to handle a crisis and to have their backs when the worst happens. On so

many fronts these days, this government seems to want to take a

“government knows best” approach. However, when it comes to disasters,

this government is nowhere to be found, preferring to leave

resi­dents and communities to fend for themselves.

In short, this government hasn’t been doing enough, and it must do

more. It has to stop blaming others and start taking responsibility to

help residents in the throes of a disaster. It’s my hope, through this

emergency debate, we’ll get to the bottom of why that is and how we can

fix it.

P. Alexis: I would first like to acknowledge that I’m speaking to you from

the traditional territories of the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ people, the Songhees

and the Esquimalt First Nations.

In a year and a half that has seen the people of this great

province face so much — a pandemic, a heat dome, swarms of devastating

wildfires and more — we now see that Mother Nature was not quite done

with us yet. In the midst of all the chaos and loss we’ve seen as a

result of the catastrophic flooding in the Fraser Valley, I was moved by

the speed and passion in which so many answered the call to yet again

help.

I consider myself lucky to stand with my colleagues here, where I

know I’m a stone’s throw from ministers and their staff, all who will

hear me out and understand what’s happening right now in the valley and

the help that we need. That’s not who I want to talk about

today.

Today I want to talk about the people that we serve. I say “we”

specifically, because the courage and generosity we have seen on display

luckily have no respect for our constituency boundaries. We see it from

neighbour to neighbour. The people of Abbotsford and Mission once again

proved their generosity and commitment to community and

volunteerism.

I spoke with the Abbotsford mayor yesterday. He’s stunned at the

offers of help pouring in. The Abbotsford switchboards are getting

jammed with 2,000 calls a day by people wanting to give of themselves

for their fellow man. This morning at 7:30, the mayor, at the press

conference, announced that he had set up, on the city website, a place

to donate. There are so many…. There’s just an outpouring of

generosity.

Yesterday I had a call from a large-scale veterinarian who was

wanting to volunteer to help. I connected him with the right

people.

We see it in the Hope Pizza Place, owned by Rupinder and Dewan

Davesar, who went above and beyond to help, firing up the restaurant’s

one gas oven amid a power outage. They baked pies, and with the aid of

local volunteers, delivered them for free, in the rain, to the occupants

of cars stranded, thanks to the mudslides.

We see it in our farmers helping their fellow farmers. As the

Sumas Prairie region of Abbotsford was ordered to evacuate, farmers and

neighbours joined together, using motorboats, canoes, dinghies and jet

skis to move dozens of trapped cows, one by one, to the safety of higher

land. I shared one of the stories on Facebook. The poster had talked

about how emotional she was to see each trailer come, carrying the

single cow or calf that had been just through an incredible ordeal —

just unbelievable and remarkable endeavours.

We’ve seen it city to city — 300 volunteers, many from the

Chilliwack-Abbotsford border, working all night to make a sandbag wall

protecting a pumphouse from taking on additional water. This crucial

work bought just enough time so additional people could be rescued — 184

of them that night alone. So many volunteers showed up that crews were

overwhelmed.

In Surrey, dozens of volunteers came together at the Gurdwara Dukh

Nivaran Sahib to prepare and cook over 3,000 meals on Tuesday. These

meals were flown out to Hope on Wednesday by a helicopter that was

rented, thanks to countless generous donations.

I want to add that we know many of these stories because people

misinformation and self-promotion and out-and-out nonsense these sites

often host, this was a testament to their true power, a power that can

still be used for good.

Finally, I must acknowledge and thank our first responders, our

volunteers and our municipal and federal partners who have gone above

and beyond in service to their communities. This is an absolute crisis,

one whose true impact is still unknown and one from which we will spend

years recovering.

[1:15 p.m.]

I can’t say enough about how well everyone worked together, a true

spirit of cooperation. In fact, yesterday the mayor of Abbotsford

assured citizens that he had, indeed, everything the community needed

from the province.

All these stories and examples serve as a reminder that when the

chips are down, people, at their core, are still good. I don’t know how

you can be any manner of a public servant and not hold on to that

belief, but it’s still so gratifying to see it confirmed.

I can’t wait to get back to Mission tonight and meet in Abbotsford

tomorrow with community leaders and stakeholders and continue getting

them the help that they need. More than that, I can’t wait to speak with

the people on the ground to hear what they’ve been through and to do my

part to help.

No matter how bleak or catastrophic a situation may appear, it

does not entirely own or rob us of our shared humanity. It cannot take

away our freedom to respond and our power to take action.

I’m proud to stand here with those who took action decisively and

quickly in service to their province. There is no higher calling, no

greater duty.

S. Furstenau: It really is impossible to capture how devastating these floods

are. We will all be coming to grips with the loss and grief over the

months and years to come.

But let’s be clear. This emergency is a climate emergency. In his

book A Good War , Seth Klein talks about what an actual

emergency response to the climate emergency would be. There are four key

markers, he argues: spend what it takes to win, create new economic

institutions to get the job done, shift from voluntary and

incentive-based policies to mandatory measures, and tell the truth about

the severity of the crisis and communicate a sense of urgency about the

measures that are needed to combat it.

I will argue that No. 4, telling the truth, is absolutely

essential for the other three to occur. On this, we have

failed.

In this Legislature, climate change is talked about as if a suite

of policy tools will be all that’s needed to mitigate and prepare for

what’s coming.

In this Legislature, 83 MLAs stood up over and over again in 2019

to support legislation that provided a $6 billion incentive package to

LNG Canada to increase our methane and greenhouse gas

emissions.

In this Legislature, both the government and opposition parties

permitted Site C, which will wipe out some of our best agricultural land

in this province and the capacity to provide food for up to one million

people. This project also undermined what we should be doing, which is

to create local clean energy production in our communities so that we

might have a level of local energy security in the face of these

worsening and increasingly disruptive storms.

In this Legislature, the truth about climate change is being

ignored when we ignore the impacts of clearcut logging — the loss of

biodiversity and the extirpation of species — and the need to treat the

land with the respect it needs if we want it to help us survive these

very not natural disasters. These disasters have been literally fuelled

by our collective inability to act as though climate change is an

emergency.

The truth is that our world is going to continue to change at an

accelerating rate. It’s either going to be at a pace that we attempt to

control — because we rapidly transition our economy so that our

neighbourhoods, communities and, most importantly, our natural systems

all require a fraction of the energy we use now; and that we are no

longer knowingly wasteful; and that we are able to endure these storms

that will keep coming regardless because we have put every decision,

every policy and every piece of legislation through the lens of the

climate emergency — or our world is going to change because the storms,

droughts, fires, heatwaves become more frequent and more powerful, which

they will.

Infrastructure will continue to fail, supply chains will continue

to falter, and our resilience will continue to erode because we just

aren’t able to generate the political will for the transformation that

needs to happen.

If we truly believe that we are in a climate emergency, then we

don’t need amendments to forestry legislation in here. We need an

absolute transformation about how we think about forests and how we must

manage them, because we are in an emergency.

Do we want more forestry jobs? Then no more clearcuts. Only

selective logging and Indigenous-led restoration, in every part of this

province, of the ecosystems to restore biodiversity, carbon capture,

water capture, habitat and the web of life that should exist in all

forests. That’s decades of jobs that will make all of our communities

more resilient and stronger.

[1:20 p.m.]

As humans, we have yet to truly rise to the truth and reality of

climate change, but in emergencies, we rise to our very best selves.

There will be endless stories of generosity, sacrifice, compassion and

kindness from this disaster. We are truly designed to operate in

community in connection with each other.

If we are to be truthful about climate change, then we need to

orient our thinking and our behaviour in all ways towards that

collective, community-oriented, compassionate and cooperative mindset.

We must let go of the story that we are in competition with each other

and embrace the truth that we need each other, that we need to see our

communities as being only as strong as the people who are struggling the

most.

Climate action has to be about a reorientation of how we see

ourselves in society, not as individuals in competition but as people

connected to each other in countless ways and connected to the natural

world around us. It shows up in these emergencies. So let’s not let it

go in between.

K. Paddon: I’m always honoured to rise and speak about the amazing

communities of Chilliwack and Kent.

I’m privileged to be able to serve on the traditional, unceded

territories of the Stó:lō people, including the Ts’elxwéyeqw, the Pilalt

and the Tait tribes, and I’m grateful to work for the communities

there.

Today, as I rise, it is under different circumstances, as we’re

all aware of the past days and the water and the landslides that have

hit the Fraser Valley, as well as the difficulties around the province.

When I left my home on Sunday to come serve here with my colleagues,

there was no way for anyone to know that the storm and ensuing emergency

would physically cut me off from my family, my kids, my home. Since

Sunday, we have seen the devastation from the storm, flooding and

landslides. We’ve seen people stuck, cut off and scared, animals lost

and trapped, livelihoods threatened and destroyed, fear, worry and

anxiety.

Although I hear the rain is falling in the Fraser Valley and we

are still in the midst of this, I’m hearing progress. Thanks to all the

work that was so quickly done, there are now routes for my family and my

community to travel into town, and the incredible amount of work that

has been done on the No. 7 Highway means that supplies and essential

travel from Vancouver can reach our Chilliwack and Kent communities once

again.

We saw the Canadian air force helicopters and Search and Rescue

rescue those stranded on Highway 7 as well. We saw people from the

Chilliwack area rush to the aid in the sandbagging and protection of

Barrowtown pumps because they know how critical it is to our neighbours

and to us. An entire road was built to help. The sandbags? They wouldn’t

have been there if not for the path on Highway 7.

My office has been reaching out to as many people and

organizations as possible to check in to see what people need, to make

sure that people are safe. It’s important that we all check in with each

other, because maybe the person you’re connecting with needs something.

Or maybe they don’t, but they probably know someone who does. That’s the

thing about Chilliwack and Kent: we support each other, and we look out

for each other.

The regular official channels are working hard, this government is

working hard, and the amount and intensity of the work being done —

across ministries, across regions, across municipalities — is staggering

and inspiring. Great work is happening in official spaces, but it’s also

happening in between the official spaces. As leaders serving our

communities in real time, we’re texting each other to collaborate at all

levels — mayors, chairs, councillors, Members of Parliament — and I’m

grateful for my partners that help me serve my neighbours. There are no

lines, no barriers to us working with our communities. It’s

relationships and a commitment to serve.

I have had many opportunities to rise in this chamber and share

about great things being done by good people in my community. Despite

the ongoing situation and reality, I want to do the same today. We have

some really incredible neighbours, and I’d like to take some time to

share with this House, as well as with the people back at home, just

some of the stories I’ve been hearing about who we are in Chilliwack and

Kent, and thank as many as I can in this short time.

Thank you to Squiala First Nation for opening the roads so that

residents of Cultus Lake could get home and could get supplies. Thank

you to Seabird Island for supporting the staging area necessary to work

on a blocked highway. Thank you to the Chilliwack Chamber of Commerce

and the Chilliwack Economic Partners Corp. for all you’re doing to

organize volunteers, services and resources for those who need it

most.

[1:25 p.m.]

Thank you to Molson Coors Fraser Valley Brewery for the donation

of 100 tonnes of grain to feed animals that are being hosted on various

farms around the community. Thank you to the farming community for

rallying around each other to house livestock, including at Heritage

Park. Thank you to people from around Chilliwack and Kent who donated

feed for the animals in those big barns.

Thank you to the people of Agassiz and Harrison who stepped

forward and still are helpfully bringing food, supplies and offering

shelter. More than 275 people, including 50 kids, received warm, dry

clothes, mental health support and shelter in the Agricultural Hall in

Agassiz.

Facebook, which is often a place where we get a lot of negativity,

is doing some amazing things in my community. People are openly sharing

where others can find necessities, encouraging each other to shop

responsibly. People are opening their homes to strangers. People are

offering to assist others who are at risk. They’re finding volunteers.

Thank you to Camp Squeah in Hope, as well, for hosting our minor hockey

players as they came off a gold-medal win from Kelowna.

There are so many, and there is not enough time. I just want the

people of Chilliwack-Kent to know that although I can’t be with them

right now, I’ll continue to work here with the ministers and with the

ministry staff. I’ll continue making sure that their voices are heard,

that the work is done quickly and that Chilliwack-Kent is represented

here.

S. Bond: As extreme weather events once again take a serious toll on people

and property, it is our responsibility, as elected officials, to stand

up and get people the help they so desperately need right now. There are

British Columbians everywhere stepping up to help friends, neighbours

and complete strangers in these trying times. From volunteers

sandbagging the Barrowtown pump station, to generous supporters in

gurdwaras feeding stranded drivers, to emergency responders putting in

long hours, we thank them.

Each and every one of you — along with the countless people

evacuated, or those facing floodwaters and serious damage — deserves the

government to step up. The questions and concerns the opposition is

raising should by no means undermine the courageous work and expertise

on the ground by staff working around the clock, including right now.

But after a summer of wildfires, which saw an entire town destroyed just

141 days ago, and a devastating heat dome that took the lives of nearly

600 British Columbians, people have lost trust in this government’s

ability to show leadership or properly communicate and warn people of

impending disasters.

Why has the government consistently failed to learn from past

mistakes? Why has this become a pattern, time and time again, with the

NDP? Why was the Alert Ready system once again not used in a time of

crisis to warn British Columbians of impending dangers? As noted by our

House Leader, since 2019 there have been hundreds of emergency alerts

used. Yet in British Columbia, not once has the Alert Ready system been

used. People should be able to rely on government to clearly communicate

in times of crisis. That is simply not happening here.

When scientists warned government of the coming heat dome, why

weren’t vulnerable British Columbians warned, with the Alert Ready

system, of the severity of the coming temperatures? When meteorologists

warned government of the atmospheric river, and officials in Washington

state and Alberta warned citizens of the coming flood and landslide

risks, why was the government missing in action, content in their belief

that Twitter was the best way for British Columbians to get

information?

We all know it’s simply not good enough. Nor was the minister’s

pledge to have the Alert Ready system ready for next spring. There has

been broad, governmental, systemic failure, and the demand for reviews

and inquiries into this government’s constant failures is starting to

pile up.

British Columbians need to have full confidence that their

government will communicate the risks as extreme weather events become

more common in the coming years. The NDP waited until a regularly

scheduled cabinet meeting on Wednesday to discuss whether declaring a

provincial state of emergency was necessary. We can say that that’s at

least a slight improvement from the weeks of pressure — from the

opposition, the media and a petition — that was required to get the NDP

government to declare a state of emergency to help combat

wildfires.

[1:30 p.m.]

On behalf of everyone who is shocked, terrified, by the events of

this week, the heat dome this summer or the wildfires that raged until

not that long ago, I am asking this government to step up, show some

leadership and commit to doing better, because British Columbians

deserve better.

I do want to recognize that we appreciate the fact that the

government agreed to this important emergency debate. I certainly look

forward to hearing from ministers that are engaged in this

process.

We have three recommendations that we hope the government will

similarly agree to. One, we ask the government to initiate an all-party

working group to review the provincial government’s response to

emergencies and discuss ways to improve government communications,

disaster preparedness and emergency response protocols.

That is important, because government would benefit from the

expertise and lived experience of members from across the House who live

across the province. While our previous offers to work across party

lines on vital issues like the opioid crisis and reconciliation have

been rejected, now, if ever, is the time for the NDP to finally show

leadership to collaborate with all parties. British Columbians deserve

that and so much more.

Secondly, as of tomorrow, we ask the government to begin to hold

regular public briefings to outline specific details relating to

disaster coordination, emergency res­ponse and recovery. This

would allow the media and all British Columbians to access expert

officials and receive up-to-date information. Why is that important?

Because we believe British Columbians deserve timely, accurate, detailed

information.

Finally, we ask that the government immediately expedite the

actions and procedures to ensure that the Alert Ready system is

activated and ready for use. Next spring simply isn’t good

enough.

Together, let’s work to get British Columbians the help they need

now and work to restore public confidence going forward.

H. Sandhu: Before I start my remarks, I would like to extend my thoughts to

everyone affected by recent ex­treme weather events — people who

are currently evacuated, farmers who have lost their livelihoods. I also

want to share my support for all my colleagues in this House from all

sides whose ridings are deeply affected. I appreciate them for their

ongoing efforts and tireless work to support their

constituents.

I have hundreds of relatives, friends and immediate family members

— including my sister, her family and my in-laws — who live in the

Fraser Valley, and some are deeply affected by these floods. I have been

constantly in touch with my family and friends for the last few days, to

check in and to hear their concerns. I was talking to my sister and some

other family members and friends. They all told me that they are doing

okay, staying calm and have full appreciation and trust in all levels of

government and the emergency management team efforts.

My sister told me three days ago that they showed her three

children the efforts of support, cleanup and mitigations that were being

made by our governments, contractors and volunteers. She said that the

reason for them to do so was to teach her kids to be grateful and to

count on their blessings for the systems we have in place. She said that

gratitude, reassurance and calmness is so important when people, and

especially children, are going through such crisis.

Every single person I’ve been talking to is so grateful and

understanding. We even have friends whose farms are washed away, yet

they are still so grateful for the efforts that have been put in place.

They also felt so relieved to hear about our government’s recent relief

funding an­nouncement.

People who were stranded in Hope who came back also shared with me

and my other colleagues that they’re so grateful for the supports they

had received, including the essential supplies and food that was being

delivered to them by helicopters.

However, they have expressed their thoughts and said that they do

not want anyone to politicize this devastation to cause fearmongering,

as these tactics never help people who suffer. It only adds to anxiety

and panic-buying. Those are their words.

I have also been in touch with my staff at my office — my

constituents — and reached out to our local leaders to check in about

the effects in the Interior and the supply chain issue. I was notified

that the supply chain is being restored through Alberta and other routes

that are being opened.

[1:35 p.m.]

I was also so amazed to hear from local community members and

leaders yesterday that they’re doing good, they’re appreciative and they

want us to continue to focus in the areas that are deeply

affected.

We all know that the years 2020 and 2021 brought us so many

challenges. It’s been a very tough time for everyone, but the people of

British Columbia have proven repeatedly how resilient, strong, caring

and dedicated they are.

Many Sikh temples from around the province are cooking and

bringing meals for people. People lend their boats and equipment to help

rescue citizens and livestock. Search and rescue teams have been working

around the clock in challenging conditions. EMBC staff have been working

tirelessly. They, too, had a few tough months. First it was fires and

now this situation.

We often get too caught up in finding fault and trying to

criticize and forget to thank people working at all fronts. Therefore, I

would like to thank our EMBC team members and everyone involved from all

government levels, the Canadian Armed Forces, equipment operators and

volunteers.

I’ve seen my colleagues, MLAs from the affected areas, working

around the clock. Some worked all night — yes, all night — to support

people, and they still show up the next day to continue their

work.

I want to say to all of you that your work is not being unnoticed,

and we are here to support you in any way we can.

I would like to conclude my remarks by saying thank you, everyone,

for coming together, for supporting one another and for showing your

support and resiliency. We will get through this again. As they say,

what doesn’t break you will make you stronger. My life has taught me

this lesson, and it was proven.

Take care and thank you.

J. Sturdy: Over the last few days, our province has seen incredible

devastation. We experienced a historic rainfall event that has caused

widespread flooding, mudslides and debris flows in many part of the

province, while washing away infrastructure that is so critical to

connecting our communities.

During these terrible events, we’ve seen communities inundated,

people requiring evacuation, devastating im­pacts to agriculture

and, worst of all, a loss of human life on the Duffey Lake Road, just

north of my home in Pemberton. My heart goes out to the family and

friends of that individual.

Before I begin discussing what we think needs to happen going

forward, I do need to commend and acknowledge the actions of our first

responders, local officials and everyone who gave their best to those in

need.

British Columbians are resilient and will come out of this

stronger and more united than ever, but only if we better plan for the

future and work harder to anticipate these events. The need to repair

critical infrastructure will require a detailed plan and rapid

execution. It will require strong and decisive action from government.

The steps it takes to repair infrastructure and rebuild communities and

support those in need will be closely watched, not just in British

Columbia but throughout our country.

All major routes connecting the Lower Mainland to the rest of the

province have been affected. We’ve seen sections of the Coquihalla

Highway and Highway 1 sim­ply vanish, along with significant

damage to major rail infrastructure. This is, for good reason, deeply

concerning to British Columbians.

Shelves in food stores across the province are being emptied. To

ensure supplies reach communities in need, this government will need to

ensure our transportation corridors are operational as soon as

possible.

In the past, this government’s lack of leadership has been as

glaring as this government has been unapologetic. The lack of

forewarning and action during the heat dome and the Lytton fire

highlighted a broad and systemic government failure. Far too many lives

were tragically lost. Hundreds are still waiting for appropriate

supports months later.

So far, this government’s anticipation and response to this week’s

events have been all too familiar. As we look to the future and the long

road to recovery, all available resources must be deployed to ensure

this process is not unduly delayed.

[1:40 p.m.]

Government must act swiftly and reach out to all contractors that

are in a position to mobilize, not just pick and choose from those with

preferential status. Troublingly, we understand that many road builders

have yet to be contacted to understand equipment inventory and

mobilization potential.

I really hope, for the sake of British Columbians, that this time

around delay is minimized and that government takes the swift action

needed to rebuild the critical infrastructure that citizens, communities

and businesses rely on.

Fires and the heat dome demonstrate that there is good reason for

distrust in the minds of British Columbians. Repairs of this damaged

infrastructure will likely take months, and knowing that, this

government has a responsibility to all British Columbians to be prepared

and have a detailed plan on how that recovery will look, going

forward.

According to data from University of Calgary professor of

economics Trevor Tombe, it’s estimated that between $300 million and

$350 million is traded between British Columbia and the rest of Canada

per day by rail or road. That’s roughly $2 billion to $2½ billion a

week. So I cannot stress enough how critical it is that the road and

rail corridors be re-established with all dispatch.

Going forward, I hope that this government will learn from its

mistakes and better plan for the recovery. It must work harder to

anticipate these types of events, as our neighbours have; warn

communities in advance; work to mitigate impacts; limit the damage to

infrastructure where possible; and ensure that we are better prepared

for events of this magnitude when, not if, they take place again in the

future.

Most of all, this government must work to prove to British

Columbians that they have their backs, that they have a plan, that

they’ll work on behalf of British Columbians and that British Columbians

will feel taken care of during this response, during the recovery and

into the future.

M. Dykeman: I’m really honoured to have the opportunity to stand here today

and to talk about the challenges faced but also the important good-news

stories that have taken place within my community of Langley East, and

to thank the government for such a coordinated response.

I’m recalling the night that the floods had really started to

impact the Fraser Valley. My community has quite a bit of farming within

it.

As a new MLA…. I know that there was mention of being engaged in

the process. I think that MLAs are probably some of the most engaged

people in the process. We’re the ones that know our communities and

reach out. What I was really struck by was the support from the

ministries and how, when I called my community to identify where there

were challenges still being faced, the support was there, within the

ministries, to come together.

I had the opportunity to spend the evening on the phone with Mayor

Jack Froese and MP John Aldag. I had the opportunity to speak with

farmers like David Davis from Davistead Farms. His family has farmed the

historic Hudson’s Bay farm for over 100 years. He helped to identify all

the other farms that it would be good to check in with. I was able to

relay that back, as an MLA, to the government — able to just go back to

ministers and say: “These are the challenges in our

community.”

David Davis — his father Hugh remembers, actually, when Sumas was

a lake, having been there for so long. He remembers the 1948 floods and

all the challenges that have happened. One thing that kept coming back

to me was how coordinated the communities were in getting ditches ready,

getting streets cleaned and trees cut back to ensure that passages were

still safe. They talked about how they knew that there would be the

support from the government, because people like our Minister of

Agriculture were there to ensure that farmers knew what they needed to

draw on.

As we speak, right now, for instance, ministers are speaking to

affected mayors. These are important things. It’s really easy to sort of

sit back and say: “Okay, well, I think this isn’t working.” But I think

it’s really important to listen to people who are on the ground, who

know how it’s working.

[1:45 p.m.]

One of the things, too, that I was really struck by was that right

now, there are over 20 emergency support services reception centres

open. That’s an incredible, amazing coordinated effort in such a short

period of time. This didn’t just happen by magic. This happened by a

government that’s been committed to building capacity, building a

plan.

You have this coordinated effort by provincial and local

governments. B.C. Housing, for example, is directly in­volved with

getting people sheltered in Chilliwack, Hope, Abbotsford, Coquitlam,

Kelowna, Kamloops and Prince­ton and getting people out of

Merritt. They’re working tirelessly to ensure that those emergency beds

are available to people. These are more examples of the government

coming together. I know that in my community, when I called back and

spoke to people who work in the social services areas, they were clear.

They have a coordinated effort. They feel that they’re able to manage

the needs of people in these difficult times.

One thing that I did want to take a moment for — I see I have

about a minute left — is to just highlight some of the really good news

stories in my community. The Langley Farmers Institute set up

immediately a page to try to identify…. It’s easy to identify people

that have an association, but it’s harder to identify those smaller

farmers. So the Farmers Institute, which I previously was president of,

came together immediately and set up a page where you could come if you

had something and also post if you needed something.

We had farmers like Tanya Shields Meade, who came in and said she

could take horses, cattle, sheep and goats. We had Marie Elizabeth

Branbit, who talked about having room for other livestock. Thunderbird

equestrian centre took in horses. We had people come forward with offers

of grain.

But the most important thing was that as the MLA, working with the

ministry, I was able to identify where those smaller groups were that

maybe weren’t on the radar. That’s the role of a government that works

together. It’s to fill in the gaps and make sure we have the resources

there. I can say that as the MLA for Langley East, I was proud to be

able to work with such an understanding, committed and empathetic

government through this.

Nobody wants to see a disaster like this happen, but what I can

say is that our community sure has felt supported.

M. de Jong: Look, I’m glad we’re having this debate, that we’re taking this

hour to assess the situation. I don’t actually know how many people are

watching. The people most directly impacted are a little busy right now.

But if they are watching, and when they watch, I expect that as happy as

they’ll be to have heard the expressions of pride about people coming

together and the stories of heroism — which are, as always in these

circumstances, remarkable and worthy of recognition — they’re really

looking for two things today. They’re looking for information, and

they’re looking for answers. Because we’re not through this yet. The

water is rising again on Sumas Prairie.

So when this parliament adjourns its business and says, “Let’s

devote ourselves to considering this, for only an hour….” We’re now down

to ten minutes left, and we haven’t heard from a member of the executive

council — not one — who are charged statutorily with providing the

direction and who are the best placed to provide some of the answers and

the information that people require.

[1:50 p.m.]

Whether folks want to accept this or not, there is, in at least

one part of this province, the

part I and the members for Abbotsford

South and Abbotsford-Mission call home, an abiding feeling that someone

dropped the ball because they didn’t get the information or the notice

that would have allowed them to take the steps necessary not to entirely

prevent but to alleviate the extent of the tragedy. Their neighbours on

the other side of an international border had an extra 48

hours.

These families, these farmers who care so deeply about their

animals — their cows, their chickens, their pigs…. That 48 hours

wouldn’t have prevented, entirely, the mortality of their herds and

their flocks, but boy, it would have made a difference, and they didn’t

get it. They’re going to want to know why.

People are already talking about, those that have been around….

One of the other members talked about 1948. In 1948, the dike in the

Fraser River burst. But in those circumstances, in the absence of

technology, herds were relocated. The notice was given, and herds were

relocated to the Abbotsford airport and saved. That didn’t happen. And

although people are preoccupied today with cleaning up the mess and

dealing with, potentially, further trauma, based on what we’re hearing

now, they will want answers.

They would like the government and members of the executive

council to tell them today what steps are being taken to requisition the

food and the water that they need to care for their livestock and their

flocks. They haven’t heard that. They haven’t heard a thing. “Thank you;

we’re proud,” doesn’t help when you’ve got to feed your

animals.

This is the opportunity to demonstrate and provide that

information to the people who have been devastated by this event. I’d

never heard the term “atmospheric river.” It sure doesn’t sound good. We

now know it wasn’t good.

I am desperately hopeful that we will hear from a member of the

government, the cabinet, and that they will actually provide some

information that is useful and some answers for why the ball was

dropped.

Mr. Speaker: Members, keep an eye on the clock. Our debate hour will expire at

2:05.

Hon. L. Popham: I’m happy to join this debate. Unfortunately, I wasn’t here for

the entire thing because we were on an emergency call with mayors of the

southern province, one of two calls with mayors that we’re having today

— the second, for more northern mayors, later this afternoon. I had to

leave the meeting early, but I let them know that this was an important

debate and that they could contact me to continue to get the information

I was giving to them on that call.

These have been an extremely difficult few days, a disaster that

is continuing to unfold for the farming community in the Fraser Valley.

We also see areas in other parts of British Columbia suffering due to

the incredible amount of water that has come onto us over the last few

days.

We were just talking to a mayor up in the Cowichan Valley who was

letting us know that farmers are suffering up there. We had some

incredible offers of support from other mayors, like the community of

Bulkley-Nechako wondering when would be the time to send

supplies.

I can tell you, from the Ministry of Agriculture, we are

continuing to assess what is needed by working with all commodity

associations, individually with farmers. There is not one moment in our

day that we’re not connected to the communities that are affected and to

the farmers that are still undergoing such a crisis. We know the water

levels are rising again, and it’s an extremely stressful

time.

[1:55 p.m.]

We have seen that in some areas, as the water receded over the

past day, their access into barns is becoming available. We know that we

need to get food and water to barns. Some trucks were able to get

through to some difficult routes, to some poultry barns. And over the

day — well, since yesterday — we’ve been managing a plan to airlift feed

and water to dairy barns. Some of the city’s waterlines have come back

on, and tests are being done to see if the dairy barns are able to get

that water. If not, then we do have a plan in place to airlift

containers and then to continue using helicopters to charge those

containers as needed.

We know the next step is getting feed to those particular barns.

We have secured feed. We know many areas that are willing to send us

feed right now, including feed that was secured at the Port of Vancouver

that was on its way to China. It looks like we may be able to reverse

that and get it back into the Fraser Valley. The outpouring of support

across the nation is incredible. Everybody is pulling

together.

It’s my request…. I have a request in this chamber, and I know

that it’s easy to be partisan here. But what we need is information. We

don’t want people to slip through the cracks. We have direct lines to

people to directly message me so we can get back to them, and we’re

doing that immediately.

We also have an emergency management number:

1-800-​663-3456. It’s for folks that are looking to either donate

or that need help. We are gathering information. I ask my colleagues

across the way to please continue to give us information. That’s the

best way we can move forward with the plan.

When I’ve called many farmers, over the last few days, I asked

them: “What do you need?” We know it’s water. We know it’s feed. We know

it’s access. But really, they don’t know what they need for the future,

because this situation is still unfolding. So as we assess the damage,

as the emergency begins to subside, we will be with farmers to help them

rebuild. The province, the federal government, ministers across Canada —

everyone has pledged that we will help these farmers get back up on

their feet. Our job won’t be done until they do.

I stand here. It’s an emotional day, but I also feel that our

farming communities are resilient. They will be able to rebuild, but it

won’t be without help from every single one of us in this

chamber.

J. Tegart: I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate today to

outline some of the experiences of my constituents and to highlight the

immediate supports they need so desperately from government.

My riding is like ground zero. An incredible heatwave setting the

highest temperature across North America culminating in a fire that

burned the community of Lytton to the ground. Wildfires in every corner

of the riding this last summer and now floods that have the entire

community of Merritt evacuated and every major highway leading into the

Interior closed, with an uncertain number of possible losses of lives.

People scattered and stranded between highway washouts. Communities

hosting hundreds as supplies become limited.

I find that I, unfortunately, have the experience needed to speak

to this motion today. So 141 days ago the lives of the people of Lytton

were changed forever when a wildfire ripped through their community.

People escaped with only the clothes on their back. Two residents

perished in the fire. As devastating as fire is, you can put it out.

What we’re finding is that that was the easy part. It is the recovery,

the support, the rebuild that has been the biggest challenge to

date.

The lack of government support and leadership, waiting for action,

the need for support for local leaders, the displaced people who have

moved numerous times, including those who were in Merritt during the

flood and have had to move again. The desperate requests for planning

and for information-sharing and transparency. Just 141 days — a

community gutted by fire, and now those who were in Merritt are

evacuated once again. You wonder how much people can take.

[2:00 p.m.]

Now my heart breaks for the people of Merritt and for the

thousands of British Columbians currently displaced by catastrophic

floods this past weekend. My greatest concern, as the water recedes, is

that this government’s res­ponse to this event will follow the

same pattern that people in my riding have seen in the last six months.

All the right things are said in the moment but little action as time

goes on.

I hope I’m wrong. Please prove me wrong. But my experience makes

me question the ability and commitment to deliver. For weeks and months,

my constituents have sat in motels, slept on couches, waiting for a plan

and a timeline from this government on when they’ll see the supports

promised to them. They want to know what steps are being taken to

restore their communities and allow them to return home and within what

sorts of timelines they can expect to see these promises carried

out.

Now not only do these questions persist in the minds of the people

of Lytton; they persist in the minds of thousands of other British

Columbians who have lost their jobs, their homes, their farms and their

communities to this second major disaster in six months.

There must be fundamental changes to how we respond to

emergencies, how we communicate to those impacted and how we support

people in their greatest need. This is not something that can happen

through drawn-out government deliberations behind closed doors. We

cannot tell people to hold tight or wait and see. The government must

learn from the mistakes of the past and improve our provincial response

and recovery and deliver the supports and actions that British

Columbians deserve.

I, again, ask the government to give serious consideration to the

three points made by the opposition leader: an all-party working

committee, public briefings in a timely way to everyone in British

Columbia who is interested in knowing what is happening and, again,

expediting the Alert Ready system. Thank you very much for the

opportunity to speak today.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the opportunity, with what little time we have left,

to just make a couple of comments. I’ve been listening to this debate

with interest.

I heard a member here say that what doesn’t break you makes you

stronger. I would have to say, from what I’ve heard from my constituents

and people across British Columbia, that that’s just simply not the

case. Many people are feeling very broken right now in communities in

the north, south, east and west. We’re not feeling stronger after what

we’ve gone through in COVID-19. We’re not feeling stronger with what

we’ve gone through with respect to the heat dome and the fires and now

the floods.

We need some reassurance, as the members have been talking about,

that the emergency response is learning from one disaster, unnatural

disaster, to the next. They need to know and be confident that the

government understands that the decisions we make in these chambers have

very real implications on the life and well-being of the citizens, the

flora and the fauna in this province.

They want to know that if we are going to be making decisions to

invest in fossil fuel extraction, we have a plan to deal with the

impending climate impacts of those decisions. They want to know that if

we are going to continue clearcutting the mountainsides of this

beautiful province, we have a contingency plan for the landslides that

are inevitably going to follow.

Everything that I’ve seen is that people don’t feel stronger from

the process that this government has rolled out. It’s like government

after government after government has been rolling the dice, hoping that

it will be the next government that confronts the particular challenge

that this government today is facing.

[2:05 p.m.]

We need to stop rolling the dice. We need to start putting in

place the real mechanisms that are going to help British Columbians be

resilient through the climate crisis, the climate emergency that we’re

going to face. That includes making sure that British Columbians know

the information. They need to know it when they need to know it, and

they need to know where they need to go and when they need to go there.

They need to be able to be prepared well in advance of an evacuation,

not just mere seconds before they need to evacuate.

The challenge that is in front of this jurisdiction, in this House

— this democratically elected chamber and every chamber across this

country and, indeed, the House of Commons — is not a small challenge. It

is a massive challenge.

But it will not be embraced and we will not achieve it if we are

not honest about the situation that we are in. That is why I’m asking

that this government start with an honesty about the climate crisis that

we are confronted with.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Members, as per the Standing Order 35, although it only grants one

hour of debate….

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I noticed that when the member sat down, there was

still, I think, a minute and 34 seconds on the clock, on the time. I

would take that minute and 34 seconds on the clock, if there

is….

Mr. Speaker: We can ask the House.

Leave granted.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Someone said nay? Okay.

Mr. Speaker: Yeah, please proceed. Just be short.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will be very short.

I want to thank the comments made by both sides of the House in

this important debate on the catastrophic weather events that we have

had over the last number of days. I have heard, carefully, comments that

opposition members have made. I can inform, because I do know that there

was some question as to where executive council members were. I can tell

you that I was on the phone with mayors, who have been showing

leadership in their communities in dealing with these events — the kind

of leadership that all of us need to show in this House.

There were questions to me around supply chains into the North and

the central and on the Island. They were relieved to know that those

supply chains were open. They wanted to know what they could do, which

is to amplify the message to the private sector what government is

doing, which is those supply chains are in place and that people do not

need to hoard and that people are working as hard as they can to get

supplies to them.

More importantly — more importantly — whenever there is an event

like this, we must learn from those lessons. We know that climate change

is real. We understand that there are more and more events like this.

That’s why government has been proactive in taking significant work

underway.

The member has raised three important points. Well, she well knows

that we have said that we are bringing in an Alert Ready

system.

Most importantly, the fundamental way in which we deal with

emergencies in this province does have to change. That’s why we’re doing

this significant rewrite of the Emergency Program Act so that we are

able to deal with these significantly better in the House. That takes

all of us, and that’s what every one of us in this chamber needs to

do.

Mr. Speaker: That ends the debate.

Kamloops–South Thompson.

T. Stone: Happily, there was unanimous consent to extend the debate beyond

the hour that is usually provided for by the standing order.

Mr. Speaker: No. No, Member.

T. Stone: I would seek the same consideration to participate in this debate

as well.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Standing Order 35 is very clear. Extension of time is not

going to be allowed, so we regret to advise the member: that ends the

debate now.

Member.

[2:10 p.m.]

T. Stone: I’m seeking leave to participate in this debate.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, we call Committee of the Whole on Bill 23, Forests

Statutes Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, committee on Bill 22, FIPPA act,

continues.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — FORESTS STATUTES

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 23;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:12 p.m.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We’re going to take a short recess as we

prepare for the committee stage of Bill 23. The House is in recess

for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 2:12 p.m. to 2:19 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 33 (continued) .

The Chair: Let’s draw this committee into session again, now that

everybody is here and all well-met.

We are on clause 33, which won’t be a surprise to

anyone.

J. Rustad: I believe, before lunch and the emergency debate, we were talking

about private land and that portion of the landscape planning. I’m just

wondering, in terms of landscape plan, established by an order, takes

effect….

[2:20 p.m.]

I noticed here under subsection 2.21(4), it says: “A forest

landscape plan does not apply in relation to a woodlot licence.” I’m

just wondering what that means. Does that means woodlot licences would

be excluded from forest landscape plans? Is that what that is

suggesting?

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes.

J. Rustad: I’m very tempted to ask why, because it’s a one-word

question.

That’s good to know in terms of woodlot licences being excluded.

It is a little curious, of course, because there could be, obviously,

restrictions. We’ll get to talking about some of the components that

would potentially be in a landscape plan. But obviously, having holes in

the middle of a landscape plan that could be — whether it’s part of fire

mitigation or other types of activities….

So I will ask the minister why, but from a perspective of: as

these plans develop and obviously could impact the areas around a

woodlot licence, why would woodlot licences not be considered as part of

the planning process?

Hon. K. Conroy: Woodlot owners have their own planning processes. I think the

member probably knows, having his own woodlot. They have their own

process, so there’s no need to include them in the landscape planning

process. Most are quite small.

J. Rustad: I have to ask another question, though, around that, because

woodlot licences aren’t the only licence that has plans. Community

forests have plans. Woodlot tenures have plans. Tree farm licences have

plans. Those, if I’m correct, are included in landscape planning. So I’m

just wondering why the difference in how a woodlot is managed versus

other area-based tenures.

Hon. K. Conroy: Woodlot licences, First Nations woodlot licences, community forest

agreements under 800 hectares on the coast and 1,200 hectares in the

Interior operate under woodlot licence plans due to their small size.

That’s why they’re not included in this legislation.

[2:25 p.m.]

J. Rustad: That’s good to know in terms of that, for my own personal

perspective but also, I’m sure, for woodlot licence owners around the

province. Obviously, when there is a shift in plans and a shift in

process, that can create a tremendous amount of angst and additional

work. So thank you for that clarification.

I’m just going to make sure that this question isn’t going to be

asked in a different spot, although I think it will be. I think when we

get to it, a little bit later, I’ll be curious, just in terms of the

overlap between existing plans and the forest landscape plan, just in

terms of the transition.

Obviously, if this is going to be a ten-year period, there’s going

to be lots of time where people will want to be renewing, whether it’s

forest stewardship plans or other types of plans, on their various

licences. So there will be, obviously, an overlap, and you might end up

with a period where a forest landscape plan is being worked on, but at

the same time, a stewardship plan might have to be submitted six months

before the landscape plan may come into place, in which case the work

wouldn’t be required, because you’d have this new plan over

top.

If this question needs to be asked at a different spot, let me

know, but because we were just talking about the other area-based

tenures, it made me ask, maybe, one of the questions about how the

licences will be notified of pending landscape plans, how you’ll deal

with that transition so that you don’t end up forcing or causing this

tremendous amount of work to be done once and then have to be updated

into a new operational plan.

Like I say, if that comes later, I can re-ask the question later,

but if you want to deal with it now, that’s fine.

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, the member is right. This is further along in clause 33. It

is under 2.48, and it’s getting into the forest operations plan, so we

can have those discussions when we get to that.

J. Rustad: I suspect, especially with my colleague from Saanich North and the

Islands and also my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin, that we may be

jumping around a little bit in

section 33, but I will do my best to try

to walk through, as opposed to jumping back and forth, as we go with

those questions. I appreciate the minister letting me know about where

we should be asking that question.

[2:30 p.m.]

As we go through…. Okay. The other area-based tenures are part of

that. I asked this question back under the

definitions, when we started

talking about an area, the landscape area. I asked about the size and

structure of landscape plans, but I want to ask that question again,

just before we go into the preparation of the forest landscape plan and

the components that go into it.

Before I start asking questions about that, just to be clear in my

mind, a landscape plan for tree farm licences would be a separate

landscape plan. Is that correct? Or will landscape plans go across

multiple tenures, potentially, depending on, I guess, some sort of

process that perhaps the minister could outline? And is the area of

those landscape plans something that is a negotiation factor with First

Nations, or is that something that’s brought to First Nations and asked

for agreement on?

Hon. K. Conroy: The intent is to have the forest landscape plan align with the

tree farm licence area or the timber supply area. And the issues the

member raised around working with Indigenous nations is further on in

clause 33.

J. Rustad: Thanks for that clarity from the minister. It’s good to know

because that’ll help to bring some continuity, in terms of management,

particularly on things like tree farm licences.

As we go into the next requirements, which is the preparation of

the forest landscape plan, there are objectives that are laid out in

that plan. The role of the chief forester historically, if I am correct,

has been…. When they do a timber supply review, there are a number of

objectives that are provided from the minister’s office to the

independent office of the chief forester outlining the priorities in

terms of the minister making a determination for a cut.

What I’m wondering is: are those the same priorities? Will those

go through now to making the decisions on a forest landscape plan? Or

will there be variations between those priorities that may go into the

development of a timber supply review versus the development of a forest

landscape plan?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Just so the member recognizes, the timber supply review is under

the Forest Act and not under FRPA, and when preparing the forest

landscape plan, there are five objectives that people must

consider.

It’s on No. 2.22. I can list them for the member:

“(

a) supporting the production and supply of timber in the forest

landscape area; (

b) supporting the protection and conservation of the

environment; (

c) managing the values placed on forest ecosystems by

Indigenous peoples; (

d) managing the values placed on forest ecosystems

by local communities; (

e) preventing, mitigating and adapting to impacts

caused by significant disturbances to forests and forest health,

including wildfire, insects, disease and drought.”

J. Rustad: The purpose for asking the previous question is because you may

end up with a conflict in terms of priorities that may be lined out

under doing a timber supply review versus a forest landscape plan in

terms of the priority and the weighting of those priorities.

In some cases, for example, there may be a heavier emphasis on

supporting a production and supply of timber within an area because of a

pest infestation or for other values or other components that the

minister may direct the chief forester on.

That’s why I’m curious. It’s because, as those TSRs come up, those

timber supply reviews — I should be careful not to use acronyms, I

suppose — they may come up aligned with development of a forest

landscape plan, or they may come up separate at different times. You may

end up with changing priorities between how a plan is developed and the

underlying information that makes the assumptions around a TSR — timber

supply review; sorry.

That’s why I’m wondering how those two are aligned. I know that

one is in a different act to this act, but the two both provide the same

type of direction, such as supporting production and supply of timber in

the forest landscape area. That is directly from the timber supply

review, or very similar to the timber supply review direction as it is

to a landscape plan.

This is why I’m wondering how those two are coordinated and

whether or not there’s consideration of alignment or how potential

conflict may be resolved between the two directives.

Hon. K. Conroy: The forest landscape planning framework and timber supply review

are related in iterative forest management processes. The timber supply

review process provides an annual allowable cut for a given landscape

area. The forest landscape plan provides direction associated with

where, when and how harvesting in the same area could occur.

The outcomes of the forest landscape plan help to inform future

timber supply processes and will directly inform future annual allowable

cut determinations.

[2:40 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Where I see some potential conflict — I guess maybe it’s just

confusion on my part — is where you have an objective of supporting the

production and supply of timber in a forest landscape area. But where

you have that direction that comes in the timber supply review in an

area, and then further down in the landscape area, in supporting the

protection and conservation of the environment, you may end up in a

situation where have a timber supply review that does not take into

consideration the direction or potential restrictions that could come

under a landscape plan.

Under a landscape plan, you could end up netting out area…. At

least, if you’re not going to be netting out area, that would be good to

know. But you could end up netting out area that has already been

accounted for as part of a timber supply. In other words, you will end

up with an overall cut that could be at a higher level for a landscape

plan than what the landscape plan ends up allowing, because of the

netted-out area.

There is potential for some challenges or some issues associated

with that. Because landscape plans are in for ten years and TSRs are

done and updated, I guess, every five years, there is a chance for some

adjustments as that goes, but there is that potential issue. That is why

I’m asking about the priorities and how these sorts of things work

together as they get developed.

Hon. K. Conroy: Just a correction to what the member said. The timber supply

review legislation is legislated to be done every ten years, but it can

be done sooner for sustainability reasons. What the forest landscape

plan does is it defines the forest management regime for that area and

becomes current practice, which is then reflected in future timber

supply reviews.

J. Rustad: Has there been any consideration given to aligning the timing of

doing TSRs, timber supply reviews, as well as forest landscape plans,

since both have ten-year windows?

Hon. K. Conroy: Potentially.

J. Rustad: Potentially. In other words, it could potentially align, and there

might be some adjustments, but it might not align. Okay, that’s

fine.

[2:45 p.m.]

The first value, value (a), is “supporting the production and

supply of timber in the forest landscape area.” One of the things…. It’s

a small portion, but it’s a critical portion when it comes to timber

coming out of a supply area, and that is salvage.

In salvage logging, when you have beetle infestations or you have

development or other types of things that isolate pockets of wood that

would not normally be large enough to be able to be considered to go

after, whether it’s timber sales or forest companies or others, salvage

comes in and is able to harvest that wood and capture some value and

bring that into the supply. It’s an important piece, especially given

the amount of infestation and the amount of challenges that we have,

particularly in the Interior.

I’m just wondering what provisions have been thought about as part

of landscape planning to be able to make sure that there are

opportunities for those who are engaged in salvage harvesting to be able

to access fibre within a plan like this without having to go through the

larger process of operational plans and other types of

access.

Hon. K. Conroy: There is nothing that precludes salvage harvesting from happening

how it does today.

J. Rustad: The reason I’m asking about this, particularly in terms of a

forest landscape plan, is there are actually challenges today with

salvage harvesting. There are places in the province — I can give

examples in my own riding — where you have these very small, isolated

little pockets of timber that are 60-percent-plus dead that are

isolated, from a geographic perspective, from roads and other components

around it and that get applied for.

Salvage loggers go through the process to make the application for

it, only for it to be turned down because a First Nation may decide that

that might be something they’re considering doing or harvesting

themselves in the future. Because of that, I’m wondering.

With the engagement that you’re going to be having on landscape

plans with First Nations in terms of how these plans are developed, it’s

going to be important to be able to identify things like salvage logging

as an activity within a landscape unit that doesn’t necessarily end up

getting blocked because of another interest, particularly a First Nation

interest. There’s an opportunity here, through the engagement with First

Nations in developing the landscape plan, to make sure that that is a

consideration as part of the plans so that there can be this salvage

logging going through without being blocked because of other potential

interests.

That’s why I’m asking about salvage logging and whether or not

there’s an opportunity within landscape planning to, I guess, bring that

in as a consideration as part of the discussions with First

Nations.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: As the member knows, any permitting application needs to be

consulted on with First Nations. That duty to consult stays the same.

That is not changing.

With respect to forest landscape plans, it could be an opportunity

for discussions around salvage harvesting.

J. Rustad: I don’t want to move that as an amendment for consideration. I am

happy to hear that there is an opportunity there, because it is a pretty

big frustration. Small operators, just mom-and-pop guys, are going out

there and trying to identify a little bit of wood here and there that

they might be able to go after. That does a great value to the forest

sector, because it brings that wood in.

It’s also a difficult, lengthy process. After going through that

process, it is pretty disappointing to find that it gets blocked at a

First Nation consultation level because there may be an interest by a

First Nation to go after it. We’ve got a stand that is 60-percent-plus

dead. Who knows when that opportunity may arise?

[2:55 p.m.]

If, as part of these discussions…. Developing the landscape plan

is, obviously, a very detailed engagement between First Nations and the

chief forester’s office to talk about how the landscape will be managed.

This is an important little piece. It’s not so much important in terms

of the larger operators, but it’s a very important little piece for the

small operating individuals who would like to try to continue with their

efforts to identify those small pieces of wood. That’s why I’m happy to

hear the minister say there’s an opportunity around that.

I guess I want to ask the question. How can we make sure? Is there

a way to be able to make sure that that consideration will actually be

put on the table, as part of the discussions between the chief

forester’s office and First Nations, to try to alleviate some of those

potential issues that have arisen in the past?

Hon. K. Conroy: As per

section 2.22(d), where it says, “managing the values placed

on forest ecosystems by local communities….” That would come into this

situation that the member is referring to. So if it is raised as a

community value, it has to be part of the discussion that could lead to

a decision.

J. Rustad: When we’re looking at managing the values placed on the ecosystem

by local communities…. Of course, these are individuals. It’s not

necessarily a community. A community, I’m assuming, means mayor and

council or an organized structure, perhaps even a regional

district.

These would be interests that are brought forward by individuals.

I’m not quite sure how those interests come to the table here. So

perhaps if the minister could elaborate on how an individual interest,

such as small-scale salvage, would be able to be raised into

this.

Hon. K. Conroy: If an individual salvage operator had an interest in this, they

could either go to their local community and have those discussions with

the community, when these issues are being raised, or go to the office

of the chief forester and raise them there.

J. Rustad: That’s interesting to know. I haven’t read in here or anywhere

where there’s that opportunity for individuals to go to the chief

forester’s office.

It makes me wonder. There are, obviously, a lot of individuals

that have a lot of different interests on the land base, whether it be

hunting interests or fishing or whatever it may be. I am pretty sure the

chief forester’s office wouldn’t want all of those individuals coming in

to provide the input.

Maybe I should ask the question of the minister. Is that the

intention of this process — to be able to allow a wide variety of

individuals to be able to come to the chief forester’s office with their

particular interests?

[3:00 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The intent is to make the draft forest landscape plans publicly

available for comment, and those comments would come to the office of

the chief forester.

J. Rustad: I know some of these things can sound tedious as we go through

them, but they’re very important for the individuals, obviously, that

are undertaking that work, which is why I feel compelled to ask about

that.

Maybe if the minister could then just confirm. The plans will be

made, the plans will be engaged between the First Nation and the chief

forester, given the priorities that have been laid out here, and then

once those plans are made, then there is an opportunity for an

individual to come in and express their concern or interest or desire

for consideration as part of the plan. Is that what I’ve just heard the

minister say?

Hon. K. Conroy: That’s the intent.

J. Rustad: We’re talking about managing the values placed on the forest

ecosystem by local communities. A way an individual or a group could go

around that process to be able to have input into the design phase, as

opposed to having input into the commentary after a design is made,

would be to actually go through a First Nation or a

community?

Hon. K. Conroy: The intent is that the public would respect the

government-to-government discussions with Indigenous nations. Again,

this is about reconciliation.

J. Rustad: I understand the intent there, and First Nations, of course, being

independent, will make their decisions as to what the values are that

they want to bring forward. They may or may not seek input from other

individuals. That, of course, would be their prerogative in terms of

being able to do this engagement.

At a community level, mayors and councils, of course, are open to

public input, people coming in, expressing their perspectives or views

or what they would like to have a community bring forward in a plan like

this.

[3:05 p.m.]

Is the minister suggesting the way forward for individuals such as

small-scale salvage or other interests is to have an engagement with

their community to try to make it a priority for the community in terms

of their input to this initial process of the values for designing a

forest landscape plan?

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes.

The Chair: Don’t we like those easy answers?

Member.

J. Rustad: Thank you, hon. Chair, I was just trying to be nice to the

individuals who serve us so well in this Legislature, as I jumped up. My

apologies for that. I also didn’t want to pass up on the opportunity to

continue the debate on clause 33.

Having lived through part of landscape-level planning, landscape

management plans that happened in the ’90s and early 2000s, there’s

obviously a lot of interest by a lot of individuals on the landscape in

terms of the values that go into those plans. I can see very clearly

that there will be a similar level of interest that will come into

forest landscape plans, even though the forest landscape plan is over

top of these other plans that are still there as part of it. There may

be individuals such as small-scale salvage or others that have a keen

interest in wanting to be able to engage.

As the minister said, one avenue for them is going to be going to

the municipal level, the community-level government, which means that

you may end up seeing a situation where community-level governments are

holding public meetings, public consultation, having this process of

gathering information. I think communities that have a keen interest in

their community and the surrounding areas may very well want to do that.

Certainly at a regional district level, they may hear that. That is a

fair bit of time and a fair bit of expense associated with the process

that would be undertaken.

Is the ministry contemplating any opportunity to be able to

provide resources to communities, whether that be professional advice or

whether that be financial resources, to give them the opportunity to be

able to have that engagement, to be able to bring more informed

information forward in terms of what the community priorities would

be?

Hon. K. Conroy: Unlike what happens under the current legislation, communities and

the public will have an opportunity for input. Communities that I’ve

talked to are looking forward to this. They’re quite passionate about it

and believe in the opportunity to do that as part of their work. Our

staff will always be available for providing input and

consultation.

J. Rustad: I need to ask the question again. I’m happy to hear that staff

potentially could be made available to be able to help, because not all

communities are able to have the resources to be able to have forestry

experts, ecology experts or habitat experts at their disposal as they

put forward what their priorities are within an area.

Certainly, as I mentioned, this is a fair bit of expense. I’m just

wondering whether this is an expense that has to be borne by the

community or whether the ministry would consider providing resources to

communities so that they would not have to incur this expense and that

the taxpayers would not have to incur this expense.

Hon. K. Conroy: No, that’s not a piece of the legislation. What we have said is

that we would offer that support. We would offer the input from staff.

We would offer that expertise to help those communities.

I’ve heard loud and clear from communities that they definitely

would appreciate this. I’ve heard from communities that have been very

frustrated over past legislation that hasn’t allowed them to have input

into what’s happening in their own backyard.

J. Rustad: I don’t think we’ll bother debating, at this point, whether

they’ve had input or not. There have obviously been opportunities for

community input, whether it’s forest stewardship plans or other types of

plans in the past.

[3:10 p.m.]

That isn’t what we’re here to debate, in terms of this bill,

although, apparently, maybe it is. Maybe there are all kinds of things

we could put into the debate on this bill and in this section, although

I’m trying my hardest not to stray too far from what we’re here to

discuss.

It is significant input. I’m thinking about, whether it’s a small

community like Granisle that really struggles with any kind of

resources…. They have a community forest. There is going to be a

landscape plan around that. It’s a small community of 390, plus or

minus, individuals. They’re going to want to be able to provide input.

They don’t have the professionals and the resources. They will draw,

certainly, on the ministry’s resources, but they may want to have a

consultant to be able to help so that they can make sure they’re

providing informed information into a process….

I take the process very seriously. I’m sure the minister and the

chief forester take this process very seriously as well.

Communities are going to want to be able to provide that.

Communities like Vanderhoof, which, fortunately, has got one councillor

who has got a very extensive forestry background. Many communities won’t

have that, in terms of what the potential… They have to be able to

understand the ramifications of the input they’re bringing in and to be

able to make informed recommendations.

Ultimately, this is about their future. This is about…. Whether

it’s the protection of their community from a fire perspective, which

we’ll get into in terms of some of those priorities, or whether it is

the protection of the community from a jobs perspective and being able

to support the local mill…. They’re going to want to be able to have

that opportunity to provide that advice.

Since it’s one of the key pieces — one of the five pieces that

comes into the components that are a critical part of deciding on

landscape plans — that is going to guide the chief forester’s office, I

think it is not unreasonable for communities to be able to ask for some

resources to be able to support them. My hope is that when the minister

makes a request through the budgeting process, there is a consideration

for grants of some kind to communities.

I’ll just maybe add that we will talk…. I want to ask the question

about grants and support for First Nations to be able to engage in this

process. I think that support will likely be there for First

Nations.

Is there going to be that consideration to be able to provide

those resources so that there is an equal opportunity for communities to

be able to put the information forward to the chief forester?

Hon. K. Conroy: We’re not asking for detailed professional input from communities.

We’re asking communities what values are placed on the forest ecosystem

around their communities, what happens with the forests around

them.

[3:15 p.m.]

Again, our staff is only too willing to provide that technical

expertise, that support. Communities won’t have to be hiring foresters.

Our staff is there. Regional staff throughout the province are only too

willing to help communities to move forward.

Once regulations are completed, we’ll go through the budgetary

process, if any further funding is required.

J. Rustad: We talked about regulations once before, and I just need some

clarity from the minister. Could the minister describe, once again, when

the regulations will be completed?

Hon. K. Conroy: We’re hoping to have the regulations completed within the next

year or two. The member well knows how government works. We always want

it to move quicker than it normally does. I think the member is well

aware of that.

J. Rustad: I believe that’s what the minister had said before — that it could

be over the next year or two.

I do fully understand how challenging it is for the bureaucracy to

move these things through and the process. There is a lot on people’s

plates, particularly in that ministry that you have the honour of being

part of. FLNRO covers off a lot of things. There are a lot of pieces on

everybody’s desks.

That comes back to the question we talked about earlier. As these

plans come forward over a ten-year plan…. There are pilots that are

happening right now. There is more that the minister talked about

adding. That creates a question to me, which is: how do you move forward

and complete, potentially, landscape plans before regulations are put in

place, and how is that relationship between those two?

Hon. K. Conroy: Because the plans will take probably two to three years to

complete, they won’t be fully completed before the regulations come into

effect. We feel the regulations will come into effect first, as the work

is ongoing. We will also ensure that there’s alignment with the

regulations when the forest landscape plans are completed.

J. Rustad: Thanks for that, from the minister.

Back to this issue for communities and the values that they bring

forward. I’m happy to hear that there may be a consideration for

resources for communities to be able to support…. Obviously, we just

finished talking about the great work that is done in the bureaucracy

but also how busy everybody is in the bureaucracy. It’s tough sometimes

to be able to get them to be able to provide all of the

resources.

[3:20 p.m.]

There is also, in some communities, the desire for independent

advice as opposed to advice that might be connected directly to a

ministry or to the chief forester’s office, for that matter, which may

have an objective in mind.

To that end, as I say, there’ll be opportunity for people, like

small-scale salvage or recreation, snowmobilers, whatever it may be.

Once a plan is developed, they’ll be able to give some input — once a

plan is developed between nation to nation, between the First Nation and

the chief forester’s office. But there is this avenue that you could see

communities, potentially, advocating for various values that they want

to see through this initial process that goes into the development of

that plan.

Will the ministry be providing guidance to groups, such as

small-scale salvage or other groups, about the various avenues or

opportunities that they might have for influence and input into forest

landscape planning?

Hon. K. Conroy: We will be communicating the awareness and opportunities around

the planning process, so that will be available to any interested

parties.

J. Rustad: Will that specifically include opportunities to engage at the

community level for that input up front, or is that only going to

include giving notification that after a plan is developed, they can

give input?

It’s an important piece, because obviously, people that are

passionate about landscape and being involved with the landscape will

want to be in right at the ground level in terms of having communities

advocating for their interest, if they are aware that is one avenue that

they could be choosing.

My concern is you will have some communities that are very engaged

and want to go out and do that, and then there’ll be other communities

that may not know or may not engage, and then you’ll get people coming

and saying: “How come I didn’t get the opportunity to be

involved?”

There’s a window here. I’m hopeful that…. My suggestion around

this to the minister is that there will be an opportunity for the

minister to be able to provide guidance, provide notification, to

stakeholders and people who are engaged or interested in forestry and

forestry activity that they have these two opportunities to be able to

influence what goes into a forest landscape plan.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We’re well aware of people’s passion when it comes to engaging on

the management of our forests, and the intent is to give those

opportunities at the start of the process and throughout the process.

For instance, in the Lakes District, where we have a pilot project — the

member might be well aware of this; it’s up in his area — the community

actually put out advertising asking people, if they wanted to be part of

a working group, to come and discuss the community values as they relate

to the forest around that pilot project, and it’s been working

well.

J. Rustad: I’m happy to hear that that’s happening, and I know that the folks

in the Lakes District and in Burns Lake are very engaged, very aware,

because they’ve got two very large community forests, and they have,

obviously, a lot of stakeholders and engagement. But there are other

communities in the same district, such as Granisle, that may not be as

engaged.

You may have communities, where Vanderhoof may be very, very

engaged, and Fraser Lake isn’t as engaged. There may be an inequity in

terms of that level of engagement and community interest and how it

influences particular landscape plans or the input that goes into

landscape plans.

I’m particularly thinking you might end up in a situation where

you’ve got communities that are at odds or differences between their

values that they want to bring forward on the landscape. Some other

parties may be more heavily into forestry; some may be more heavily into

conservation values. I know those will be issues that the chief forester

will have to deal with as the input comes in. It’s not an enviable job,

but congratulations on being thrown that hot potato.

Regardless of that, it is still…. People need to be made aware of

this. The question that I had asked was whether or not there is going to

be a process that the ministry goes through to be able to advise people

that a forest landscape plan is about to commence, and a process about

to commence, and where the opportunities for input are — whether that’s

through communities, where that might be working with First Nations, or

whether that be after the process, in terms of comments added to a plan

that might be in place.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Like any other processes that government is involved in, we’re

going to make sure people are aware that the forest landscape process

has started and is underway. That’s the intent of the legislation.

That’s what we heard loud and clear from communities that they wanted to

have happen.

J. Rustad: The minister keeps missing the point of the question. Will there

be notification that goes out to individuals about the ways that they

can engage, including being able to engage at a community

level?

Hon. K. Conroy: If the member is asking if the ministry is going to reach out to

every single person interested in the process around forest landscape

planning…. I think that’s a bit hard to ask.

What we will be doing is ensuring that the community has the

notification, that they know that this process is happening. We will be

well engaged with Indigenous nations. They will, of course, know. The

process, the intent of the legislation, is to ensure that the affected

communities, the people involved, will have the notification that they

require.

J. Rustad: I’m not suggesting the minister go out and individually notify

everybody of the opportunity. But there are organizations such as the

snowmobile organizations, such as the wildlife organizations, such as

the guide-outfitter organizations, such as the agricultural

organizations, such as the recreational organizations, etc.

My ask of the minister is whether or not there will be

notification that goes to these organizations and, potentially,

notification, whether it’s online or through other media outlets, to

notify them of the multiple ways that they can engage in a landscape

planning process.

Hon. K. Conroy: That is the intent of the legislation.

J. Rustad: There are many values that have been talked about under 2.22 that

go into this and that are, obviously, very important values. But there

are a number of values on the landscape that aren’t listed as part of

this, such as wildlife values, whether that’s levels of ungulates,

whether that’s dealing with predators or other types of

components.

I’m wondering why wildlife values are not mentioned here as a key

component of forest landscape plans.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Wildlife is a key value that Indigenous nations hold, so that

would be part of the process through that. It also comes into the values

of many communities. It also comes into 2.22(b), “supporting the

protection and conservation of the environment,” which includes all of

those issues, including wildlife.

J. Rustad: I appreciate that when talking about the environment and talking

about the forests…. Obviously, that’s talking about all components that

are in forests.

The reason for asking specifically about wildlife and wildlife

values is…. Obviously, there are a lot of pretty significant issues to a

lot of people in the province of British Columbia. So that’s why I was

just asking why that was excluded in terms of the list.

The minister has defined wildlife under environmental values. So

that’s fine. I won’t bother pursuing that any further. But it is a

little disappointing in terms of that.

There are other values, of course — values for recreation, values

of hunting and fishing, guide-outfitting — in terms of tourism

opportunities. Those are also key values that our forests provide for

the use of the citizens of this province and visitors and

others.

Values of water, as well, are linked to the environment.

Particularly, there are a number of communities in your area of the

province, as well as in the Okanagan and up in my area of the province,

on the Island, that are very concerned about watersheds and activities

that are happening on the watersheds and how that affects the potential

water supply.

I’m just wondering why all those sorts of values have not been put

in and structured as part of the values that are primarily considered by

the chief forester.

Hon. K. Conroy: These are broad categories. They’re all encompassed within the

ecosystem, which is laid out in 2.22 and all of the five

objectives.

J. Rustad: The act that this bill amends, particularly this

section of the

act, is the Forest and Range Practices Act. Range is a very important

component, especially for the cattle industry. Whether it’s cow-calf

operations or others, range is a critical piece. I’ve heard from a lot

of people in the forest sector or in the agriculture sector, in

particular, that range always seems to be second fiddle to managing

forests and managing forest values.

Particularly because it’s called the Forest and Range Practices

Act, there is a notable absence of the discussion of range as one of the

values that goes into a landscape plan, whether that be species that are

planted, whether that be areas that are going to be left, whether that

be potential opportunities for expansion of agriculture within a forest

value.

I’m curious as to why range has not been included as part of the

list of priorities, as a relatively high priority, in the creation of

landscape plans.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The ministry is committed to working directly with groups, such as

the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, to ensure that effective and

sustainable forest and range management practices are achieved in

legislation, policy and on the ground. I’ve met with them a number of

times. I’ve always enjoyed meeting with them — being a person that

raises cattle myself. I’ve really enjoyed the discussions we

had.

Forest landscape planning will support managing for forage values

and range tenure holder interests, as a landscape level, early in the

planning process.

Mr. Chair, I request a short recess.

The Chair: The committee will recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:42 p.m. to 3:55 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

J. Rustad: Just before the break, we were talking about agriculture and range

and forage. I’m happy to hear that the minister is well aware of those

values and raises cattle as well. That’s good. I might have to come talk

to you about meat supply at some point.

Regardless of that, it is an important piece, I think, just as all

the other values are. But because it’s forest and range as part of the

act, I actually think it would be valuable to have that mentioned, the

forage component, in this

section specifically. It sends a signal to

cattlemen, to ranchers around the province, that that forest and range

component will still be critical as part of the landscape planning

process.

With that, I’d like to move an amendment to clause 33.

[ CLAUSE 33, by adding the underlined text as

shown:

2.22 (

a) supporting the production and supply of timber and

forage in the forest landscape area;

. ]

The Chair: We’re going to recess for just a brief time to make sure the

member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan receives a copy of the amendment,

and when we come back, we’ll invite the proposer of the amendment to

speak to it.

The committee recessed from 4 p.m. to 4:06 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members. The proposed amendment has been sent out

to folks online and, I believe, is going out on email to everybody,

if you don’t have the hard copy. It should be there now.

On the amendment.

J. Rustad: The intention of moving this, of course, is that there is that

important recognition of range values and forage. There are significant

opportunities to change how we manage on the landscape, how we manage

the underbrush, potentially eliminating the use of the gly­phosate

and spray to understand that forage and feed are an important component

for the agriculture sector.

I don’t have a lot more to add, as I’ve talked about that a fair

bit at this point. But there are a few of my colleagues that would like

to add a few comments because ranching and the cattle sector are very

important to them, and they just want to add their voice to this as

well.

With that, I’ll cede the floor to my colleague from

Cariboo-Chilcotin.

L. Doerkson: Just a few moments to talk about the importance of adding these

two very important words. In my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin, there has

been significant damage, of course, from fires. I don’t think that’s a

surprise to anybody. But much of the rangeland, certainly in many areas

throughout the Cariboo-Chilcotin, particularly in the South Cariboo, has

been affected in a very negative way, either from guards that have been

created from forest fire and, certainly, with respect to fire

itself.

Those lands, many of them, have been left to their own device. I’m

concerned about that, because that forage that was there once has now

been contaminated with noxious weeds. Of course, there are areas…. And I

will speak only for Cariboo-Chilcotin, because those are the only areas

that I’ve actually seen. But I’ve seen areas where as far as the eye can

see is paintbrush, for instance.

The problem, of course, with not planting in a very quick way

after fires or after guards — and I’m sure it’s of no surprise — is that

these weeds can actually take place in the fall, after the fire season.

Of course, there are issues with the grasses re-establishing themselves

in the early spring.

Some of these areas…. Honestly when you look at them, it looks

like they have absolutely been forgotten. And again, in these stands of

paintbrush, even trees that may have been planted there are no longer

there.

[4:10 p.m.]

Now, that’s not in all cases, for certain, but this forage is very

important. It’s very important not just to the cattle industry, but it’s

important, of course, to wildlife in the area. It’s important for very,

very many reasons.

To add to the issue of these weeds when they take over an area,

it’s not just Crown lands they’re affecting. Now we’re seeing weeds that

have been transferred to our riding through other supplies of hay and

those types of things — weeds we haven’t seen before that now, of

course, also end up on the landscape in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. They’re

coming from other sources.

Again, I think it’s really important that we have a very active,

very aggressive program with respect to planting for these areas of

forage, and that’s why I think it’s important that we add these two

words in.

With respect to that infiltration of weeds, again, this is now

showing up on people’s private property — in their hay fields, alfalfa

fields, etc. It’s showing up just in the area in general. They have

become quite ubiquitous throughout the Cariboo-Chilcotin, for certain.

It’s affecting not only Crown lands, but it’s affecting the lands of

private citizens as well.

For the sake of two words to be added to this bill, it is so

important, I think, that we consider it for the cattle producers of this

province. It is not just the cattle producers that rely on this forage

but our trappers, of course, that use our range country as well — and

backwoods users, in general. I think that for the sake of all of our

wildlife, all of the habitat out there, we should consider

this.

I guess I would ask the ministry and the minister to please

consider adding these two simple words: “and forage.”

C. Oakes: It truly is an honour to rise and to join my colleagues from parts

of the world that count so heavily on our agricultural sector and our

incredible ranchers and farmers and people that produce food security

for the entire province of British Columbia. On days like the last few

days, we certainly understand and value the incredible efforts that they

all make.

It is an ask that we are making to the government to please

consider this very important addition, this amendment, to this piece of

legislation. What I can offer to the minister…. We know that half of the

ALR land is in Crown, and it’s critically important that forage is a

critical aspect.

I’ll perhaps go back a few years. I grew up on a ranch, a 100

cow-calf operation. I remember my falls were spent on the community

pasture, making sure that we had the opportunity to work with the

community to ensure the value supporting our agricultural sector was

intact.

As we look to modernizing the Forest and Range Practices Act, I

think it’s critically important that we consider the agricultural sector

in this conversation and that we really look to the values we are

hearing.

One of the things I’ve heard often through my office and through

the constituents…. I want to recognize, actually, the work of the

Ministry of Transportation these past couple months with these

tremendous impacts we’ve had with landslides in our community as a

result of the weather event in April.

We had some support from the Ministry of Transportation on some of

the roads we’re using that connect into the forest service roads —

critically important as we talk about forest management and the critical

importance of making sure we get the right seed planted when we’re

looking on the side roads and that specifically meet the needs of the

agricultural sector. They know best. It is in their areas that it is

critically important.

[4:15 p.m.]

We appreciated the fact that the Ministry of Transportation was

open to those conversations and worked with the ranching community along

French Road to address that specific issue that had come up.

As we are looking at updating, through Bill 23, the Forest and

Range Practices Act, I think this is a time for us to actually embed

“the forage” into this bill. It would make it easier for the ministry

and cross-ministries to have the ease of access, of understanding the

importance and the value of forage as a critical part of food security,

our economic future, supporting our ranchers, supporting our farmers and

making sure that the values we all count on in our communities and right

across the province are included.

When you look at that, although forage and associated plant

communities is one of the 11 values identified under the Forest and

Range Practices Act, it is included only to the extent of how range use,

not forestry industry use, impacts the integrity of forage and

associated plants. Forage is not currently included as an objective

within the forest planning and practices regulation and, therefore, does

not require protection or management through results or strategies

within the forest stewardship plans.

We feel that by identifying that and accepting this amendment, it

will go a long way to help to support that. The province must do more

than mitigate the impacts to forage and range values from forest

activities, leaving the management of forage as an implied

responsibility with a non-prescriptive legislative framework within

professional reliance as a foundation. There is more work that we feel

can be done. Sustainable management of the forage resource is essential

to achieve a robust and competitive ranching sector.

To the minister, please, we are asking on behalf of all of our

cattlemen, our agricultural sector that so depend on forage, to please

consider accepting this important amendment.

I. Paton: Thank you to the minister, who I’m glad understands what we’re

talking about with livestock and range land and grazing.

I want to begin by saying I know a bit about the agricultural land

reserve, as my father by the same name was chairman of the ALR in the

late ’80s and early ’90s. We used to talk about how valuable the ALR was

not only in places like the Fraser Valley, the best parts of Vancouver

Island and the Okanagan but just how important the agricultural land

reserve…. Fifty percent of the ALR in this province is on Crown land,

and much of that is grazing.

If we think of every television show or western movie we have ever

watched, the romanticized shows about ranching and farming, it’s all

about beef cattle — up in the hills; up in the mountains; up in amongst

the forest, grazing. What that does is it gives cows the ability to put

on weight. Steers are able to eat that grass, put on weight throughout

the summer months, and it also gives cows…. People wouldn’t think of

this, but grass is such an energy, high-protein product that cows need

to create milk to feed those calves before they’re weaned off, when

they’re up in the hills and on the mountainsides throughout the

summer.

It is so important to listen to this amendment — that the Forest

and Practices Act has to have the word “forage” in it to be

effective.

I’d like to quote from the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association: “While

the Forest and Range Practices Act identifies range in its title, there

is nothing in Bill 23 that would require the interests of range to be

considered in the proposed changes. The oversight of range is contrary

to the recommendations of the minister’s own practices advisory

council.”

I’d also like to go on and quote from the Cattlemen’s Association:

“Foundational to the success of the ranching sector is a secure supply

of forage, yet the minister continues to ignore the need to sustainably

manage the forage resource in favour of a random system whereby it is

assumed the forage supply is adequate for the needs of the ranching

sector and the wildlife requirements.”

I’d like to go on to talk about just how important it is to

preserve our forests in a way after fire guards have been piled up and

ditched up by ranchers and farmers, roads have been decommissioned, fire

areas on cut blocks have to be regrown.

[4:20 p.m.]

It is so important in this province that we provide the seed and

the fertilizer to go into these parts of our forests and Crown land

areas where the forests are to replenish it with grass, not only for the

ranching sector of this province but for the wildlife sector: the

caribou, the moose, the deer, the elk that graze on that grassland that

we need as part of the important forage in our forests in this

province.

Carbon sequestration…. It’s so important to get that forage, that

grass, replanted in our burned-out areas, in our cutblocks, and give the

opportunity for livestock, for ranching in this province to move forward

and succeed. We cannot forget about the fact that the agricultural land

reserve…. I know that our Minister of Agriculture is deeply concerned

and believes in the agricultural land reserve. If that is so, we cannot

forget that 50 percent of the ALR land in this province is on Crown

land, and much of it is in our forests in British Columbia.

We’ve seen success over the years, even using forage replenishment

on mining sites, on gas well sites that have been reclaimed, where

livestock have been able to go in and to make use of planting of grass

seed and new forage bases on sites such as mining sites and

decommissioned well sites.

I just want to say that it’s a simple amendment. It would very

much make farmers and ranchers in this province happy. It would

certainly make the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association in this province happy.

It’s by simply adding, as my colleagues have said, the two words

“timber” and “forage,” as is seen in this amendment.

Hon. K. Conroy: As I’ve said, I raise beef — purebred polled Herefords. I always

enjoy the conversations we have with the B.C. Cattlemen’s

Association.

Just in response to some of the comments that have been made. To

the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin: yes, there’s been a lot of work done

with the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association. I want to give acknowledgment to

Kevin Boon and the work they did during the wildfire season this year,

as well as the work that we’ve done afterwards with them, making sure

that those guard areas are replanted, that they’re reseeded, that the

fences are rebuilt.

It was interesting. We’ve had some discussions on the type of seed

we need that’s going to last for a long time. It’s interesting to me

because my son is currently seeding the 50 acres that he bought off of

us years ago and is now finally going to be farming it. He developed a

type of seed that is actually utilizing old-fashioned seeds that were

used years ago so that the grass that was growing would actually create

much better forage for the cattle so they could raise the calves and

produce better milk.

It was really interesting. He had a great conversation with Kevin

Boon about this type of seed. So we are definitely working with the B.C.

Cattlemen’s Association and recognize how important that is.

Again, the values that the member for Cariboo North talked about,

I deeply believe in them as well. I know how important our feed supply

is, as well as beef, in this province.

To the member for Delta South, again, I support the values. I know

that there’s actually nothing in this bill that stops us from continuing

to do all of the things that the member for Delta South mentioned. So we

will keep doing that.

We’ve actually had a number of discussions with the B.C.

Cattlemen’s Association on this very issue. It’s actually implicit in

the act that “ranges” is throughout the act. So I do understand the

values.

I really respect the intent of this amendment, and I think you’ve

all said that these are just two simple words. It might seem like two

simple words. However, there are much broader implications of these

words.

This is also an area of interest to Indigenous nations. To make an

amendment of this nature at this time when we are into the bill,

debating it at committee stage, is not consistent with our commitment

under the declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. For that

reason, we will be voting no.

[4:25 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I appreciate the minister’s comments. I do know she has a very

heartfelt passion around agriculture and around ranching as part of

this.

I fail to see…. I understand that the minister has just said, in

terms of Indigenous issues associated with this — in terms of notifying

them, I suppose — that something like this would happen in terms of

adding forage as one of the values, although it’s a bit of a stretch,

from my perspective.

The minister describes the complexity of changing the language at

this point. Well, in committee stage is where you do make changes.

That’s the place where this comes forward. That’s the reason for debate

in this Legislature. That’s the reason for going through this

line-by-line. It sometimes can be very tedious. So I would like to ask

the minister: what are those complexities, other than what she had

mentioned in terms of Indigenous issues, that would prevent adding the

words “and forage” into this act?

Hon. K. Conroy: With all due respect, it’s not Indigenous issues. It is respecting

the declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the opportunity. Is the minister, then, taking the

position that no amendments will ever be passed in this House because

they will have not achieved the test that she has set for this

particular amendment: that consultation with Indigenous nations need

occur?

Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you to the member for the question. Because of the

consultation that we did with Indigenous nations prior to bringing this

bill forward, we know that this is an area of interest to Indigenous

nations. So for this time, with this bill and this amendment, we will

not be moving forward with it in respect to the declaration on the

rights of Indigenous peoples.

A. Olsen: I have a whole series of questions that come from a significant

amount of documentation from Indigenous nations that have been very

clear that the consultation on this entire bill is insufficient, yet the

minister has put this bill on the table for debate. We are in committee

at clause-by-clause stage of a bill for which there are — I know that

the member from Nechako Lakes and other members have raised them —

significant concerns with the consultation process of the minister’s

intention paper and significant concerns with the lack of consultation

around this bill.

Yet here we are debating this bill. I can understand the

government not accepting an amendment because they disagree with the

amendment. I simply cannot understand an argument or a reason for not

supporting the amendment because it hasn’t been brought before

Indigenous nations for consultation, when that’s the criticism that many

nations have of the entire bill. Perhaps the minister may want to take a

few minutes to reflect on the reason to not accept an

amendment.

Basically, what is being set up here in this debate is that the

government could very easily use that exact excuse for every amendment

that’s put forward in this place, essentially frustrating the democratic

process of this House. If, in fact, the minister is certain on that

consultation with Indigenous nations, then we need to set this entire

bill aside and have it go back to consultation because of the criticisms

that have been made about the bill that’s before us right

now.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Beginning in fall of 2018, Indigenous rights and title holders

from across the province have been engaged on proposed changes to FRPA

through an extensive

schedule of in-person meetings, phone calls,

workshops and webinars. Regular updates on proposed changes to FRPA have

all been provided to all B.C. Indigenous nations via correspondence.

Ministry staff continue, to date, to respond to any resulting requests

for government-to-government discussions with those individual rights

and title holders.

To date, nearly 100 meetings have been held with Indigenous

nations and organizations, representing more than 90 communities from

across the province, to understand their interests and listen to their

perspectives on FRPA and related forest policy matters. Amendments

enabling the implementation of decision-making agreements negotiated

under

section 7 of the Declaration Act and requirements of the chief

forester to consult and cooperate with Indigenous peoples throughout

forest landscape plan development and establishment have been included

in response to concerns raised by rights and title holders through the

consultation process.

Actually, there’s been consultation with 204 Indigenous rights and

title holders, which occurred in two phases. The first phase of

consultation occurred between winter 2019 and spring 2020 and included,

again, a series of regional workshops and provincial

conferences.

Again, I’ll remind…. Some people might not remember that the

changes to this act started in 2019, prior to me being minister. There

was considerable discussion and consultation, government to government,

with the rights and title holders that occurred prior to us actually

tabling the legislation here in the chamber.

A. Olsen: This government has a habit of standing up and listing things. The

reality of it is…. Despite the ex­haustive list that the minister

has just outlined….

When this bill was put on the table, we heard from Indigenous

leaders in this province that the consultation does not reflect the

robustness that the minister would like us to believe happened.

Immediately after this bill was put on the table, the criticisms from

Indigenous leaders across the province rolled out.

That is one of the fundamental failings of this government. Their

understanding of consultation and Indigenous leaders’ definition of

consultation is fundamentally different. We can hear these arguments

actually be rolled out on both sides. One, we’ve done the consultation.

So this bill has been put forward. Then, two, just in defence of not

supporting this amendment….

Like I said, I can understand why a government would choose not to

support an amendment. This simply is an unacceptable reason to…. If that

is true, then, from my position, the government needs to set this bill

aside and do the consultation that is expected by Indigenous leaders. I

really think that we need to strongly reject this. The fact of the

matter is that we are going to see this reason for not accepting

amendments roll out over and over and over again.

I have an amendment. I can imagine that, well, the minister hasn’t

consulted on the specific language of it. So sorry. Not going to

happen.

Basically, the democratic process that is laid out here in the

committee stage of the debate…. This bill has gone significantly down

the road to the point that we are at committee stage of the debate. We

are simply going to be frustrated over and over and over again because

of the government’s definition of what consultation is, which

is….

It’s good enough for us to get it on the order paper and for us to

debate it, but it’s not good enough