Yesterday during Question Period I rose once more to ask the Minister of Forests, Lands,  Natural Resources and Rural Development about British Columbia’s forest industry. In the first question I once more asked the Minister about glyphosate (Roundup®) spraying in BC forests. This was the topic of a question I asked the Minister on November 7. In my supplemental question, I asked the Minister what he will be doing in 2019 to overhaul our important forestry industry in British Columbia.

What’s remarkable about this exchange is that as I started my initial question, Ben Stewart, the MLA for Kelowna West, heckled me loudly suggesting that I was not asking important questions. It was a head turner for me as I had just witnessed two days of the BC Liberals’ outrageous behaviour in Question Period. In fact, over the course of this entire session, the BC Liberals have asked the same questions over and over again. Very few of them have any relevance to issues that matters to British Columbians except those who take delight in the political posturing of the BC Liberals through gotcha politics.

Below I reproduce the video and text of the exchange during Question Period. Those watching the video will note the spoonerism glysophate instead of glyphosate. This was unintentional and reflects the fact that when I speak fast I sometimes utter spoonerisms.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: A few weeks ago, I asked the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development when B.C. would stop spraying our forests with….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: It’s interesting, as I got interrupted by a member opposite, suggesting that asking about this is not important. Rather, what it’s important, it seems to me, is the, frankly, shocking games that I’m watching going on here.

So to the member from West Kelowna who doesn’t think the issue of glyphosate spraying in British Columbia forests is important, I continue. Glyphosate kills the species that provide an essential line of defense against wildfires and pine beetle. In the member’s riding itself, in the riding of Kelowna West, we have pine and we have wildfire that he should be concerned about. Maybe he should be spending some time on this issue.

Glyphosate harms human health and animal health. It’s symptomatic of 20th century forest management practices, and as reported in Business in Vancouver last week, B.C.’s forest industry is currently undergoing falling lumber prices, production cuts and staff layoffs. We need to change our forest practices now if we are going to have flourishing sustainable ecosystems and industry.

Now, I recognize, again, that forestry is not an important issue for the members opposite. But it is on this side of the House. For that, I ask the following question to the Minister of Forests, Land and Natural Resources. What evidence is the minister still gathering to make a decision about the ongoing use of glyphosates given that the evidence seems to be very clear that we should stop now?

Answer

Hon. D. Donaldson: I welcome the question from the Leader of the Third Party. I welcome the question because it’s of interest to people in rural areas, and natural resource management is of interest to people across the province.

We’re committed to protecting the important biodiversity of forests while ensuring a continued vibrant forest sector. As the member knows, the herbicide glyphosate is approved by Health Canada for weed control and is used selectively in northern B.C. to improve survival and growth of seedlings and young trees.

Recently the ministry started to allow increased levels of aspen and broadleaf in managed stands throughout B.C., which will lead to a further decline of the use of herbicides. In fact, in certain ecosystems, up to 1,000 aspen per hectare are acceptable in conifer plantations. Overall, the use of glyphosate is decreasing. We will continue to look at any evidence to improve silviculture strategies in the province.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Indigenous peoples have managed forests for their ecological, cultural and economic value for thousands of years. There’s substantial traditional knowledge surrounding forest management, and every recent report on forestry and fire has highlighted the need for Indigenous collaboration and leadership.

Another issue clearly not an important question for the member for Kelowna West is this: UBC has proposed a national Indigenous forestry school for their Okanagan campus. If developed, this program will establish a holistic curriculum that integrates Indigenous knowledge to deal with wildfire and forest health, wealth creation and governance, and how to maximize the value of our forests.

This concept is a perfect example of reconciliation and innovation in an era of climate change and, frankly, an issue that I think we should be discussing here in question period rather than the games that we’re seeing played opposite.

To the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, there are a multitude of opportunities like the one proposed by UBC. We can and need to do better now, not tomorrow. What exactly will the minister be doing in 2019 to overhaul our important forestry industry in British Columbia?

Answer

Hon. D. Donaldson: You know, I haven’t had, in all of this fall question period session, the ability to touch on the wildfire situation that occurred in 2018. The member used wildfire examples in his question. I would just like to say, and ask all members to join me, in congratulating the B.C. Wildfire Service staff, the contractors and the volunteers who ensured that not one single life was lost in the entire 2018 season.

The member touched on a number of topics. I’ll be brief in my answer, but I wanted to first acknowledge the efforts that UBC’s faculty of forestry is bringing — I met with the dean, John Innis — to create an Okanagan campus national Indigenous forestry school. I know the Minister of Advanced Education is aware and eagerly awaiting to receive a proposal around that.

That’s in order to blend and ensure that Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge is combined with western knowledge to better manage the forest sector. That will involve ensuring that the forest sector is productive and ensures that we’re managing with both First Nations and western science.

Today during Question Period I rose to ask both the Minister of Energy, Mines & Petroleum Resources and the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development what the greatest climate change-related risks and opportunities their ministry faces, and how they are prepared to deal with both.

With the upcoming release of the economic vision embodied in the clean growth strategy, it’s critical that every Minister is up to speed on how it will affect their Ministry.

As you will see from the exchange, I was not very impressed with the response I received from the Minister of Energy, Mines & Petroleum Resources. I felt that the response from the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development was quite good.

Below I reproduce the text and video of the exchange with the Ministers.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: In the span of just a few centuries, earth has transitioned from a past when climate affected the evolution of human societies to the present, in which humans are affecting the evolution of the climate system.

Today we are at a pivotal moment in human history. Our generation will be responsible for deciding the path we take and the future climate will take along with us. As elected officials, we’ll either be complicit in allowing climate change to despoil our world or we can lead the way and choose a different path.

Our provincial emissions have risen in four out of the last five years. Every minister has a responsibility to ensure that tackling this issue is within their mandate, as mitigating the impacts of climate change requires an all-of-government approach.

Accounting for 7.2 million tonnes annually, mining and upstream oil and gas production are the biggest contributors. My question to Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is this. What are the greatest climate change–related risks and opportunities facing your ministry and how are you prepared to deal with them?

Answer

I appreciate that for the member this is a very, very important issue that he’s very passionate about and the work that he’s done with this government to address climate change and our climate action plan.

For this ministry, in particular, we have been looking at what we can be doing as a new government to reduce our impact on climate change. The list is quite long. But I know that question period is the opposition’s time, so I won’t try to list everything. I’ll give the member a few examples of some of the things that we’re doing.

A couple of weeks ago I was at UBC talking with architect students about our new program called the better buildings B.C. program, where we’re looking for innovative ideas in terms of how we can reduce our emissions in our buildings throughout the province.

But the member brought up, specifically, mining and oil and gas. One of the things that this government did was we eliminated PST on electricity for businesses. That includes the mining sector. That includes the oil and gas sector. If they can electrify and move away from oil and gas — diesel, for example — to generate the power that they need to do their operations, we’re reducing our greenhouse gas emissions quite significantly. Those are the types of opportunities that we’re looking at.

As the member will note, I also just introduced legislation to reduce our methane emissions as well. There’s lots that we are doing, and I look forward to being able to brief the member fully at another time

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I must say, given the scale of the challenge as well as the scale of the opportunity, going and meeting a few people to discuss some ideas is hardly taking advantage of this opportunity and meeting the challenge. I remain quite disappointed in that response, so let me try again.

The B.C. fires of the past two summers were no surprise to the climate science community. Back in 2004, my colleagues and I published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters, pointing out that we could already detect and attribute increasing areas burnt in Canadian forest fires to human activity and, in particular, global warming.

According to the B.C. Wildfire Service, this year was the worst on record. Over 1.35 million hectares were consumed by forest fires. The fires burned homes, endangered lives and released hundreds of megatonnes of CO₂. What’s happening in California is no surprise to the climate science community, yet it appears to be a surprise to politicians du jour.

We know that global warming will lead to an increased likelihood of summer drought. This, in turn, will lead to more extensive wildfires. We know that precipitation extremes will increase and that flooding events will be on the rise. This threatens human health, ecosystems and the economy.

While the members opposite are concerned about their survival as a political entity, I’m sitting here asking the minister about the political survival of all of our collective species. To the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, what are the greatest climate change-related risks and opportunities facing your ministry, and how are you prepared to deal with both?

Answer

Hon. D. Donaldson: As my colleague mentioned, climate change is a considerable risk for our province and planet, and we are committed to tackling it. The member and the Leader of the Third Party asks — and I appreciate — the question about opportunities and risks.

The risks are in forest systems and ecosystem resilience. Ensuring that into the future, we have forest ecosystems that are resilient to and can adapt to the climate change that we are seeing.

We are seeing it, certainly, in the forest fire situation. It’s had an impact there. Large forest fires that we saw in the past two seasons have had enormous impact on ecosystems. We’ve seen it even more recently in the level 4 drought conditions in the areas that I represent up in the northwest and unprecedented drought that has led to impacts on fisheries resources. You’ve seen the pictures of the riverbeds, extremely dry riverbeds — unprecedented.

We are working on mitigative measures. In June, we hosted the first wildfire and climate change conference. A couple of topics it focused on were creating resilient ecosystems to better adapt to climate change and mitigate wildfires and ensuring effective carbon management. Part of that is our forest carbon initiative. That’s a $290 million federal-provincial initiative that’s focusing on incremental reforestation and improving utilization of waste and reducing slash burning.

Finally, in regards to the question as far as opportunities, we also have long-term research trials, assisted migration and adaptation trials to identify seed sources most likely to best adapt to future climates. We’ve made important progress in 16 months, and we need to do more.

Today in the legislature I rose during Question Period to ask the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development what his ministry was doing to curtail glyphosate spraying in BC forests. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup™. It’s used to kill off broadleaf plant species that might inhibit the growth of seedlings that are replanted after a forest is logged. There are a number of significant negative impacts that arise from the current practice of widespread glyphosate spraying.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Every year in B.C., 16,000 hectares of forests are sprayed with an herbicide known as glyphosate. It’s sprayed over forests that have recently been logged and replanted to kill broadleaf plant species that might inhibit the growth of lodgepole pine seedlings. The result is reduced plant diversity, leading to monocropped forests that are vulnerable to more frequent and destructive wildfires and beetle infestations.

The World Health Organization has warned that glyphosate is likely carcinogenic. It also has genotoxic, cytotoxic and endocrine-disrupting properties. For decades, researchers have been reporting reduced numbers of rodents, moose, insects and birds in forests that have been sprayed.

To the Minister of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, if our forests exist for the monetary value once felled, glyphosate is an efficient tool. If we consider the value of our wildlife ecosystems and human health, it is a veritable threat. What are the values that inform our ongoing use of glyphosate in B.C. forests?

Supplementary Question

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you very much to the Leader of the Third Party for the question on glyphosate. It’s a topic that I’ve been following closely since 1990. It’s of great interest to people around B.C.

Glyphosate is broadleaf herbicide. Many members in the House might recognize it as the active ingredient in Roundup. I want to say that our government is committed to protecting the important biodiversity of forests while ensuring a continued vibrant forestry sector.

The herbicide glyphosate is approved by Health Canada for use in forest management and is used to improve survival and growth of trees. In B.C., any users must follow the Integrated Pest Management Act and take steps to minimize impacts on the environment, including fish-bearing streams, a very important consideration.

B.C.’s reforestation practices are continually updated based on new scientific research and information, and recently, the ministry started to allow increased levels of aspen and broadleaves in managed stands throughout B.C., which will lead to a further decline in the use of herbicides.

I know the member quoted a figure of 16,000 hectares where glyphosate was applied. That was a number from 2015. I’m happy to report, in 2017, that number went down to 10,000 hectares — so a decrease of almost 40 percent.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Numerous jurisdictions have banned or restricted the use of glyphosate. These include the Netherlands, Germany, France, Portugal, El Salvador, Argentina and Denmark, to name but a few.

 Meanwhile, in British Columbia, we continue to spray tens of thousands, or at least 10,000 hectares, of forests annually with glyphosate. We are contributing to the severity of wildfires, harming wildlife and watching the chemical work its way through our food supply, all without any sound justification.

We should be thinking about the precautionary principle here, not waiting until it’s too late. As Rachel Carson once wrote: “The right to make a dollar at whatever cost is seldom challenged. It is the public that is being asked to assume the risks.”

To the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, we are risking a lot for questionable benefit. How can the minister continue to justify the ongoing use of glyphosates in our provincial forests?

Answer

Hon. D. Donaldson: I want to acknowledge that we’re looking for ways to do better in the forests, especially around the application of herbicides, and so other forestry innovations, such as the use of superior orchard seed, improved nursery techniques, fast-growing seedlings and well-timed planting is also reducing the amount of herbicide being required.

We continue to investigate other silviculture strategies that take into account climate change and managing for resilient forest ecosystems. I’m very excited about the work of re-establishing forests after they’ve been disturbed by wildfires and recreating a forest mosaic so that deciduous as well as conifer stands are part of that mosaic,  leading to more resilient forest eco-types.

We’ve also been doing work on the impacts of glyphosate on wildlife, specifically with moose. That’s a huge concern to many people in rural areas — moose populations. We want to make sure we’re responding to scientific evidence, and so we have a program where we’ve initiated a two-year study to look at the impacts of herbicide spraying on feed and moose forage and nutritional quality of moose forage.

We anticipate the preliminary results to be available in 2019, and we look forward to implementing that research, based on scientific evidence.

Today I was afforded the opportunity to address delegates at the 69^th annual convention of the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities. As noted on their website:

“The Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities (AVICC) is the longest established area association under the umbrella of the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM). The area association was established in 1950. It now has a membership of 53 municipalities and regional districts that stretches from the North Coast Regional District down to the tip of Vancouver Island and includes Powell River, the Sunshine Coast, the Central Coast and the North Coast. The Association deals with issues and concerns that affect large urban areas to small rural communities.“

Below I reproduce the text of my speech.

Text of Speech

I am delighted to be here this morning with all of you – and I think we share an essential trait as politicians, even if we are not always aligned in policy or vision.

Each of you, I expect, can identify the issue or the passion that motivated you to run for local government. It may have been an environmental issue, as it was for my colleague Sonia Furstenau, or it may have been a desire to see a project in your community to move forward.

And it is passionate leadership at the local government level that sees so much positive change come forward in our province.

Look at the Town of Gibsons – the first in North America to pass a natural asset management policy, showing extraordinary leadership in recognizing the indisputable logic of including natural assets in financial planning.

In Cowichan there is the Cowichan Watershed Board, laying the foundation for watershed co-governance with First Nations, and taking tangible, necessary steps toward reconciliation in the process.

Recognizing that healthy and happy communities – as Charles Montgomery so eloquently points out – have social connection and collaboration in their fibre, Oceanside and Mt. Waddington’s Health Networks are models for bringing people together to create long-term positive health outcomes.

It was my own commitment to action on climate that motivated me to run for MLA in 2013, after I had seen our province go from a climate leader under Gordon Campbell to a climate laggard under Christy Clark.

As a climate scientist, I had long encouraged my students to engage with decision makers – or become decision-makers themselves – if they wanted to see politicians take action on climate. I realized that I too had a responsibility to participate in the building of political will to act on climate – not as a voice of doom, but as a voice for the extraordinary possibility and opportunities that lie before us in this challenging time.

So much of the conversation around climate and the transition away from a fossil-fuel economy is backward-looking, focusing on the economy of the 20th-century.

Look at the hysteria and rhetoric around the kinder morgan expansion – the shocking doubling-down on a pipeline that would export heavy oil – diluted bitumen – out of Vancouver. In every way, this is the wrong direction for our economy, our environment, our relationship with First Nations, and our climate.

Now take the potential that lies in new technology and innovation. Shell has recently announced that it has the technology to extract vanadium from bitumen, and use the vanadium to build steel that can be used to manufacture battery cells that have the capacity to store energy.

Consider that potential! Rather than dumping yet another raw resource as quickly as we can into foreign markets that reap the rewards of jobs and revenue as they process it into a usable and far more valuable commodity, we could be looking at using this resource to develop and support steel manufacturing, innovative energy storage technology, and the renewable energy sector.

We could massively increase the return to our citizens and our economy, and we could be actively building the future energy systems that will sustain our children and grandchildren.

We sell ourselves short by looking backwards – when transformation and innovation are happening more and more rapidly, it is the worst possible time for us as a province or a nation to double down on the ever decreasing returns in a race to the bottom of early 20th-century economics.

And it’s smaller communities – like the ones that many of you represent – that could benefit immensely from the emerging economy that’s rooted in education and driven by innovation and technology.

Consider the potential of Terrace as a centre for manufacturing – we as a province should be reaching out to Elon Musk and encouraging him to see the potential benefits of a Tesla plant or battery manufacturing plant in Terrace, where shipments to Asia are easily accessible through Prince Rupert’s port, and shipments to Chicago are at the end of a rail line that runs straight through Terrace.

Here on the island, Victoria has already earned the moniker “Techtoria” – and the Cowichan Valley is situated perfectly to be the next destination region for an industry that is growing by leaps and bounds.

BC’s own digital technology supercluster was recently awarded $1.4 billion in federal funding – an investment that is expected to produce 50,000 jobs and add $15 billion to BC’s economy over the next ten years.

And the work being done will make the lives of British Columbians better – including creating a health and genetic platform that will allow medical specialists to create custom, leading-edge cancer treatments that are personalized to the unique genetic makeup of each patient.

This work – hi-tech innovation, research, education – this work can happen anywhere in our increasingly connected world. It’s the connectivity highways that we should be investing in – these will allow all communities to reap the rewards of the 21st-century economy.
At a reception for the BC Tech Association last week, I met Stacie Wallin. Her job is to nurture tech companies that have hit the 1 million dollar level in revenue to scale up to the 25 million dollar level.

And she is so busy that she has nearly a dozen people working with her to keep up with the work that’s coming her way. When pipelines and LNG plants crowd out our conversations about BC’s and Canada’s economy, we miss what’s actually happening – the exciting, innovative, emerging economy that is reshaping our communities.

And there’s so much more. The film industry, tourism, education, professional services, value-added forestry, innovation in mining, renewable energy – our potential in this beautiful province is as boundless as our stunning scenery – and squandering time and energy to prop up sunset industries is the wrong place to be putting our precious efforts and money.
And if governments double down on 20th-century carbon-based economics, it’s your communities that feel the impacts and pay the prices.

Floods, droughts, wildfires, damage from increasingly punishing storms, sea level rise & storm sureges – all of these cost your communities, and your citizens, more and more money.

Communities are hit with the costs of building infrastructure to prevent flooding during the melt season, at the same time as having to determine how to deal with depleted aquifers that won’t be able to sustain the residents who depend on them for drinking water, and another drought this summer will once again put Vancouver Island at severe risk for wildfires.

The impacts of climate change will continue to put severe pressures on all our communities – which is why it’s utterly irresponsible for our provincial government to be considering a 6 billion dollar subsidy of the LNG industry – including letting LNG Canada off the hook for paying their fair share of carbon pricing.

Consider that fact alone – that the potential single greatest emitter of greenhouse gases in BC would only ever have to pay $30/tonne for its carbon pollution, while the rest of us, including industry, will see carbon pricing rise by $5/tonne each year.

This is an unacceptable logic, and one that we can’t possibly support – and I urge you, as the elected representatives who will be seeing the costs and consequences of climate change in your communities – I urge you to also encourage this government to recognize that giving massive tax breaks to the LNG industry because it isn’t economically viable is not the direction BC should be heading right now.

Consider an alternative. Why not invest in the Squamish Clean Technology Association (SCTA) created to seek out leading edge ventures that will help create an innovation hub focused on clean energy. We could attract the best and brightest minds to come to BC to figure out how to harness the renewable energy that abounds in our province while encouraging the innovation that our world needs most right now.

In response to a question from the audience on Friday about how to get municipal staff to think beyond their standard frames of reference, I understand that Charles Montgomery pointed to new models for civic design, and suggested that politicians may need to “drag them kicking and screaming” into the 21st century.

This also applies to many of our provincial and federal representatives, who may say that they recognize our need to transition to the new economy, but then try to convince us that the way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions … is to increase greenhouse gas emissions.

Doubling down with doublespeak – let’s not let this become a new Canadian tradition.

We need our provincial and federal politics to reflect the best of what we see at the local government level.
Informed discussion and debate, listening to people who present differing opinions, allowing for compromise as a path forward, working from a place of shared values and finding solutions that best reflect those values.

And while it may not always feel this way at your council and board tables, the reality is that your level of government is one that is generally far less driven by partisanship and ideology.

We have an extraordinary opportunity to bring our electoral system into the 21st century in BC with the referendum that is happening this fall. And while there will be many discussions on both sides of this debate over the next several months, it’s essential to begin with what are we trying to solve with electoral reform in BC.

Currently, under First Past the Post, elections are geared towards a “winner take all” outcome. And that winner almost never has the support of the majority of the voters.

40% is often the magic number.

40% of the popular vote in BC can generally deliver to one party a majority of seats in the legislature, and 100% of the power for 4 years.

Informed discussion and debate, listening to differing opinions, compromise, collaboration, finding common ground based on shared values – that’s completely unnecessary when your party has enough votes to ram through any legislation and any agenda you like.

Compare this to almost any other human endeavour, where collaboration, cooperation, and respect deliver the outcomes that have moved us forward throughout history.

Yes – let’s compete to bring forward the best ideas, the boldest visions – but let’s not make competition the only value that underpins politics.

Charles Montgomery points out that the infrastructure of our cities and our communities can be a source for unhappiness, through creating mistrust, a sense of disconnect, and a lack of sociability.

It seems that our political infrastructure – and in particular a first past the post system that delivers 100% of the power with a minority of the votes – can also create mistrust, lack of sociability, and unhappiness. In our winner take all system, inflicting knock out blows to the other side becomes a normal part of our politics – but how much does this damage our governance?
How many good ideas, brought forward by opposition MLAs or MPs have died sad deaths on the order papers under a majority government that can’t be seen to work across party lines?

Electoral reform – particularly electoral reform that would bring in a form of proportional representation – would deliver more minority governments to BC.

And some may try to convince you that’s a terrible thing – but I ask, is working across party lines a terrible thing? Is collaboration on policies and legislation a terrible thing? Is having more minds engaged on solving problems a terrible thing?
Or could this change in our electoral infrastructure actually bring us politics that contribute to more sociability – the one factor that Charles Montgomery said was paramount to our happiness.

Premier Horgan mentioned in his address that there has been conflict between our two parties.

There has indeed – and the media will always focus on these points of tension – but if you look at how much legislation was passed in the fall, how many initiatives have moved forward over the past nine months and then consider the ratio of collaboration to conflict, you’ll recognize that – much like at your own council tables – when you work from a place of shared values, it’s possible to almost always find a path forward.

Our current electoral model has its origins in the Middle Ages, and it has undergone significant change over the centuries.
It was only 100 years ago that women were given the right to vote in BC, and as we discuss and debate extending that right to 16 and 17 year olds, let us remember that the world around us changes continuously, and it’s up to us to ensure our institutions – particularly our democratic institutions – adapt to meet the needs of our society.

Happy cities, happy communities, happy politics. Let’s dream big.

Thank you.

Today the BC Government announced a moratorium on the hunting of Grizzly bears in British Columbia. As you can see from our media release reproduced below, we are delighted with the BC NDP announcement.

Media Release

B.C. Green caucus responds to the end of the grizzly bear hunt
For immediate release
December 18th, 2017

VICTORIA, B.C. – “After years of work on this file, my colleagues and I are absolutely overjoyed this decision has finally been made. The results of the government’s consultation were clear and government has listened – we couldn’t be more thrilled,” said Adam Olsen, MLA for Saanich North and the Islands and B.C. Green Party spokesperson for the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

“A focus on protecting grizzlies has been a constant throughout my time at the legislature, and I am proud to have been able to help advance this issue,” said Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Leader of the B.C. Green Party.

“Andrew has been a strong advocate for the long term wellbeing of grizzlies since his election in 2013,” said MLA Olsen. “He tabled the Wildlife Amendment Act multiple times and stood as a lone voice in the legislature against the B.C. Liberals who actively supported grizzly trophy hunting and the B.C. NDP who would not take a position. This legislation was intended to give the BC Liberal government a feasible path forward to protecting Grizzly Bears.

“Now we have a very different political landscape in B.C. and our office shifted its efforts accordingly,” said MLA Olsen, who became lead on this file after the May election. “The minority government and a governing agreement signed by the B.C. NDP and B.C. Greens have allowed us to take a stronger position and we commend the government’s bold announcement today.

“Ending the grizzly hunt is a momentous accomplishment, but there is still work to be done to protect this species. If we fail to also consider habitat and food supply – especially with climate change further threatening essential salmon and huckleberry stocks – conflicts with humans, roadkill rates, or poaching incidents, we will fail to protect grizzlies in the long term.

“We hope that this announcement will be followed with a comprehensive ecosystem based approach to wildlife management because we cannot continue to perpetuate the slow, methodical extirpation of native species in BC. We will celebrate progress along the way and work to ensure species like grizzly bears and wild pacific salmon have the resilient ecosystems they need to thrive into the future.

“This breakthrough would not have happened without the efforts of many – thank you and congratulations to everyone involved.”

-30-

Media contact
Sarah Miller, Acting Press Secretary
+1 778-650-0597 | sarah.miller@leg.bc.ca