Third Session, 41st Parliament (2018)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 109
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
|
Documents referenced during debate on estimates for the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy |
|
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2018
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
E. Ross: I have an unexpected acquaintance sitting in the gallery today. It comes from my previous experience as chief councillor of Haisla Nation, and it goes back to what I really thought reconciliation meant: meeting in the middle of two or more parties.
Mr. Ron Poole was an administrator for the Terrace council in his day, and he got recruited to the Kitimat council to try and resolve the relationship between my band and theirs in Kitimat. He did a great job. We had some really interesting conversations over those years, but at the end of the day, he actually brought our groups together. Will the House please make welcome Mr. Ron Poole.
A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to welcome today 20 students and three teachers from two high schools. The first high school — a high school in my riding, Lambrick Park high school — is the alma mater of my daughter and just down the road from where we live. They’re a host school for Immaculata High School in Ottawa. This whole event was coordinated in Victoria by my six- or seven-year hockey buddy, Tom Turnbull, who is a teacher at Lambrick Park. Would the House please make them all feel very welcome here today.
B. D’Eith: I’d like to welcome to the House a couple of gentlemen from one of the fastest-growing communities in British Columbia and, as I like to say, the start of the West Coast Express: Randy Hawes, former MLA and mayor of Mission, and Ron Poole, chief administration officer. Welcome to the House. We’d like to make them all feel welcome.
S. Gibson: I, too, would like to welcome…. Thanks to the member across for the reminder. It’s good to have Randy Hawes, who served here for three terms and is reprising his role as mayor. It’s a pleasure to welcome Randy here. He also served as a member of cabinet and was caucus Whip. Would this House please give former MLA Randy Hawes a warm legislative welcome.
Hon. J. Horgan: At the risk of piling on, because I know that we try to restrict the number of introductions one individual gets, I can’t help but acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Randy Hawes.
I’m hopeful that he understands the rules of the public gallery. Any heckling that he may have considered during question period should be kept to an absolute minimum.
Thank you very much. Good to see you.
R. Kahlon: I’d like to join my colleague, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, to welcome Lambrick Park. I’m a graduate of Lambrick Park, a Lambrick Park Lion. It’s nice to see my fellow Lions up in the audience today. I look forward to seeing them after question period today. Please make them welcome again.
N. Letnick: In the House today we have Dr. Sean Spina, pharmacy clinical coordinator for Island Health. He’s here to talk with me about things that really impact health care. Would the House please make him feel very welcome.
R. Singh: They are not here yet, but soon we will be joined by 28 grades 5 and 6 students from Creekside Elementary. They will be joined by their teacher, Mr. Peter Erceg. It was such an honour to visit these students a few weeks ago. I was so amazed by their interest in politics. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.
A. Olsen: All this love being heaped on Lambrick Park…. I thought I should note that Mr. Scott Gordon and 38 grade 11 students from my alma mater, Stelly’s Secondary, home of the Stingers, are in the House today. Could everybody please make them feel welcome.
R. Chouhan: To those members who may not already know her, it is my pleasure to introduce Jennifer Arril. Jennifer is temporarily taking on duties as Committee Clerk in Committee of Supply for the upcoming weeks. She’s worked in the Parliamentary Committees Office at the Legislative Assembly for the past several years. Would the House please join me in welcoming Jennifer to her new role.
T. Shypitka: We all make sacrifices being in the House. Today that is so for me. I just want to do a quick shout-out to my son Adam, who is ten years old today. I’m proud of the little guy. He’s a hockey player. He’s fun, and he’s funny. I would just like to recognize that and have the House welcome and celebrate his tenth birthday today.
Tributes
ANDY THOMAS
Hon. J. Horgan: I rise today on a sad note, on the traditional territories of the Lekwungen-speaking people, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations, to acknowledge and pay tribute to the passing of Chief Andrew Thomas, who, sadly, passed away on Saturday in his home community.
Chief Andy, as he was known, led the Esquimalt Nation for 47 years. He did so with integrity and dignity and respect for all peoples in the region.
Andy was looked to as a leader. I know many in this House had interactions with him. I know the member for Richmond South Centre, in her former capacity, met with Andy several times as he constantly gave of himself to come to the Legislature to participate in the activities of this place on behalf of the Esquimalt people. He did so, always, with profound respect and understanding of the traditions here but passionately defending the traditions of his people.
Andy leaves behind a wife, Mary Anne, and a family who are deeply grieving at this time, and an entire community that has lost a respected leader and will be grieving for some time.
In honour of Chief Thomas, the flag, which is currently at half-mast to pay honour to the 15 who lost their lives in the Humboldt Broncos tragedy, will continue to fly at half-mast until the conclusion of Chief Andy’s memorial service on Thursday at 9 a.m. in the big house in Esquimalt territory.
It is a deep loss for the people of the south Island and a deep loss for the Indigenous communities right across British Columbia.
Chief Andy will be remembered as a giant in Esquimalt and a giant for reconciliation. It’s in his memory that I and all of us in this House should continue to do everything we can to lean forward into our reconciliation efforts in the interests of all British Columbians.
D. Ashton: I would like to thank the Premier for his remarks, and I would like to join in paying respect to a great leader with him.
For almost five decades, Chief Thomas led the Esquimalt Nation. When he first became Chief in 1971, the Prime Minister was Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the leader of this province was W.A.C. Bennett. For all those changes that he saw, he was always a constant — a respected voice and a devoted advocate for his people, their culture and their rights.
He also took the long view. He liked to point out that the treaty signed by his ancestor Sisunuq and James Douglas was just six generations ago.
Seenupin, as his name was, leaves an incredible legacy for the Esquimalt First Nations to follow, and especially the youth. Our thoughts are with the family and the community during this very difficult time.
A. Olsen: I also would like to raise my hands and thank the Premier and the government for acknowledging Seenupin. Seenupin is a relative of mine. He was my dad’s cousin. His mother and my dad’s mother, my grandmother Laura, ZIȻOT, were first cousins, so we referred to him as Uncle Andy.
Andy was a tremendous leader, as has already been pointed out and acknowledged. He would always be noted for his traditional ball cap. It usually had a big eagle, right front and centre.
Seenupin was a tremendous cultural leader in our communities here in the Saanich Lekwungen territories, very well respected. He was a very astute political leader as well and, as has been pointed out, bridged modern days and modern ways with a very strong and solid traditional understanding, which he brought to his conversations and his debates and his leadership.
The last time I saw Seenupin was at my Uncle Jim’s prayer service. The time before that was at my Uncle Eric’s prayer service, both within the last couple of months. One of the things that Seenupin told me, and was weighing heavily on him, was the number of elders that we have lost in this territory and in this region over the past few months. There’s been a tremendous amount of loss within the First Nations communities, and Chief Andy Thomas was wearing that.
So my thoughts are to my Aunt Mary Anne, my cousins and, as well, all of the Thomas family, all of the Esquimalt family and all of the family that we have here in Lekwungen and WSÁNEĆ territories.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 13 — PUBLIC SERVICE
AMENDMENT ACT,
2018
Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Service Amendment Act, 2018.
Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 13, Public Service Amendment Act, 2018, be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m pleased to introduce the amendments to the Public Service Act. This bill amends the Public Service Act to implement the government’s response to recommendation 27 of the Ombudsperson’s Misfire report from April of 2017. That recommendation called for the Office of the Merit Commissioner to assume a new responsibility for the review of just-cause dismissals in the public service.
The proposed amendments to the Public Service Act assign that function to the Merit Commissioner, as recommended, with responsibility to provide oversight, conduct independent reviews, identify any systemic issues and publicly report out those aggregate results.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 13, Public Service Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
NANCY GREENE RAINE
T. Stone: Today I’m proud to acknowledge a remarkable British Columbian, Nancy Greene Raine. Anyone who has met her knows that Nancy is a female powerhouse who has put B.C. and Canada on the map in alpine skiing. Nicknamed Tiger because of her go-for-it attitude and aggressive style of skiing, she was named Canada’s female athlete of the 20th century, after competing in three Olympic Games, winning 17 Canadian titles, 13 World Cup victories and three U.S. ski championships.
And 2018 is a big year for Nancy. It marks the 50th anniversary of her Olympic gold- and silver-medal wins at the 1968 Winter Games in Grenoble. Nancy also hits a birthday milestone in May, turning 75. And what better early birthday gift than to be highlighted in the new, recently released Canada Post stamp series that features women in winter sports?
Nancy is also a community builder and counts as one of her proudest contributions having served as Thompson Rivers University chancellor up in Kamloops. She has thus been awarded the Order of Canada and the Order of British Columbia.
She’s an advocate for skiing, both for tourism and as healthy recreation. She and Al Raine, her husband of 49 years, were instrumental in the early expansion of B.C.’s ski tourism industry, both in Whistler Blackcomb and up at Sun Peaks, where she currently holds the title of director of skiing.
She faithfully skis with any member of the public who wants to join her on most weekends and holidays. All you have to do is meet her at 1 p.m. sharp at the top of the Sunburst chairlift.
Nancy Green Raine will be retiring from the Canadian Senate this year after nine active years of serving British Columbians. As a senator, she has shared her passion for the promotion of health and fitness. In 2014, her bill to establish a national health and fitness day across Canada was unanimously passed in both the Senate and the House of Commons.
I would like to ask the House today to please join me in wishing Nancy Green Raine an early happy birthday and also in celebrating her many contributions to British Columbians.
ANDY THOMAS
M. Dean: Our community lost a great leader when Esquimalt Nation Chief Andrew Thomas, whose traditional name was Seenupin, died unexpectedly over this past weekend. For 47 years, he was Hereditary Chief through his great-great-great-grandfather, Sisunuq. He was known as Chief Andy, a humble man who worked every day for the well-being of his people and a champion of Indigenous rights.
He helped to develop the Assembly of First Nations, was on the executive of the First Nations of South Island Tribal Council and was honoured with the Chancellor’s Community Recognition Award from Royal Roads University.
His legacy lives among us now and into the future each time we see the signs in the Lekwungen language and Salish artworks that extend across this region, and when we recognize the traditional territory upon which we do our work here.
As a statement from Esquimalt Nation highlighted, he was a devoted husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle, friend, partner, teacher and colleague, and he embraced these responsibilities with pride and honour. He was always surrounded by his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. His charisma and humour drew people to his house, and his door was always open.
His passing has deeply affected his family, his community and the entire Salish peoples, as well as those who had the honour to know him. He will be deeply missed.
I was honoured to get to know and work with Chief Andy and deeply appreciated his honesty and his wisdom. My deepest condolences go to all those who knew and loved this great man. Especially, I send my sincere thoughts to his wife, Mary Anne, and his family at this time of grief.
UMOJA OPERATION COMPASSION SOCIETY
M. Hunt: Moving to a new province or even to a new city is an arduous and often frustrating endeavour. Boxing up your life, saying goodbye to your loved ones and your support network and stepping into the unknown — it’s stressful, to say the least.
Imagine how much more daunting it must be to move across the world for a new start, a better life, for safety for your children. The Umoja Operation Compassion Society of British Columbia is a non-profit society that has been serving new immigrants and refugee families in Surrey for nearly two decades.
As Surrey continues to be B.C.’s largest recipient of refugees and immigrants, the work of Umoja remains vital to our community. In fact, 48 percent of the newcomers to B.C. come to Surrey. In order for these families to feel at home in Surrey, Umoja helps them to overcome obstacles such as poverty, learning a new language, unemployment, culture shock, isolation and feelings of hopelessness.
Umoja empowers new families through a variety of culturally sensitive programs, including adult literacy, life skills and children’s after-school programming. They assist families in assessing resources and learning about local community events, schools, social services and housing.
Perhaps more importantly though, the newcomers they serve find solidarity and community with others who can best identify and empathize with their journey to B.C. Umoja means “unity” in Swahili, and as its name suggests, this organization promotes unity and compassion, respect and dignity amongst minority immigrants and refugees. Traits such as these are invaluable in fostering successful, vibrant communities, and Umoja proves just how far kindness and compassion can go.
SOCKEYE SALMON POEM
A. Olsen:
Oh splendorous sockeye!
How can I replace
your red flesh offerings,
your salty silver scales?
How can I dance
to your memory?
The memory I hold in my cells,
the memory I hold in my skin,
the memory I hold in my wildness,
the part of me that is not human,
the part of me that is fish.
Oh splendorous sockeye!
I sit at the table
of a bountiful ocean,
knowing the fasting has begun,
knowing that you are more than food.
A family within a family,
that humankind cannot replenish.
Sorry sockeye.
Sorry tree. Sorry mountain. Sorry meadow.
Wolf, frog. Sorry bear, otter. Sorry eagle.
Sorry forest floor. Sorry canopy.
Sorry fungi, sapling, fern.
Sorry moss. Sorry lichen.
Sorry stream, lake, ocean.
Sorry kelp. Sorry seal. Sorry orca.
Sorry air, wind, sky, clouds.
Sorry stars. Sorry moon.
Sorry parents. Sorry grandparents.
Sorry children.
TRANS TIPPING POINT PROJECT
AND SUPPORT FOR LGBTQ
YOUTH
J. Thornthwaite: Yesterday I met with the folks from the Transgender Tipping Point project, a UVic initiative organized by Dr. Lindsay Herriot and Kate Fry. This book-writing project brings together 25 transgender and non-binary youth from every corner of British Columbia and from across Canada. Besides publishing their own book about what it’s like to grow up as transgendered today, they’ve also been working with MLAs from all three parties to enact policy and legislation that’s by trans youth, for trans youth.
Mental health and addictions affects all levels of society. It knows no boundaries for socioeconomic status, education, race, religion, sexual orientation or sex. We, as a society, need to work harder in trying to prevent what we can for those people who may be at risk, and that often starts in the schools with vulnerable or marginalized youth, including LGBTQ and trans youth. Plus, support for transitioning youth is often unstable and unevenly distributed. Check out Trans Care B.C. for more information.
Recent university studies have determined that school policies that support LGBTQ youth also support their non-LGBTQ peers. A 2014 study by Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc determined that gay-straight alliances reduce the likelihood of suicide by heterosexual boys by 50 percent. In schools that had anti-homophobic policies integrated over three years, the consideration of suicide among heterosexual boys was reduced by 27 percent.
Most recently, in February of this year, Out in Schools, a provincewide program that empowers students and educators to create inclusive school environments, announced that their programs not only reduce bullying for LGBTQ youth but also for non-LGBTQ students in the entire school. Out in Schools has reached more than 100,000 youth across B.C. since its inception and continues to fight homophobia and transphobia across the province.
I’m proud of our B.C. Liberal government supporting the LGBTQ community and realize that we have to increase acceptance and tolerance for all youth, no matter their sexual orientation, race, sex or religion.
AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER AWARENESS
R. Singh: April is Autism Awareness Month in British Columbia, and today I rise to bring awareness to autism spectrum disorder, or ASD. I see that many of the members of the House are wearing an autism ribbon pin in honour of those affected by this condition.
The ribbon symbolizes awareness of autism spectrum disorder, and the interconnection of colourful jigsaw puzzle pieces represents the complexity of ASD, the different shapes and colours represent the diversity of people who are living with ASD, their families and the broader community. The colours in the ribbon are bright and basic and symbolize hope and inspiration for research, treatment and support.
ASD is often diagnosed in children between the ages of two and three and refers to a wide range of conditions that are characterized by challenges with social skills, repetitive behaviours, speech and non-verbal communication. Oftentimes children with ASD exhibit unique strengths and differences.
As awareness of ASD increases, the number of children diagnosed with ASD also continues to increase. In February 2007, one in every 209 children in B.C. received autism funding. In February of this year, that number has risen to one in every 51 children, resulting in increased demand and pressure for our autism programs.
Although autism spectrum disorder is usually associated with children, it is a lifelong condition. While many of those with ASD are able to reach a point where they no longer need to rely on a parent or a caregiver, just as many require support throughout their entire lives.
I hope the members of this House will stand with me in support of all those whose lives are touched by this condition.
Oral Questions
DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON
TRANS MOUNTAIN
PIPELINE
A. Wilkinson: Yesterday we heard from the Premier, in tones that can only be described as dismissive, of this emerging fiasco that is now dominating the headlines across the country.
He has created this problem. If he had a look at the media overnight, he’d realize that we’re seeing quotes like the one from Global News: “It’s a volcanic reaction. I’ve never seen a more negative reaction.” Yet we find his members mocking this concern.
Our province is facing a trade war with Alberta. The federal cabinet is meeting today in an emergency meeting to contemplate what actions to take to bring British Columbia back to the table, and we have an arrogant Premier who is completely dismissive of these concerns.
The question arises: what is this Premier going to do? What is his plan to resolve this emerging war with Alberta and an ongoing dispute with the government of Canada and a completely destructive approach to the investment community?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. I do think, though, it’s important that the House understand the context we find ourselves in. That is that when we formed government, we joined with an existing court case questioning the validity of the National Energy Board process — one that had been started before we were sworn in and one that we’re proud to have joined.
The second opportunity for us to intervene in this process was the result of our desire to communicate with British Columbians, to consult with them on what tools we should use to protect our land, our water and to defend our coast, at the end of the day, against the possibility of a diluted bitumen spill that would have had an adverse consequence — a significantly adverse consequence — on our economy and on our environment.
When we began that consultation process, there was a volcanic response from the government of Alberta. I spoke with the Prime Minister, I spoke with the Minister of Justice, and we determined that the best course of action, at that time, would be to refer the matter — a jurisdictional question — to a higher court. We’re in the process of doing that.
I will remind the member that, at the time, the government of Alberta suspended its illegal trade war and said this was the right way to go.
So what’s changed? Well, a boardroom in Texas issued a press release, and the Leader of the Opposition has jumped on board to defend the rights of shareholders in a multinational company rather than defend the rights of British Columbians.
I’m going to stand on the side of British Columbians, if that’s all right with the member on the other side.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: Well, it’s quite apparent that the Premier did not read the newspapers or listen to the radio and TV in the last 24 hours. Perhaps we can quote from a local paper, the Times Colonist. The headline: “Kinder Surprise Sets the Stage for Showdown. B.C.-Alberta Truce Is Over, and Worst-case Scenarios Are Where the Smart Money Is.”
The Premier now purports to hide behind litigation. Well, the federal government has been crystal clear on their position on this — that the case being put forward by this Premier has no merit whatsoever under the Constitution of Canada. The Premier hides behind the idea that Texas shareholders are driving the agenda. Well, he didn’t read the newspaper, because 77 percent of the shareholders are in Canada.
So this Premier is picking a fight with our most important trading partner, Alberta; getting into a disciplinary action coming from Ottawa later this afternoon after a federal cabinet meeting; has completely dismissed the investment community across this country; and has destroyed British Columbia’s reputation as an investment destination.
Now we find a Premier who jumps up, smiles, has his backbenchers laugh at us. When is the Premier going to take this matter seriously? The newspapers are taking it very seriously, and he is not.
Hon. J. Horgan: I just want to correct the member on the other side. I do take this matter very seriously. All British Columbians take it very seriously.
We campaigned to ensure that we were going to defend our coast, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. We’ve been doing that for the past nine months. We’re doing that through the courts.
We are asserting that we have jurisdiction on areas of environment with respect to our air, water and lands. I’m surprised that someone — a former Attorney General — would suggest that rather than test that assumption, we should just take the word of a headline writer. I’m not going to do that. I’m going to assert the rights of British Columbians every day.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: It’s a pleasure to stand in this House and take legal advice from our Premier after I’ve been practising law for 25 years.
Apparently, this Premier has decided that the federal ministry of Justice simply has no competence in the field. He’s decided to cook up a lawsuit to try and drag this out, to make a totally unnecessary dispute viable in the eyes of the public, yet the newspapers aren’t buying it. We’ve seen this again in the Times Colonist yesterday.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.
A. Wilkinson: Federal cabinet holds emergency meeting. Government promises legal, regulatory, financial options.
This Premier stands totally isolated in Canada on this file. He purports to wrap himself in the flag of the people of British Columbia, but he has failed to recognize that no one else thinks he has the jurisdiction to do what he’s trying to do. And that is clear from the government of Alberta, from the government of Saskatchewan, from the government of Canada and from the investment community.
The Premier smiles smugly, thinking he is going to wrap himself in British Columbia’s virtues and somehow prevail. He’s backed himself into a bad corner, and it’s time to eat humble pie.
When will this Premier come to his senses, get on the plane, go to Ottawa and try to resolve this crisis?
Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll just remind the member that practice does make perfect, and 25 years might not be quite enough to get to the final point on that. And when it comes to humility, I will not take lessons from the member on the other side.
However, I do believe this is an important opportunity for the House to understand and all British Columbians to understand where we are and how we got here. Again, I’ll repeat for the member, and I’ll do it in a way that I’m certain he will understand: there was legal action underway when we were sworn in. We joined that case. There is a question of jurisdiction, and questions should be answered not in headlines, not in letters to the editor, but in court, which is exactly what we propose to do.
Lastly, wrapping myself in the flag of British Columbia is exactly what the Premier of British Columbia is supposed to do, and I’m surprised the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t understand that.
DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON
TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE
AND TRUCKING INDUSTRY
T. Stone: I’m certain that most British Columbians would feel that it is not the Premier’s job to provoke a trade war with Alberta and to provoke a trade war that could result in very serious consequences for the people of British Columbia.
Now, the Alberta government has been very, very clear about their intentions to impose serious economic consequences on British Columbia. One demand being made in Alberta at the moment is imposing comprehensive inspections on 100 percent of B.C.’s commercial vehicles entering or exiting Alberta.
Now, I’d like to ask the Minister of Transportation this question. Has the minister considered what impact this action would have on B.C.’s trucking industry?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question.
Again, the trade war that he spoke of was a one-sided battle. We had the province to our east say they were no longer going to accept wine shipments from British Columbia. Our response was to say: “That’s illegal, and you shouldn’t do that.”
Now they’ve withdrawn that position. They may well have others, but I don’t think it’s useful to speculate on the actions of other people. Instead, we should focus on the actions of this Legislature and the actions of the people of British Columbia. What we’ve been doing since we were sworn in is to work as hard as we can to make life better for British Columbians. That’s what we campaigned on, and that’s what we’re doing.
Now, I appreciate that the members on the other side feel more comfortable opposing the government, but it wasn’t that long ago that the leader of the government, Christy Clark, said the following: “Aside from the politics of trying to force something on a province to which they haven’t consented, British Columbia has the power to grant or withhold about 60 permits.” That was the position of those people on that side not that long ago.
We have not been thwarting due process. We have been issuing permits as they’ve been requested. All we have done is said that we would assert our rights and our jurisdiction to protect British Columbia’s economy and its environment. That’s what the people of this province expect us to do, not to kowtow to another province or read headlines and dictate policies based on the whims of the Leader of the Official Opposition.
Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.
T. Stone: This isn’t idle speculation on the part of the official opposition. These are actual actions that are being considered in the province of Alberta. We would hope that the Minister of Transportation would be actively engaged in this file.
Now, I’ll ask the Minister of Transportation again. The demand being made in Alberta is to enact inspections for compliance with Alberta traffic laws on each and every B.C. commercial vehicle whenever a truck crosses the border. To the Minister of Transportation, does she know what the consequences would be for B.C.’s trucking industry should Alberta move forward with this action?
Hon. J. Horgan: It is interesting that after just one question, we’re on to speculation of what might be. I think it would be more appropriate if we talked about the realities facing British Columbians today — that is, how do we make life more affordable? How do we ensure that the services they need — in many cases denied by those on the other side for many, many years — are put in place?
That’s the role and function of government. It’s not to read headlines. It’s not to speculate on what might happen. It’s to focus on the realities that people are facing every day. The vast majority of British Columbians believe that our coast deserves defence, and it’s appropriate and responsible for the government of British Columbia to stand up to those who have a different point of view — which, it turns out, is not just the government of Alberta, but it’s also the official opposition.
NATURAL GAS ROYALTIES
S. Furstenau: For a time in B.C., we received huge annual royalty revenues from our natural gas sector that helped pay for essential public services, but those days are gone. Even worse, B.C. has been essentially giving away gas worth billions without a fair return to the public treasury. As Marc Lee writes, royalty regimes are “supposed to capture a fair share of the economic rent” for the extraction of resources that are owned by the public. “This is particularly important for non-renewable resources like gas,” because once they’re extracted, they’re gone forever.
While B.C. gas production has continued to increase, the royalty revenues in this province have plummeted from $2 billion in 2005 to $139 million in 2015. We are giving away more gas for less money while barrelling past our climate commitments.
To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, what specific steps has the minister done to remedy this staggering economic and generational sellout?
Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for the question. However, the information she is presenting is not quite accurate. I’ve offered to provide the Green caucus, several times, with a briefing on this particular issue. That offer still stands, and I’m very happy to take the time whenever they’re available to get the information.
What we’re talking about is the deep-well royalty program. I just want to remind the member that last year we received $145 million in royalties. What’s important to this program, which provides credits, is that not all credits are actually realized. While credits might be banked, they might not actually be claimed. There’s a variety of reasons that determine that.
One of the important things to note in all of this is that minimum royalty payments are required. They ensure that a company always contributes to the province, no matter how many credits they may have.
Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.
S. Furstenau: I’d like to point out that I talked about the revenues that we have received as a province. As our gas production has increased, our revenues have plummeted from $2 billion in 2005 to $139 million in 2015, with more gas being exported from our province. I’m deeply concerned that the minister doesn’t find this as troubling as we do.
The deep-well royalty program was designed to enable the provincial government to share the cost of innovation for drilling in B.C.’s deep-gas basins. It has since transformed into a massive subsidy to incentivize horizontal drilling, including shallow wells and hydraulic fracturing. We already know that B.C. earns very little from its natural gas royalties. Worse still, there is more than $3.2 billion in unclaimed credits that can be applied against future royalties.
The minister doesn’t seem too concerned that we have a $3.2 billion fracking debt. However, I think that should be a concern for every citizen in B.C.
To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, will the minister terminate the deep-well royalty program and focus on supporting innovation in the B.C. economy that will lead our province towards a low-carbon economy?
Hon. M. Mungall: The member would likely know that we have commenced a hydraulic fracturing review scientific panel that is looking at the practice of hydraulic fracturing, specifically to look at those innovations that she mentioned.
However, when it comes to the deep-well royalty credit program, again, her characterization is not quite accurate. I’m more than happy to ensure that they get a full briefing so they understand how those credits accumulate and then how they actually are applied on a day-to-day basis within our province to ensure that not only is our natural gas sector competitive globally but that we’re also ensuring that British Columbians receive the return on their investment and on their natural resources.
DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON
TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND
IMPACT ON FUEL SUPPLY AND PRICES
P. Milobar: The government of Alberta is in the process of passing legislation that would allow it to cut off fuel supplies and impose serious economic consequences on British Columbia. Clearly, working British Columbians will be hurt as a result of these actions.
Has the Environment Minister considered what impact this action would have on fuel supplies and prices in British Columbia?
Hon. J. Horgan: I’m not aware of the legislation the member is talking about. I was in contact with my deputy minister this morning. There is no legislation. I don’t know what he’s speaking of, but it is an opportunity for me to remind members on the other side what former Premier Christy Clark said about these sorts of issues: “The thing is, if British Columbia doesn’t give its consent to this, there is no way the federal government or anyone else in the country is going to be able to force it through.”
Now, that was the former Premier. I don’t know what happened on the road from here to there, but it seems that those on that side of the House have lost sight of the important role of people in this Legislature, and that is to defend British Columbia and to promote the interests of the people of this great province.
Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.
P. Milobar: I’d point out that the quote the Premier keeps referencing was before the project was actually finally approved by both the federal government and the provincial government.
Now we have an approved project, and we have a trade war that is brewing — and without a plan to extract British Columbia from this NDP-created crisis. It is working British Columbians that will pay the price. Rather than being dismissive, perhaps the minister ought to be worried about the serious implications of these actions.
Again to the minister, does he know the potential impact of the pending Alberta legislation?
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, now it’s pending legislation. We’ll await that legislation. But I am absolutely convinced that when it is tabled, it will be illegal. We have rules in Canada. We have the rule of law in Canada, and I don’t understand the problem these people have with this side of the House saying: “Let’s go to court to resolve these issues.” That’s what we’ve been doing since we were sworn in, that’s what we started in February, and that’s what we’ll continue to do.
I don’t think it’s in anyone’s interest for those on that side of the House to create crisis when we are in court trying to determine what our jurisdiction is. What problem they have with that is a mystery to me, and I’m fairly confident it’s a mystery to the people of B.C. as well.
DISPUTE WITH ALBERTA ON
TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE
AND IMPACT ON BUSINESSES
S. Bond: Well, the Premier can stand in this House, and he can dismiss, he can deflect, he can claim to be on the side of British Columbians, but maybe the question to the Premier is: which British Columbians? Yesterday the Premier simply dismissed the concerns of the very people who create jobs and grow the economy in our province. The last time I checked, they were British Columbians too. The Vancouver Board of Trade, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the B.C. Business Council — the list goes on.
Let’s try the Minister of Jobs. What does the Minister of Jobs have to say to thousands of British Columbian job creators who are concerned about the reckless actions of his government?
Hon. J. Horgan: Firstly, I’m not dismissing, and I’m not deflecting. I’m defending the interests and the jurisdiction of British Columbia. For the past nine months, I have been meeting with leaders in industry. We have been having very positive interactions about how we can grow a bigger economy, a better economy, one that includes all British Columbians. That’s the goal and role and function of the province of British Columbia.
I have to remind members that we were working through the courts until this past weekend, when a boardroom in Texas issued a press release which then became the lifeline for the Leader of the Opposition to try and find some relevance in the debates that are going on in British Columbia. The facts remain as they are. We are in court seeking a jurisdictional dispute resolution process, as any reasonable and responsible government should do. This hyperbolic notion that somehow crisis was created by this side of the House has no basis in fact.
Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: Let’s be clear. The question that I asked in the House has little to do with a boardroom in Texas. It has everything to do with thousands of job creators who are voicing their concerns. It’s not just the people on this side of the House. Thousands of job creators in this province are asking this Premier to clean up his mess. When they’re worried, we’re worried, and the Premier should be worried too.
The Vancouver Board of Trade has a very specific ask. They ask this government, not the boardroom in Texas, to immediately end their tactics to block the project. They are British Columbians too. What does the Premier have to say to the Vancouver Board of Trade and other job-creating organizations in this province, or is he simply going to continue to be dismissive and disrespectful?
Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate the passion of the member on the other side, but again, I think we have to look at the situation we find ourselves in. We entered an existing legal action that was undertaken prior to our arrival. We have also sought jurisdictional resolution to a dispute between parties — the province of British Columbia and the province of Alberta.
If I am clear on this, the thousands of job creators the member talks about oftentimes resort to court action to resolve disputes. That’s appropriate, and that’s as it should be. Why is it, then, if it’s okay for individuals or corporations to enter into a courtroom to resolve disputes, that it’s not okay for the province of British Columbia to use the courts in an appropriate and respectful manner to determine what our jurisdiction is so that we can do our job — that is, to defend the interests of British Columbians?
TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND
TRANSPORT OF OIL BY
RAIL
L. Throness: I live in Chilliwack, which is bisected by the main CN Rail line. Twenty-eight trains, many of them carrying oil, barrel through our city every day and night at speeds of up to 80 kilometres an hour. On the other hand, the Trans Mountain pipeline also goes through our community. It’s silent; it’s safe. There hasn’t been an incident in 60 years.
Can the Minister of Transportation tell the House why she prefers oil transported by rail instead of by pipeline?
Hon. J. Horgan: Those trains were travelling past the member’s home when that side of the House was in power. The regulations that we were proposing to consult British Columbians about were not just about pipelines. It was about the transportation of that very product — whether it’s by rail, whether it’s by pipeline or whether it’s by carrier pigeon. Again, I think that’s appropriate for the government of British Columbia to examine what tools we have to protect the very community that the member represents.
Mr. Speaker: Chilliwack-Kent on a supplemental.
L. Throness: In May of 1984, 27 train cars derailed in the centre of Chilliwack. They spilled their contents of copper ore and wood chips. I remember that event because I was there in the aftermath. It was a chilling sight to see a giant train engine half-buried in the dirt, and I can only imagine what might have happened if the train had been transporting oil. Since then, there have been other derailments.
My question, I guess, is to the Premier, because he’s muzzling all of his ministers. Why does he think that oil by rail line is safer than oil by pipeline?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I refer the member to the conditions that we were going to consult British Columbians on. One of those was: do we have an appropriate response to the spill of diluted bitumen, whether it be by rail, whether it be by pipeline or whether it be by any other means?
Again, these are appropriate and responsible actions by a government that wants to protect the very interests that the member stands up and discusses. I’m not responsible for 1984; I’m responsible for 2018. Rather than resort to hyperbolic language and thumping and ultimatums and threats, I’m going to the courts, as any responsible human being would do, and I’m trying to seek resolution on who has the jurisdiction to protect his constituents, everyone else’s constituents and, most importantly, all British Columbians.
M. de Jong: Here’s what we do know. Energy production in Alberta is going up. The pipelines that carry that energy to market are at capacity. The NDP government is doing everything — and, the Premier has confirmed again yesterday, will do everything — within their power to delay and ultimately frustrate and prevent the expansion of that pipeline capacity. As a result, shipments of crude by rail are increasing dramatically.
The National Energy Board says that whereas 7,000 barrels a day were transported in Canada in 2012, that is up now to over 150,000 barrels a day. The Energy Agency in Paris predicts that by 2019, 600,000 barrels a day will be transported by rail in the absence of additional pipeline capacity. The state of Washington confirms, in detailed reports, that the amount of bitumen and crude travelling to refineries in Washington through British Columbia by rail is also increasing dramatically.
If the Premier is answering all the questions, he can answer this one too. What steps is his government taking to protect British Columbians from an increase in rail transportation of crude that virtually every study you read confirms is riskier? What steps is his government taking to protect the people in McBride, in Kamloops, in Cache Creek, in Lytton, in Hope, in Chilliwack, in Abbotsford and Langley from the kind of disaster that we have seen happen in Canada before and that his government is making more likely to occur in British Columbia?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Member, please retract your comment.
A. Weaver: I retract.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you.
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I appreciate the passion of the member on the other side, but I think we need to look at the facts.
In January, we proposed a consultation with British Columbians to address those very issues. It wasn’t just about the Kinder Morgan pipeline. It was about the transportation of diluted bitumen through British Columbia. A careful reading…. I’m confident that the Environment Minister will provide the exact language during the estimates debate later today, if they didn’t get a chance to read it.
The appropriate thing for the government of British Columbia to do, faced with the potential catastrophic outcomes that the member on the other side is talking about, is to prepare for that. And what’s the best way to prepare for that? To speak to British Columbians about what tools we need to protect their interests. That’s what we’re doing, hon. Speaker.
I am perplexed. I’m absolutely perplexed at the vociferous opposition from the other side to standing up and defending the people of British Columbia. I don’t get that. There were 16 years on that side of the House to do something about this. I’m surprised the member from Chilliwack and the member from Abbotsford didn’t stand up in caucus and say to the former Premier, who had some interesting things to say about how you stop things…. What was right then, and what’s wrong now? I don’t understand that. It looks like a double standard, by my reckoning.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
M. de Jong: I table for the House the documents, including the studies referenced a moment ago in question period, referred and referenced during debates of the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.
Leave granted.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the estimates of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, and in Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,
LANDS,
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the chair.
The committee met at 11:08 a.m.
On Vote 28: ministry operations, $473,452,000 (continued).
Hon. D. Donaldson: I have a few updates for the member in relation to some of the questions that have arisen in the estimates so far. The member was asking about attendance at a Wosk Centre engagement session that’s happening this week, April 10 to 12.
As of March 30, we have confirmed attendance from a number of organizations, including environmental organizations, hunters, trappers, guides and the wildlife sheep society, from tourism and recreation groups, from agriculture groups, from habitat conservation and land trusts, from energy and mining representatives, from the forestry sector.
What I’ll do is make sure that we table this so that the member can have access to all those who are confirmed attending the Wosk Centre sessions.
I have a couple other updates from questions that arose last month, in March. One was in relation to an inquiry from the member from the Cariboo. I just want to clarify staff numbers working in regional economic development. The actual staff numbers for 2017-18 within my ministry are 21 regional economic development officers and 11 rural policy staff. Originally, I said 19 and nine, so it’s a good-news story. They’re up somewhat.
With regard to the member’s specific question on travel for the advisory council…. In the past, any travel or other operating needs for the direct support of the rural advisory council were paid out of the $25 million rural dividend budget.
Finally, one other update from back in March. I provided the member an update on the B.C. Timber Sales revenues and expenses for ’17-18. Those estimates have now been updated. The revised 2018-19 B.C. Timber Sales revenues are $345.88 million. Expenses are $196.723 million, making an overall net revenue of $149.157 million for ’18-19 when it comes to B.C. Timber Sales.
J. Rustad: I think if we maybe try hard, we could probably even stretch this into a third month if we wanted to. Having said that, thank you to the minister for the information.
Just one quick question with regard to the information at the Wosk Centre. One of the other questions I had asked yesterday — this is with reference to the stakeholder engagement for caribou recovery, species at risk, wildlife and habitat management gathering that’s going on — will there be a public report that comes from the discussions at the Wosk Centre that started today and go for the next two days?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, there’ll be a public report. That report and the work being done will also inform the next engagement. Just to make sure the member knows, and to put on record for people who are interested, it’s not going to be the only opportunity for engagement around the provincial caribou strategy.
T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister, for taking questions here today.
Wildlife. Obviously, the minister knows it’s a big issue in my area. As the minister also knows and as we just spoke of, there’s a meeting today, tomorrow and Thursday in Vancouver about stakeholder engagement for caribou recovery, species at risk, wildlife and habitat. As the minister also knows, I have been working quite hard over the last couple of years bringing together all stakeholders from my region to come up with a blueprint towards a management model that finds a true balance between the environment and the economy.
I dare say that the user groups in my area — the guide-outfitters, the trappers, the hunters, industries such as Canfor, Teck Coal and other mining companies, as well as recreational users, berry pickers, ATVers, hikers, campers, etc. — are more engaged and have more to bring to the table than most jurisdictions in British Columbia.
I may be biased, but this is my number one priority in my region. It brings me the most emails and phone calls that I get. The stewardship within these groups is absolutely invaluable. Volunteers within the hunting community, ranching community — all of the groups I have mentioned — have a lot of common goals. I have collected those goals and have packaged them into a preliminary management plan, and I’ve actually presented that to the minister and his staff yesterday. I can get you more copies if you’re interested.
I guess my first question here is: can the minister confirm that this human resource that I just spoke of is invaluable to developing a proper wildlife management plan in the province of British Columbia?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Absolutely, I’m interested in this human resource. It’s very good to hear that the member is finding it is a number one priority of many of his constituents, because it’s good news that people are interested in what’s going on in their own backyard and have a feeling of ownership over the issue of wildlife management.
That’s the kind of thing that I want to recognize in the Kootenays and in his constituency, Kootenay East, and — not but — it’s something that I want to hopefully expand out, from the great interest shown by his constituents, to capture that interest broadly across the province.
The member mentions guide-outfitters, trappers, hunters, industry. Those are key players, and recreational users as well. In many parts of the province, of course, First Nations have a major role to play as well, and we’re doing that on a government-to-government basis.
Yes, I want to commend the member for being diligent in coming to me, around how unique the situation is in his constituency about bringing different people together and the work he’s done on that. The interest is there, and we want to capitalize on that. Thank you for the preliminary management plan. I haven’t had a chance to go over it yet, but definitely we’ll be having a look at it.
T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister, for that acknowledgment. “Capturing the interest of the constituents,” I think, is what I heard. That is really encouraging.
British Columbia is probably one of the most diverse provinces in the country, if not the world, I would dare to say, and the Kootenay East is really at ground zero. We have the largest number of big-game wildlife in the province. At one time, we were known as the Serengeti of North America. We have some of the heaviest industry there, with mines and forestry being part of the landscape, and we have the most experienced and engaged stakeholders in the province, I dare say.
Given this diversity that we have — the minister is well aware of it — can the minister agree that regional representation is an absolute must in developing a true wildlife management plan?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, I’m a proponent of regional representation. The people who live in the closest proximity to the natural resources — in this case, wildlife — are the ones that hold the greatest local knowledge. It’s incumbent upon us to tap into that knowledge as a manager of the resource.
I appreciate the member’s portrayal around the Serengeti. Oftentimes the constituency that I represent, Stikine, and especially the Spatsizi Plateau, is characterized as the Serengeti of the North. That makes me think of the broader picture provincially, which it’s my responsibility to keep in mind. The regional representation is important, and as we progress along with our new wildlife management strategy, we’ll definitely be tapping into that.
It’s also important that we have a consistent strategy across the province. I’ll be speaking at the B.C. Wildlife Federation’s annual meeting on Friday in Kamloops. They’re interested in that consistent model as well, over the entire province. But definitely, the regional knowledge needs to be plugged into the overall plan.
T. Shypitka: I guess the next question…. Would the minister then agree that regional representation is important and local knowledge and input from the human resources — the uniqueness of our areas — are all important? And would the minister then agree that — I’ll take a quote from the package that went out to the stakeholders this week — when framing the engagement process with the background and context necessary to start this meaningful conversation, that regional input would not be an absolute necessity in this process?
I guess to rephrase the question a little bit…. In the package that went out, it highlighted the importance of framing the engagement process. This is the foundation of a process that’ll be going forward. In my opinion, the foundation is what we build these policies on. Would the minister not agree that regional representation would not be part of that foundation?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Of course, the package that the member referred to is specifically for the Wosk Centre dialogue that’s happening this week.
That’s a beginning. It’s a high-level discussion. Of course, we know that each region in the province is unique when it comes to wildlife management. That package was intended as a starting point for a broad-level discussion. This is not the end of the process. This is just the start.
In order to frame it for people who are representing mainly provincial organizations and provincial views, that’s the way that the package went out. But it’s by no means meant to be exclusive of regional representation. That’s going to become the next parts of the process.
T. Shypitka: Can the minister then list what stakeholders will be present at the meeting today, tomorrow and Thursday in Vancouver?
Interjection.
T. Shypitka: Oh, all right.
From my knowledge of the stakeholders that will be there, there’s provincial representation from groups like the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Wildsight. I believe the Cattlemen’s Association will be there. There’s a few other provincial representatives that’ll be there to lay down this framework for policy — this foundation that we’ll need for policy going forward.
In my opinion, the government has missed the mark a little bit by limiting the distribution on the consultation schedule. Instead, if the information was to be broadly disseminated, including which groups and associations will be in attendance, regional stakeholders would be able to provide their questions or areas of concern to the respective representatives.
Furthermore, while I applaud the minister for reaching out to stakeholders, I believe the information about the consultation schedule should have been provided directly to MLAs in order to address the spirit of consultation and allow all of us to promote these opportunities for input.
Yesterday I hand-delivered a message to the minister and his staff on whether or not it would be appropriate for me to engage in this process as an MLA. That is a priority of his, to address these issues that are number one in my area.
So the question is: will the minister acknowledge this oversight in the process in bringing ground-up-type information to those regional representatives that will be at this meeting? And will he commit to providing the consultation schedule in the future to MLAs to reach out to their constituents and their input?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Thanks for the observations and the questions. Again, I just want to emphasize that this is not going to be the only opportunity for engagement, this coming together at the Wosk Centre this week.
We’ll provide the list, but I want to point out that some of the organizations that are going to be attending are member driven. I mean, the B.C. Wildlife Federation is there to represent interests from the various clubs around the province and in regions. So the expectation is that those kinds of provincial organizations that are membership and club driven will be reaching out to their members prior to this meeting and will be disseminating information back to their members. But again, there are going to be multiple opportunities for this kind of engagement to happen.
As far as the consultation schedule…. Yes, definitely, there will be, as I said, plenty more opportunities to get into more detail at the regional level in a phased approach. We’ll be able to provide that schedule to the public and the MLAs as well in those regions so that they can make decisions about disseminating that information, which would be very helpful, as well as attending if they wish.
Just this first meeting at the Wosk Centre…. I think that the member would appreciate that to try to make it manageable — it’s a provincewide discussion — we have groups that represent individual clubs, for instance, throughout the province attending on their behalf.
T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister.
What I am trying to highlight here is the frustration that I get from my constituents and stakeholders in my area. I’m glad there’s representation from the heads of different organizations. The problem and the frustration that I feel and the input I’m getting from my stakeholders is that they just don’t know. They have no idea this is going on. They feel a little frustrated, and they’re out of the loop.
I talked to my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin. I talked to many, all, of my MLAs on my side of the floor here, and none of them have engaged in this process at all. This is the frustration that we’re feeling. We’re out of the loop. We’re in the dark.
My question before was: would that not be an oversight on the ministry’s involvement in this — in the spirit of consultation, just providing a little heads-up? “Hey, this is what we’re doing.” Reach out to the MLA. I, in turn, can go to my representatives, my stakeholders, and say: “Hey, feed your organization some questions or concerns and provide the information they need on this framework that’s being processed right now.”
Of course, there’s got to be a little due diligence on the side of the organizations themselves. But the ministry, I think, is ultimately responsible for providing clarity and transparency and being upfront with people, quite honestly.
I’ll leave it at that. Like I said, it’s a little concerning for me, and it’s concerning for my constituents, so I hope that the minister will maybe rethink the process a little bit more in providing that transparency and clarity to local stakeholders.
I’ll throw you a curveball here. Just one last question. In talking about ways we manage wildlife, a contentious one is a feeding program for ungulates. Does the minister have any thoughts on, or will he consider, a feeding program for ungulates — a tool in the toolbox, so to speak, for wildlife management?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll answer the question and then make a comment around the lead-up to the question.
We’re not opposed to the feeding program for ungulates. We’re willing to work with clubs in areas of the province that are considering doing that kind of activity. The kinds of cautions we have are around disease risk of bringing a concentration of ungulates together to feed. The feed attracts that. There are some potential health risks. If the intent is to address starving animals and the quality of feed is high, like alfalfa, it can cause some health risks to animals that are in starvation mode.
Those are the kinds of topics we discuss with the clubs. There are other interests at play, and we discuss those concerns with clubs as well. Sometimes ranchers aren’t necessarily that interested in the feeding of ungulates if those same ungulates end up consuming crops that ranchers are interested in.
We’re not opposed but take a cautious approach to the ungulate feeding programs that organizations are interested in enacting in their areas.
I just want to make a comment on the statements made previously. I just want to say that the intent of the meetings that have been referenced in previous questions and the intent of the whole wildlife strategy is to be transparent. It’s not a matter of trying to hide a meeting at one of the biggest meeting centres in Vancouver, or anything like that.
I do hear what the member is saying about frustrations and feelings of being left out of a decision-making process, and I acknowledge that that’s a role for an official opposition MLA to play — to bring those kinds of thoughts forward. He did, rightfully, point out that there is some responsibility….
I can’t be responsible for, for instance, the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association. They’re going to be at the Wosk Centre meeting, and it’s up to them to ensure that they’ve made their members aware of what the meeting is about and that they interact and communicate with their members. So, yes, there’s a role to play for the groups that are representing their members in getting that information out and being transparent as well.
In the future, as I said, the consultation schedule will be available publicly, and we’ll make sure that the MLAs know any consultation that’s going on in their regions as well.
T. Shypitka: Just one last follow-up to that, in regard to ranchers not wanting to be part of a feeding program. I might want to argue that point a little bit, somewhat. I’ve talked to many ranchers in my community livestock association — some of your staff know them quite well — who said they’d love to be part of a feeding program if it gets the ungulates away from the valley floor and maybe into other areas where they’re more removed from farms so they don’t eat their crops. I would maybe ask the minister to check into that one a little bit more.
I guess the last question is on models. Has the minister examined any other models regarding feeding programs? There are many of them throughout the world. Our closest neighbours in the United States have feeding programs. They’ve been doing them for years. Europe has many feeding programs and has been doing them for a long, long time and has very healthy, sustainable populations because of it, I believe, amongst other things. I guess the question to the minister is: has he examined, or what does he know about, other jurisdictions and feeding programs?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Thanks for the question. I really enjoy talking about wildlife management. We’re so blessed in this province with the populations that we do have, and it’s really incumbent upon us, both opposition and government, to ensure that we have those populations into the future. Of course, when the member asked about if we consider other models…. We certainly do. We look at other jurisdictions, and we’re willing to learn. We do research on them. We always analyze if what’s going on elsewhere is applicable and appropriate for the B.C. context.
I would say that overall, our job is to ensure that habitat is there for natural forage — I mean, we don’t want to get into the situation, widespread, of having to provide feed programs for wild animals, ungulates especially — ensuring the habitat is there so that they can have enough natural forage to prevent starvation.
Again, that goes back to local conditions. The response has to be based on local conditions. In some areas the local conditions, not only of the animals but also of the people involved, are conducive and supportive of feeding programs.
I would say, as we look provincially, even though other jurisdictions have models around feeding programs, something that we are keeping a very close eye on — and, fortunately, do not have in this province so far — is the chronic wasting disease that impacts many of the ungulates. That, unfortunately, is a disease that can be transferred through feed. So we have to be very wary of that when we’re considering feeding programs.
M. Bernier: My first tongue-in-cheek comment to the minister is: it’s a good thing you’re holding these consultations in Vancouver, because they definitely need a lot of wildlife management down there. Over the last 150 years, I don’t see too many moose or wildlife in Vancouver anymore.
With that in mind, we did have a meeting with the minister’s staff a week and a half ago, up in the Peace region. Of course, the South Peace caribou are a huge concern for many. To one of the comments the minister just made…. As we’re going through these consultations, can he confirm, then, first of all, that no, I guess, rash decisions, or decisions within the ministry around wildlife management, will be made until consultation takes place? If that’s the case, what’s his timeline before considering any recommendations that might come forward?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I just want to assure the member that whatever we do around decision-making, it’s not rash, and it won’t be rash, as he typified decision-making potential.
As far as these consultations and decision-making go, I think there are two different fronts here. I know that the member wasn’t necessarily mixing up the two, but I just want to make sure it’s clear on the record that, as minister and as the ministry, we’re going to be making operational decisions on a regular basis. When it comes to updating hunting regulations, that happens every two years. Those are operational decisions based on information and data that’s been collected and engaged with stakeholders and First Nations.
What we’re talking about here is the overall wildlife improvement and habitat conservation mandate that I have in my mandate letter from the Premier. What we’re talking about is a first phase that’s started. We’re going to be talking with provincial organizations. We’re going to be talking with regional organizations, stakeholders and First Nations over the next year.
That information will then inform the second year of the phased approach and the $3 million budget that’s allotted for the second year. So that’s the, I guess, decision-making path that’s going to lead to an overall improved wildlife management strategy. It has nothing to do with the operational decisions on a day-to-day basis that are regularly made.
M. Bernier: Not to be too confrontational, but I would argue with the minister that when his ministry or his government makes a decision to ban the grizzly bear hunt with no scientific data to do that, that is a rash decision. That’s something that’s negatively affecting people in my region. So one of my questions, then, on that would be: is there a commitment from the minister, as he makes wildlife management decisions, that he’ll actually be basing those decisions on accurate scientific data?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I answered this question yesterday, so I’ll repeat it. Science-based decisions are the foundation. Also included in that, as I said yesterday, is traditional ecological knowledge. I would hope that all members recognize the worth and value of that as we incorporate traditional ecological knowledge into our science-based knowledge. There will always be, because we are elected as politicians, social values that are involved in the decision-making as well.
M. Bernier: As the minister, maybe through his mandate, reviews those exact things he just said, maybe he’ll continue to look at zone 7B in my region and realize that the decision to ban grizzly bear hunting was the wrong one to do.
If we’re going to be talking about wildlife management in general, maybe I’ll go to this. Obviously, the South Peace caribou are something that the ministry has been talking about for quite a while, even in the past government. There was a lot of work being done around the caribou recovery plan. Millions of dollars were being put in not only by government but by local mining companies, etc.
Can the minister tell me, especially around the Tumbler Ridge and Moberly area, where we a have caribou recovery plan trying to take place, how he sees that money and further money being spent — what that would be around caribou recovery and what that plan would be in the South Peace?
Hon. D. Donaldson: This is an area of high interest to me. There’s lots going on, so that’s why…. I apologize that it took a little bit of time to get the answer for you, but there’s so much activity going on. It’s very interesting what’s been undertaken.
The question was about how some of the money is being spent when it comes to the South Peace caribou herds. In order to achieve conservation and improve numbers in the herd, we’re engaged in a maternal penning program, as the member probably understands, to decrease predation. We’re involved in predator management.
We are pursuing habitat protection opportunities and also restoration of habitat. We’re in discussions with the Habitat Conservation Trust to look at restoration work and what kind of opportunities present themselves there, and using that as a means to also engage with industry and environmental organizations to undertake restoration work.
We’ve also been working with First Nations and the federal government on the conservation agreement — the section 11 agreement — and continuing the inventory work analyzing the inventory data and the collaring program.
M. Bernier: I’ll ask one last question as I see we’re getting close to lunch, and the minister can either get me the answer afterwards or what have you. I just want to get a few things quickly on the record before lunch.
Obviously, you have to look at all the activity that’s happening in the area — all the industrial activity, considerations around when tenures are being let out for forestry. One of the ones that we have to consider is the fact that most of the wildlife that I see being devastated in our area is actually on the main roads and highways and industrial activity. Something needs to be done about that.
I want to quickly bring up the Wolverine Forest Service Road. The minister might not have time to answer this, but he’s received letters from the district of Tumbler Ridge which is quite concerned about the conflicting — they’ve shared with me — kind of message.
Originally, there was a meeting saying that the Wolverine Forest Service Road was going to be shut down due to the fact that it was leading to the back country and to help with the caribou recovery in that area, but the last letter that they received from the ministry says that they’re actually shutting down the forest service road because it’s a lower priority for allocation for funding. So it’s a mixed message that they’re receiving.
I just want the minister to remember that we have the only second global geopark in North America. A UNESCO geopark is in the Tumbler Ridge area. It’s very important that the back country is open, in fact, to keep their UNESCO licence, if you want to call it a licence. It’s because of the exploratory opportunities for the back country for snowmobiles, ATVs, etc.
The minister, I think, really needs to consider that around the tourism. When I spoke to the Minister of Tourism — and, again, hopefully she’s doing well and returns here soon — she said to bring that up again with you. It is a huge tourism issue, but obviously, the Forests Ministry plays a big role in that.
If the minister can please reconsider and look into that decision to help the district of Tumbler Ridge, UNESCO geopark and the tourism sector around what they consider some funding to keep that road open.
Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you, Member, and yes, I’ll commit to having a look at that issue and bringing some clarification. I know how important a geopark is. I’ve met with Tumbler Ridge. It’s an amazing success story, and we want to make sure that we see that continuing in the future.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
AND
CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:08 a.m.
On Vote 22: ministry operations, $133,949,000 (continued).
The Chair: Good morning, Members. Welcome to Committee of Supply, Section A, ministry estimates for the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. We are, of course, thankful to be on the traditional territories of the Lekwungen-speaking peoples.
P. Milobar: I’ll pick back up. Yesterday we ended with starting to talk about the coastline and the movements around the Salish Sea and Washington state.
I just want to make sure I understood the minister’s answer yesterday correctly. In spite of recent statements by the governor of Washington around concerns around movement of Canadian products coming out of Canadian ports and a potential impact to Washington state and the Salish Sea, there has been no formal discussions between the minister and representatives of Washington state about how to tackle the fact that Washington state has, in fact, an incredibly large volume of tanker traffic coming in and out of the Salish Sea.
So it was not meant to be a joint effort on how to reduce tanker traffic movements in the Salish Sea by both parties — Washington state and the province of British Columbia. It was simply the governor stating that he wished to see less tanker movement from Canadian ports of Canadian products?
Hon. G. Heyman: The member is correct. First of all, there have been no discussions that directly involve me, but as I said yesterday, senior-level staff in my ministry have had ongoing discussions for a long time with officials in the state of Washington with respect to preventing, responding and recovering in the event of a spill.
P. Milobar: I’m wondering if the minister could refresh my and the public’s recollection of the timeline of these proposed discussions around spill response, shoreline protections of shipments of goods if there happens to be a spill, with the newly released intentions paper.
Hon. G. Heyman: I hope I understood the member’s question correctly, to have to do with the timelines of consultation. The intentions paper was released February 28. Engagement began in mid-March, with five First Nation regional workshops that are being led by the First Nations Fisheries Council. There have been a number of stakeholder working groups. The majority of those will wrap up by the end of May.
There will still be some ongoing consultation. There is, of course, opportunity for the public and other interested parties to submit material. We are looking at new regulations in early 2019.
P. Milobar: That’s the kind of, I guess, public side, almost more layperson side, of the input equation. If I understand the intention of issuing the intentions paper, it was around, also, predominantly having a lack of confidence in previous research done about how to respond to a diluted bitumen spill and how it would react in the waters. So is the intention that all that research on diluted bitumen will be done in the same time frame?
Hon. G. Heyman: I think the member is conflating two issues a little bit. Hopefully, it’ll be more clear with my answer. The intentions paper that is out currently addresses the transportation and handling of hydrocarbons, although the intent is clearly that these regulations could apply, in the future, to different hazardous substances.
The four that are out deal with four areas. One of them is response time. The second area is geographic response plans so the response time and methodology of response and cleanup take into account the unique features of the geography as well as the distance that response personnel would have to travel to get there.
Loss of public and First Nations use, as well as the marine application of regulations within areas that include our jurisdiction. The scientific advisory panel is established to inform point 5, which is currently the subject of reference to the court before we proceed on that.
P. Milobar: I’m a little confused, then. The government is going through a review process, a public input process, a stakeholder engagement process, to develop and make sure and further enhance spill response for hydrocarbons on our shorelines, on our riverways, as I’ve heard the minister say in the media.
How does the minister propose there’s going to be a comprehensive change to what’s currently in place if the minister has expressed doubt about the research of how diluted bitumen reacts in water to develop appropriate spill response times if there’s no faith in the current body of research, in terms of how long they would actually have to respond to a spill of something like diluted bitumen in a watercourse?
Hon. G. Heyman: It’s important, because these substances are currently being transported, that we follow through on the aspects of spill control and prevention that were legislated now, I think, almost three years ago and which required regulations to put them into effect. It’s necessary to work on the basis of the best knowledge that we currently have.
It’s not me who’s casting doubt on whether we have adequate knowledge on the behavior of heavy oil in water. It’s the National Academy of Sciences study. It’s the Royal Society of Canada study that identified seven very significant areas of gaps in knowledge. It’s the federal government, which has committed $45 million to do new scientific research to determine the behaviour of heavy oil, as well as appropriate measures for both response and recovery. There’s universal agreement that we don’t have enough knowledge.
The other thing that we will have the ability to do through new regulation is update and require updating of response and recovery plans, geographic response plans and even response times, if necessary, based on new knowledge as it comes in. We’ll be able to do that on an ongoing and regular basis.
P. Milobar: Perhaps we can have a wager on what will be finished first, estimates or the research on diluted bitumen. I guess the reason I’m asking these questions of the minister is, if there’s not the intention to have any substantial new research in play during this review….
The minister has acknowledged that we already have all of these goods in reasonably large volumes being shipped through our watercourses, either by tanker truck, tanker car or tanker ship, all on watercourses, all running next to rivers. I’m wondering what new, substantive to protect our shorelines, as the minister and government keep saying they are trying to enhance…. Is the expectation that the ministry staff had not already collated and worked on around spill responses in British Columbia? What new information is expected in this short window of consultation and stakeholder engagement if we’re not waiting on and there’s no new scientific research to change what is currently in place?
Hon. G. Heyman: I’m a bit puzzled by the member’s question. It’s obvious that we have to do something. We’re doing the best we can on the basis of the information we have.
It’s completely appropriate for us to introduce regulations that improve the requirements for response time, in the event of a spill, that take the extra step of ensuring that those plans are geographically appropriate and not simply designed for one area — which may not be appropriate for another area where the distances to travel are further — unless we create requirements to set up response bases in different locations where weather conditions vary. All of that’s appropriate. Some of it is known. Some of it’s based on experience.
We also think loss of use by the public and First Nations is a serious issue, which we hope to address. Much of that was brought about as a result of the still-not-completely-resolved impacts of the Nathan E. Stewart diesel spill.
These are important matters, as is determining how best to regulate impacts on the shoreline and the marine environment that is within — and has been established by a Supreme Court decision to be within — B.C.’s jurisdiction. So those are all important things to do.
As we get new information, it’ll be appropriate to require that response plans — the actual written response plans — and perhaps even response times are updated as necessary. But to do nothing in the interim just seems to make no sense.
With respect to the scientific advisory panel, we’ve been consulting on a regular basis with officials from Environment and Climate Change Canada. We’re listening to their input and what kinds of terms of reference of review of existing science and new science that they’re commissioning is useful to them. They think it’s useful to all of us, so we’re proceeding with that as well.
P. Milobar: I’m not suggesting for a moment that nothing be done awaiting scientific consensus around any particular topic, because I don’t think you’ll ever find full-on scientific consensus on any topic anywhere in the world. That’s the nature of science.
What I am wondering, though, is…. There was a great deal of work done with the staff, with consultants, with other stakeholders and engagement done on phase 1. I’m wondering what new substantive scientific-based information the minister is expecting out of this latest consultation that the government could not already be actioning or developing regulation around.
In other words, why the delay in going through yet another round of reaffirming the information that the ministry…? I’m assuming, and I stand to be corrected…. They’re very competent, professional staff, so I’m assuming they have volumes and volumes of actionable and things that could be done in a phase 2 and a phase 3 of spill response and dangerous goods transportation modelling.
Hon. G. Heyman: I think the member is perhaps not entirely clear on what phase 1 was about. Phase 1 established who is liable and accountable in the event of a spill. And phase 2 addresses response time, geographic response plans, extensive compensation for loss of use by the public and First Nations as well as the marine application, as I have previously said.
They’re actually dealing with very different matters. Phase 2 is not an upgrading of phase 1. Phase 2 is addressing different matters. Of course, in future, as there’s new information and science on a continuous basis, we will update regulations, as is the practice with lots of regulations in lots of ministries.
P. Milobar: I’m aware they’re different. My assumption, and perhaps I was wrong, was that there would have still been a significant amount of back work done in the development of phase 1, as it’s pretty hard to collect information in a silo of just a specific, defined topic area, as you’re developing first, second, third, even jurisdictional issues.
The reason I’m asking this is because the government has been repeatedly talking about protecting shorelines and coastlines and matters of jurisdiction. I have no problem that we’re trying to enhance and create better spill response times and stricter spill response rules. What is being undertaken in the interim? Or I guess I’ll rephrase this. What would be the minister’s intention if we’re looking at jurisdictional issues in terms of…?
If the bulk of these issues turn out to be federal jurisdiction or should be funded by the federal government, in terms of enhancements or things of that nature, is it the intention of the province to step in and fill that void in the interim, while agreements with the federal government are worked out? Or is it simply a case of holding up a document to show the federal government what they should be doing, but we don’t actually see any shoreline protection at the same time?
[Interruption.]
The Chair: Members are reminded to turn off their electronic devices unless they know how to use them.
Hon. G. Heyman: The four proposed regulatory areas that are out for public discussion as part of the intentions paper are all clearly within provincial jurisdiction. That has not been disputed by the federal government or the government of Alberta. With respect to the cost or liability of the work that would be entailed by these regulations, that’s actually the responsibility of the shipper and the carrier, not either level of government.
P. Milobar: Again, I’m not disputing that we would have the jurisdiction, especially on inland waterways and of those nature — just to be clear for the minister. I wanted to make sure that the intention was still to have something actually tangible and deliverable in place versus theoretical.
To wrap this area up, the intention would be, then — from your first answer around that — by May or the 2019 timeline to have all of this done, all those regulations in place. Shippers and people responsible for cleanup — if there’s a spill, if there’s an accident, regardless of transportation mode — would be responsible essentially from, I’m assuming, the spring legislative session forward.
Is it the intention of the minister that timelines for all of the consultation, the development of regulation and the implementation of regulation should all be locked down by spring of 2019?
Hon. G. Heyman: Yes, that’s correct, subject to a reasonable phase-in period once the regulations are enacted and giving people a chance to get ready to act on them.
P. Milobar: Thanks for that answer. I want to jump back briefly. I know we’re coming up to the lunch hour, so let me just fit these last couple of questions in and probably close this little section off too.
In terms of yesterday, we had a lot of questions for the minister around the reference wording and when the reference would be prepared.
I note that the Attorney General just walked in, so maybe this is good timing.
I notice that at the beginning of March, before counsel was hired, the Attorney General had mentioned it would take about another week or so to bring on counsel, which it did. But then the Attorney General felt confident in his comments that it would take about a month to have something prepared in terms of which court would be actioned as well as what the reference would entail.
Yesterday the minister seemed to indicate by the end of spring. We’re not quite 100 percent sure what that means. It could be June 20. I guess it would be technically the end of spring. Yet today, in a media scrum, the minister indicated very, very shortly, within…. I can’t remember the exact timeline he used, but certainly less than a month.
I’m wondering. We seem to have a pretty wide range from the two ministers responsible for getting this developed and brought forward. Is there a new timeline after estimates last night, with discussions that the minister has had either with the Attorney General or the lawyers involved? Has he got more confidence that it’s less than a month now versus by the end of the spring?
The Chair: Members are reminded that the practice of this House is not to comment on the absence or presence of members.
Hon. G. Heyman: Certainly, there has been some period of time since earlier statements by either the Attorney General or myself.
The actual interview to which the member refers…. The question that was asked of me was something like: “When do you think you will be able to let us know when the reference will be ready?” My answer to that question was: “Very, very soon.” The supplementary question was: “Does that mean a month, months?” I laughed and said: “Very, very soon is certainly less than a month.” Or words to that effect.
P. Milobar: I mean, this isn’t Hansard, so I’m not…. The recollection the minister has is very close to how it’s transcribed for myself as well. It’s always noisy now with the scrums.
I don’t take issue with that. I guess I’m just asking for certainty. Is “certainly less than a month” now the new timeline that this will be made public and the public will know what is happening with this, or is it still the end of spring, which could take us all the way to June 20?
Hon. G. Heyman: I’ll just reiterate what I said in the media scrum and what I said here: the former.
P. Milobar: Okay. Thank you for that. It’s good to know that we can expect something. I guess I’ll ask for one last clarification on this. Talking end of the month and dealing with government, in the back of my mind…. When you sometimes talk to various levels of government, they tell you: “It’s working days.” A month of working days could be a long time versus a month on a calendar.
I think I know what the minister’s intention is, by what he is saying, by month. I take him at his word, that he’s talking about a calendar. But I guess, for further clarification…. Our session in the Legislature…. This run-through we have — what? — a couple more weeks left now, a break, a couple more weeks, a break and then finish up by the end of May. So the minister is committing that this will be into the public realm while we are still sitting in the Legislature.
Hon. G. Heyman: Yes, that is my intention.
The Chair: Noting the hour, Minister.
Hon. G. Heyman: I would have just said it, but I was worried I might actually end estimates. I wouldn’t want to do that.
I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:43 a.m.
Copyright © 2018: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada