2017 Legislative Session: Sixth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, March 2, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 42, Number 9

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2017

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: I call second reading of Bill 7, intituled the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO
ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Hon. N. Letnick: I move that Bill 7 be now read for a second time.

Madame Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. N. Letnick: I’ll just say a few words — second reading.

I’m pleased to speak to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017. Before I talk about some of the detail of the new bill, I want to provide a little context for why government feels that this new legislation is so important.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

The amendments deliver on the Premier’s commitment to target irresponsible commercial breeders of cats and dogs so that puppy mills — like the recent one in Langley, where over 50 animals were seized — do not occur anymore.

In support of this commitment, government first enacted a regulation last spring prescribing codes of practice that outline generally accepted practices of animal management for commercial breeders and boarders of dogs and cats in British Columbia. While that regulation is helpful in encouraging people to voluntarily comply with the codes of practice, the accepted practices in the codes are not enforceable through inspection. The development of enforceable standards of care was the next logical step.

The new act will allow government to create regulations that will prescribe standards of care that all commercial breeders of dogs and cats must follow once enacted. Such a regulation exists for sled dogs.

I would like to recognize the member for North Vancouver–Seymour for her invaluable contribution to this work. The member has been a passionate advocate for animal welfare for many years and sponsored two private members’ bills to address irresponsible commercial dog and cat breeders in British Columbia.

[1335]

During consultation with key stakeholders, including the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals — BCSPCA is the acronym — the Canadian Kennel Club, the Canadian Cat Association, individual breeders and local governments, broad support was found to implement a registration or licensing system to stop irresponsible breeding and selling of cats and dogs.

These proposed amendments will enable the future creation, by regulation, of a licensing or registration scheme for commercial breeders and sellers of cats and dogs. Administration and enforcement of the new scheme will be done by a designated agency, specifically through its employees, including licensing officers, licensing inspectors and reviewing officers.

Licensing inspectors will monitor and enforce compliance with the licence or registration scheme. Their inspection activities will be overseen by the designated agency and the Minister of Agriculture.

The majority of commercial breeding of cats and dogs occurs in homes. Licensing inspectors will be able to apply for a warrant to enter a dwelling house, if consent is not provided, to inspect or search and seize evidence of an offence.

Breeders found to be engaging in irresponsible practices may be subject to administrative actions including having their licence or registration suspended or cancelled. As this can have a significant impact on a person’s income, the proposed amendments provide a framework whereby an operator can request review or reconsideration of these administrative actions through reviewing officers.

Lastly, it will be an offence to fail to comply with the requirements of the licensing or registration scheme. In the future, contravention of standards of care will be penalized through tickets issued under the Offence Act, although charges may be brought forward for particularly egregious cases.

With that, I look forward to the comments of other members of this House.

L. Popham: Well, it’s a pleasure to rise and generally support this bill.

I think that bringing legislation forward like this to protect animals or pets is important, and I commend the government for doing so. I commend the member for working hard on this legislation. I know she is passionate about animals, and she’s always been a strong spokesperson around the BCSPCA and their activities.

Now, we’ve all heard horror stories about puppy mills and pet mills operating not just in British Columbia but all around North America. When these stories come out into the news, you can almost…. It’s hard to listen. You almost want to turn off the television or turn off the radio, because the details are excruciating.

When you think about the suffering that animals have undergone, in the conditions that they are possibly being
[ Page 14026 ]
bred in, it’s obvious that legislation needs to come forward to support stopping this sort of activity. But there are some concerns that I have about this legislation, and perhaps it’s that it didn’t go far enough. I consider this maybe part 1 of legislation, and we haven’t addressed part 2 of that legislation that needs to come forward.

I think that the requirement for having cat breeders or dog breeders licensed in the province is excellent, but if we only focus on that part of the equation, I think we’re missing a big part that still can see sourcing from pet mills in British Columbia. I think what’s missing is possibly requiring pet shops requiring licences or proof of licensing from the breeders that they are sourcing from.

When you walk into a pet shop, I think that you should be able to know exactly where that animal has come from, and I don’t think that this bill really addresses that part of it. I’m hoping the government could maybe accept an amendment that we’ll be putting forward with that in mind.

I think one of the biggest seizures that we’ve seen by the BCSPCA in our history is maybe 66 very sick dogs that were found in the Fraser Valley. I think that along with this sort of legislation, the requirements for licences on breeders should also come with education.

[1340]

Just because I have the floor right now…. I think it’s really important, as part of public information, to know how to recognize when you’re sourcing from a breeder that may not be quite up to snuff — some of the signs in the animals and the breeder.

If you are prevented from seeing where the animals are living — if you’re adopting an animal and the breeder doesn’t want you to see where the breeding area is or where the animals are being housed — that could be a sign that they’re not being done very well. If a breeder sells to a pet shop and basically uses the pet shop to sell the animals instead of doing it directly, that may be a sign that these animals are coming from a pet mill.

If there are multiple types of breeds of designer dogs that are being advertised from a breeder, that possibly could also be a sign that it’s a pet mill and there are more animals being bred than should be at that location. If there are multiple litters available for adoption from the same breeder, that’s also a sign that there could be a problem.

Also, if there is no contract that’s signed…. When you go to adopt an animal from a breeder and there is no contract for responsibility or expectations that is signed, that’s also something to watch for.

There are ways of educating our consumers that can also go hand in hand with legislation like this. That kind of leads to what I’m about to say about the funding that’s needed for legislation like this to be effective.

Unfortunately, I think it’s a theme — in my last eight years of watching legislation come through this chamber — that we see the bones of legislation but most of the details come through by regulation later on. I always think that’s unfortunate, because it’s almost like an idea gets put out there — it’s like a test balloon — and then the details are figured out later.

I really think this chamber is a place to be able to express the ideas of the government, allow opposition to scrutinize it, so that we — together in this chamber, all 85 members — can work towards making legislation as strong as possible.

When we see regulations being done at some time, most likely, after the upcoming election, with no promises of funding, it worries me. The reason why it worries me is because when you look at the type of funding that this legislation would require, from what I understand, to get things up and running and to operate it, it would take about a year to do so. The funding is about $750,000 to $1.8 million to do that.

Without having that promise of that sort of funding, you really…. You can say it could take a year. You could say it might go into place after the election. But really, you could announce legislation like this, and it could never happen because there’s no funding to make that happen.

I believe that it’s going to take some software development in order to be able to track this information — of breeders who are licensed or possibly not licensed.

When you look at how much money you’re going to spend on something like this…. I think, in this case, it’s going to be up to government to decide where they’re going to focus on enforcement. So the amount of funding and the amount that’s going to be spent would really go hand in hand with the level of inspection that’s decided on.

If the government decides that they’re going to focus on higher-risk breeders — perhaps breeders that have a certain amount of animals and above…. If they’re just going to focus on that, I think that the funding would be lower. But if you’re going to look at it as a provincial matter, then that’s going to cost a lot more.

I hope that those discussions are happening, because the BCSPCA will be responsible for the inspections and the enforcement of these regulations. Currently, they rely on charitable donations to do most of their work — any of the prevention, any of the education — and they do a really good job.

[1345]

But for something like this, which is substantial, they do need a commitment by government for funding. Because if you put this into place and it’s not done at the highest level, to get the best results, so we are actually stopping activities like puppy mills and breeders who are not operating properly…. If we really want to do that in British Columbia, then there has to be a commitment by the minister to fund something like this properly.

I hope that’s a conversation that he is wanting to have. Perhaps when we go through committee stage we can discuss that a little bit further. I know that it’s done by regu-
[ Page 14027 ]
lation, and things aren’t decided yet. That’s usually the answer that I get. But I think that there is an opportunity for us right now to make that commitment.

We have numbers, which I think are accurate numbers, that have been put forward by the BCSPCA. They have a very good understanding of what they would need. That would probably be my biggest concern.

I would also think that if we wanted to handle this in a way that really deals with the problem, we would really want to keep the scope, as far as enforcement, as wide as possible. I can’t see the members on the other side disagreeing with that, especially my colleague across the way. I know that there is no acceptable level for animal cruelty in the province.

With that being said, I see that she’s going to be speaking next, and she’s going to be very passionate about this. I look forward to her speech.

Again, I wanted to say that we will be putting forward amendments. I hope that we can have a reasonable discussion on those amendments and make sure that this legislation is as strong as it possibly can be, because this is a good idea.

J. Thornthwaite: I’m absolutely thrilled to be able to stand here today and support Bill 7, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017. As the Minister of Agriculture has said, and also the critic, the member opposite, has said, this is something that I have been very passionate about actually all my life — not just being an MLA. I’ve always been an animal lover, and certainly people that knew me in my other life before politics knew that I was an animal lover.

It really got to me when I came here, and I knew all the positive work we were doing after that tragedy with the sled dogs. I knew that there was more to do for companion animals. So way back in 2013, when I introduced a private member’s bill called standards of care for companion animals, dogs and cats, I did quite a bit of consultation with responsible breeders, certainly the SPCA, lots of academics from UBC, the Department of Agriculture, animal welfare department and others.

I began to realize that there was an immense passion from all sorts of people, all sorts of sectors, for wanting to do something to put more teeth into our animal cruelty legislation. By the way, we all know British Columbia already does have the toughest animal cruelty laws in the country, which I’m also very, very proud of.

Real thanks go out to our Premier, who took this on and has been supportive all along. To have our Minister of Agriculture taking this on and driving it through his ministry…. The support that I have received through the Ministry of Agriculture all along has been quite remarkable.

[1350]

I feel good about the environment around the Legislature, about the elected officials that I share this House with. We all realize that animal cruelty is unacceptable, and we are doing our steps today and onward on trying to protect the animals that are the most vulnerable in our society.

Specific to this bill, today the government is introducing legislation to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act that will enable a new licensing or registration system as well as a new inspection regime to ensure compliance with future standards. This legislation is the B.C. government’s latest action to target irresponsible dog and cat breeders. We want to develop a system that is supported by the responsible breeders in British Columbia and targets the ones that aren’t.

During a lot of the consultations with responsible breeders…. One of them is my constituent, Catherine King. She is the epitome of somebody that loves and cares for her animals. She breeds standard poodles — so well cared for. She had a lot of input in, at least, my learning of how complex this task is — for government to target the bad ones but protect the good ones.

I think that’s part of the reason why things in government don’t take as quickly as you want them to, because you want to make sure that we get it right. I was very pleased to meet a group of responsible breeders who bred animals — all sorts of different types of dogs — and listen to their compassion and what they feel we could do, in government, to improve animal welfare and, in particular, the dogs and cats — and, obviously, shut down puppy mills.

The consultations that have occurred include, obviously, the B.C. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the BCSPCA, who is a great friend of our government’s, the Canadian Kennel Club, Canadian Cat Association, individual breeders, as I mentioned, and local governments.

I was able to attend a consultation with folks from the Ministry of Agriculture — as well as the UBCM, in their last conference that they had — to discuss this. Again, local governments are also impacted, because these puppy mills turn up, surprisingly, in their municipalities. The SPCA has to swoop in and shut them down, but the municipalities are usually shocked to learn that this type of cruel operation is occurring in their municipalities.

It was determined that all of these folks have a broad support for the development of a registration or licensing system that would help stop irresponsible breeders. There was also an on-line survey. They received 312 responses from breeders and retired breeders which also helped to inform the ministry on what we could do and what we could go forward with.

While there are many responsible and knowledgable breeders operating in B.C., consultations confirmed, as I said, that even the responsible breeders who are doing everything right and might be concerned with extra red tape, or whatever, knew that we had to do something to stop these commercial puppy mills or cattery mills.
[ Page 14028 ]

The general outcome of the consultation was that standards of care are needed to create clear, mandatory requirements for the treatment and handling of dogs and cats at commercial breeding establishments, supported by effective compliance and an enforcement system. If these proposed changes are passed, regulations will need to be created before any new requirements are enforced. I’ve been told that will involve much more consultation with the stakeholders. The responsible breeders are certainly looking forward to more consultations in that.

The regulations will outline that commercial breeders of cats and dogs will be required to be licensed or registered, establish standards of care that these commercial breeders will be required to adhere to and determine the amounts of registration or licensing fees. That’s the goal. Licensing inspectors, who will also be appointed by the minister, will monitor and confirm compliance with the standards of care.

[1355]

Licensed or registered commercial breeders will be required to publicly post their licence or certificate of registration to allow consumers to ensure they are purchasing from a regular commercial breeder.

I think this is really key, because public education is one of the facets that certainly the BCSPCA and the responsible breeders that I’ve talked to said is absolutely paramount. If we stop the demand, then that will dry up the supply.

A lot of folks will go past a pet store. They’ll see the cute doggy in the window: “Oh, I’ve got to buy that cute doggy.” But they don’t necessarily realize that perhaps that little puppy came from a puppy mill. Immense cruelty occurred for either that puppy or, certainly, the puppy’s mother, who has to be bred consistently and constantly to provide a market for either irresponsible pet stores, irresponsible breeders or irresponsible dog brokers — which, I understand, are also part of the problem.

Certainly the other humongous availability of these puppy mill dogs is through Internet sales and also newspaper sales. People really, really have to take a look at where they’re buying their animals, because if you cannot see the parents and you’re not invited into the home of a responsible breeder to show you how these animals were raised, chances are that those animals were produced by a puppy mill. It was either here in British Columbia, or some of them come from the United States. In certain states, they have literally manufactured dogs and cats that are shipped across the border or ordered either through newspaper articles or on the Internet. So buyer beware, certainly.

The SPCA has kind of a neat little brochure right now that shows the public how to spot a responsible breeder and how to protect yourself. Not only is it tragic for the animal that is being purchased; it’s immensely tragic for the family that has adopted or purchased this animal.

Notoriously, these animals are not well. Sometimes they have serious diseases, and the veterinarians have to basically go in there and try to treat these animals. Sometimes the tragedy does occur that they have to be put down. Again, it’s buyer beware. That’s again one of the most important facets of talking about this issue. By talking about that and bringing public awareness to it, then it hopefully will stop the demand. Then the supply will dry up, because there’s no market for the puppy mills.

Previous action to improving conditions for commercial cat and dog breeders in British Columbia, including last year, was the adoption of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association codes of practice for kennel and cattery operations, which provide guidance through generally accepted practices of animal management — including housing, ventilation, food, water, care, supervision, recordkeeping, behavioural needs, socialization and transportation.

A lot of those facets in the codes of practice for the Veterinary Medical Association were actually included in my private member’s bill several years ago. I’m really, really pleased that we’ve adopted, in codes of practice, those requirements. They’re fluid requirements, I might add, because different medical information comes up. The veterinarians are the ones that are the specialists. They’re the ones that are the doctors who care for these animals. So it’s good that we’ve adopted their codes of practice.

Again, it’s really important to remember that charges under the current B.C. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act can be laid against anyone who causes suffering or distress to any animal in British Columbia, including domestic animal breeders. We are very proud here in the Legislature, my colleagues, to be able to support the SPCA in all of the work that they do for vulnerable animals.

[1400]

I’m very proud that over the last couple of years, we’ve been able to contribute to the SPCA, for their capital plan, $5 million a few years ago and then another $5 million in Budget 2017 to give to their capital plan for renovating and replacing their facilities provincewide.

That includes not just dogs and cats but large animals as well, because we know that some of the animals that do have to be seized are large animals. To have a facility that houses these large animals close to Surrey — which I’ve personally gone to visit — is a real joy, to be able to see that we’ve got these facilities and that government was able to assist the SPCA in those investments. And there’s more to come. So we’re very, very pleased with that.

In summary, I’m just thrilled to be able to support Bill 7. I’m so thrilled that our Premier has taken the issue of animal cruelty so seriously, to bring this forward and to support the Minister of Agriculture and all of the work that they and my colleagues have done to, once and for all, stop animal cruelty and shut down these puppy and kitty mills.
[ Page 14029 ]

D. Donaldson: I am pleased to take my spot today in second reading of Bill 7, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017. This is an opportunity, at second reading, to give general comments regarding the bill, and of course, a more detailed analysis will occur during the committee stage.

I just want to start off by saying the intent of the bill is something that I don’t believe any MLA in this Legislature could argue against. The prevention of cruelty to animals is something that needs to be at the forefront of many people’s minds.

By way of background, I just want to start off on these general comments. I’m going to focus a little bit more on rural areas. I know that the member who introduced the bill is not from a rural area. So I’d like to introduce a few more aspects to this bill from the rural areas.

I live in a rural area on about six acres. I have two dogs. They’re wonderful dogs, both rescue animals. Both dogs were animals that would have been put down and that we welcomed into our home. They serve a purpose, as well — two dogs and a cat. I also have a couple of llamas, chickens for eggs, and at certain times of the year, we raise turkeys and sheep on the property as well.

That’s not unique in rural areas. Many people that I know have properties where they have a number of different types of animal species on those properties. This bill, Bill 7, more or less deals directly with commercial dog and cat breeders. We’ve heard the term “puppy mills,” and this is the intent of this bill. But I want to talk a little bit more about how that relates to the rural lifestyle.

Many people have dogs for purposes on rural properties — we certainly do — for bears that come through that bother our animal stock and for other dogs too. There are a lot of people who aren’t responsible pet owners, and dogs can run freely sometimes and run in packs. I’ve had that situation happen to lambs that I was raising, at one point, that were mauled by packs of dogs running in our neighbourhood. So we keep dogs to protect our stock, our animals that we raise domestically.

This bill, in speaking to puppy mills…. I’m going to look forward to committee stage, because it raises a few interesting aspects for me. I know people who actually have dogs that they…. When the dogs have puppies, people like the look of them, and they part with them at a certain price, and this all happens pretty informally. People know different people who have dogs that they like for a breed for a certain purpose, whether it’s defensive purposes, as the ones I’ve outlined, or whether it’s for more warm purposes that animals can provide to us.

[1405]

But people know — people who have dogs — and they say, “If your dog is going to have puppies, I’d be interested in having one of the puppies,” and sometimes money changes hands. It’s an informal part of the economy. That is not a puppy mill.

I know this legislation is directly focused on puppy mills, but in rural areas, a lot of people count on their neighbours and their friends for pups.

In the bill, it talks about: an external agency designated by future regulation will administer the system. I know the intent of the bill is good, but I just hope it doesn’t lead to more red tape for people in rural areas. Sometimes that “administration of the system” is a nice term, but it happens in faraway places from rural communities and can lead to a real negative impact on people who are just having their dog have puppies, not for great commercial return. You know, they like to have their neighbours pick them up if they can.

If the intent of this bill is to capture them in an administrative system that might be hours away in Prince George or Kamloops or Kelowna or even down in the Lower Mainland, of course that’s not going to make sense. So the intent of the bill is to be applauded, but again, when it gets down to how these enactments are going to be administered, then we could be into the rural areas getting left behind or getting the short end of the stick, really. So that’s one concern. We’ll talk about that in committee stage, I’m sure.

What kinds of resources are going to be required to actually bring Bill 7 into full application — that’s going to be important, as I said, for rural areas. We recently have a person who is part of the SPCA in the area, but they cover huge, huge areas up in my constituency. And we have volunteers. We have amazing volunteers. Linda Locke, who is a lawyer with the Upper Skeena legal services society, has for years been the go-to person. If you see a dog that has been tied out for days on end, in 25- to 40-below temperatures, she’s the person you mention it to. Linda will make some calls and go see what’s going on.

Likewise, when it comes to people who don’t seem to be able to understand that if their dog or their cat keeps getting pregnant and keeps producing a litter, that litter is not going to be taken care of properly. We have a lot of that. Where I live, dogs had a purpose at one point, as far as working goes. Dogsled teams were used widely before cars and railways and that kind of thing were available — even after the railway came. So dogs had a purpose. Then that purpose got taken over by highway systems and cars, but people kept the dogs. There’s a tradition of keeping dogs in rural areas.

Although we’re talking about the prevention of cruelty to animals in this bill — specifically so-called puppy mills and commercial breeders — I think we also have to talk about spaying and neutering services. There are many, many owners that aren’t responsible when it comes to that. As a result, we have a lot of dogs and cats wandering, without having an owner. It causes problems. It causes problems with the cat population, with birds in the area and with dogs.

I can remember when my sons were going to John Field Elementary School, now called Majagaleehl Gali
[ Page 14030 ]
Aks, in Hazelton, they had to be careful at lunchtime with their sandwiches because dogs would come by and snatch them out of their hands. This is a result of people not being responsible with their pet and their pet ownership.

There has been an amazing service that comes by, not frequently enough. It’s a day where a vet comes in on a volunteer basis, and animals can be spayed or neutered at no cost. That’s the kind of service that people really appreciate, and that’s the kind of service that needs to be better resourced through provincial government funds.

[1410]

It means less cruelty to animals, in the end, and less incidents of children being terrified by dogs and of people getting bitten by dogs. A friend of mine was just out jogging recently in my neighbourhood, and a dog came off the property and grabbed her by the calf. She came to our house afterwards. She was bleeding. Again, it was hard to try to identify not only the SPCA person who could help her, but then we found out that that person could actually not offer any service because we live in a regional district. Therefore, it was up to the RCMP.

So then we called the RCMP. Of course, they’ve got a lot better things to do than track down dogs that have bitten people, although it’s pretty important when that happens. You can imagine if it was a young child walking by.

Again, if we had the resources behind spaying and neutering services like the ones that come by, maybe every few years, into northern communities, then it would free up resources for the RCMP, for instance, to actually go after criminal activity.

We have some amazing vets, and we’re talking about prevention of cruelty to animals here. We have some pretty amazing vets in Stikine. Mike Desharnais is the vet I use, and he’s got a clinic in Smithers.

We also have something new, and this is an interesting new advancement. Dr. Kim Hunter is doing a mobile vet clinic. She’s closed down her actual vet clinic, and she’s on the road with a mobile vet clinic. That’s the kind of service that…. When it comes to spaying and neutering and preventing the cruelty to animals that results from owners who aren’t responsible and are not having their animals spayed or neutered, she’s the kind of person who could do that if the resources were available.

The other aspect to this bill…. I’d like to see how it’s going to unfold in committee stage, because right now we’re just doing general comments about the bill. People who live in rural areas, who live there in remote rural areas and remote northern rural areas…. Some of the people on this side and the other side live in those areas. They live there oftentimes because they enjoy the wide open spaces. They enjoy that people aren’t always looking over their shoulder necessarily — that your neighbours can be a distance away from you and enjoy that isolation and freedom.

When I read in the proposed Bill 7 that inspectors, under this proposed legislation that’s now before us, will be able to apply for a warrant to enter a residence if the owner’s consent is not provided…. That does raise some concerns for people living in Stikine — that a yet-unnamed agency, external from government, that’s going to administer the system will have inspectors who will then have the authority to enter your residence if they suspect that there’s activity underway that’s in contravention of this Bill 7, even if you say: “No, you can’t come in.”

That’s a bit of a concern — apply for a warrant to enter. So, yes, that’s been pointed out. I think that’s, obviously, a good clause. But it’s something that people are concerned about — that someone can come on your property after applying for a warrant and come in.

As I say, generally, the aspects of Bill 7 around the prevention of cruelty to animals are something that is laudable. It’s worthy of supporting. What we’re looking at, and what I’m looking at, are some more details that we’ll see in the committee stage.

I want to finish off these general comments, just to, once again, reiterate the resources that are needed for a great organization like the BCSPCA. They do great work around the province, but in the area that I represent, again, it’s pretty hard to get the kind of service that we see in other areas. Yet the need is there. As I’ve outlined, the need is there, especially around spaying and neutering.

Again, just a caution around the red tape once this bill, if it passes, is enacted — that the external agency that will be designated by future regulation and will administer the system has enough resources to administer that system in an effective manner in rural areas, where many people have lots of animals, as I’ve described with my own situation, and doesn’t get caught up in a red-tape kind of situation, which we wouldn’t want to see.

[1415]

Those are my general comments on second reading.

I thank you, hon. Speaker, and I’ll now take my place.

S. Gibson: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very timely legislation. I might add that personally, I grew up with setters. My parents had setter dogs, a very elegant breed. That’s my recollection as a young boy, walking our setters through this country area where I lived.

Later on, we had many cats in our family. In fact, we currently have a Bengal cat. Some of you have seen what a Bengal looks like. It’s kind of like a little miniature tiger. Some of you have seen that little video clip on my phone of the Bengal cat. It’s a delight to see this little thing cruising around our house.

In any event, this legislation is timely in light of some of the discussion we’re hearing in the media about some irresponsible breeders. I think that as we look around our province, for the most part, people are responsible breeders. They look after dogs and cats and breed them because they care about them. They have that affection for those breeds.
[ Page 14031 ]

But there are those, unfortunately, who are otherwise challenged to really show caring for these little animals. So I’m encouraged our government is doing this.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act is auspicious and propitious at this time. It really follows a lot of consultation our government did. There was consultation with individual breeders, many clubs that related to the different breeds, kennel clubs and local government.

We know that local government, through their pound system, comes in contact, in many ways, with animals that are not treated responsibly. Sometimes, of course, they’re left, as the previous speaker noted, in ways that are uncaring and often leading to much suffering of these animals.

We’re building on the previous legislation actions, and I think it’s showing that government is really concerned about this. It’s important to remember that these changes apply against anybody who causes suffering or distress to pets — dogs and cats in particular. We realize that sometimes people will not hit the radar, but we have to be a bit more vigilant and show an interest. Of course, the SPCA fits in well there.

We’re targeting, really, those who are irresponsible — I think that’s the summary statement — those that are breeding but otherwise not caring for the breeds they’re looking after. This legislation — it’s important to note — is supported very strongly by responsible breeders. These are the ones that genuinely care for the animals. They breed them and look for good homes for their animals.

I think one of the things that I have found, as I come in contact with so many quality breeders in our province, is how they are very careful when they’re picking a home for their young kittens or puppies. They don’t just sell them to the next person that comes along, but they’re very careful to pick people who will care for that animal and give it a good home. I think that’s important to note.

That’s the difference between, maybe, the irresponsible breeders that we’re focusing on today and those who are the vast majority, those that we know in our own communities and many in my own constituency of Abbotsford-Mission.

What we’re trying to do here with this legislation is focus. Also, this is a part of focusing the public’s attention as well. These breeders are not welcome in the manner in which they’re dealing business — those who are irresponsible.

The general outcome of the consultation required mandatory regulations. Of course, that’s what we’re doing today, making the regulations much more proscriptive for those would enter into this business.

It’s important to note that the vast majority of breeders really just operate out of their homes. But the regulations will allow officers to approach the home and request access. The legislation also permits a warrant system so people can actually go back and investigate if they think there’s a situation that could be highly problematic.

[1420]

I think this is good. It shows respect for the system and also gives notice to those irresponsible breeders that their conduct is not supported or endorsed by the citizens of our province. This framework that we’re building on is going to be, I think, applauded provincewide. It’s very timely. As some of our opposition members have noted, this is something that I think will be relatively lacking in controversy, given the affection that most people have for cats and dogs and their pets. The vast majority of British Columbians do have at least one pet in their homes — particularly in a rural area, where some nature use for dogs, of course, is for some protection.

A little bit on the logistics. The licensing is going to be very important. Licensing is now going to be a key component of the process, and also registration. A licensing system means that the person cannot undertake this regulated activity without being licensed. This protects the consumer, as well, from dealing with somebody that just doesn’t have either the aptitude or interest and is simply breeding, perhaps, purely for monetary reasons.

There’s nothing wrong with having a business. But if you don’t care for the breed…. Back to my little story here about our Bengal cat. When we visited the breeder in Mission, which is in my riding, my wife and I were very respectful. We thought: “This is an excellent place to buy a cat.” So we were very happy to do that. I’m sure these people would totally meet the regulations and specifications we’ve been talking about. That’s all good news.

The registration system, as well — they can’t undertake the regulated activity without registration.

In summary, I think this legislation is very timely. I’m pleased that government came forward with this. I suspect that this will be unanimously endorsed here in the Legislature.

Thank you for allowing me to speak to this today.

L. Krog: Let me say at the outset that anything that supports the prevention of cruelty to animals in this province, I think — as the member who spoke before me, just previously — is something that will always receive the support of everyone in this House.

However, I cannot resist the fact that a milestone passed us yesterday in British Columbia.

A. Weaver: Red Tape Reduction Day.

L. Krog: Now, the member for Oak Bay, like an errant child, couldn’t resist tearing open the Christmas parcel before Christmas Eve. So let us emphasize that under the Red Tape Reduction Day Act, the first Wednesday in March is Red Tape Reduction Day.

Before I get into the depths of this bill, and one that I will wholeheartedly support, I do have to point out the fact that we have 17 pages of bill concluding, of course, with the penultimate section, which allows for the creation of numerous regulations that this government will
[ Page 14032 ]
be able to pass in the secrecy of the cabinet chamber, once again without any public debate here in the Legislature of British Columbia. What the good Lord giveth with one hand, the good Lord taketh away with the other.

Here we have the B.C. Liberals so proud of their single page of the Red Tape Reduction Day Act, then again introducing a 17-page bill at the very same time they constantly brag about the fact that they’re reducing red tape. What this tells us is quite simply this. Somebody’s red tape to the B.C. Liberals is somebody’s protection, or in this case, some poor creature’s protection. All creatures great and small, who have no voice in this chamber, will be protected by the legislation in front of us.

I just don’t want to hear, in another session of the Legislature at some point, the B.C. Liberals crowing again about reducing red tape as we in the opposition stand up and support 17 pages of new legislation that leads to even more regulation. I just don’t want to hear the hypocrisy from the other side.

In a civilized, democratic society, where you’re allowed to elect representatives, where you’re allowed to actually create legislation and allow for regulation that benefits every person — and in this case, all creatures great and small — surely that is a good thing. That is a good thing. The regulations that protect workers in this province, the regulations that protect school children — the same regulations and the same kind of legislation are going to protect animals in the province.

[1425]

I suspect my family, like most of the people in this Legislature, are pet owners or know pet owners or have pet owners in their family. It is very clear that not all creatures are cared for in the same way. We know that from the hard work of the SPCA representatives, of whom I’ve met with on many occasions.

I know that in my own community, several members of my executive, let alone my friends and neighbours, are active members of the Nanaimo SPCA and work hard every day, volunteering many, many hours, giving of their personal resources as much as they can in order to support the good work of the SPCA.

My own family, our daughter and son-in-law, had a rather sad experience with a wonderful Great Dane. Now, I’m sure the members opposite will want to know what they gave that dog for a name. What else? Take a guess — Great Dane. Well, they called him Hamlet, of course. With dear old Hamlet, my daughter thought she was getting a bit of a deal, because the breeder was in Kamloops or Kelowna, I believe, and they offered to meet them halfway. They would come from the Island, and they’d meet them at Hope and pick up dear old Hamlet.

Well, the sad end of this tale is that dear old Hamlet never quite got out of, behaviourally speaking, the puppy stage. As much as he was a magnificent dog and a lovely creature…. I say to all members gathered here, by the way, that if you really want to be a hit in the Nanaimo bathtub days parade, don’t take just your grandchildren; take a Great Dane with you. The people love people with pets.

I also suggest that you try and remain as close as you possibly can to any people mounted on horseback, because they’re always accompanied by a fellow with a shovel and a bucket. And when you take a Great Dane, I assure you that’s a necessary part of the little train you make during the parade, because Great Danes make far bigger deposits than a forest company to a bank.

Having said that, the sad thing about Hamlet is that his behaviour got worse and worse, until he actually attacked my wife on one occasion. Now Hamlet’s off living with some folks who have a rural acreage where Hamlet’s fenced, and he’s living out his days. But the fact is, there’s no question that he was the product of a puppy mill.

We have seen the pictures, we have heard the stories, and we have had opportunities to listen to the stories from the hard-working members of the SPCA and others — how devastating this is for those animals and, on occasion, for those families who actually purchase those animals or come to acquire them.

Now, as I said, as much as I’m delighted to support this bill, I think it’s fair to say that it’s based on some assumptions that are probably not accurate. Clearly, the good breeders, the people who are complying, don’t make a lot of money. The people who care about raising animals don’t make a lot of money. That, I think, is a bit of a presumption behind this bill — that there’s a lot of money being made from breeding cats and dogs and other creatures.

In fact, those breeders who take it seriously, I would suggest to the members of this Legislature, tend to make very little money, if any money at all, by the time they’ve paid their vet bills, siring fees and all of the things that may go with breeding. It is an act of love and kindness; it’s not an act motivated by profit. But the ones who are churning out the puppies, churning out cats or whatever the case may be? Those are the individuals who are making the most money.

Where this bill is incredibly deficient is the provision relating to the resale. If I go to the puppy mill, if I have a chance to go there, so to speak — I use that as the example — I’m going to know something’s wrong. You’d have to be stupid not to. But if I go to my local pet store, I’m going to work on the assumption that the puppy I’m buying — the animal, whatever it is — has been raised in humane and decent circumstances. This bill, as I understand it, doesn’t require resellers, like pet stores, to prove where their animals are coming from and whether they’re coming from licensed breeders.

[1430]

So to go back where I started on the humorous note around red-tape reduction, we’re creating some red tape for breeders, but we are exempting those who retail animals. We’re exempting those folks. There’s no requirement for them to disclose where they’ve acquired the
[ Page 14033 ]
animals that they’re retailing. There is no requirement. There’s no regulation. There’s nothing in this bill.

If there is, I’m sure the minister will point it out to me during the course of my remarks or during the course of committee stage of this legislation. But it appears there is no such provision. The bill is deficient in that sense. I’m reminded of what somebody said about Mackenzie King: “Why do something by halves if you can do it by quarters?” Surely, given the public knowledge around this issue and the public concern….

This is most definitely a feel-good bill for the B.C. Liberals for the spring session, just before an election. Given that public concern, which is legitimate and based on clear and hard and sad evidence, one would have thought they would have taken the extra step to ensure that retailers of these animals have to make some effort to figure out where they’re purchasing these animals from — whether they’ve been raised in humane circumstances or not.

If somebody walks into a store in Victoria today and steals something and goes out in the street and sells it, the person who buys the stolen property may well find themselves subject to criminal sanction for receiving stolen goods. We impose a criminal penalty, under our Criminal Code, for property. But the British Columbia Liberals aren’t even prepared to impose a penalty on someone who sells a living thing that’s retailed or bred in circumstances that none of us would support. That is, in my view, a significant deficiency in this legislation.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Moreover, there is, it appears, as usual, another task to be handed off to the BCSPCA. Now, like many of the members in this chamber, my family…. We are supporters of the SPCA. We give them money. I’m sure that most of the members in this chamber, at one time or another, have given money or their family members have or they’ve participated in fundraising.

But where else in government do we expect the enforcement of the law to be handled by a non-profit agency that has to literally car-wash, on many occasions, to raise its funding? Where else?

Interjection.

L. Krog: Exactly. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who was very anxious to get into the debate, is supporting my position. I’m always delighted to have support from Oak Bay.

That is the political reality. My concern is that I haven’t heard anything about a commitment for funding to ensure that the purposes of this legislation, the good intent of this legislation, will be, in any way, in fact, enforceable. If money doesn’t follow…. We know what’s paved with good intentions, and that’s the road to a place that none of us want to end.

It’s all well and good to talk about this being a wonderful step forward. But if we’re not prepared to fund enforcement, then this is nothing more than crass electoral politics. It’s basically a little over 67 days — who’s counting? I’m sure the members opposite are — to the provincial election.

Surely those wonderful creatures that this bill is designed to protect deserve better. All of those people, the thousands of British Columbians who give money every year to the SPCA, who volunteer their time — surely they deserve more respect from the B.C. government. Surely they deserve a government that’s prepared to put its money where its mouth is, to ensure that this comes with appropriate funding so that the good intentions can, in fact, be carried out.

Now, I’m going to say something kind. I know some members over there will be astonished when I say this — astonished — but I’m delighted to see the magnificent new facility in Nanaimo, in my community.

[1435]

It is partially funded by the British Columbia government, but of course, speaking as a taxpayer, it’s my money too. I was delighted to see it go into that wonderful facility. It has been such a remarkable and dramatic improvement for the SPCA and the services it delivers in my community, so I’m grateful. As I have always told the other side, if they actually deliver something to my constituents, I’ll always thank them.

Someday — when, hopefully, I’m on the other side — they’ll be thanking me if I deliver something into their constituency. But that’s a story for another day, something after May 9.

In the meantime, it would have been better if we’d taken a few more steps with this legislation. If you’re going to engage in putting together a 17-page bill, would it have been that much more difficult for the government to go that little step further and ensure that the whole chain from breeding to retailing, let alone eventual ownership of animals, was regulated in a way that gave the SPCA that opportunity to ensure protection and humane treatment at every step?

Everyone in this chamber acknowledges and works with people in their constituencies who may suffer from addictions and/or mental health issues or a combination thereof. What do we all know about that?

We know that there has to be a continuum of services. The person who says they want to get off drugs and get into detox needs to have access to that service right away and, if they get in there, move on to treatment. You can’t make them wait weeks for treatment. And once they finish treatment, ensure their safe return to the community and integration back into society, as opposed to potentially criminal elements or places where drugs or whatever are available. We need to ensure that they have people to work with and support them.

I suppose my argument is pretty obvious, if it isn’t obvious already. If we’re going to have a system that allows
[ Page 14034 ]
the SPCA to protect animals — from breeding through to eventual ownership and care — why would you leave out the retailing? That’s essentially what you’re doing. You’re leaving out, potentially, a step here.

You’re saying to the folks who run pet stores and similar kinds of operations: “We trust you, but we don’t trust anybody else.” Now, that’s a great compliment, I suppose, to pet store owners, and at the pet store I shop at in Nanaimo, I have absolute faith in them. But it has to be fair, and right now there is a gap in what is being proposed.

With great respect, if we’re really serious about ensuring this to be a significant and successful step forward, that gap should be closed. It’s not a hard gap to close. It’s literally a few words in this legislation. And if that were done, then we would guarantee that continuum of protection and humane treatment as best we can, as best we can prevent any evils in society. As best we can, we would prevent that.

I’m somewhat surprised that the government didn’t take that step. Why didn’t they simply take that step and add it in? If they’d put their money where their mouth is, if they in fact had legislation that covered the full spectrum, animals would be truly protected. Right now, as much as I’m delighted to support this bill — as the member who spoke previously indicated and all of us will be, I’m sure — again it is, as always, what unfortunately appears to be more a political response, in some respects, than it is a genuine response.

Now, the members will say, “Oh, this is such a step forward and a huge improvement,” and it is, but I come back to my point about the continuum, the old cliché about the chain being as strong as its weakest link. Here there isn’t even a link. You’ve got a chain that’s separated. It is not joined together. It is not that continuum which is required.

If you’re serious about this, put in the other link. Put in the missing link, the obvious language that everyone was waiting for me to say. Put in the missing link. The drafters over there, I’m sure, aren’t that busy working for the provincial government. They can figure out how to add the language so that every member in this House could then, without reservation and in complete comfort, vote to support this legislation — as opposed to voting and supporting it simply because it’s a step forward, as opposed to what one would call a full and appropriate solution.

[1440]

I’m delighted to have had the opportunity to say a few words today on this bill. I look forward to the remarks of the members opposite. I’m sure they have, as always, listened very carefully to everything I have to say and will be supportive of my suggestion to ensure that retailers are included.

We’ve got some time here. We’re not walking out of the Legislature today. We’re not headed off to the election tomorrow. We have an opportunity. I know the member from Comox is anxious in his chair, as we speak, to support what I’ve suggested. I look forward to his remarks. Certainly, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who seems to be so voluble today and so full of a desire to fill this chamber with his wisdom, or whatever the Minister of Technology thinks he’s full of…. But whatever it is, I’m sure we’ll have that opportunity to hear from him and several others in this chamber.

I look forward to the continued debate this afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

D. McRae: I’m so pleased to stand in this chamber today to speak to Bill 7, intituled Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017.

I’m also honoured to speak after my colleague and, arguably, my friend, the member for Nanaimo. I’m always impressed with his oratory skills and his ability to critique a bill for the first half of his speech, and then, in the end, vote for it.

Nonetheless, he always gets one thinking as he waxes eloquently. One of the things I will indeed miss — other than, actually, as we go the speed limit north, to our respective communities, on Thursday afternoon, he in his vehicle and me in mine, waving at each other occasionally, always going the speed limit — are his stories in the Legislature. I guess with PVRs, I can always watch him at my leisure, perhaps, after the election.

I thought I’d begin my speech today by talking about my pets. Because I was thinking, as we were doing this debate….

Interjection.

D. McRae: I could talk about my background, too, if you think there’s time. But I thought I’d talk about my pets. Because I think — after I think back to both as a child and as an adult, and the animals we have acquired in our house — this bill does a great job in actually making sure that we all do a better job, whether it is by unintended consequences or just more awareness.

Let me start off. My very first pets, as a child, were two cats. My sister got one, and I got one. I think we were in about grade 1, so I was probably six years old. We weren’t very imaginative. One cat, we ended up naming Longtail. The other cat, we ended up naming Shorttail — for obvious reasons. Other than that, they were exactly identical. But Longtail and Shorttail lived great long lives in Comox Valley, and they were fine.

My first dog that I remember as a child, was a dog…. I think I got to name it. I apologize, because it wasn’t an overly dog-related name. I have a problem with these kinds of names now, because they’re human names applied to animals. We called the dog Fred.

I remember my dad saying that maybe there might be some issues when we picked Fred up from the neighbourhood. I don’t think we paid money for him. I think he was just a puppy. But I remember all of the family mem-
[ Page 14035 ]
bers wondering: do male dogs — I guess the dad of this Fred — eat rocks on a regular basis? This dog did, and that was kind of odd to us. Sadly, Fred turned out to be not a great dog for us, because perhaps the parents that he had at one stage could have done a better job.

The dog that replaced Fred was a dog named Peppy, and Peppy was a rescue. My mom found Peppy. He was probably three or four years old at the time, and probably came from a home that did not provide the nurturing environment that one needed. So while Peppy was an absolutely phenomenal dog, we didn’t get to name him. We tried to change his name, actually, but he never responded to anything else but Peppy. Nonetheless, he came to a better home, a far better home, but it reminds you that not everybody who gets a pet treats their pet with the love and dignity that they deserve.

The next dog — and we had a couple of dogs at the same time — probably did come from a puppy mill. But not as a puppy. I think she was a rescue as well, because she was probably seven or eight years old and was probably a female breeding dog and had been bred many, many times. My mom, to her credit, wanted to make sure she got out of that environment, so we acquired this purebred, and I don’t think that she’d had a great life.

When we picked her up — I believe it was in a community in central Island area — it reminded me, too, that there are people who…. Like the member opposite was saying, there’s not a lot of profit in this area. I think that some people think there is. You want to make sure that all breeders are doing it from the right place. When we picked up this older dog, Shamoo, I don’t think it came from the house of love that it should have. I think that as she left that home and came to our place, it was far better.

[1445]

When the other cats that I talked about earlier passed, we went to the SPCA to get our animals. We got two Siamese cats. One was named Ming, and one was named Princess. I never said that the McRae family was great at naming animals, but they were definitely well loved.

Then after that I moved out of the house. When my wife and I first moved in together, we moved into our first apartment, and we got our first cat and named it Buttons. The funny thing I always enjoyed about Buttons — again, she was an SPCA rescue — was we lived in an apartment, like probably some of us in this building have done, and you weren’t allowed to actually have pets.

One of the most interesting days was, after a year of living in this apartment building, there was a fire alarm. I don’t think it was a real fire, but everybody had to evacuate the building. It was amazing how many animals come out of apartment buildings that aren’t allowing pets. In fact, there was one…. I think it was a Great Dane. It was just a monster dog that came out of this place. I thought: how do you possibly hide a dog of that size in this building? They were capable of doing so. Buttons was relatively easy. We also had a cat named Rizzo.

The member opposite talked about his Great Dane. Well, it kind of goes to my first dog that my wife and I bought. We got a little Jack Russell. My wife got to pick the breed. I got to pick the name, so I named it after my favourite Great Dane. I named my dog Scooby-Doo. Scooby-Doo was a phenomenal dog. It was a girl dog as well. I assume Scooby-Doo in the actual TV show was a boy dog, but nonetheless, I can’t prove that. Scooby-Doo lived a great long life till 16 years and, sadly, about two years ago passed away.

Then we went back to the SPCA. We were able to get two more cats. One was another short-tailed cat, by the name of Stumpy, and another rescue which came from a really tough environment. We had a Siamese cat named Willis. When we went to the SPCA…. Willis was a lovely cat, but he had just been brought in and was covered in oil. Obviously, whoever had had him either had let him run wild or, perhaps, was mistreating him. But anybody who would have an animal and allow this animal to be so covered in oil and petroleum products…. Obviously, he came from a place where there was not love and respect. So we were able to get Willis to come to our house.

Lastly, our most recent addition to our house is our new dog named Pippa, who’s almost two now. She’s an Italian greyhound, which I call a canine cat. She weighs nine pounds and is smaller than both of our existing cats. After two years, I’m proud to say — I’m sure the chamber is excited to hear — she is almost fully house-trained, which is always a challenge. But then I’m not home a lot, being in this chamber.

Just to honour my daughters, recently we just had our last fish die — Lightning Bolt 1 and Lightning Bolt 2. Both passed away. If my daughter’s watching, I’m so sorry.

Interjections.

D. McRae: No, I didn’t have goldfish. I had Lightning Bolt 1 and Lightning Bolt 2.

But members opposite, I can say without hesitation that she is going to be putting up the aquarium that they come in on Craigslist very soon. If you want me to stop that for you, I’m sure I can get my hands on Lightning Bolt 2’s most recent home.

Let’s go back to the bill. I did visit my pets there because I think as we look at where our animals have come from — and we all want to make sure that our animals come to great homes — sometimes they don’t come from great places, whether we know this or not. I think the purpose of this legislation is to target irresponsible dog and cat breeders.

The legislation was established to create a broad framework for a licensing and registration scheme. Basically, it’s designed to make sure that puppy mills do not exist. I don’t think puppy mills can be used in a positive way. I believe there are good breeders and there are puppy mills. If I’m not right on my vernacular here, my apologies. I
[ Page 14036 ]
guess the equivalent of a puppy mill — according to my colleague to my left, the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour — is a cattery or a kitty mill.

One thing I’d also like to say to all members of this House: after eight years here, I’ve been very impressed with all members who have, during my time here both as a cabinet minister and as a private member, shown a commitment to animal welfare and making sure that the lives of those animals are better.

I’m sure all members in this chamber remember the absolutely horrifying sled dog issue that came about post-Olympics in Whistler. If you remember, back in the time of then Premier Gordon Campbell…. He appointed who is now our Minister of Health to basically head a task force to make sure that regulations were brought in that would make sure this would be…. I can’t say it would never happen again, but to make sure it was incredibly difficult, and punishing.

[1450]

The current Minister of Health — obviously, as members know — is a veterinarian. He has much experience in this area, did extensive work across the province and, in doing so, I think crafted some great recommendations.

Then, by circumstance, I had the good fortune to become Minister of Agriculture — to bring in the amendments to, amongst other things, make sure that the industry was regulated but also to make sure, after we talked and consulted across the province, that we would have the highest penalties for animal abuse in the nation. I think that sends an important message not just to breeders, but also we can be a role model for those in other provinces.

The other thing I’d like to say…. I like to give credit where credit is due. The critic at the time, the member for Saanich South, is also very passionate. My memory is that…. Perhaps it doesn’t happen that often in this House, but when amendments were put forward, she had some good amendments. We considered those amendments, and we incorporated them into the act.

I also want to compliment various other ministers. If you think back, not too long ago we brought in some guide dog legislation to make sure there were improvements there. Again, I think it was unanimously supported by all members of this House.

As well, since 2015 — I think it was mentioned by members on both sides — this government has made the effort to make sure there are dollars to, basically, replace animal care facilities or renovate animal care facilities in places across the province. I know the member opposite said that some moneys went to his community of Nanaimo. I’m sure they are incredibly appreciated and well used, and I want to thank him for his recognition of that.

I want to thank my colleague the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour. The reason why is…. One of the neat things about this job and one of the things I will miss is that, after we come to this chamber, we all bring a bit of our life experiences and our passions to this job. We also get to share those passions and those experiences with our colleagues.

My colleague to my left here has made me a wiser and a smarter person. I’ve gone to her for advice when I’ve had constituency issues about animal welfare issues or opportunities that we want to work on. Because she has seen many of these similar experiences, she’s able to share some of her wisdom with me. I want to thank you very much for all your effort, not just in this chamber but outside this chamber, helping all of us become a bit more worldly in our knowledge of animal welfare and speaking up for those who have a hard time speaking for themselves.

Lastly, I want to thank the minister and his staff in Agriculture. One of the things I was always very impressed with in that ministry — and I would argue it is one of the ministries I miss the most from my time as a cabinet minister — is that the staff in that ministry worked incredibly hard, as does the minister, to make sure they are accessible, that consultations are meaningful and robust, that they are out there talking to stakeholders and that when stakeholders have concerns, the minister and the ministry are available to listen, hear and react accordingly.

I’m so pleased to see in this legislation that the ministry and the minister had extensive consultations with groups that we all know. Groups like the BCSPCA. Groups like the Canadian Kennel Club, the Canadian Cat Association and the College of Veterinarians of British Columbia.

On top of that, 312 individuals from across British Columbia, many of them breeders or retired breeders, have also contributed their thoughts on how this legislation can be crafted to make sure that those animals are looked after, that the breeders who are responsible are able to do their work and share their love of their pets with people who wish to have them and, for those who are not responsible, that we are creating a framework where there will be punishments and regulations that will prevent individuals from making those choices.

It was clear from those consultations that…. The people and their organizations coming forward said: “We need improved standards of care for animals, and we also need to make sure that…. The treatment of dogs and cats at commercial breeding establishments needs to be better regulated. We need to make sure there is a more effective compliance and enforcement system.”

I’m excited to speak in this chamber. It’s one of the last times I will probably speak in here in terms of an opportunity where…. Sometimes we have debates. Members on both sides of the House see the world slightly differently, even though I humbly believe that we all want to make sure that the province does just move on a better path constantly.
[ Page 14037 ]

I predict in this particular instance that, yes, the members opposite will critique, and the members on this side of the House will share why this is such an amazing opportunity. In the end, though, I think we will show that this chamber does come together for the right reasons at the right times.

I think we all in this chamber agree that animals who do not speak for themselves need to be spoken for. While we can do a lot as individuals — communities can do their work, and organizations can do their work — sometimes it requires the work of this chamber to make sure that animals are looked after — for their betterment for this generation of animals and those generations to come. I support this bill.

[1455]

B. Routley: Boy, listening to my learned colleague from the other side, I was thinking: “Wow, this is really quite the piece of legislation.” Then I looked just a little bit deeper and saw the word “regulations.” So much to be determined in regulations.

It may come as a surprise to you, but I’ve got this kind of radar that searches out jiggery-pokery. I’m always looking to see if there could be anything in the fine print here about jiggery-pokery. And do you know what? Lo and behold, I went down and checked the in-box in my email, and there was a letter from somebody that really knows something about all of this who points to potential jiggery-pokery. So let me just share this with the House. Now, maybe I wouldn’t go as far as jiggery-pokery, but maybe I would.

Let’s hear from this person that’s…. Well, she’s going to be a constituent. She’ll be in the Cowichan Valley for the three-day dog show this weekend, right on the Cowichan Valley exhibition grounds. This is a woman from the Victoria City Kennel Club. They’re having their three-day show, and they are offering me the opportunity to meet with some constituents who are concerned — get this — and a little afraid of the new direction of this legislation. So, again, my alarm bell went off a little bit on the jiggery-pokery meter when I read that there were people afraid of the direction of this new legislation.

I think we all…. I want to quickly add that, of course, I love animals. I’ve got a couple of golden retrievers. Both of them are purebreds. In fact, I sought out a purebred breeder that had a reputation and had all the papers and all of that stuff on purpose to make sure that I was getting what I was paying for. There are golden retrievers that do come out of puppy mills that have the problem of hip dysplasia and cancer and other kinds of diseases, so there’s no question that it’s important to make sure that they’re not coming out of some kind of a puppy mill.

This…. Roberta is her name. She goes on to say:

“We all abhor irresponsible breeders who have no concern for the lives entrusted to them for those beautiful little cats and dogs and other animals. The breeders who you would meet at the dog show are all registered with the Canadian Kennel Club, and most, like me, live in areas where they are also registered with the local animal control office; i.e., we have a licence to run a kennel and can be inspected by municipal animal control officers.

“Our concern is that responsible breeders are visible and accountable, whereas irresponsible breeders are invisible. Until a complaint is laid against them, that’s the way it is. They’re invisible. They’re in the background. They’re not trying to make themselves visible.”

She goes on to say: “We have little faith that the proposed legislation will identify these irresponsible breeders but instead will provide….” Here’s where the jiggery-pokery meter went right off the deep end, when I read this. It says: “…but instead will provide mere window dressing.”

Now, surely, I hope this…. Could it be true? Again, after hearing from my learned friend, who is also here on Vancouver Island, I’m sure there are groups…. Certainly, the SPCA does outstanding work on behalf of animals, and if the purpose of this bill….

[1500]

I’ve always thought it a bit odd, by the way, that we get up and talk about these things and then find out the details later. We’re going to hear the details as we go through, eventually, line by line. However, a cursory look at the bill…. I am concerned that there will be a lot left to regulation. Again, that can be interpreted many ways, and it can add costs.

In fact, I’ve heard the other side of this House…. Isn’t it almost Red Tape Reduction Day? And here we are busy piling on red tape. Isn’t it interesting? I’m sure there’s more legislation coming. Apparently, the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources has got some ideas of more legislation, more red tape.

We’re going to pile it on. Maybe pile it on and…. I don’t know if you have the same rule as they do down in the States. You add legislation and regulation, and then you have to drop two off. But we’ll wait for that to come a little later.

Anyway, we’ve got people that are involved in the dog show concerned that this could potentially just be mere window dressing and “target those of us who are raising healthy animals that provide comfort and joy for their owners.” She finishes off by saying: “I hope to see you at the dog show.”

Obviously, there has been some consultation. At least, I want to believe that’s what has taken place. When we hear more of the details, it may well be something that we support, at the end of the day, especially if it is indeed dealing with cruelty to animals, something that I feel very strongly about.

Let me tell you why I feel particularly strongly about cruelty to animals. I had an event when I was 8 years old. It was Christmastime. We had had these lovely puppies. It was no puppy mill, believe me. I was just a boy, and we had this cocker spaniel who had these beautiful cocker spaniel puppies. I think there were six or eight of them. We kept them for eight or nine weeks and then started to give them away to people that wanted a cocker spaniel.
[ Page 14038 ]

Anyway, to make a long story short, as we got closer to Christmas, we had this one beautiful little sandy-coloured cocker spaniel. She was so beautiful, and she was now getting to be 12 or 14 weeks. I’m eight years old. Now, talk about feeling like you’re involved in cruelty to animals. It was me, at that moment, standing by the Christmas tree, looking at my little cocker spaniel.

I knew that I was about to give this cocker spaniel to my three girl cousins. My parents had made the arrangements. This last puppy was going to be held onto just long enough till Christmastime, and then it was going to be my job to hand this beautiful little cocker spaniel over to my cousins.

I’ll never forget that Christmas, because it was both sad and happy. The sad part was standing there holding this little puppy. The puppy was just licking me all over my face and my arms or anywhere that she could get hold of. And I started having tears coming down. There I was, standing by the tree, with tears coming down, knowing that any minute now, I was going to give this beautiful puppy that loved me so much and was showing so much affection, just licking me profusely and letting me know how special I was….

You can imagine how that little boy felt, standing there by the tree, knowing that he was going to thrust this beautiful puppy that loved him so much into the hands of strange girls who were about to come down the stairs — my cousins. I had no idea…. Were they going to be even close to the love and affection and caring that I could provide? But there I was, standing there with tears coming down.

I remember the moment that my three cousins burst into the room. There were Beryl and Eunice — they were the first ones through the door to look. They saw this little puppy, and then the third girl came in. They were so happy, and I gave the puppy to them. Imagine my surprise and joy that the puppy was just as happy with these three girls as you could ever imagine.

[1505]

It was, like, minutes later that this dog had had a total transfixion and totally forgot about me. There was no interest in me anymore at all. This dog was totally focused on these new cousins that were taking over this dog. It was one of those moments where I discovered that I really wasn’t cruel and inhumane at all. It was a wonderful day. So it went from a bad day to a good day, and I hope that’s what the intent of this legislation is.

But I am concerned. Wouldn’t you be concerned, hon. Speaker? Any MLA in this House, I’m sure, would be concerned, getting an email saying: “Hey, can you come out this weekend? There’s a group of breeders that want to talk to you.” They fear that it may be just mere window dressing. Oh, my poor, weak heart. Pitter-patter with jiggery-pokery. Here we go again. Mere window dressing.

So I’m going to listen. I don’t know whether they’re going to try to ram this bill through or whether we’re going to have the opportunity to hear from people and….

Interjection.

B. Routley: Yeah, yeah.

Anyway, it will be a good opportunity for me to learn more about this. I may have more to say about this when we get into the fine details and talk about that.

I could talk about my other dogs, by the way. We had Heidi. She was an amazing dog. When we lived in Lake Cowichan and had these two wonderful children, we decided we needed a big dog, because we had big property. We had a whole hectare of land, so 2.4 acres. Next to us were five acres. There was nothing beside us. We had a whole mountain full of trees right next to us.

So we went out and looked, and here’s this beautiful dog that was part St. Bernard and part golden lab, if you can imagine. I don’t know whether that came out of a puppy mill, but it was sure a mystery mix, to say the very least. But she was an amazing dog and kind of a rescue dog. We had a wonderful time, wonderful family time, and that dog lived more than 11 years. In fact, I think it was as much as 14, but my wife might correct me on that. So I’ll hedge my bets: somewhere between 11 and 14 years.

It was a long time that we had that dog. A wonderful, amazing dog she was. She had the life any dog would want to have: the ability to roam free and to have a boy and a girl, kids at home, to play with. She just had a wonderful life. The lake right there — she loved to swim too. That was her dog bowl, by the way: a 26-mile-long lake. She could go down and drink whenever she wanted. So life was good.

Today we have two golden retrievers, Gracie and Molly. One is nine years old, and one is five. They’re amazing dogs, as I said. I would certainly encourage anybody that is looking for an amazing dog, having a purebred golden retriever…. She’s now nine, and as I say, it was about four years later that we decided we had to get another one, because we were going to miss this one so much if anything ever happened to her. That was my wife’s reasoning, and I quickly bought into it. I guess I’m a bit of a soft touch when it comes to dogs.

Next thing you know, we’ve got two of them. You know, my wife cooks every week for those dogs. Maybe I’m telling tales. That’s a little over the top. West Coast Canine Life is a really good food for golden retrievers. Certainly, they get lots of love and care.

But I do respect the fact that there is work looking at the kind of problem that all of us dread, with bad actors or bad breeders. I do look forward to hearing more of the details about exactly how you’re going to get at this. Is it, indeed, just going to be window dressing, if we’re not really trying…? If there’s not going to be the money there….

I’ve seen the Ministry of Forests compliance and enforcement. My goodness, it really went downhill since 2002. They have promised big fines, million-dollar fines.
[ Page 14039 ]
If that’s any kind of a design about compliance and enforcement, I’m not really all that encouraged. We’ll have to wait and see what this really means. Obviously, the devil will be in the details.

[1510]

Finally, in a final statement, I want to say that I am alarmed. My jiggery-pokery meter was set off. The needle was sent off the top with this concern about mere window dressing. I hope it’s not true. I look forward to talking to Roberta and her group from the dog show this coming weekend. With that, I’ll take a break.

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure to rise speaking in support of Bill 7 today, which is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act. I rise to speak in support of this bill simply because I have so many animals in my riding. I have thousands of pets. I have a producer called Petcurean, which produces premium pet food and sells it all around the world.

Also, as you may know, we have a huge industry in my riding. We have the poultry industry. We have the dairy. We have the pork industry. They’re big. They’re thriving. I have two packing plants in my riding. And if you can believe it, I even have two land-based fish hatcheries, commercial ones, that are going concerns. They’re looking at expanding. They’re profitable businesses that can serve as models for other places in the province. I’m not sure that fish fall under the auspices of the SCPA, but anyway, there they are.

I’ve also toured the offices of the SPCA in Chilliwack, and of course, they do great work. But their facilities, when I toured them, were very cramped. I had to bend over in the office section so that my head wouldn’t scrape on the ceiling. So I’m hopeful that Chilliwack’s SPCA will benefit from the $5 million that was given to the SPCA in this year’s budget. If the leadership of the SPCA is listening today, perhaps they could hear a shout-out for our great people in Chilliwack.

The legislation before us today will enable a new licensing or registration system, as well as a new inspection regime, to ensure compliance with future standards. The purpose of the legislation is to target irresponsible dog and cat breeders, so-called puppy or kitty mills. I was surprised to learn that there are 1,850 of them in B.C. It’s a lot of breeders.

Of course, we recognize that most of them, the vast majority, are responsible. They’re compassionate. But there are a few who aren’t, and so we’re targeting the ones who aren’t compassionate with the legislation before us today.

This is nothing new. This is a pattern we have in all legislation. All legislation applies to every British Columbian, even though the vast majority in any category is always law-abiding. But law, and enforcement of law in particular, seeks to target those who would be unreasonable and cruel. This legislation develops that kind of system not to place an onerous burden on the responsible breeders in B.C. It’s simply to target the few who aren’t.

The legislation establishes the broad framework, as I say, for a licensing or registration scheme. It followed consultation with a dozen key stakeholders, including the BCSPCA, the Canadian Kennel Club, the Canadian Cat Association, individual breeders and local governments. We found broad support for the development of a registration or licensing system that would help to stop irresponsible commercial breeders.

We also consulted with individual breeders. We received 312 responses from the breeding community itself, and they were broadly in support of this bill. So we feel that we’re moving in the right direction today.

This follows on previous actions that we’ve taken in support for care of dogs and cats bred as a business. In 2016, we adopted the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association’s code of practice for kennel and cattery operations, which provided guidance through generally accepted practices of animal management, including housing, ventilation, food and water, care and supervision, recordkeeping, behavioural needs, socialization and transportation.

Of course, it’s important to remember that charges under B.C.’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act can be laid against anyone who causes suffering or distress to an animal in B.C., including domestic animal breeders.

This legislation, as I mentioned before, is part of our larger efforts to improve animal welfare in B.C., including the B.C. government’s provision of $10 million to the SPCA since 2015 and $5 million in our latest budget to renovate or to replace animal care facilities in communities around the province — hence, my concern for my own facility in Chilliwack.

Now, as we speak about the issue of doing intentional harm to animals, I want to move on to what happened in my riding a couple of years ago, because my riding was the area in which a covert video was released in 2014, showing the most harmful and regrettable things being done to cattle by workers in the middle of the night on a farm in Chilliwack.

[1515]

Of course, there can be no room for that kind of behaviour in B.C. I was shocked and distressed to see it — I could hardly watch it on YouTube — as were the owners of that farm just as shocked and distressed. I just have a few things to say about that circumstance.

First, it is not in the interest of farmers to abuse their animals. I want to defend the farmers of my riding. Abused animals are less healthy animals. They’re less productive. They have more downtime, and they produce less milk. All of the economic incentives are in place to treat cattle in the most gentle of ways, to feed them the best, to house them well and to provide the best medical care.
[ Page 14040 ]

I’ve watched on this dairy farm and on others that cattle are quite content. As they enter the stall to be milked, they’re eager to be there. They don’t need prodding to be there. In fact, they will even jostle with each other in order to get in the stalls.

I had the experience — I won’t say the pleasure — when I was a teen of getting up at five in the morning, every morning, when I worked on a dairy farm myself. I remember they treated the cattle so well that they put molasses in the feed because the cows loved it. It was candy for cows. We were not even supposed to talk in the milking parlour. Instead, the farmer had gentle, soothing music on the radio, and cows liked it. They relaxed along with the music, and they were more productive. They gave more milk as a result.

That’s the extent to which a farmer will go and should go to make sure that they have happy cows. It’s because they produce more. The economic incentives are in place. Because of this economic incentive, I can safely say, in my riding, that the behaviour we witnessed in Chilliwack a couple of years ago was already anomalous. It was far outside the norm. When we add to that the highly public court case that followed and the added oversight that we’ve now put in place, I’m sure that the incentives are in place to ensure that this kind of thing will never happen again in Chilliwack.

Secondly, I thought that the administration, the owners of Chilliwack Cattle Sales, reacted in an admirable way. They felt very badly indeed about what had transpired. They pled guilty. They made a very public statement, which I thought was very open, transparent, honest and contrite. It was unequivocally in support of the highest regard for animal welfare. They paid an enormous fine of $300,000, which was the highest possible fine that the court could impose. Since then, they’ve taken a lot of remedial action in the way their farm is managed.

Third, I want to add that our government reacted to this situation in a very appropriate way. The B.C. government, in July of 2015, adopted the National Dairy Code of Practice to improve the welfare of dairy cows in this province. The code outlined standards of care and practices for owners and employees on dairy farms across Canada, which includes an array of applicable areas such as animal handling, feed and water, housing, health and welfare management, and husbandry practices.

Now, there is room for a larger philosophical discussion of what is going on as time goes on. Throughout my life, I have seen the importance of animal care increasing all the time. Of course, we all had dogs and cats when we were growing up. We loved them. We had Sandy. We had Chester. They were part of the family. That is increasing, and it’s mirrored in the increasing apparatus of government as well.

The SPCA has its own expanding law, which we’re seeing in the one before us today, and its own network of offices around the province, which was recently boosted by our own contribution in the budget. It has its own vehicles. It has its own uniformed team of special constables investigating suspected acts of cruelty and so on.

When I toured the SPCA in Chilliwack, it was interesting. I was told that animals were put in protective custody there, which is exactly the term that we apply to human offenders in our custodial institutions when they need to be protected from harm by others. The systems of animal and human protection by law enforcement are becoming more and more similar over time.

Now, I don’t want to speak against this. I don’t want to speak against the increasing attention being paid to animals. It’s like motherhood and apple pie. We’re all against any kind of cruelty to animals. But my concern is that the value of humanity not be diminished in relation to animal life.

I simply want to affirm and assert that human beings have always been and will always be, in a material sense, one of many species on earth, but we are also different than animals. In intelligence, self-awareness, spirituality and moral responsibility, we are a higher order of being and, therefore, of greater value. That’s why the priority in law and in policy must always be given to human life, as it is this day in this Legislature.

I simply want to end by reiterating my support for the bill, which seeks to target the bad actors in the breeding business while not hindering the good ones, and to note that B.C. is at the forefront in the nation in protecting animals from cruelty. That’s something that all British Columbians can be proud of.

[1520]

M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to rise and to speak in favour of this piece of legislation, which I think is an important piece of legislation. But I would be remiss if I didn’t address one of the comments of the hon. member who spoke before me. That was about the intelligence of animals and that it’s always humans who are more intelligent.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: He says yes.

Well, let me relate to you a story. My youngest brother had a three-year-old daughter. He was working in the backyard, in Maple Ridge, under his vehicle, fixing his vehicle. You know how that can be. Every few minutes or so he’d be calling out, “Hey, Ash,” and she’d answer. She was playing on her little tricycle. She was three. This one time, he called out and she didn’t answer. And all of a sudden, as any parent would realize….

Oh, okay. He gets out. She’s not there. Panic ensues. He starts looking for her. She’s not there. He phones the police. They take the details. An hour later, still no sign of her. He is, at this point, in full panic. The police are now looking for the kid, for my niece. A few more hours go by and still no word — just absolute horror.
[ Page 14041 ]

Phone rings. It’s the police. “Um, does she have a bike?” “Yeah, a little pink bike.” “Well, we’ve found her. She’s safe and sound.” Turns out she had pedalled down, pedalled off and pedalled across the Lougheed Highway, in downtown Maple Ridge. She’s three years old. Here’s the kicker. He goes, “Do you have a dog?” and he goes: “Yeah, we’ve got a dog.” “Well, you’d better come, because she’s safe and sound, and the dog is not letting anybody else near her.” Now, you tell me that that dog was not as smart as any human being, hon. Member.

All of us who’ve had animals, dogs or cats, can attest to stories like that, and that’s why people feel so strongly about this legislation. Animals, whether they’re for agriculture, such as cows or chickens or pigs, deserve to be treated humanely and with respect. Too often what we’ve seen in the past is exploitation taking place that most of us would be horrified at. We’ve seen those stories that have appeared on the news, with the puppy mills or the kitten mills and how horrific the conditions can be. And we’ve seen how this tars proper breeders, legitimate breeders, people who want to ensure that the animals they raise or that the animals that become pets and companions for people are healthy, not inbred, raised in the right conditions and the appropriate conditions.

This particular piece of legislation helps do that. This particular piece of legislation will ensure and give the ability to the SPCA, for example, to be able to go after, one hopes, more aggressively even than they do now in terms of dealing with those irresponsible breeders and those who think they can operate undercover or below-the-radar puppy mills or kitten mills that too often make the news of animals raised in absolutely appalling circumstances.

During my life I’ve had the pleasure of having a number of pets, dogs in particular. One came from a pet shop. He clearly had been, I suspect, from a puppy mill. When I purchased him at the counter, they stamped “as is” on the bill of sale. I’m like, “As is?” and they go: “Yeah. If you bring him back, we’ll put him down.” I just couldn’t believe that that’s how they would operate.

[1525]

Anyway, we get him home. We’d had him a few weeks, and it was always kind of strange. Rex was his name. It was a white dog. It was the first time I’d ever had a dog in my life where you’d come home and open the door, and he wasn’t there to say hello. He was curled up somewhere, fast asleep.

So we took him to the vet to see if there was an issue, something wrong with him. The metal operating table was there, and the vet said, “Put him on the ground,” and he said: “Have you got car keys?” I said yeah. He said: “Drop them on the metal table.” So I dropped them on the metal table, and of course the dog didn’t respond, and the vet said: “He’s deaf.”

Okay, he’s deaf. That’s why he’d had “as is” stamped on the sale. That’s why he would have been put down, and as the vet said, he’d probably come from a puppy mill. He’d probably come from a breeder who was not a reputable breeder, someone who clearly didn’t care about the kinds of animals that he was raising. Luckily for Rex, the fact that he was deaf was immaterial to my partner and me. By this time, we’d clearly fallen in love with him. He was a wonderful dog, and we ended up having him for 16 years.

The issue is it would have been great at the beginning if he had not been a puppy-mill dog, if those kind of breeders weren’t inbreeding dogs and if there were rules and regulations in place to prevent that. I would often run into people who’d go: “Why on earth would you want a deaf dog? Why on earth would you want an animal that, in essence, has a disability?” I’d explain to people that, as you know, in too many cases they would have just been put down.

The bill will allow us to deal with those people who have no moral compass when it comes to how they treat or raise animals. That is a primary reason why we will be supporting it. There are some issues that we want to make sure we clarify during committee stage. I know that my colleague, the critic responsible for Agriculture and for leading the debate, from our side, on the bill will be dealing with those issues, because they are important.

Too often, people don’t realize that one of the issues with underground puppy mills is that it results in a huge increase in the population of unwanted animals. When they’re raided, you have to find homes for them. It takes a lot of effort from the SPCA, quite often, to rehabilitate and to ensure that they are healthy when they’re put up for adoption — resources that could and should go to animal welfare in general. That’s another reason why this particular piece of legislation is important.

Our latest dog, Charlotte, which we got just over a year ago — in fact, here in Victoria, at the age of four months — was from the SPCA here in Victoria. At the time, she was just a little four-month-old puppy. She came from somewhere on Vancouver Island, as part of an unwanted litter. A year later she has made herself very much at home in terms of lying in front of the fire or on the couch but especially in wanting to go for walks. To me, she is an example of the great work the SPCA does in terms of finding homes for unwanted animals.

[1530]

This particular piece of legislation is going to have the full support of this side of the House, as I’ve said. Our critic will have some questions around certain sections of the bill, and I know the Minister of Agriculture will endeavour to provide answers or to take the issues that we will be raising under advisement.

I guess I’ll just close, again, with one final story on how animals can be as smart as humans. We people don’t have a monopoly on intelligence, over animals. I had a dog that I brought back in 2001. I worked in Bulgaria for a couple of years. There was a mother dog, and she gave birth to a litter of pups at the back of the building I was in. There were eight.
[ Page 14042 ]

One of them was smart enough not to wander out to the street and disappear like all the rest. I ended up bringing her back from Bulgaria, here to Canada. It was quite an adventuresome trip going from Sofia to Vienna to Washington, D.C., to Chicago to Vancouver. In the States, they were concerned about whether or not the cage I had, which had been fine for airlines to the States, met USDA approval. At the airport in Washington, D.C., they said: “This cage is not USDA-approved, so this dog is not going….”

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Oh, I’ll come to that part in a sec. So they said: “This cage is not USDA-approved, therefore the dog is not going any further.” You’re in an airport with passengers everywhere. You’re trying to catch your plane, and then you’re told: “Sorry, you’re not going anywhere with this dog. However, we will sell you a cage for the dog to travel in.” So I had to pay $135 U.S. at the airport. But the kicker on top of the kicker: you had to assemble it yourself.

So you just checked in your luggage, U.S. airport security, and now you’re having to assemble a dog cage with a young dog. U.S. Customs — no, they didn’t want a visa, but they were concerned about the dog treats that you had to feed the dog. “Where were they made? Where were they produced?” Oh, and special security to make sure that there were no explosives in the dog. But no visa questions, no vaccination questions.

So we get through that.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Well, don’t get me started on that. Don’t get me started.

Hon. S. Anton: What nationality was the dog?

M. Farnworth: She was Bulgarian.

So we get to the airport in Vancouver. Canadian customs — all they said was: “Has she been vaccinated?” “Yes.” “Okay. That’ll be $35.50, and welcome to Canada.” That was what happened. Immigration at work.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Anyway, she came home. We went to our house….

I know it’s Thursday, and we’ve only got this bill to take us to six.

Anyway, she is at home. She’s now two years old, because I’ve been away for two years. I came home one day. I noticed that the front door of our place …. I know the Solicitor General will enjoy this part. There is a huge chisel lying on the front doorstep where someone had tried to break in. There’s a big glass door.

I’m all: “Oh no. Someone has broken into the house.” And then I suddenly saw the rest of the story. The glass was covered in paw prints and dog slobber.

[1535]

Whoever had been trying to break into the house had, I guess, woken up an 85-pound Bulgarian shepherd type of herding dog, who had clearly come flying down the stairs and launched herself, in full Cujo mode, at the glass. Whoever had been trying to break into the house had dropped that chisel and had run.

Again, another case of why dogs…. I reject the premise that humans are always more intelligent than animals. She knew what she had to do at the right time, and she did. She was part of our family for over 12 years.

Those are just a couple of examples as to why I support this legislation and why I just had to respond to the comments of one of the previous members.

With that, I know there are other members who want to speak on this particular important piece of legislation. I will yield the floor to my colleague from Abbotsford, who’s going to be up next. And I think the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head intends to speak.

With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate and take my seat.

D. Plecas: I know all members opposite are supporting this bill — Bill 7, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act. I guess what distinguishes me from other members in this House on this is that nobody loves animals more than I do. At least, I’m staking claim to that. Now, the member for Abbotsford-Mission is always bugging me that he loves animals more than I do. Of course, we all love animals, and we all love the SPCA, so I want to say something about both those things today.

Members might remember that some time ago, when I was talking about animals, I reminded them of some research done recently that pointed out that people love animals, their pets, more than they do their spouses. Of course, I went back and told my wife that, who is a complete animal lover, and she reminded me that those researchers are probably long-since divorced.

Seriously, all British Columbians are passionate about animals, whether that be our beautiful wildlife that share our province or the beloved pets that share our homes. To us animal lovers, the thought of vulnerable animals enduring abuse or cruelty is a very sad reality, which is why organizations like the SPCA are so important to us.

The BCSPCA is a great organization that works very hard to protect all sorts of animals — from wild birds and mammals to livestock to ever-popular pets, like cats and dogs, that are the focus of this legislation today. With 44 locations across the province, the SPCA investigates cruelty complaints, enforces animal protection legislation and provides services like humane education, advocacy, rescue and adoption.
[ Page 14043 ]

The BCSPCA’s work is guided by the five essential freedoms, seeking to ensure all animals enjoy them. These include freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from pain, injury and disease; freedom from distress; freedom from discomfort; and freedom to express behaviours that promote well-being.

The fact that not all animals in our province are able to enjoy these very basic freedoms is why it is so important for our government to continue expanding the protection of animals in our society. That’s why investments in animal welfare are so important — like the $10 million in funding that our government has provided to the SPCA since 2015 to help fund facility upgrades in the province.

[1540]

Thanks to their work to investigate animal cruelty, the BCSPCA helps tens of thousands of animals in distress each year. Just last year, the SPCA helped a remarkable 42,970 animals across B.C. — just an incredible number.

Many animals that the SPCA help end up looking for new homes — forever homes. Last year the SPCA rescued more than 26,000 injured, homeless, neglected and abused animals and provided them with temporary places to stay. Almost 16,000 of these animals got a fresh start in a new, loving home — again, an incredible adoption record. So I just want to remind people that if you’re looking to add a new member to your family — whether furry, feathered or scaly — consider checking out your local SPCA. You’re guaranteed to find many deserving animals looking for a second chance. One of them may just be your new best friend.

Of course, the SPCA wouldn’t be able to do what they do without the extremely dedicated staff and volunteers. In 2016, nearly 5,000 people volunteered their time to help animals through the BCSPCA, proof of just how much British Columbians value animal welfare. Still more organize fundraisers and donate money, like we saw earlier this week with the National Cupcake Week. In fact, I think it’s fair to say there are not very many, if any, organizations that have more individual donors in this province than the SPCA.

Today, as we look at ways to continue to raise the bar for animal welfare, I want to thank the BCSPCA for all they do already for vulnerable animals in this province.

The government is introducing this legislation to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act that will enable new licensing, a registration system, as well as a new inspection regime to ensure compliance with future standards.

This legislation is B.C.’s latest action to target irresponsible dog and cat breeders. We want to develop a system that is supported by responsible breeders in B.C. and targets the ones that aren’t. This legislation establishes the broad framework for licensing and a registration scheme.

This legislation follows consultation with key stakeholders, including the B.C. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Canadian Kennel Club, Canadian Cat Association, individual breeders and local governments. It found broad support for the development of a registration or licensing system that would help stop irresponsible commercial breeder.

Previous action to improving conditions at commercial cat and dog breeders in B.C. includes the 2016 adoption of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association’s code of practice for kennel and cattery operations that provide guidance to generally accepted practices of animal management, including housing, ventilation, food and water, care and supervision, recordkeeping, behavioural needs, socialization and transportation.

It is important to remember charges under B.C.’s Cruelty to Animals Act can be laid against anyone who causes suffering or distress to an animal in British Columbia, including domestic animal breeders.

This legislation is part of a larger effort to improve animal welfare in the province, including the B.C. government’s provision, again, of $10 million to the SPCA since 2015 to renovate or replace small animal care facilities in communities around this province.

D. Routley: It’s my pleasure to rise and speak to this bill — Bill 7, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017.

Of course, any member and any British Columbian would support any effort to safeguard animals and the animals that we all know and love. Members have taken the opportunity to stand up and declare their love for their pets and thereby express their reason and their motive for supporting this bill. I’ll do the same thing.

[1545]

I’ll tell the House about our family’s dog. Our family’s dog is named Kato Finlayson. You can find him on Facebook with his many videos and postings. He’s a very interesting dog. If any of you have had a husky, you’ll know that there’s no more vocal animal, perhaps, than a husky. Perhaps a politician, but certainly a husky would give any one of us a run for our money when it comes to speech-making. Kato, in fact, will sing for his treats. He says: “I love you.” He says all sorts of things and quite clearly enunciates things.

So clearly, animals are smart. We heard earlier that perhaps they are not as smart as human beings, but I would definitely challenge that. Kato is the most amazing dog with the most amazing memory. He’s eight years old. He’s still cared for by his breeder, who he knows by the word “Grandma.” If you say Grandma, he becomes really excited. He still visits his father, whose name is Kilo, frequently. So Kato visits Kilo.

Now, Kato, like many dogs, will pay attention to commands when they’re in his interest or when he cares, but not so much when he doesn’t. If we’re out walking Kato and he ignores us, we will say, rather than Kato: “Kilo.” He hears the difference and immediately turns, pays attention and looks around. “Where’s my dad?” He’s an
[ Page 14044 ]
incredibly smart dog who remembers everything. He remembers every place he’s seen a squirrel. He’ll look up at a telephone pole where he saw a squirrel a couple of years earlier.

Huskies, of course, were sled dogs. They are used to having routine patterns, so if we take him for a walk and walk him on the wrong side of the road or the irregular side of the road from our usual walk, he can barely find his way down the sidewalk, he’s so dislocated. The most amazing dog who remembers a lot of things.

In fact, he remembers the vet. When we took him to the vet recently, two or three times ago, Kato received a checkup which also included checking his temperature. The way a dog’s temperature is checked was not something that Kato was overly thrilled about, but he endured the experience. But every time since, when we’ve taken him to the vet, immediately when he gets in the treatment room, he sits down. The vet will move around him, and he will move in a circle to keep the vet in front of him and never experience the temperature instrument again. He’s an amazing dog.

Huskies, as a breeder told us, love to run — away. So for his first three or four years, anytime the door was left even an inch open, Kato was gone. He loved it. It was a great game. He loved to be chased. It took us a long time to figure out that the best way to get him to come back was to just leave the door open and wait for him. He didn’t take long.

Dogs are amazing because…. For a husky, they need exercise, they need love. Kato will run up to 25 or 30 kilometres on the Trans Canada Trail in a go. I’ll ride my bike, and he’ll follow me all that distance. He’s incredible. If he doesn’t get that, then he’ll dig through the yard all the way to China if he’s left alone. He’s an incredible animal.

Looking back at all the pets that we’ve had, all the dogs and cats, it’s the same thing. All of us love our pets. All of us love them for all of the right reasons. They provide so much to us. The therapy dogs and therapy pets provide comfort to people who are undergoing extreme stress. Dogs help patients and help people with PTSD. Cats, well, they’re not so interested in helping people or helping anyone other than themselves. But we all have this special place in our hearts for dogs.

I remember seeing a couple of cartoons. One was somebody driving their dog away from the house, and the dog’s friends, the other dogs, are sitting on the sidewalk. He’s saying to them out the window of the car: “Hey, Rex, I’m going to the vet to get tutored” — which I thought was funny.

[1550]

Then another one where wild dogs are in the bush. There were Neanderthals around a fire, and the dogs in the bush were saying: “I told you. He’s been domesticated. He’s got that blank look in his eyes.” These are funny things that strike us all because we love our pets so much. So the idea of people taking advantage of the love that people have for pets and for animals and essentially creating mills to produce them in the most horrendous circumstances and conditions is really an affront to all of us. So we all, obviously, support a bill that will attempt to regulate such cruel facilities.

One of the problems with the bill, though, was pointed out by the member for Cowichan Valley, who received a letter from legitimate kennel operators who are concerned that, in fact, they will be the ones who will be forced to comply with new regulations, while the puppy mills generally are underground until there’s some sort of a disaster. So we do need to help legitimate kennel operators be distinguished from the targets of this act.

It’s also, I guess…. It’s a bill that we’re all going to support, but I can’t resist, as other members have not been able to resist, pointing out that we just passed Red Tape Reduction Day, the celebration of this government for the reduction of red tape. I find that to be a bit of an affront because most regulations in this province were put there to protect people, the environment, pets. Those are not simply burdens. They are there for very, very good reasons, in most cases.

Of course, there have been ridiculous regulations that were ridiculous when they were put in place or have become redundant or irrelevant and were maintained. Those should be removed, of course. But to celebrate the notion of red-tape reduction…. We’re all talking about things that we agree on: loving pets. But that is a significant issue for me.

I attended the coroner’s inquest into the death of a faller named Ted Gramlich in 2006. In 2007, the inquest took place. Ted Gramlich died when a tree he was falling landed on him. He lay for hours without medical help. It’s clear in testimony from responders and from medical experts that he very likely would have survived had he been evacuated immediately after being injured, which would have happened in the past when, before deregulation, the forest companies had an established chain of safety measures where no fallers would be working in the bush if there was no air ambulance support.

Of course, many times — if any of you have worked in the bush — you’ll be up on a slope, and it’ll be clear as day, just beautiful weather, but where the air ambulance is, it might be fogged in. That was the case the day Ted Gramlich died, but he didn’t know, and his faller partner didn’t know that they didn’t have the support of an air ambulance, so he died.

The serious piece of that story that I think all members need to reflect on when we celebrate the elimination of red tape is that the coroner listed, as a contributory cause of Ted Gramlich’s death, deregulation. So not all deregulation is good just because it’s deregulation.

I ran a small business, and I ran into all sorts of regulatory issues around importing bicycle parts that were, frankly, ridiculous. Thankfully, many of those have changed. But to simply celebrate the notion of deregula-
[ Page 14045 ]
tion is to do disrespect to those regulations that were put in place to protect people like Ted Gramlich and, frankly, regulations like this one, which are so high-meaning and, hopefully, so effective in their purpose.

For that reason, I will be supporting this bill. And I’m really, really pleased to be able to talk about my dog Kato in the B.C. Legislature. Imagine that.

With that, I’ll thank the members for indulging me and take my seat.

[1555]

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 7, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017. Like every member that has spoken before me in the House, I too, obviously, will be voting in support of this bill. It’s a bill filled with good news. But let’s explore some of the details a bit further. This bill provides a framework, which is important, for the licensing and/or registration of commercial breeders of cats and dogs.

Hon. Speaker, as you will know, earlier today I had a remarkable young woman in the Legislature, up there. This young woman was deeply and profoundly concerned about the health and well-being and ability of people to have miniature goats in their backyard. One of the questions, obviously, that I’ll be raising in committee stage is: does this legislation apply to the breeding of miniature goats, for example?

The details of this bill — like what I’ve come to see far too often in my four years — are not actually in the bill but are left for regulation down the road, by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. And like every other bill that we’re being asked to support here, we’re essentially saying: “Trust us to do what is right.” It really leaves one to wonder whether the government has actually done the necessary groundwork to know how this bill will play out through regulations, rather than just putting in a feel-good bill in the lead-up to an election.

I could actually see this. I can imagine TV commercials, as we enter the NHL playoffs, where we have cute little puppies, with people hugging them and saying: “The B.C. government is here for you. We’re here for you and the puppies.”

Interjections.

A. Weaver: I’ve given them an election suggestion. You heard it here first, in the B.C. Legislature. The B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens, of course, could do the same thing and say, “We supported this bill,” as we hug our puppies, in the lead-up to the election.

Truly, this is an important bill. But we’ve had four years in this Legislature to deal with substantive issues like this, and it has taken till pre-election time to actually bring this forward.

While many of the details are actually left to regulation, we do know, for example, that an external agency will be designated by future regulation, and that external agency will administer the system. Lots of vague language there. The agency’s inspectors will be responsible for inspecting and enforcing relevant standards of care. A lot of vague statements there too. Inspectors will be able to apply for a warrant to enter a residence if the owner’s consent is not provided. That’s obviously good.

Breeders found to be engaging in irresponsible practice may be subject to “an administrative action,” including having their licence or registration suspended or cancelled. Operators will be able to request a review or reconsideration of the administrative actions taken against them.

This bill has the support of the SPCA. We know that, as well — after they consulted, and the government consulted, with a variety of stakeholders.

One of the things that I would have liked to have seen in a bill like this — much as I would like to have seen in the Wildlife Act, for example — is where government actually has specific language that states that you are not going to be granted a licence if you have committed an offence against a similar type or piece of legislation in another province.

Now, why I say that is that in the case of wildlife, we have stories coming forth of guide outfitters who, in other provinces, have actually been fined for offences through not appropriately abiding by the rules of the province. Yet in B.C. — the Wild West of B.C. — it doesn’t matter who you are. We’ll give you a guide-outfitting licence. That is irresponsible, which is why I would have liked to see something a little stronger here in terms of who actually gets licences.

The essence of the bill falls into two sections: section 4 and section 5. These, actually, are designed, in the first case, to impose prohibitions and duties on operators who must be licensed or registered to engage in a regulated activity. For example, it requires a licence. A regulated operator is to make available to an inspector their licence or a certificate of registration and display the licence or certificate and provide information to the public.

[1600]

Also, an operator may not charge a fee for providing information to the public or a person who may acquire an animal from an operator. The problem here again…. It has been alluded to by two of my colleagues, the member for Cowichan Valley and the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan. The member for Cowichan Valley is well known within this Legislature for looking at legislation under a microscope, peeling through the details with a fine-tooth comb, searching for jiggery-pokery in any form or any fashion.

It’s interesting what he was able to find here. It’s not his. He gives credit to the person who brought it to him, but he received some important information, and that is something I would like to explore. I’m sure the member for Cowichan Valley will, as well, at committee stage. It’s
[ Page 14046 ]
to the effect that we’re introducing red tape, regulation, for the people already following the law. Those who don’t follow the law are likely not going to be coming, knocking on doors and saying: “Give us a permit. We’re going to actually display that permit so that everyone can tell that we’re not actually following the law.” The underground aspect of those kinds of puppy factories that we’re introducing legislation for….

It’s not clear to me that this is actually being dealt with, or the extent to which there are some proactive measures taken by the government to seek out such people. Do they simply have to wait until somebody makes a complaint and then follow the legislation subsequent to receiving such a complaint?

As I mentioned, section 5 is the other meaty part of this bill. That sets out the procedures for applying for a licence or registration and provides inspection power for enforcing the licensing or registration scheme. It also provides a designated agency to establish a minister and enforce a licensing or registration scheme and for training and oversight of employees as licensing officers, reviewing officers and licensing inspectors.

Again, you know, when you read the bill, there’s nothing really of any substance to criticize. There are a few concerns that my friend and colleague from Cowichan Valley has noted, but this is really a bill about protecting animals. I’ve heard each and every person here speak to this. What I noted in their speeches is every person talked about the love of their dog that they had when they were a child. But let me tell you: I didn’t have a dog as a child. I didn’t have a dog as a child because I was allergic to dogs, and my mother was allergic to dogs. So I can’t speak with passion to the love of my dog. However, when I left home, my parents….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I did watch Old Yeller. The member for Peace River South pointed out that Old Yeller evokes passion in anyone who watches it. It was a very disturbing movie to me when I was a child, to see Old Yeller get hydrophobia and start to turn against the young boy who once was his soulmate, his partner. That was troubling. Perhaps Old Yeller had actually got that from a puppy farm. We’re so lucky today that that will be regulated by this particular government. This government is actually stepping in to do what Old Yeller’s little boy couldn’t do, which is protect the future of their puppy from the puppy farm and the diseases they get.

My parents did have a lovely dog, and we have several of them. They were non-allergic dogs, so they were able to have them when I was older. They were delightful pets. They were passed down from family to family because others got old and they couldn’t take care of the dogs.

I remember my parents’ dog’s first name. It was Lisitsa. Lisitsa is a Ukrainian name. I believe it means fox. I could be wrong, but I believe it meant fox. It was a lovely name for a very vibrant dog that kept my parents company. We had a subsequent dog. It was Lisa. It was another dog, very similar. It, too, was loved by my parents. Even though it was hypoallergenic, I couldn’t enjoy the pleasures of dogs. So while I understand, having watched Old Yeller, the importance of this bill, I could never actually feel it personally like the member for North Vancouver–Seymour or the member for Cowichan Valley — all these heartfelt stories. The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan with his husky.

I missed out in childhood. Maybe I should be seeking therapy over that, after listening to these speeches here today.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: Some of the members opposite feel the same way.

Anyway, the reason I bring that up, of course, is this is a very important bill. I’ll be speaking in support of it. I have. I will be following up in committee stage. It is important that we treat our pets properly.

[1605]

But there are so many other issues facing the people of British Columbia. Why is this government not bringing in legislation to deal with affordability issues? Why is this government not dealing with a very problematic aspect of our society, which is the liability of pet owners for the behaviour of their pets?

On the order paper, you’ll see some bills there. I spoke last session about the Animal Liability Act and changes. This time I’ll speak about the Community Charter so that we can actually ensure that not only the breeders of pets but also the owners of pets are held accountable for their treatment and ownership of the pets that they have under their care.

This is important. The government is missing that. It’s not dealing with this. It’s going with the election ad during hockey games, holding puppies and saying: “We are here for you, British Columbians. We are here to support your puppies.” I mean, really. There are so many other issues we should be debating. We should be talking about health care. We should be talking about education. There are so many bills. What about poverty? What about social welfare rates? Why aren’t we seeing legislation here? Why are we focusing on a number of bills that are brought forward?

The last session of this government being in office. We’re dealing with the Budget Measures Implementation Act and a lovely bill to protect puppies. We all agree it’s a lovely bill. There are a couple of other bills that we’re getting, but there’s nothing. This is a government that is so lost, so out of touch with the issues facing British Columbians that they’re pulling bills off the shelf that they’ve had to fill the time rather than actually stand-
[ Page 14047 ]
ing up and dealing with the prevailing issues in British Columbia.

The fact that…. This time four years ago we had been promised 100,000 jobs, a $100 billion prosperity fund, a $1 trillion increase in GDP, elimination of the PST, thriving schools and hospitals, three LNG plants and all of us wealthy in their lead-up to the last election. Where is it? It’s not here. Why aren’t we talking about that?

Are we going to see them taking out ads in the hockey games, hugging puppies and saying: “We’re here for you, British Columbians; we’re here for your puppies”? Or are they going to stand up and say: “We’re sorry we misled you for the last four years by promising you nonsense, despite the fact that the lone B.C. Green MLA in this Legislature said it wasn’t going to happen in 2012, said it wasn’t going to happen in 2013, said it wasn’t going to happen in 2014, said it wasn’t going to happen in 2015”?

Around that time, the minister of hot air and gas pointed out that I was going to eat my words, and he was looking forward to that time. He knew more than I did because he meets with these people. Two years later, here we are. Where is it? It’s misleading.

What are we doing? We’re debating here the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act. Well done, B.C. government. Well done dealing with those issues that are affecting everyday life for British Columbians here. Let’s talk about puppies. Give me a break. Obviously, I support this bill, but there are so many other bills that we should be talking about. That is what we should be spending time here, and that’s why I’m going to sit down now, because I hope we get to those other issues and to talk about them as we come forward.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, seeing no further speakers, I call on the Minister of Agriculture to close second reading debate.

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and thank you to the members opposite.

I think the best thing to do with the last speaker’s comments is just not engage in the jocularity. This government, obviously, has introduced a large amount of legislation over its 16 years in government — in particular, over the last four years — including five balanced budgets and all the benefits that come with strong fiscal management to our social programs, strong health care, education, investment in agriculture, investment in transportation, capital investments all over the province.

I will do as is normally done in this House, and that is focus on the bill that is in front of us instead of focusing on everything else. I was going to tell you about my dog. Now I feel I should leave that for committee stage. So I will do that. Nikki and Spotty, both my dogs in my life, will just have to wait until next week, when I’m sure there will be ample opportunity to bring them to the forefront.

[1610]

Obviously, many comments made. I’m glad to hear from the members opposite and, of course, the members on this side of the House that the bill will be supported, subject, of course, to some good discussion in committee stage. I’ve been taking notes. My staff have been taking notes on the kinds of questions that might come. I’m sure we’ll be prepared to answer the questions honestly and forthrightly next week or whenever it comes back to the floor of the House to debate committee stage.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 7.

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Letnick: I move that Bill 7 be referred to Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting the House after today.

Bill 7, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Bernier: I call second reading now of Bill 5.

BILL 5 — FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that Bill 5, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2017, be read a second time.

The proposed amendments in this bill are to the Wildlife Act and the Wildfire Act. For the Wildlife Act, these amendments will enable hunters to apply for permits, licences, authorizations and obtain resident hunter numbers on line and submit reports electronically. For the Wildfire Act, these amendments give wildfire investigators more time to complete their work and pursue cost recoveries related to wildfire damage and violations of wildfire legislation.

The proposed amendments to the Wildlife Act contribute to government’s continuing move toward e-licensing and electronic reporting for hunters as part of its red-tape-reduction initiatives, streamlining and client services. Hunters will be able to apply for hunting licences, permits, authorizations on line and, in some cases, receive approval the same day.

Resident hunters will no longer be required to carry a resident hunter number card but instead just provide their number and standard photo identification at the request of enforcement officials. Hunters would also be able to submit required reports electronically through a new on-line reporting system.

The complete automation of the resident hunting programs and services will improve conservation efforts, data collection and resident hunter activity reporting.
[ Page 14048 ]
These services will be available electronically to residents, sales vendors, government agents, fish and wildlife staff, and conservation officers.

The services moving on line build on the successful introduction of limited-entry hunt applications on line last year. For those who do not have access to a computer, they can still go to FrontCounter B.C. or another approved vendor for assistance in submitting their applications.

We’re also proposing amendments to the Wildfire Act that would implement a standardized limitation period of three years. Wildfire investigation can be complex and time-consuming, so this will give wildfire investigators more time to do their work. This change will also give the government more time to recover costs associated with wildfire control, to levy penalties and to require violators to undertake remediation activities.

The proposed amendments would provide more flexibility to consider charges related to damage, reforestation and remediation related to that wildfire activity.

While I have the opportunity here, I want to just comment on the great work that our Wildfire Service does in British Columbia. I’ve had the opportunity over the years that I’ve had the honour of serving as the minister to be able to meet directly with our Wildfire Service, to see them in action, to see the great work that they’ve been doing in protecting our communities, our assets, and to ensure public safety.

[1615]

I know they support the amendments here so that in those cases where there is action to be taken in terms of recovering costs dealing with infractions on the wildfire legislation, we have the appropriate time to do the work, particularly with increasingly more complex fires. These amendments will achieve that objective.

Together these amendments support the government’s efforts to reduce red tape and enhance client service and provide convenience to our clients and to our hunting community. They continue the streamlining of the electronic permit and licence application process, and they support the B.C. Wildfire Service’s effort to investigate wildfires and, where appropriate, to recover costs associated with wildfire activity and violations of the wildfire legislation.

I look forward to the comments on the legislation. I’ll listen carefully to the comments of all who are speaking to it and look forward to further consideration of the bill in committee stage.

H. Bains: It is always an honour to stand here and speak on the issues that are very, very important to the people that we represent. This bill, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2017, Bill 5 — I am happy to stand and speak on this.

There are two parts to it, as the minister has mentioned — the Wildlife Act, and it touches also on the Wildfire Act. I will make a brief comment on the wildlife side, but I will concentrate my commentary largely on the wildfire side of this bill.

When it comes to the wildlife part of this bill, like everything else, the government does a good talk, but when it comes to delivery, they’re usually no-show. When you look at what kind of consultation process they go through, I am concerned that the people who are affected by some of these changes seem to feel that they have been ignored. They seem to feel they have been taken for granted and haven’t been consulted as much as they should have been.

For example, the B.C. Wildlife Federation — I don’t know how much consultation the ministry, the minister, has done with them, because they are the ones who deal with these issues on a daily basis. We agree that we need to come to the new age when it comes to streamlining and making it convenient for people to do business, compared to what we used to do. On-line licensing, I think, is a good thing. But in committee stage, we will ask some questions about how it will affect many different areas of the province, many different demographics, and those hunters who may or may not have the facility or the knowledge of how to get their licences. We will be asking some of those questions. I think that’s where that will go.

The government always says one thing, that they are putting B.C. residents first, but when you look at their actions…. There was a huge concern by the resident hunters when, at that time, government actions gave a bigger portion to foreign hunters. Those are some of the things that you really look at — what this government says, and what they actually do. Those are some of the concerns.

[1620]

We will be going through this at committee stage, and there are a number of different things here. I’m talking about putting into practice how this will actually be implemented on the ground. Those will be the questions. We want to make sure that the resident hunters are not negatively impacted by this. There is always an upside to it, but as they say, the devil will be in the details. We will ask those questions, and I’m sure the minister will answer those.

I want to move on to the wildfire side of it. Again, 15 years in power. Time and again you see that their policies and their actions are reactionary — even this one here. It’s all after the fact. It is about what we do after the wildfire. It’s all about that. I was hoping that we would be discussing right here, right now, something on the prevention side. The government, the minister have been advised over the years, time and again, that we’re not doing enough on the prevention side.

We haven’t learned, as a government, from the devastating Kelowna fire of 2003. We haven’t learned from other major catastrophic fires all around the country. Alberta — in Slave Lake, earlier on, and then the last one, in Fort McMurray.
[ Page 14049 ]

I think I’m really concerned that there are changes…. We will deal with them through the committee stage to see how they will help us in preventing fires. If this is going to be used as a deterrence, if that is a part of the prevention…. Maybe. I’m not so sure, though. But I think a lot more emphasis needs to be put on the real prevention, having to be proactive.

Let’s go back to 2003, the catastrophic Kelowna fire. Subsequent to that, a commission was appointed, at a great cost and for the right reasons, and they came back with recommendations. The recommendations were very clear, and the mandate was very clear. What happened in this fire, and how do we prevent these types of fires from occurring in the future? How do we protect communities? We also need to take a look at what is the real cost of those fires.

Usually, you look at the cost of suppressing the fire, the cost of some of the damage to property and damage to timber. But there’s a lot more to it when you really want to calculate what the real cost of any wildfire is. It always will be advisable, and I think it will be more economical, to prevent than to react and try to spend resources on fighting those fires after the fact.

In 2003 or 2004, Mr. Filmon came with a report. He identified in that report, very clearly, 1.7 million hectares of what they called a wildland-urban interface area — 1.7 million hectares of land around the communities that they identified need to be treated.

In the same report, they identified 685 million hectares that were considered high risk, in most immediate need of treatment. That’s what the recommendation was. It was high risk and in most immediate need of treatment. According to the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals — their status report dated February 15, 2012 — only 44,000 hectares have been treated out of 1.7 million.

[1625]

Subsequent to that, we have had discussions through estimates. Last time we went through the estimates, last year, the minister reported somewhere around 80 million or 85 million hectares were treated now. But again, from 685 million hectares that are considered to be high risk and in immediate need of treatment…. Now, that was 2004, don’t forget — 2004. Here we are sitting in 2015, speaking to the minister — right here, in this chamber — and the minister reported that it was about 80,000 hectares that was cleaned or treated. Now, that’s after 11 years.

At that rate, those of you who can do a little math…. I think the Minister of Advanced Education…. I hope that he can do math. I know he’s very good on philosophy, but I hope that he can do math. I think he can do math. How many years will it take?

My question to the minister is: how many years will it take to treat 685 million hectares at this rate? In 11 years, they treated 80 million. I hope the minister is doing some calculations and the answer will be passed onto the Minister of Forests soon.

That’s not acceptable. That is not a responsible way of treating one of our most precious natural resources. The natural resource that we call forestry built this province for the last 150 years. It employed thousands of workers all around the province, built communities and provided for all of our social programs — education, health care, roads, bridges, you name it. But because of a lack of attention and priority, our forest industry is on its knees right now.

There are 31,000 fewer workers working today than when these B.C. Liberals took power in 2001 — 31,000.

Mr. Speaker, you will know in the area that you come from — and the Minister of Advanced Education will know — that all along the Fraser River, starting from the UBC and all along on the Fraser River, both sides, and the False Creek area and the North Shore were full of mills — saw mills after saw mills. Now, you try to drive around that area…. See if you can find a saw mill left there. And 31,000 good, family-supporting jobs are gone; 150 mills have been shut down. That’s the industry we are talking about.

The future — according to this government, with the way they are treating the forest industry — doesn’t look any better either right now. That’s the biggest concern. A laissez faire kind of approach. “Let them do whatever they can do.” I’m talking about the industry. A hands-off approach.

The previous Minister of Forests said once, in this House: “We are only spectators.” How do you manage one of our most precious resources when you say that we’re only spectators and industry knows the best? That’s not how you manage our affairs.

We are the custodians to look after our forests on behalf of British Columbians, because 95 percent of the forests are owned by the residents of this province. So British Columbia’s government has a responsibility, a duty, to make sure that we get the best value of the forest that we have; that we protect our forests; that we are proactive to make sure that our forests are protected; that we invest for future generations to make sure that when they are at a working age, there are forests for them to feed their families, to pay for the health care system — going 40, 50, 100 years down the road — education and all other programs.

[1630]

As I travelled, and the minister knows, they’re talking about probably another eight to ten mills going down in the Interior right now — eight to ten.

There’s no more social contract left anymore. This is how we managed our forests when we started to industrialize our forest industry. A social contract existed, on behalf of the public, between government and the industry. The industry would have access to fibre, logs, which they will go and harvest. But in return, the responsibility and the commitment that the industry gave to the province — and to the people of the province, through their government — was that they will not only harvest those
[ Page 14050 ]
logs; they will process them in their own mills. Later on, it got changed that they would be processing them in British Columbia.

That connection is gone now. No wonder we have a record amount of raw logs being exported every day. You go to the Vancouver ports, and ship after ship is leaving with raw logs.

In the meantime, we have mills that are not working at full capacity, or they’re not working at all. I just spoke to an owner, right now, before I came into this House. They’re running one shift, but they’re having difficulty to even run one shift. They could put on two shifts easily if they had logs available to them.

Something’s wrong with that picture. Raw logs are leaving our coast. Our local mills, who are willing to employ local people with good-paying jobs, cannot get those logs to employ them.

Who is responsible for that? Where should the leadership come from? It has to come from the minister. It has to come from the Premier. But we have seen nothing — no leadership whatsoever.

Now, I must say, in favour of the minister that is in charge today…. He’s a good fella — only if he’s allowed to do his job. The directive comes from the Premier: “This is all you can do.” He’s restricted to do what the Premier wants him to do.

This is what the problem is with all of those ministers over there. Go on the script from the Premier. Repeat it as often as you can. Come up with alternative facts, repeat it as long as you can, and hopefully, the people will believe it.

Deputy Speaker: Member, on second reading of the bill.

H. Bains: Talking about second reading of Bill 5…. I’m talking about a neglect of 15 years. They’re always reacting to the issue. You can never go ahead if you’re reacting all the time. You have to be proactive. You have to look in the future, which this government isn’t doing. They are out of ideas, and they have no clue how to manage, how to govern.

That’s the problem here with this bill. Again, if you look at the bill itself, what does the bill talk about? In the bill on wildfires, the amendment talks about: “Implement a standardized limitation period of three years to give wildfire investigators more time to complete their work.” Reactionary — nothing proactive in this one.

Go to the next one. “Give the government more time to recover costs associated with wildfire control.” Reactionary again. Nothing in prevention — nothing.

[1635]

“Provide more time and flexibility for the government to consider charges related to damage, reforestation and remediation related to wildfire activity.” Reaction again. It’s after the fact. I’m hoping that, for once, I will hear one of the ministers stand up who would look into the future and have something proactive, a bill that would be purely proactive. In this particular case, have some measures about prevention.

None — although the road map has actually been paved for them by Mr. Filmon and, since that time, people like Robert Gray. Time and again they’re telling them: “You’re not fulfilling your responsibility.” Time and again they’re saying: “The approach you’re taking is very damaging.” So I have serious, serious issues when the government isn’t doing enough to prevent, invest in prevention.

The government’s own report talked about the potential of megafires, Kelowna-like megafires. That was not too long ago — 2014. Their own report warned them that the fire suppression will not be sufficient in the future because of climate change. But have they done anything, listened to their own reports? No. Have they listened to the experts? No.

I know that if the minister is allowed to do the work that he’s capable of…. I’m sure that the minister would be looking into those things. But the government…. “We want to balance our budget.” At what cost? At the cost of the safety of those communities that are waiting for the minister to come up with a plan to fulfil the road map that the Filmon report gave you.

The minister talks about $85 million — Forest Enhancement Society. In his own words, during our estimates, he mentioned it would cost $595 million to fulfil the Filmon report — $595 million. When you look at how much it costs to suppress the fires every year, and you add that all up, on average, it’s about $160 million a year. So you are spending money on suppression, largely — reacting — almost every year.

What about being proactive? What about putting some measures in to prevent? That’s what the municipalities want. UBCM have said time and again that they’re worried. Some of the municipalities, like Whistler, were coming up with their own plans, because they don’t have any faith left in this government anymore. They want to protect their own communities. And there are other communities who are trying to do their own things, to protect themselves, because they have given up on this government — like many other areas where the citizens of this province have given up on this government.

Let’s take a look. The wildfires — 2003 was the worst one. It cost $371 million. It goes up and down, but on average, it’s like $160 million a year. But what this government does every year, without a mistake, is put $63 million for a fire suppression budget, knowing full well that it will cost, on average, $160 million. What does that tell you? “Oh yes, we can go into contingencies.”

[1640]

Of course you can go into contingencies. But if every ministry was operating like that — “We’ll go into the contingencies” — that contingency isn’t going to last that long.
[ Page 14051 ]

Here Robert Gray, one of the renowned ecologists, talks about year after year after year — after the Filmon report. This one here from 2011: “To date, the government solution to the fuel and wildfire threat issue has been to subsidize, partially, the on-site treatment and removal of the material. But as we have seen, there isn’t enough federal, provincial or municipal funding for the subsidized approach to hazard abatement.”

In 2014, another risk was reported in the Vancouver Sun. I’m sure every member on that side must have read it. Because of the Forests Ministry and the important role that it plays in our lives, they must have read through this. That report warns of rising mega-fire risks in B.C. It revealed a draft of the Ministry of Forests Climate Change Adaptation Action Plan for Wildlife Management 2014-2024. They suggested to the minister that there’s a risk of mega-fires and that suppression alone is not the answer.

You need to go and start prevention and start investing in prevention. I know the minister will stand up, and I know other members on that side will stand up. They will come up with numbers — “We have invested this many millions here, this many millions here, this many millions” — trying to confuse those who are trying to understand what is going on here.

The fact remains that out of 685 million hectares that were identified by the Filmon report as high risk, which need immediate treatment…. In 2004, they reported that, after the 2003 mega-fire in Kelowna.

In 2015, in this House, the minister admitted that only 80,000 of those hectares were treated. You do the math. Never mind the 1.7 million hectares, identified in the same report, that need to be treated — 1.7 million hectares.

It just shows the intention of this government. Say anything, do a pretty good talk, but at delivery time, they’re a no-show. You know, photo ops — they will all be there. But when the time comes to deliver: no-show. That is concerning.

The forest industry must be treated with the utmost urgency. Like I said, there were times even during my times…. I’m sure that many of the members can attest to this: when someone went to a sawmill or a logging camp, they knew that their job would be there for the rest of their lives. They knew that their children would be coming and working in the same industry.

Where I came from, the mill is no longer there now. There were people working — three generations: grandfather, father and son. Three generations were working in the same mill. There were others whose grandfather started in the sawmill, and now the grandson is working. And they were all considered life-long jobs, but today it’s not the case. No one…. It’s a problem, and I think the minister needs to look at that. It’s a serious problem.

[1645]

Our younger generation is not looking at the forest industry as their final career. It should be. We need to make the forest industry attractive again. The only way we can do that is to provide certainty to our workers today and workers of the future.

You cannot do that if you don’t invest. When you don’t invest in forest health, our forests will not be there for us tomorrow, and people will not look at the forest industry for career jobs.

Who is responsible for all that? Like I said, when you have a situation where 15 years ago we had 31,000 more workers working in the forest industry than today, then why would anybody look at the forest industry as their future? There are so many people in this province whose families, and themselves, were raised on the forest industry.

I’m the designated speaker, so I can spend a little extra time.

When you look at how we manage the forest industry and the lack of leadership and lack of vision that comes from this government, then no one wants to look at the forest industry as a future for their children. As a result, our health care will suffer, our education will suffer and our public infrastructure will suffer, because those are good-paying jobs, and they pay good taxes when they are working in the forest industry.

Never mind the primary log breakdown facilities. You go into the remanufacturing plants — half of them are gone since this government took over. Half of them are gone. When you look at how we treat our forests and forest products, Ontario and Quebec do a much better job. Other jurisdictions do a much better job. When it comes to how many jobs we get out of a cubic metre of log…. Compared to Ontario, B.C. gets just one-quarter as many jobs from each tree that we cut. That’s startling. One-quarter of what Ontario produces. One-third compared to Quebec.

I’ll give you the numbers. Quebec gets two jobs; Ontario, three jobs; B.C., 0.7 jobs. These are facts. We are basically cutting our trees and shipping them raw. Jobs are created elsewhere, and our mills are shut down because they can’t get those logs.

When you are looking at the future, wildfire prevention is the key. That bill should talk about that, but it’s not here.

When you look at the value that we get from the trees that we cut…. Compared to Ontario, B.C. produces one-fifth of the value from each tree that we cut. One-third compared to Quebec. Quebec produced $467,000 per hundred cubic metres harvested in 2012. Ontario, $805,000 per hundred cubic metres harvested in 2012. Look at this: British Columbia, $160,000 per hundred cubic metres harvested in 2012. So Ontario, $467,000; Quebec, $805,000; B.C., $160,000.

We’re wasting our most precious resource. We’re not utilizing it to the best of our ability, because in the last 15 years this B.C. Liberal government has simply said to the B.C. industry: “You can do whatever you want. It’s okay with us.”

[1650]

It’s a serious problem. The bill that we are talking about today doesn’t do what we need to do in British Columbia. It doesn’t do anything to prevent fires. It doesn’t do anything to lead us into a proactive approach to protect our forests for coming generations, to protect our communities from those wildfires. There’s nothing. It’s all reactionary. Like everything else this government does — react to something. It has to be politically expedient before they do any action.

All politics, all the time coming from this Premier. That’s why our forest industry is in the state it is: downward. Like I said, our B.C. companies are investing not in British Columbia but investing in the United States. Yes, I grant you there are a number of reasons why they do that. I grant you that. But only a few years ago it was the companies from the United States coming to British Columbia, looking at a bright future in the forest industry and investing in British Columbia. They don’t do that anymore because of this government’s ill-conceived policies, the policies that do not help our forest industry’s future.

If the outside world, the investors in the forest industry, were looking at this government as proactive, that this government is putting policies together that mean we will have a bright future in the forest industry, yes, they would come and invest. But now it’s going the other way around. British Columbia companies are investing in the United States. Like I said, over 40 mills have been purchased by B.C. companies in the last 15 years. It’s a trend that should be concerning to all of us, but it seems like it’s okay to that B.C. Liberal government. It’s okay for them. They talk about putting British Columbians first, but their actions are quite the opposite.

So how do you attract investment in British Columbia? You’ve got to show, in bills like this…. Bill 5 should talk about prevention. It should talk about how we make our forest industry viable and attractive to the investors. On the coast alone, we have about 18 million cubic metres of AAC, but the milling capacity is only about 12 million, so there’s six million cubic metres of logs surplus to our local needs. But our mills are not working at full capacity, or they’re shut down because they can’t get logs.

Something’s wrong with that picture. We’ve got to fix that. If the foreign investors were looking at that we are actually dealing with that situation, they will invest. They will start new sawmills here. And the local mills will employ more people. But leadership has to come from the government, which isn’t there. It’s completely absent.

When you look at the history of this government, no wonder they don’t want to come and invest in British Columbia. Our companies are leaving. First, they cut into forest health when they took power — a $35 million cut between 2001 and 2013. And they continue to cut. So how can you attract investment in the forest industry?

[1655]

Take a look at how we are doing replanting. We have a minimum of one million hectares of land sitting there as NSR. It stands for not sufficiently restocked land. It means that we are not replanting that area properly. When foreign investors and foreign companies see that, why would they invest here? They know that the future may not be as good as they would like it to be in order for them to come and invest.

The government’s policies are all to suppress wages by creating part-time jobs, losing forestry jobs — most of the time good, union family-supporting jobs — to part-time jobs in different industries, because 31,000 of those people are not working today that were working 15 years ago.

You have to have a road map for investors to see clearly that the government is on the right track, and clearly, this government isn’t. They like to see government proactive, visionary, especially in a complex industry, as the forest industry is. But they don’t see any of that. We don’t see any of that. The people of British Columbia don’t see any of that.

It’s not just me talking or anybody else out there talking. There have been 16 damning reports from many independent bodies that looked at our forest industry and how we manage our forest industry. Forest compliance and enforcement — that report blamed the 2010 consolidation of natural resource ministries, which added many new responsibilities onto the ministry while actually cutting the number of natural resource officers. It says that without consistent monitoring and reporting, neither the government nor the public can know if the forest practice requirements are being met. This report was released in 2013.

Roads and bridges, an important part of running an efficient, good forest industry. The Forest Practices Board is seeing an increase in licensees who appear to be cutting back on maintenance. That report was released in 2013.

Cumulative effects, Forest Practices Board. Again, the report was released in 2013. It says that “B.C. does not have a framework for managing cumulative effects, so the cumulative effects in natural resources development remain largely unknown and unmanaged.”

How do you attract anyone to invest here when you get report after report after report that is as damning as I am just mentioning here? Loss of biodiversity report — again, a report in 2013. The Auditor General report finds that “the biological diversity of our province is in decline” and that “the government is not doing enough to address this loss.” How do you attract investment? This bill that we are debating right now, Bill 5, does nothing to address those.

Then it says: “Insufficient protected area.” That report was by ForestEthics Solutions and released in February 2013 — a damning report.

The Auditor General report. Mr. John Doyle finds that the Ministry of Forests is badly managing B.C. forests. That wasn’t ten years ago, or 15. That was 2013. It says that in B.C., the Ministry of Forests is badly managing B.C. forests, that the government “has not clearly defined
[ Page 14053 ]
its timber objectives” and does not appropriately monitor, and that its “management practices are insufficient to offset a trend towards a lower timber supply and less species diversity.”

On silviculture, which will be another good attraction for the investor to come and invest here, he says this. On silviculture, the AG said: “The ministry’s inability to address the decline in future timber supply through a robust silviculture program is of significant concern.”

[1700]

The report raised the concern that the reforestation regulations allows companies to take the least-cost, least-risk approach to get to the free-growing status as quickly as possible but don’t necessarily ensure long-term forest resiliency and productivity.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Report after report is giving damning scores to this government, but do you think they have learned? No. As usual, it’s business as usual.

The seventh report was an old-growth management report — again, a damning report. That came in 2012. The Forest Practices Board showed that the B.C. government isn’t monitoring whether identified old-growth stands are being protected and that many of them have no legal protection at all.

Here’s another one, which I just talked about earlier — one million unplanted hectares. The Forest Practices Board finds that the total area of B.C. provincial forests that may need to be restocked with healthy young trees could exceed current reforestation efforts by more than one million hectares. That report was released in 2012 — another damning report. Bill 5 does not deal with any of that. It is all reactionary.

Inventory status — this is a real beauty. The Association of B.C. Professional Foresters report finds that the government’s $8 million investment in its inventory program is significantly below the long-term average of $15 million and that at least 70 percent of the land base hasn’t been in inventory since the 1990s. That report came in 2012. If 70 percent hasn’t been inventoried and you don’t know what exists out there, how are you making decisions? You are making the wrong decisions. Either you’re not allocating enough AAC, which is bad enough, and denying jobs to the current workforce, or you could be overcutting and denying job opportunities to our future workers.

Then it goes on to the unreliable inventory. The Forest Practices Board reports that the government database and map were poorly managed and that there were high levels of non-compliance and incorrect reporting by industry. As a result, that map cannot be used to portray the consequences of forest activities in the landscape. That report was released in 2011.

Again, no environmental oversight. That’s another report by the Auditor General. Business conditions for tree planters — the Western Silvicultural Contractors Association commissioned this report, another damning report. The 13th report was on business conditions for independent loggers, another damning report.

The 14th report came, on tree planters’ safety. The B.C. forest safety ombudsman wrote a report that investigated the failure in the government’s worker protection system that led to the Khaira indent. We all know what happened there, where a group of tree planters had been badly treated by their employer, had gone unpaid and unfed and were found abandoned in a camp near Golden. That ombudsman wrote a report in July 2011 that was very critical of the Liberal failure to monitor, enforce or care about worker standards for tree planting companies.

One of our key ingredients for healthy forests is replantation of trees when we cut them. This is a renewable resource, and this is something that we must handle wisely, passionately, with foresight. As I said, this is the industry that built this province, and we still have a bright future. We have huge potential in the forest industry to attract younger workers coming out of universities to the forest industry, to make the forest industry attractive. But with reports like this, it does not help to attract future workers to the forest industry.

[1705]

The 15th report was on overharvesting healthy timber — the Forest Practices Board, again. This is the independent body. I don’t know if people would understand that this is an independent body. They give you scores on how you’re doing — independently. These are experts.

They came back here, again, with another report. They found that the harvest of trees that weren’t damaged by the pine beetle is increasing more than expected in some areas of the province. “The switch from harvesting dead pine trees to live non–pine trees means the mid-term timber supply is starting to be cut now and not five to ten years in the future,” said the board chair, Tim Ryan. “The issue,” he says, “simply put, is that the more live trees that are harvested now, the lower the sustainable harvest level will be after the salvage program is finished.” That report was released in March of 2014.

Damning report after damning report about the affairs of this government dealing with the forest industry. These are the independent bodies made up of experts. They are telling this government, time and again: “Wake up. You’re failing your duty to protect our forests. You’re failing your duty to the people of this province. You’re failing the future generations.” They will be asking questions: “What were you doing? What were you doing as legislators in 2015-2016 and prior, when you made those ill-conceived decisions?” That’ll affect them ten, 15, 20, 50 years down the road, because they have no more forest industry left.

Our forefathers’ generations benefited from the forest industry, much more so than we did. And the trend is that our future generations will be even less hopeful because of a lack of attention given by this government.
[ Page 14054 ]

The last report was again by the Professional Employees Association. They released a report on the decline of experts in the government — or government-licensed science officers. It showed that the professional foresters have been cut the most. Between 2009 and 2014, B.C. lost 193, or 27 percent, of the professional foresters working for the public.

The implications of the cut for the people of B.C. include the “loss of resource revenue due to reduced oversight; the degradation of forest resources due to inadequate monitoring and inspection; public safety threats if infrastructure like bridges and water supply facilities are not regularly inspected and monitored; threats to the environment if development impacts are not properly assessed; bad decision-making by technical staff due to little or no professional guidance and advice; and the irretrievable loss of ongoing research data due to the lack of staff to do the work.” That report was released in 2014.

I’m talking about reports that were released in the last few years, so the minister can’t stand here and say: “Well, the previous minister did that.” It was under his watch — when all of these reports are coming out. There’s wake-up call after wake-up call.

There was an opportunity today, when this bill was introduced, to put some measures together that will give some hope to the current workers, to the communities who are looking for leadership from this government and who are dependent on the forest industry, and to our future generations. They are looking up to us, and our responsibility is to them. What benefits we enjoyed from the forest industries in the last 150 years — that we pass on, that we maintain and actually enhance those benefits. It won’t happen the way that this government is going, the direction that this government is going.

[1710]

I’m seriously concerned. I’m not just standing here being critical of the government for the sake of being critical. These are some serious reports by independent bodies and by experts who know the industry. Bill 5 does not address any of that.

Interjections.

H. Bains: I’m happy that I drew some attention over there. I’m happy that they were paying attention. Again, listening and paying attention is one thing for those members, but doing something about it is foreign to them. It is completely foreign to them. Maybe we have to find some other…. We drew their attention. What do we have to do to put those things in action? What do we need to do?

In all seriousness, it’s the responsibility of the cabinet, coming from the Premier, and everyone else who is out there. Many of them are from forestry-dependent communities. It’s their responsibility to reflect the views of their communities — how they’re suffering because of a lack of forestry actions in their communities — to cabinet so that cabinet can start to take responsibility and start to put some real action items together. Bill 5 doesn’t do that.

I’m happy that there are some actions in here. Again, like I said, we will find out at the committee stage what the real actions would be behind each one of those sections, but I’m not so hopeful, looking at the track record of this government.

An election around the corner. So a lot of bills are coming here — well, not very many, but only that are politically expedient, I guess. They think they want to stay in power forever. They think they have that right, the sense of entitlement. I feel it every day in this House.

I think come May 9, when they see a lack of vision and a lack of responsibility by this government….

Interjection.

H. Bains: You’ll be moving over from those chairs. You’ll be moving. You’ll be thrown out of those offices. And you know what? It’s better that the government starts to pay attention.

I understand Bill 5, again, is there to show people of this province that they actually care for the forest industry. Their actions of the past show clearly…. I reported 16 damning reports. Did they act upon any of those? Hardly. There are other reports that I haven’t mentioned here, other independent reports. When you see their inaction, lack of vision and job losses in the forest industry, there’s a clear correlation.

They think they owe everything to those who actually fund their election campaigns. The forest industry is one of the bigger funders to their election campaigns, so I can clearly see why they do not want to take any action. Otherwise, in Bill 5, they could have brought some really proactive actions. They haven’t done that. They are worried about the backlash from the major licensees. They know their lack of vision now has a concentration of tenure in just a handful of companies. Two-thirds of the tree farm licences are now in the hands of just a handful of companies.

[1715]

The smaller independent companies, who actually work in their own communities, raise finances to invest in those mills, and where workers make good money, pay taxes and invest in their own communities — those are being ignored at the time that they are supporting the big five or six companies that exist now. Like I said, two-thirds of the tree farm licences are in the hands of a few of those companies. It just doesn’t happen.

I’m looking at Bill 5, and I’m looking for something in there to see if there are some answers to some of those concerns that community members or many of the city councils and UBCM have been demanding, asking and reminding this government of. Nothing is there.

I could go on longer because there’s so much. I just scratched the surface. I know that they feel embarrassed
[ Page 14055 ]
by what I have reminded them of, about what they have done or not done. I know. Perhaps it’s time that maybe I shouldn’t embarrass them anymore. Hopefully, they will start to pay attention.

Again, I just want to end by saying that the forest industry has built this province for the last 150 years. It has a huge potential to continue to build this province. It has potential to continue to support our health care system, our roads and bridges and infrastructure, our schools, our post-secondary education. It has the potential.

But this government is failing to realize that potential. They are squandering away that responsibility, squandering away that potential. The time has come that we start to pay attention to our forest industry. That is a responsibility that has been vested in the Forests Minister, on behalf of the public, to look after our forests.

Bill 5, as much as what they’re trying to do here…. Again, it is a reactionary piece of document. It doesn’t do the job that is needed to enhance our forest industry, protect our current jobs and add to our future jobs. It doesn’t do that.

With that, I hope that the minister has taken some notes. I hope that the minister will go back. There’s still some time to come back and say that we will do better, that we owe it to the people of this province that we must do better.

Hon. D. Barnett: It is an absolute privilege for me to stand here today and to speak in favour of Bill 5, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2017.

I live in rural British Columbia, where people hunt and fish and do all of the great things outdoors that many people in urban centres don’t have the privilege of doing quite as easily as we do. Making life easier for hunters, guide-outfitters and those that buy licences to do what they do best and what they enjoy doing…. Making it easier for these citizens of British Columbia to obtain hunting licences is, indeed, a great thing. We are very proud that we, basically, are going to be able to do this.

Anything that we can streamline, get rid of red tape, is, of course, something that we all — on both sides of the House, I hope — strive for.

[1720]

With this bill, we will support the launch of new on-line licensing systems; allow for the submission of required reports electronically, through a new on-line system; reduce the number of authorizations hunters are required to carry while hunting; and enhance compliance and enforcement by allowing conservation officers to request photo ID from all hunters, anglers and trappers.

This is a move forward in the electronic world that we live in. And those that don’t have the ability to register on line can still, of course, go to FrontCounter B.C., where the friendly staff of the government are and work diligently every day.

The second part of the bill, of course, is a process for investigating wildfires. I listened to my colleague across the floor talk about fires. Well, you know, unless you really live in rural British Columbia, I don’t believe you understand what a fire is in the forest.

Where I live, I have 44,000 hectares of land, much of it that you can’t get to without a helicopter. And across the hall, they think that you’re going to go clean up every single piece of land so you don’t create a fire. Well, that is not possible.

Our ecosystem. Sometimes ecosystems and fires actually work together. They actually create a better ecosystem when a fire is put out.

But fires around urban centres and small communities are, of course, a real concern to all of us. Usually they’re started by lightning. They’re started by carelessness, and they certainly aren’t started by anybody who would like to see a fire.

I have lived through the 2003 fires, and I have lived through the 2010 fires. Those of us in rural British Columbia sincerely appreciate our firefighters. We sincerely appreciate our emergency service workers. We know that many surrounding communities do a lot of mitigation work, have spent a lot of money, done a lot of planning, but you cannot stop a fire — especially from carelessness and from Mother Nature.

This bill here is a good bill. It certainly will help our Wildfire Service, and it will help the compliance and enforcement branch in the case of an arson. And that is what this bill is about — helping those people who need to enforce the law for people that abuse the law.

I am proud that our minister has put this bill forward, and I completely support it.

B. Routley: I definitely want to go through the sections of the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act and talk about the specifics of each section, as it relates to the amendments or changes they’re about to make.

But I was remiss in my closing speech. I felt really bad, so I hope the hon. Speaker will allow just a short bit of latitude to say one final bit of thanks to my legislative staff.

You can imagine how foolish I feel forgetting my legislative staff — Anne Paxton and Gurbinder Kang, who did an outstanding job. They support us when we’re dealing with legislation like this, but they also have been amazingly efficient and friendly. Gurbinder has provided us, over the years, with this amazing East Indian food. I know that my friend from Surrey and others…. We get together from time to time, and I like to call myself part of the brown caucus, because I like East Indian food.

[1725]

It is certainly something that I wanted to fix, and thank you for giving me that little bit of latitude to just say thank you to amazing people that have made life here at the Legislature that much better and certainly added fun —
[ Page 14056 ]
very good, efficient and powerful people to work with who get the job done.

Back to Bill 5. Under section 1, the wildfire section, it notes that it specifies periods during which the minister may make orders. My note to that is that there are going to be periods of time affected by this, and so I want to focus, by going through this, on what little, really, is here. There’s not a whole lot of meat in this. There are some times where they’re looking at making what are more or less housekeeping changes.

In section 2, they’re going to remove the reference to the resident hunter number card and extend the requirement to successfully complete examinations to unaccompanied adults who are non-residents or non-resident aliens.

Basically, section 2, section 3…. Well, section 2 is just a continuation of that theme, and section 3 establishes an offence for making a false statement. Again, these are some finite details that we need to drill down deeper, and during the clause-by-clause stage, we’ll go through that. But I think the listeners need to understand that there are some basic tenets to this. The minister did describe that he’s making changes to the Wildlife Act and the Wildfire Act.

Before I leave this wildfire…. Well, I’ll go through the rest of this. Section 4 has consequential amendments by this bill to sections 82 and 97. Again, you can understand, those listeners out there, that that doesn’t mean much to you unless you cross-reference it with all of those sections. Again, that’s a level of detail that we have yet to do.

Section 5 will add a requirement to produce photo ID. Now, that’s significant. That is allowing and requiring the production of photo ID. I think a lot of people thought that was already happening, but definitely, there has to be a requirement for people when you’re dealing with wildlife matters.

Imagine coming across somebody that’s packing weapons. You pull them over, and you want to talk to them. Obviously, one of the things you’re going to want is the ability to see their licence and to see some photo identification. That certainly gives the wildlife officer a little bit more power and authority to have that photo ID in their hands. So under section 5, wildlife, it’s continued….

Section 6 facilitates electronic submission of reports and other records. Again, you could flip by this, but you wouldn’t want to without understanding that in today’s electronic age, more and more things are being done through email or through kind of a self-reporting way. The problem with that is that I worry about less compliance and enforcement out in the field, less boots on the ground — real people out there monitoring — and too much reliance on people.

People are generally honest. The folks that I’ve met…. I was a hunter at one time. I have since sold my weapon and carried on to other things in my life. I may have to think about whether or not I want to pursue that in the future. But that was a part of my younger days in the forest community town of Youbou, in the Lake Cowichan area, where there used to be deer that were plentiful.

One of the issues with wildlife that isn’t in this bill — you’re not going to see it talked about — is the fact that…. The member who spoke just a little bit earlier talked about the scarcity of wildlife. There are real alarm bells. I remember questioning the minister about caribou and moose. Where did the moose disappear?

[1730]

In some areas in the north that used to have a whole lot of moose, they’re now less and less available. There’s a lot of concern that that has happened as the result of the cumulative impacts. You’ll note that there have been reports done on such things. There have been reports talking about the need to have cumulative impacts added up.

What does that mean? “Cumulative impacts” talks about the fact that when you have all of these different ministries working away at their own devices, whether it’s transmission lines, pipelines or roads…. Logging roads, roads for transmission lines or roads for industry, like the run-of-the-river projects and those kinds of things — a lot of times, those roads are having a cumulative impact.

I heard stories about people coming in and putting a transmission line in an area that just in the year or two before had been planted. So you can imagine. They plant trees and they’re starting to grow and then, all of a sudden, in comes somebody that decides, “Oh, this is a great place for a transmission line,” and they mow down all of these trees that were just planted, at great expense, some years before and, obviously, with an expectation that that was going to be becoming part of the sustained yield. You can’t have that kind of wild, wild west attitude, where there’s no accounting for the cumulative impacts. I don’t know….

This report scarcely touches on a few minor matters, and what it’s missing really speaks volumes about this government. That’s that they’re not dealing…. Like you heard, again — all those reports, one report after another, about very serious matters, about missing biodiversity, about the scarcity of wildlife in areas.

I’ve heard some of the explanations. I would encourage anybody on the other side of the House to ask your minister to explain how they come up with the numbers on moose or bear or caribou. Well, it’s kind of like, I would call it, witchcraft — dancing around the fire. You might as well dance around the fire, put a few smudges on, sing a few songs, dance around some bones in the fireplace and have somebody guess, somebody come up with a number, and that seems to be good enough for what’s happening here in British Columbia.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

It’s quite scary. It is really scary. I’m alarmed that there is not more science. We talk about science-based man-
[ Page 14057 ]
agement, but really, when you start to drill down on some of these things and ask: well, how do you know what’s happening to the caribou…? You know, there is a problem. Now there are all kinds of actions being talked about, even by the Canadian government, about what we are going to do about the caribou and their winter range and the cumulative impacts. Again, that’s not being talked about.

What we are talking about instead is facilitating electronic submission of reports and other records. So in other words, you can kind of report on yourself: “Well, I’m out here, and I’m going to do the thing. Whatever my licence is, I’m going to take that wildlife.” I know — I’ve been with people where you get your licence out and your report, and you self-report that you’ve actually killed an animal or whatever…. That’s what you’re supposed to do. Obviously, if there are enough boots on the ground to ensure that that’s actually happening, that people are writing these things down…. But there sure is a lot of difference between actually writing on a piece of paper that’s on a licence, with your clear record on what you’ve been doing in terms of hunting, and entering something into a computer.

I can hear the excuses already — “Well, I was going to enter it into the computer as soon as I got back to camp and got hooked in to my computer,” or: “There’s no Internet out here, officer. You can be sure I’m going to be doing this just as soon as I get near a computer. But right now, you know, it’s just not possible.” So I worry when I read things about facilitating electronic submission of reports and other records, because most of the rural communities and rural areas are often totally off line when it comes to that kind of thing.

[1735]

I’m not sure that that’s what it means. I hope I’m incorrect. I hope that’s not the intent of it, something like that, but that’s what this leads me to believe when I read this kind of thing.

Section 7 authorizes regulations relating to the identification numbers and clarifies that fees for documents issued under the act may reflect how the document is provided. Aha. So there is going to be a new fee. I’m sure you’ll be able to use your credit card on line. All self-help — that’s kind of the direction that we see more and more things going. Is it convenient? Sure, yeah. It can be convenient.

Again, my question is: are we going to suffer? Is the minister going to be cutting back on compliance enforcement with real people and boots on the ground? I’m sure anybody with any enforcement and compliance…. I know we’ve got a couple of police officers over there. They wouldn’t think that it was okay to just have self-reporting by criminals, for example. You’re going to have somebody report: “Oh, yeah. I’m doing a violation here of the act under the drug section, and I’ll just write that in and send it in.” No, you would know that you’ve got to get out there.

It’s not the good people you’ve got to worry about. It’s not the people that are doing the work and following the licensing requirements, etc. That’s not the ones you’ve got to worry about. Again, I know myself, we used to come across elk kills — totally illegal and not supposed to happen. And it was always sad when you saw that somebody had taken an animal and just wasted it.

But some of this will not help with that kind of thing. So section 8 — and I’m already on page 4 — says that it exempts persons who have been issued resident hunter cards from examinations required by section 17 of the act. So there’s a new tool for people who have resident hunter number cards.

Section 9 provides a transitional rule respecting the application of section 33: “….the Wildfire Act, as enacted by the bill.” Again, you’re not going to know much about what I’m saying there until we drill down and see the details of what this is about.

But I will comment again that when you look at what’s happened with wildlife, there really is a serious problem with the numbers, and there is a decline. It’s alarming. Since the time I came into this legislative building until today — only eight years, but it’s not getting better. It’s getting worse when it comes to concerns about wildlife and, certainly, concerns about endangered species.

There are real problems with endangered species in the province of British Columbia. And certainly issues like the problem with the caribou and the moose — there needs to be a lot more done. I know there are varying reports on the bears — and the grizzly bears, especially — on what exactly is there. I hear from wildlife groups that one of the things they want is to have better science to make sure that there is good reporting on those kinds of things.

In terms of the wildfire investigators, that sounds, on its face, like a useful thing. I assume that there’s a problem that the current legislation isn’t giving enough time. There are several sections that talk about giving investigators, in other parts of the bill, more time.

But again, wildfire…. there are lightning strikes. Certainly, in my history, I’ve seen some activity where it was logging, actually, that accidentally started a fire. So there have been logging accidents creating fires. There have been, certainly, lightning strikes being, I would say, a major cause of fires in British Columbia. And vandalism — while that’s a part of it, I’m sure it’s not the major part of it.

[1740]

So again, I’m concerned about what exactly this wildfire investigation, and the extra time, are going to do, unless it is truly to deal with the part of the concern that most of the public has, and that’s with vandalism-type fires, where it’s actually been caused.

I don’t know. I look forward to hearing more from the minister about that on whether he believes that’s a real issue.
[ Page 14058 ]

One of the things that’s not in this bill…. I think it is fair to comment, again, when you see a bill that is so sparse in its content and yet there are major problems. Let’s just camp for a minute on the value-added issue. I’ve had delegations from the value-added industry who have come and talked to us about the alarming trend of the cutting in half of value-added.

When I was a young man, I remember organizing the Plenks Wood Centre, because they made fine European doors and windows out of our high-value, old-growth fir. It was a product. A huge price paid for that. I’ve talked to people like Coulson, who are doing value-added products in Port Alberni, so there is still very much a need for those kinds of high-value products.

But I don’t know how many people are aware that on the coast of British Columbia, we’ve had some pretty heavy lifting done on things like cedar and fir high-value logs, and the hemlock, which used to be 60 percent…. I don’t know whether it’s now 70 percent, but it’s got to be a growing trend. I was there when hemlock….

I’ll just use this example. I remember representing the guys at the CIPA sawmill in Nanaimo in 1997, when they were selling baby squares — they looked like 4-by-4s — to the Japanese, because that was when the Itochu mill, a Japanese company, was involved in that mill. They were involved because they could get access to some of the best timber on the coast of British Columbia.

But those baby square hemlock went from $900 per thousand board feet down to $300. Suddenly, they were one-third the value. That was a dramatic impact from the collapse of the Japanese market. I know that was one of the remaining…. They highly valued our clear hemlock.

So we do have a problem. We’ve got a high volume of hemlock left on the coast, but I know that the coast is one area that hasn’t been completely getting their annual allowable cut, while in the Interior and the north they’ve got a problem with a shrinking annual allowable cut and a real problem in the future towards timber supply. Depending on who you talk to, some people say it’s ten or maybe even 20 mills. I hope it’s not 20 mills, but it’s alarming what’s going to happen as a result of the consolidation and the downsizing.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

You know, the reality is that we were harvesting as if there was no tomorrow. But there is a tomorrow. One day, the piper has to be paid, when you’re cutting at rates that are not sustainable in the long term in the forests of British Columbia. That day has come in some of our regions already and impacted places like Quesnel. It has impacted places like Houston and, more recently, the Merritt mill. The value-added industry, again, has been decimated.

You know, we hear this stuff about log exports. I always love it that the minister comes forward and…. I get it. The minister follows the playbook and says: “Hey. In the province of British Columbia, we have this rule. You can’t export logs unless they’re surplus to your needs.” Well, if you shred enough mills, if you close enough mills, guess what? Hello, Houston? They’re going to be surplus to your needs, if you have enough mills close.

[1745]

Sadly, we’ve had 204 mills close.

Now we’ve seen the sad stats that we’ve got — growing log exports, going up 500 percent or 600 percent from where it was back in the 1990s, which we’ve heard talk about. The one thing we won’t ever hear from the other side is that they won’t be referring to the log exports from the 1990s, because there were dramatically less log exports. I do believe that while the government has put some band-aids on the problem with some tweaking of the rates, they haven’t worked as effectively as I would like to have seen to level the playing field for British Columbia’s forest workers.

Obviously, what B.C. forest workers want is a fair chance. I still remember that back in the 1990s, MacMillan Bloedel was still around, and we still had the wonderful team systems where they were getting along with management. The workers said something controversial to management. They said: “You know what? What if we, as a crew, agreed that we would pay the log export price?” This is a premium of somewhere between 80 to 100 bucks a cubic metre. A cubic metre, by the way, is a telephone-pole-sized piece of wood.

“If we paid the extra money to buy the wood, in theory, through the company,” they said, “we’ll bet you that we can sell that lumber and the material that we produce out of those logs and make money for the company. You’ll make as much money as you’re making on the lower-value logs that we’re getting most of the time. These are the primo.”

These guys knew, don’t forget. These were some of the best sawmillers on the coast of British Columbia, who knew precisely how to take maximum value out of every piece of wood. They did have the help of optimizers and edgers that optimized. They literally scanned the wood, and they set up the best cuts per slab to get the best value. They proved that it could be done, that they could actually sell the lumber and make money, still, for the people of British Columbia and for that company, for MacMillan Bloedel.

But the answer the crew got back was less than satisfactory. When they said to management, “Well, can we continue this?” they said: “No, no. Management is not going to continue this, because the companies that are buying from us want a combination of logs and lumber.” So there was a bit of a situation where the customer was basically saying: “Hey, no, no. We don’t want this going on. We don’t want you competing for our logs. We want you to be selling those logs to us.”

Again, they had all the logs they needed. It’s not like that mill didn’t have the fibre supply. They were one of
[ Page 14059 ]
the top producers, the highest-value mills, in British Columbia, the Chemainus mill. I don’t know how many of you know that. I’ve been through it many times. I’m proud of the guys that work there. There are about 160 guys that work in the Chemainus mill. They do a fantastic job, and they cut some of the highest-value logs in British Columbia, right there in Chemainus.

I want to mention that there’s nothing here for the TLA. I have heard from the TLA. If anybody just needs to pick up one of the truck loggers’ magazines…. I had experience when I was working with the union, working on the issue of contractors going broke and the fact that with contractors’ rates, there’s a bit of a race to the bottom. And as costs go up….

If you imagine yourself a logging contractor, and you want to bid for high-value timber, but it’s in a high elevation — I don’t want to get into the heavy details about hoe-chucking versus using yarding and loading, or grapple-yarding or whatever — normally, they can’t use hoe-chucking. They can use that down in the lower elevations, but it starts to become prohibitive when you start to get into high-elevation logging. It means you have to buy more expensive logging equipment to get into the high elevation. I’ve heard loud and clear from the TLA that they’re not happy at all about the lack of an arbitration process to deal with that.

[1750]

Again, this bill may be working very well on trying to do something with wildfire and wildlife, although it’s a pretty skinny chicken. You have to really, really scratch hard to find anything in here that’s going to help the wildlife crisis in the province of British Columbia.

Again, I’ll be listening excitedly for glimpses of some real action here on how we’re going to help the missing moose and the missing caribou here in the province of British Columbia with such an act. I hasten to say that would be jiggery-pokery. If a person had a report and they claimed to know exactly where the moose were, I would be very suspicious. I have yet to meet a man or woman standing that can tell us what’s going on with the moose exactly.

There are theories. One of the theories that makes a lot of sense to me is that with all these roads, transmission lines, pipelines, the new logging roads, access roads to run-of-river projects, etc., it’s a veritable freeway for all of the wolves and all of the predators that are out there. If you were a predator….

I’ve seen this myself, again, back in the day when I used to go hunting. I remember coming home at night. There were two cougars, one big male and a female, sitting on the road in Meade Creek. They had the perfect place, this beautiful deer trail, and down about a 400-foot embankment.

These deer would come wandering up there, and here are these two cougars looking at opposite sides of the road. When we came around the corner, their eyes lit up. It was actually a beautiful sight. I wish I had a camera to capture that because it was absolutely stunning and amazing.

But my point is, well, now we don’t see the cougars or the deer in Meade Creek. So for wildlife, again, we’re scratching the surface. We are going to hear more of the details about this.

I appreciate this opportunity, and I’m happy to adjourn debate.

Have a wonderful weekend. No jiggery-pokery involved, I’m sure.

B. Routley moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Letnick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada