British Columbia Committee Hansard (Blues) — 30 July 2020, p.m., Issue 18 (41st Parliament, 5th Session)

20200730pm-CommitteeA-Blues

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

(HANSARD)

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY,

SECTION A

Virtual Meeting

Thursday, July 30, 2020

Afternoon Meeting

Issue No. 18

ISSN 2563-3511

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Committee of Supply

Proceedings in

Section A

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training (continued)

S. Sullivan

Hon. M. Mark

M. Lee

S. Furstenau

S. Bond

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development

Hon. D. Donaldson

J. Rustad

T. Shypitka

THURSDAY, JULY 30, 2020

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Proceedings in

Section A

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED

EDUCATION, SKILLS AND TRAINING

(continued)

On Vote 12: ministry operations, $2,366,498,000

(continued) .

The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone.

I would like to recognize that I am participating today from

the homeland of the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples,

known today as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. We extend our

appreciation to them for the opportunity to undertake the work

before us on this land.

We are meeting today to continue consideration of the

estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and

Training.

[1:35 p.m.]

S. Sullivan: I thought that we should start the afternoon session by having the

minister respond to two questions earlier: one on Williams Lake and one

on veterinarians. Since the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin is here, it

would be an opportune time to do that.

Hon. M. Mark: Member, would it be possible to clarify your question related to

the TRU Indigenous Williams Lake First Nations question? Just because

there was a bit there…. Staff are trying to pull it together, but it

may, if possible, have to come in writing. So if you could clarify or

would prefer it in writing.

The second question, to veterinarians, I’ll respond to once I hear

your first response.

S. Sullivan: Why don’t we just go to the next speaker. I’ll just get some

clarification. I know that the member for Vancouver-Langara is wanting

to ask a couple of questions.

Hon. M. Mark: Sorry. We’ll get to you in a moment, member for

Vancouver-Langara.

To the veterinary question. Veterinarians are valued professionals

who protect the health and welfare of British Columbians’ domestic

animals and play a critical role in British Columbians’ agricultural

industry. Over the past 50 years, British Columbia has been a key

partner in maintaining the Western College of Veterinarian Medicine as a

world-class veterinary college. The college has in turn provided the

domestic veterinary graduates British Columbia needs.

Two points that the member would be interested to know. This year

British Columbia is providing the Western College of Veterinarian

Medicine with $8.4 million to support 80 B.C. graduates — that’s 20 per

year — a graduate program and operation of its teaching hospital. In

line with increases in previous years, the funding provided to the

Western College of Veterinary Medicine is set to increase by at least 1

percent a year for the next five years.

[1:40 p.m.]

M. Lee: As the minister well knows, I represent the riding of

Vancouver-Langara. That includes Langara College, the largest college in

the province. A year ago we were standing alongside each other

celebrating 49 on 49, the 49th anniversary. The member for

Vancouver–False Creek was also being recognized as an alumnus of Langara

College. So we all have good connections to this particular institution

in the heart of Vancouver.

As the minister and I discussed in last year’s estimates, we had

an opportunity to review the current plan for Langara College, which is

to replace building A, the original building of Langara College, which

opened 50 years ago in 1970. We talked, as well, about the financial

management of Langara College, which has been particularly strong under

president Lane Trotter’s leadership as well as the board, led by Ian

Mass.

In terms of the actual buildings on Langara College’s campus, we

know that Langara College self-funded its Science and Technology

Building. There is a plan to expand to [audio interrupted] on the

campus.

The Chair: Member, to let you know, we’re having a little bit of trouble

hearing you.

M. Lee: Is that better? Okay.

So 85 percent of the students come on public transit to this

campus. It serves, certainly, as that gateway, pathway, for many

students going on to SFU, UBC and Queen’s University.

My question to the minister. As I understand it, Langara College

is now near the completion of its redevelopment permitting plans with

the city of Vancouver. The expectation from the leadership team is that

that may complete as early as this coming September-to-December period.

I understand from the leadership team that the Ministry of Advanced

Education has indicated that that is an important next step in order to

move on to further discussions with the ministry about…. The province

may well collaborate with Langara College to fund this

project.

Could I ask the minister to confirm what the next steps will be? I

recognize the timing and that Langara College is pretty much delivering

on a shovel-ready project to move forward with both the province and the

federal government.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you to the member for the question. We are aware of the

project. It’s a $258 million capital project. Langara is committed to

$60 million of the $258 million. The next steps….

Just to put it on Hansard for the record, this project is

currently not on our capital plan. Langara must add it into their next

capital plan submission. We’ll need to review it and prioritize it with

other capital projects across the province to be put forward as our fall

budget update capital plan.

Thank you for your advocacy, from the anniversary at Langara last

year. The process is just to get the project over to our ministry to

consider in our ten-year capital plan.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver-Langara, do you have a follow-up

question?

M. Lee: I do have a few questions.

Thank you very much to the minister for that response. Just to say

that with the planning in place for Langara College, there’s every

expectation that they’ll be moving forward, of course, with further

discussions with the ministry, and I look forward for that to

progress.

I wanted to just turn to, obviously, Langara College — it’s known

as snəw̓eyəɬ leləm̓ — in terms of the

tremendous partnership it has with the Musqueam First Nation, as well as

the supports for Indigenous education and programming. The ministry has

provided some initial funding to some of the education programs that

Langara College has had in partnership with the Musqueam

Nation.

I wanted to ask the minister…. Looking at Langara College and its

important placement in Metro Vancouver and that partnership, recognizing

that there are other initiatives that this college continues to lead on

in the area of Indigenous education, what areas of support could Langara

College expect to receive from the ministry in supporting its

efforts?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the question from the member opposite, and I

especially thank Langara. Langara made a submission to the Select

Standing Committee on Finance. This was part of the process that

institutions put forward for asks.

We are aware that there are discrepancies across the Aboriginal

service plans. It’s something that will take some work. We’ve been

working…. We recognize that Langara currently isn’t receiving the

Aboriginal service plan funding, but we have been trying to offset it

through year-end funding, through the Indigenous student support funding

envelope.

I guess I would just add, as well, that the mandate letters to the

institutions indicate that for TRC, truth and reconciliation, and the

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples…. A part of addressing

equity is for it to be seen throughout the campus, not isolated to just

Indigenous people but a part of their overall vision and goal at the

institutions.

We recognize that there’s a systemic gap. I hope this partially

answers your question. I’m going to be continuing to advocate, for the

25 institutions, that we address the equity of the Aboriginal service

plans. What I inherited as the minister was that only 11 of the

institutions had received Aboriginal service plans, which is why Langara

raised it. I appreciate your advocacy.

M. Lee: I just want to now switch to some questions relating to compulsory

trades. Can the minister share what analysis has been done on compulsory

trades or mandatory certification?

Hon. M. Mark: Happily. Thank you to the member for the question.

For compulsory trades, we have indicated this in the mandate

letter to the Industry Training Authority. There has been some data and

analysis, no conclusions, on the review of what compulsory trades to

initiate or implement in the province. We’re still in the middle of the

process of gaining the data, and we haven’t made any decisions on any

policy reviews. Maybe if the member has a more precise question that

he’s asking.

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for that response.

I do have a few more detailed questions here that might get some

further clarification. What is the expected timing and cost of any new

compulsory certification measures? Has the government completed a

business case?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: I really appreciate hearing the question from the member opposite.

I wasn’t sure he was passionate about the trades. I’m deeply passionate

about the trades and deeply committed to having a skilled

workforce.

For the record, for the Hansard , people might not

understand compulsory trades. Every province in the country has

compulsory trades. B.C. is the only province…. We’re an anomaly.

B.C. used to have compulsory trades. That changed under the former

government. Most importantly, to me, is to see red seals working across

our workforce, building up our province.

It’s really important to me as minister to see people…. Again, I’m

not sure how many people watching from home understand the

apprenticeship program and the levels that it takes to get a red seal.

But most people understand the investment that it takes to get an

undergrad, which is normally four years. To get a red seal is normally

four years.

We are deeply committed to trying to move the dial for a skilled

workforce in a range of trades, because many are in demand. Our vision

is to ensure that everybody currently working or considering a career in

the trades has access to the highest standards of skills training,

credentialing and professional recognition that leads to good jobs and

long careers. I can tell you I’ve never met a red seal that regrets

being a red seal. They’re deeply proud to tell me that they’re red

seals.

To the question, I’m looking to get information on timing in the

fall. I’d like to know what the outcome of the review is as well. The

business case is underway. The costs are undetermined, because the

business case is still underway. I’m happy to keep you informed in the

fall, but for the time being, the purpose of this policy discussion is

to look at training up red seals, like everyone is doing across the

country.

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for that response.

Recognizing that there is that review underway and that there’s

more consideration to come with the government at this juncture, can the

minister share with us whether she’s aware of which trades,

specifically, would be first up for a mandatory certification? Would the

government be considering legislation?

Hon. M. Mark: The answer to that is no. I can pull up the list right now of what

the former compulsory trades are. That isn’t the discussion. The

discussion is seeking advice from industry experts on what, if any,

trades to bring forward as compulsory in British Columbia. We don’t have

the information at this time. I don’t want to just throw out a trade for

the sake of throwing out a trade, because it would be premature to do

so.

M. Lee: I’d just ask the next question but also invite the minister to

respond to the second part of my question, as to whether the government

is considering legislation.

My next question. In terms of collective agreements, how will the

imposition of compulsory trades work within the context of the current

collective agreement arrangements?

Hon. M. Mark: Legislation, collective agreements — all of those things would

help inform the business case, which is what we’re waiting for. I

recognize that the member is looking for some answers. I’m looking for

answers on what is going to come out of this review. But we don’t have

any information on legislative changes or what impact it would have on

collective agreements at that time. That would come in the business

case.

[2:00 p.m.]

M. Lee: Again, I appreciate the response from the minister. Just a few

COVID.

So a lot I can say. I think all of our constituencies are eager to

see what will come out of government on the economic recovery, but I can

tell you for certain it’s about skilling people up.

S. Furstenau: Thanks to the minister for that. I’m going to just segue over to

post-secondary and the cost situation.

A lot of students are looking at online learning at university

this fall but also looking at paying the same rates of tuition for that

experience. I think, generally, the consensus has been that while there

is learning happening, it is not the same as learning in person. It

isn’t the same experience and, one would expect, not quite the same

burden on universities. But many universities are not reducing tuition

costs in any way to reflect the difference in the delivery of curriculum

and learning as we navigate COVID-19.

I’m just wondering what the ministry is doing to assist B.C.

students with the tuition costs, in particular in light of other impacts

that they’re feeling economically. A lot of them would not have had

summer employment this year that they may have been counting on,

particularly in the service sector or the tourism sector. Does the

minister intend to work with universities to lower tuition costs during

the pandemic response, reflecting the adoption of the virtual teaching

practices?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the question from the member.

I guess I want to start by acknowledging that the system had to

move very, very quickly in the middle of a pandemic for 500,000 students

across disciplines. If you think about the range of disciplines —

engineering, health, you name it — some require labs, some are studying

with books, some with mannequins — but the range, right. So you’ve got

all of this range. We’re in the middle of a pandemic. The focus was

getting students across the finish line. This happened in the middle of

a semester, so that was really key.

There are some assumptions that online is less effective or less

quality. Some would argue that students had more access to instructors.

Some might not know that the cost of having all of those bills and then

adding on top additional costs to go online actually became more

expensive to the provider. So there are a lot of dimensions that you’re

raising.

Tuition is still capped from government policy. It can’t be

increased. There’s a cap of 2 percent, so that isn’t being

increased.

I most certainly understand the challenges for students around

affordability. We invested $3.5 million in emergency funding assistance,

$1.5 million to Indigenous students for emergency funding assistance. We

launched the mental health line to help them cope with this

pandemic.

There’s a lot to say, but I guess I want to just conclude by: this

is 2020; this will not be forever. Once we get our vaccine, we’re going

to go back to…. Hopefully, not to business as usual. Hopefully, we

learned some things. There have been some benefits. I won’t say what

they are for me personally. It’s kind of no one else’s business. But

there have been some lessons learned from COVID as well.

Thank you for the question. Sorry I can’t give all the answers to

what you’re asking, because it’s quite complicated.

S. Furstenau: I can absolutely appreciate the complication. I think it’s great

to get on the record 500,000 students and the efforts it would have

taken for all the post-secondary institutions, as you say, to get them

over the finish line.

I think our capacity to adapt and pivot as a species has been one

of the things that we can recognize from this crisis that we’re all in.

Here we are, right here, zooming along in the B.C. Legislature, as an

example of that.

This will be my last question. The minister mentioned the B.C.

access grant, and I’m joyed that she did. My understanding is it’s

funded using a combination of $24 million investment over three years

and $37 million from government reinvesting from grants.

Two questions. Can the minister confirm that that budget is

correct? Also, does she intend or expect that there will be an increase

to the B.C. access grant as a result of COVID-19?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the member asking this question. I’m deeply

passionate about the B.C. access grant. So are students. I imagine

students lobbied all members of the Legislative Assembly about having

upfront grants.

This is the first investment in provincial grants in 15 years, and

I want to thank my team. A lot of policy work was done.

The best way for me to describe the policy change…. We really

wanted to get it right. We wanted to do the research. We wanted to get

the evidence straight — but to focus on people and the people that need

it most. I think there was a big call to action to have completion

grants and things at the end. We wanted to have the investment up front

and at the beginning. To your technical question, yes, the budget

amounts are correct.

The second piece. We’re monitoring. We just launched. We opened up

applications July 15. Hopefully, the students will sign up. Those that

are paying attention to Hansard today know now about the B.C.

access grant and that they’re eligible for up to $4,000 or $1,000,

depending on what they’re studying. We’ll monitor the uptake, and I will

advocate. If there is huge demand and we need more, I will do that

advocacy, but for right now, it’s too soon to tell. We need to see what

the enrolments look like for the end of September.

S. Furstenau: I want to thank the minister for her responses and thank her staff

for their work. I really appreciate the passion for post-secondary and

trades training that the minister displays in all she does. Thank you

very much.

S. Bond: Good afternoon to the minister and her team. Also, I want to

recognize our critic and thank him for the opportunity to ask a few

questions today.

I appreciate the fact that the minister has shown a lot of

interest in our region of the province, has visited here and has often

been very inclusive. That is most appreciated. I also want to thank her,

on a personal note, for reaching out to my office during a very

difficult personal time. It meant a great deal to me, and I want to

thank her for that.

I’m hoping that she could just provide me with a bit of an update.

I know that she’s well aware of the need for additional health care

professionals being trained in the north, and I know we are very

grateful that we now have the opportunity to train physiotherapists, and

there is a plan in place for occupational therapy as well. I’m hoping

the minister can just give me a bit of an update on those programs and

confirm the timelines for me, just to get a sense of where we’re

at.

We have a lot of very passionate physiotherapists here in our

community, who have lobbied very hard from the time we were in

government. I wanted to be sure they have a sense of assurance about

where the program is at and what the timelines might be for the

occupational therapy program.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you to the member opposite. I have met her passionate

constituents. I think they met me at the airport when I landed. I think

they heard the minister was in town. “We need some OT and physiotherapy

up in the north.” I couldn’t agree more, and I welcome and appreciate

your advocacy.

The update for the master of physical therapy program partnership

with UNBC and UBC. The planned first intake is of 20 students in

September 2020.

The establishment of a UBC master of occupational therapy, a

northern clinical cohort leading to a northern distribution of the

program, in partnership with UNBC. The planned first intake of 16

students will be in September 2022.

Hopefully, that helps. Thank you for your advocacy.

S. Bond: Thank you for that. That continues to be very good news. I’m very

appreciative of the interest the minister has had. I do think she did

get several greetings from groups of physiotherapists every time she has

visited. So I appreciate that.

I wanted to just double-check…. I know that universities and

colleges will look very different this fall as a result of COVID. Will

there be any impacts to those programs? Obviously, there’s lab work and

all of those kinds of things. Will there be any impact?

I’m thankful for the start-up date. I’m not as worried, obviously,

at this point, about OT. We have a bit of time to work on that. Do we

anticipate any challenges with getting the physiotherapy program

underway as a result of the different models and approaches that

institutions are taking as a result of COVID?

Hon. M. Mark: To follow up on the question the member asked about earlier, I

just wanted to add another detail. We were talking about the start-up

for the OTs in September 2022. In September 2020, eight new OT students,

starting in Vancouver, will undertake clinical placements in the

north.

The work is underway. The start isn’t going to be in 2022. The

work is this year. So very happy about that.

We’re not hearing anything around concerns for service delivery.

It’s on track. But the member does point out…. I mean, depending on the

region…. When we’re thinking of health seats, we always have to think of

the clinical placements, the capacity of the institution, COVID and all

of the limitations of space, etc. Each region is looking at health seats

differently, but for the OTs, we’re on track.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that answer and for that

reassurance.

I also want to put on the record…. She knows that we’ve had this

conversation. UNBC is perfectly situated to continue training health

care professionals closer to home. We know how absolutely critical that

is. So I wanted to make sure that I bring forward, again, that place

marker that says: “We’ve got physio. We’re working on OT.”

I know the minister is doing that work with the Minister of

Health. But we need to keep in mind, especially…. I’m always concerned

about speech therapy and speech pathology, especially for children. When

there are wait-lists or shortages of professionals, we know that that

can have a significant impact on their future efforts.

[2:40 p.m.]

I guess I just want some reassurance from the minister that there

is a broader look at those health care professionals and that, while

there is good news, as we move forward, we continue to work on that list

of additional professionals that we require here in the

north.

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you for the question. Member, you and I share a deep passion

for the 250 communities. My family in Haida Gwaii. I think about what it

takes for them to get health care. My family in the Nass Valley, family

in Gitxsan territory. Many people have to drive hours upon hours to get

access. So I’m a big fan. I’m a big advocate.

I think the transparent piece of all of this is…. There’s an

ecosystem. We have a big province. Trying to spread the access is

somewhat challenging while we’re being prudent fiscal managers of the

budget.

I think the value that you’re talking about — of having access to

training, to raise your family, to have your dream career close to home

— is very in line with my value. I’m a Vancouver MLA. I love East

Vancouver. There are a lot of people that I don’t want to encourage to

move to 250 communities, but we know that we need trained professionals

in all regions of the province.

Thank you for the advocacy.

S. Bond: Thank you very much to the minister. I know that when she is in

the north, her connections are an important part of how she presents to

our residents.

I wanted to also check on something that I am quite worried about.

That worry has been enhanced by COVID, and that is the need for

additional care aides, especially those who look after our seniors. We

were facing a significant shortage of them prior to COVID. I worry about

the need for…. As we look at what the long-term care system looks like,

and as we have an aging demographic, we have big challenges in how we

care for our seniors. We need to make sure that we have properly trained

people and that we have enough of them.

I’m wondering if the minister is thinking about that, addressing

that shortage of care aides, which has been an issue. Certainly, I’ve

had lots of visits from people in long-term care homes who just can’t

find the people they need. I’m worried that’s going to be worse now as a

result of COVID and the challenges.

Has the minister given some thought, with her team, to what that

looks like, what training looks like? How do we get more people, and how

do we get the right people supporting seniors in long-term

care?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: Member, I really appreciate the acknowledgment. COVID exposed the

importance of caring for our elders, the essential service that they

provide. We recently announced a $4.4 million one-time funding

investment into health care across the province.

I guess I would line up, with the health care aides…. The

credentials for those spots are, in some cases, diploma or certificate

programs. That is precisely what the B.C. access grant was designed for

— the capacity to train people up and have those doors open. We designed

that before COVID, knowing that we need more of these workers. That’s

what the Good Jobs Guide showed us. We’ll continue working with Health

on getting more trained seats.

I don’t have the numbers right in front of me around what’s at CNC

and UNBC, but we do try to distribute across the province. I believe

some of the HCA seats…. There are 18 out of the 340 that we funded this

year.

The B.C. access grant, I think, is more to the crux of your

question — encouraging people to go through the door, to cross the

finish line. We need them to be skilled.

S. Bond: I think all of us are going to need to work together to care for

the seniors and elderly in our province in a way that’s respectful and

dignified and that we take care of their health needs. I think that

talking about the profession that serves them is something we all need

to do in a very significant way. It’s a job that we should honour and

respect — a very important one. So I thank the minister.

I have two other questions. I really thank the critic for his

latitude in letting me ask my last two questions. I know there are lots

of others.

I know that universities are required to have sexual assault and

violence policies. The minister and I have talked about this before, and

I know that it matters to both of us.

In the past, there have been concerns expressed that smaller

institutions may not have the resources that they require to be as

effective or as broad-based in the way that they respond to issues of

sexual assault and violence on campus. I know that work has been done.

I’m certainly not suggesting it hasn’t been. But I want to be sure that

it’s equitable. If you’re at a small campus in northern B.C. and there

is some sort of horrible issue that you need to deal with related to

sexual assault or violence, you’re going to get the support that you

need. I know there are phone lines and things like that.

I just wanted to raise it again and to bring it to the minister’s

attention. If they’re a large institution like UBC or other

institutions, they can fold this kind of policy expectation into their

budgeting process. It’s harder for smaller institutions.

I’m wondering if the minister is monitoring the effectiveness of

policies that are in place across the province and if she is keeping an

eye on making sure that students are cared for equitably wherever they

attend a post-secondary institution in the province.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: Again, I really appreciate the question from the member opposite.

I was an opposition MLA when your former government changed the

law.

I think it’s extremely important to recognize that assault is a

real thing in our communities and that people should have resources. No

one really wants to talk about black clouds in our community. So I think

taking that step to make it law was one thing.

I will say that when I became minister, I wasn’t impressed that

some of the policies were buried on websites. That wasn’t good enough

for me. These policies are for people, all people on campuses to be

safe, so we’ve been really aggressive in trying to make sure they’re

accessible.

One thing I can add, to the member…. In June 2019, last year, our

government announced $760,000 in funding to help build capacity at

smaller institutions to implement sexual violence and misconduct

awareness, prevention and response initiatives. We held a forum with

Ending Violence B.C. to really get at the understanding. I was a summer

student with the RCMP in Hazelton. The 250 communities’ needs are very

different from the urban, and we wanted people to feel safe. That safety

is going to be different depending on what type of campus you’re talking

about.

We are monitoring the effectiveness. Year 3 is coming up shortly,

at the end of December. The policies need to be reviewed. There may be

delays because of COVID, but the expectation is that those policies will

be reviewed, taking into account what students have said to us very

clearly. They want it to be accessible. And the balance of

accountability. It’s one thing to come forward that you’re a victim.

It’s the other parts, what happens next….

A very serious issue. Thank you for raising it.

S. Bond: That is a very helpful point, and I should have remembered that

there is a review period. I think that’s critical, and I hope that we’ll

have a chance to feed in information.

I certainly do not want to imply that here in Prince George, at

least…. I know my colleagues can speak to other campuses, but here in

Prince George, at UNBC and at CNC, they have obviously embraced those

policies and are working very hard to make sure that campuses are safe

for all of our students. I just want to make sure they have the

appropriate resources. I do thank the minister, and I will go back and

take a look at that announcement and how that works.

My last question is something the minister has spent time on

already, so hopefully this won’t be too repetitive. I did raise the

issue with the Minister of Education, but I thought it was worthy of

raising again here with the Minister of Advanced Education.

We had a program, which is about to end. I know that the Minister

of Education…. He said in his answer that government was looking at “a

comprehensive career strategy.” I’m assuming that works across both

ministries, because obviously, if you’re going to transition to

post-secondary, you want to make sure that K to 12 and post-secondary

are working hand in hand.

I wanted to raise, specifically, the issue of a program called

shoulder tappers, which was funded, I believe, for three years. The

funding was provided through the Northern Development Initiative Trust.

It really was an excellent program. It provided one-on-one opportunities

for young people to learn more about the skilled trades and how that

might be a valuable and important career — to try to help them. It looks

at things like how you get credited in high school and dual credit. That

program funding is ending, and I know that there is other work being

done.

I guess if the minister could just, for my last question, give me

a sense of her priorities when it comes to transition from K to 12 — the

importance of skilled trades. We certainly know and feel it here in

northern B.C. We know that they are well-paying, family-supporting

lifelong jobs if you are trained with a skilled trade.

[2:55 p.m.]

Again, I just wanted to put on the record the shoulder tappers

program. Likely, their funding will run out, but I know it has been

valuable. I just wanted to raise that as my last question, and I will

thank the minister in advance of her answer so I don’t take up more

time. Thank you for the time this afternoon, and again, thank you to our

Advanced Ed critic for his helpfulness in making sure we have a chance

to raise these issues.

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you for the question. If the member doesn’t mind, I don’t

have the details about the shoulder tappers program. It is the first I’m

hearing about it. Staff are saying that it’s funded in a grant through

Education.

I share your passion, when you sat at cabinet, around the

importance of investing in the trades. We can follow up with more

details from the ITA. Shelley Gray, the CEO, is happy to give some more

concrete updates on just our investments in youth.

I can assure you that my daughter, for example…. I knew nothing

about the trades. My daughter is registered in one of the dual-credit

programs, with the professional chef program. She’s going into grade 12.

We know these programs work. It’s really up to the passion of the school

districts. We hear a lot of calls to action to have more of these dual

credits across the province. But we’ll follow up in more detail, if you

don’t mind.

What we do know unequivocally is that the number of youth going

into the trades is going up. Thank you for your passion on that. I’m

glad that we are able to kind of carry on the work.

S. Sullivan: Thank you, Minister. In respect of the next estimates coming up, I

will just ask one final question. Perhaps the minister could answer in

writing. The minister could also present her answer to the previous

question in writing, to the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, on what new

programs and funding are in process for the First Nations at TRU

Williams Lake.

My final question is regarding a situation where a group of

academics concerned about academic standards purposely submitted bad

research to academic journals. Several of these were accepted for

publication, and one received an award. This has raised serious concerns

about value for taxpayer money. I wanted to know if the minister has

conducted any reviews to ensure these kinds of academic standards are

not being practised in taxpayer-funded institutions in British

Columbia.

It looks like 2:59. I am very proud to say we are going to be

ending on time. Perhaps the minister could respond in writing to those

final questions.

Thank you, Minister.

[3:00 p.m.]

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if they would

like to make any closing remarks before I call the vote.

Hon. M. Mark: First of all, I would just say, with gratitude, in

Nisg̱a’a,

t’ooyaḵsiy̓ n̓isim̓

to all of the members for their questions and their advocacy.

This may be my last estimates. My emotion comes out of my passion.

I love my job. I think that to have the power to open doors for people —

to see their faces and what I’ve seen — is something that I can’t

describe. What I appreciate is that we all value this passion in our

constituents, and investing in people is a non-partisan issue. I just

want to leave it with that. I just really appreciate everyone’s

advocacy.

We’ll get you those answers in writing. I don’t know how long it

will take, Member, but thank you for your leadership and thank you for

the variation of questions.

T’ooyaḵsiy̓

n̓isim̓ .

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and thank you to all the

members.

Vote 12: ministry operations, $2,366,498,000 — approved.

The Chair: We will now take a ten-minute recess while we prepare for the

Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural

Development.

The committee recessed from 3:01 p.m. to 3:11 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,

LANDS, NATURAL RESOURCE

OPERATIONS

AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $489,126,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I do, Chair. I will keep them brief, acknowledging that we have a

vast, vast ministry with many topic areas, and I respect the official

opposition’s critic and the Third Party critics to have as much time as

possible to fulfil their role in asking budget estimates questions for

the ministry.

I will just say that…. Oftentimes I don’t have introductory

comments, because I respect the time. However, in these times, I think

it’s worthwhile…. I know it’s worthwhile just to acknowledge the

incredible work that ministry staff has undertaken during these COVID-19

pandemic times.

We have approximately 4,000 people working for the ministry when

we’re not in the midst of wildfire season. Approximately 75 percent of

them moved their activities off premises that they usually conduct their

work at in ministry buildings around the province, yet they were able to

fulfil the business obligations of the ministry in an incredible

fashion. So I just want to start off by saying thank you to all the

staff, in every corner of the province, that undertook such an amazing

effort and continue to do so.

In the room today, I have Deputy Minister John Allan and Associate

Deputy Minister Rick Manwaring. Usually people can see them when I make

introductions. I just want to say we’ll do our best. I know that there

has been a lot of practice already. We’ll do our best in this modified

manner in which we’re doing estimates today.

Thank you very much. Those are my opening remarks.

[3:15 p.m.]

The Chair: Member for Nechako Lakes, do you have any opening

remarks?

J. Rustad: I want to also just make a few very brief opening

remarks.

We’ll try our best to have this as fluid as possible. I know with

the size of the ministry, there are a tremendous number of staff and

resources that the minister may require to draw on, so I will try to

group the questions and the themes as best I can and follow a logical

pattern through this. As much of a logical pattern…. However, given

answers, given the process, it may wander a little bit from time to

time. I know the minister appreciates that.

I also want to recognize the staff across the province. This has

been a very challenging time, and I want to thank them for the work they

have been doing on behalf of the people in the province.

I also just want to mention that, through this period of time, the

minister reached out. We were able to talk about a number of issues and

try to work through a few things. Even though we tend to throw barbs

back and forth, more than anything, as we go through this period of

time, it’s important to note that from time to time there can be some

cooperation, which is appreciated, on the issues that we’re able to do

that on.

With that, what I’d like to do is perhaps suggest that we’re going

to start off on the estimates process. We’re going to talk a little bit

about the budget itself and some of the impacts of COVID-19.

Then we’re going to need to take a brief detour. One of my

colleagues, from Kootenay East, would like to ask a couple of questions

of the minister specific to his riding that he’d like to be able to get

in. I thought it might be a logical place to put them in before we,

then, move on to talking about wildlife management.

With that, maybe I’ll start asking the minister. Obviously,

COVID-19 had quite an impact on the ministry, on the province, on many,

many people. Through the various uplifts of funding that were allocated

by government, were any additional funds allocated to his ministry? And

how has COVID-19 impacted the ministry’s expenses?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: The costs associated with the COVID response out of this ministry,

which we’re tracking, to date are $6.7 million. We’ve been undertaking

the work above and beyond what normally would happen in the

ministry.

The biggest area that has accrued costs, of that $6.7 million, is

in our efforts to ensure that the largest tree-planting season ever in

the province was successful. It was, I’m happy to report. Thanks to

staff on that. There was about $4 million associated with COVID-related

measures and ensuring that the planting season was

successful.

We also supported, through our natural resource officers, other

aspects of the government’s response to COVID. For instance, many of our

natural resource officers were deployed…. In fact, all land border

crossings had our NROs, as well as supporting the efforts at Vancouver

Airport to ensure that incoming people had isolation plans in place.

Once again, a very successful operation. That was about $1.5 million out

of that $6.7 million. The remainder, approximately $1 million, was

incremental costs associated with safety, cleaning supplies, those kinds

of items, associated with our response.

As far as the member’s question around costs and cost recovery,

we’re working with the Ministry of Finance and emergency management B.C.

to access COVID-19 funding sources, including recovery arrangements with

the federal government.

J. Rustad: Approximately how much are you looking to, hopefully, recover from

the federal government, through the money coming forward and through

other sources in the ministry? I’m trying to get an idea of the size of

the challenge that the ministry has faced due to COVID-19.

Hon. D. Donaldson: As the member may be aware, there was a very recent announcement

from the federal government of $30 million, across Canada, made

available to assist with additional costs associated with silviculture

due to COVID-19 impacts.

I had a discussion with my counterpart federally, the Natural

Resources Minister, Seamus O’Regan, around that. Details are yet to be

negotiated, but we are in discussion with the federal government about

how that $30 million will be apportioned out. That, obviously, would

make an impact on the $4 million, of the $6.7 million, that we spent

regarding silviculture additional costs.

As far as the natural resource officers go, the $1.5 million can

be recovered in an arrangement with emergency management B.C.

J. Rustad: A number of things come to mind in terms of the impacts, but one

thing…. Every ministry, of course, does a service plan each year going

into budget season. Has the service plan been impacted, in terms of the

targets, due to changes and due to the impacts of COVID-19?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: As I stated in my opening remarks, the ministry staff have been

absolutely delivering above and beyond as we worked our way through the

COVID-19 impacts. We functioned all the way through the business

targets, the business operations of the ministry. We’ll be reporting out

on the service plan, at year-end, around how targets were

met.

I would say, though, that it hasn’t impacted our work towards the

targets. Where we might see some impacts in the service plan generally

is when it comes to our ability to engage thoroughly under performance

measures around Indigenous engagement.

Obviously, many of the First Nations communities that we need to

deal with on a consistent basis…. Some of them closed down their

operations completely, out of their administrative offices. Others were

working remotely but weren’t functioning at 100 percent. That may impact

some of the timelines but, overall, not the targets in service plan.

We’re on track with that.

J. Rustad: I know a great number of the good folks that are doing the work in

government. We’re working from home through a lot of this, and

FrontCounter was closed for periods of time.

I’m curious. How has the ministry functioned with so many people

working from a distance in terms of the various activities, issues like

permitting, issues that come in, requests that would normally come in

through FrontCounter and these types of things? How has that functioned,

as a ministry with people trying to work from home? Has it slowed down

the process? Has the ministry found ways to make it work? As we are all

experiencing this reality of Zoom, I’m just curious as to how things

work within the ministry.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yeah. It has been, sometimes, a challenge working from home. I see

my official opposition critic might be doing that today.

I know that he’s alerted me to some issues that were creeping up

around FrontCounter services not being open to the public. We’ve

discussed that in what he referenced — our regular communication that we

had during the time that we weren’t able to be open. Many of the

FrontCounter…. In fact, most offices are open to the public once again.

But in the meantime, what we did is….

We immediately noticed a downturn in permitting applications

across the board once the pandemic and the provincial health officer

orders came into full effect mid-March. We had an immediate response,

which was to ramp up our online system, which was in place — online

applications for permitting.

We also increased our call centre services by increasing staffing.

I do remember that there were some concerns about wait times in our call

centre services. We responded to that by increasing staffing. In fact,

we did find that sometimes the calls were taking longer to get to,

because the call centre services were more complex and involved because

they were talking through permitting issues.

We’re able to keep track with the demand now. The experience we

have today is that our online activities are still being well used. They

dropped a little bit, and then they’ve come back. Together with

FrontCounters reopening, we’re actively promoting our online services,

because as with many things that have taken place in COVID-19 times,

people are becoming more used to using the online services.

[3:35 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I don’t know if the minister would have this information

available, but I’m just thinking about his overall budget and the

overall provincial budget. Obviously, there’s a significant amount of

revenue that comes in from forestry activities through stumpage — and

other activities, of course, not just stumpage.

I didn’t get a chance to see this in the snapshot that was

provided or the update that was provided, the scenario that was talked

about from the Finance Minister. But I’m just curious as to whether or

not the ministry was on track for collecting the $900-plus billion — I

think it was around $960 billion — to the end of March, and it’s

projected to bring in about $1 billion, a little over $1 billion, I

believe, this fiscal year through stumpage and through the forestry

activities.

I’m wondering if the minister has a sense of whether or not the

volume is being moved, whether or not logging has happened and whether

those budget targets are, hopefully, going to be achieved.

Hon. D. Donaldson: These are good questions. Obviously, the situation is pretty

dynamic, as far as predicting.

Definitely volume came off due to COVID-19 impacts, but largely,

it’s recovering quickly, especially because of the massive increase in

lumber prices and, therefore, the revenue generation to the province in

stumpage. The lumber prices, I think, today are at over $600 U.S. for

1,000 board feet. Those are near record. It harkens back to the only

times they were higher, back in 2018.

To date, the volume harvested is down a bit, but we’ll see a

pickup because of those lumber prices. And there’s still very

competitive bidding for BCTS wood, for instance, which we use to track

for our market pricing system.

[3:40 p.m.]

Specifically, the member asked about some of the quarterly

reports. In quarter 1, we had predicted for forest revenue $143 million,

and it has come in now at $111 million, but it’s still being finalized,

and that number is ticking upwards. So I guess the short answer is it’s

pretty dynamic, but companies have come back, curtailments have been

lifted, and the market is good. So we’re expecting, and experts are

predicting, a good revenue generation for the remainder of the

year.

J. Rustad: The second part of that question was year-end. Like I said, I

didn’t see whether or not there is any indication as to whether the

year-end target was met. I don’t know if the minister can add any

comment about that.

In addition to that, obviously the government is projecting a

pretty significant deficit situation for the current fiscal year.

COVID-19 has obviously had a pretty big impact on a lot of revenues.

Forestry might be one of the bright spots if the prices of lumber carry

forward through the balance of the year.

I guess the question to the minister is: is the ministry looking

at budget constraints, budget changes, through this year to help with

the overall management to the provincial budget challenge that the

current government is facing?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The year-end target was the last part of the previous question,

the first part of this question. Again, we’ve provided the most current

information on the quarterly report. It’s really, as I said in my

answer, too dynamic a situation to predict if the forecast will be

achieved or not. As I said, things are improving rapidly — a phenomenal

run-up on lumber prices. That can make a big difference.

[3:45 p.m.]

As far as our budget, we have seen a budget uplift of 3.5 percent

for this fiscal year’s budget, and that’s what we’re working

with.

The member was asking about budget constraints to help the overall

management of the money that was spent to protect citizens on COVID-19

and to improve recovery. At this point, we’re set with our budget that

we have from 2021.

I want to also point out that forestry, as the member alluded to,

has been a contributing sector despite COVID. The turnaround after a

slowdown in March became quite apparent. Mills were able to put measures

in place to follow the public health officer’s orders, and we designated

forestry an essential service. So as he mentioned, it has been a bright

spot.

J. Rustad: I find it a little curious, I guess you could say, that the

situation is still being fluid, given that the year-end was four months

ago and the amount of revenue coming in should have been fairly

predictable at this point.

Moving on, the ministry put in place a proposal, a plan, to help

the forest sector throughout the time it was being significantly

impacted by COVID-19 to be able to delay stumpage for a period of time.

I think it was three months. I think that was designed…. There were

several other jurisdictions in North America that put that in place to

try and help their sector through that.

Was there any takeup by industry to the program that the ministry

put in place?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Before I deal with the current question, I apologize if I wasn’t

thoroughly understanding the member’s previous question. I thought he

was asking whether our forecast for 2021 revenue generation was going to

be revised or was accurate.

I can give him the numbers for the ’19-20 budgeted revenue

generation from Forests versus the actual. The revenue budget for

Forests for 2019-20 was $1.084 billion, and the actual was $944

million.

[3:50 p.m.]

As far as the response measures that we put in place for industry,

one of them was deferral of stumpage, as the member alluded to. This was

one of the major asks by one of the sector associations, the Council of

Forest Industries. We put that in place, and we believe about two

companies took up that offer.

That’s mainly because…. There wasn’t a greater uptake, perhaps,

because of the situation changing so quickly. As I alluded to before,

companies were looking for response measures. We put that major ask in

place, and then companies discovered that they were still able to

operate, and the markets bounced back quickly.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that answer. I do find it curious that the

government was projecting a $12½ billion deficit. About $5 billion of

that is the additional spending measures. So clearly, over $7 billion in

revenue. That’s to be understood, given the COVID-19 issue that we’re

facing and government choices.

I do find it curious that it appears the ministry is not part of

any discussions in terms of how to manage that additional revenue

shortfall, certainly not at this stage. Maybe it’s just something the

minister can’t talk about at the moment, but clearly, there is a revenue

problem. There’s also a spending issue in terms of the deficit and the

challenges that are going forward.

With that, perhaps just one last question around the budgetary

measures that are in place. There are a number of topics that I think

we’ll get into in more detail as we go through, but I just want to touch

on permitting as one particular issue. I know there’s a backlog and

challenges in the current budget, 2020-2021. Does the ministry have any

additional funding allocated to helping to speed up or to alleviate some

of the backlog challenges that are associated with permits and permit

applications?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just to start off with, the member mentioned that he was curious

about not being part of any discussions to address revenue shortfall by

looking at spending in our ministry.

I’ll just remind him that we have many functions that relate to

revenue generation and service provisions. As the time continues in

these budget estimates and he has his colleagues come and ask me about

services in their constituencies, I’ll remind him that we are continuing

with those services because we are able to maintain our budget in our

ministry and have the staff, therefore, to provide those much-needed

services in all constituencies across the province.

As far as permitting is concerned, we have provided an uplift in

certain permitting areas, which has included hiring additional staff and

reallocating staff. In addition to those kinds of human resource

activities, we have entered a multi-year streamlining management

process, particularly in lands, in water allocation and in fish and

wildlife. So it’s not just human resources, but it’s looking at

improvement in how permitting is handled.

I would note that in the forestry part of the permitting area that

we’re responsible for, under important functions such as cutting

permits, our average turnaround is 40 days, which has been achieved.

That’s the target, and it’s been achieved.

J. Rustad: We’ll get into a little bit more on the permitting, and I know

there will be some more budget-related questions. I’m sure that the

minister is pleased to have actually had some budget questions. But as

we go through much of the policy questions that will be coming out

through the next 14 hours of estimates, there will be some additional

budget-related components that will be part of that.

Just before I move on now through to the next topic I’d like to

start with, which is wildlife management, I’d like to give the member

for Kootenay East an opportunity to ask a couple of questions that are

important for his riding.

T. Shypitka: To the minister, I’ll just…. Something that’s really volatile in

my area is going to come to a head here pretty quick. I’ll give the

minister a little bit of a backgrounder on it. He’s probably not totally

familiar with it.

Last April, when phase 1 of the pandemic was in full force, a

serious issue threatened the safety and the spread of the virus due to

two large gatherings on Crown land. They’re known as the mud-bogs, and

they bring in thousands of people from outside of our area to recreate

and camp and party and drive their vehicles in the mud. These two events

are on Easter long weekend and May long weekend on the Crown land

surrounding the Koocanusa reservoir. This is known as the Koocanusa

recreation strategy area.

There were many options that were discussed, but government came

back with an enactment of

section 58 of the Forest and Range Practices

Act, otherwise known as FRPA. This

section allowed for the closure of

Crown land to overnight camping within the recreation area, which is the

Koocanusa recreation strategy area. It was my understanding at that time

that

section 58 would only be enforced until the end of May, or at the

end of the May long weekend when both the mud-bog events would be

over.

[4:00 p.m.]

The first question to the minister is….

Section 58 is still in

force. When will this area be open once again to overnight camping on

Crown land, and what is the rationale to have had it kept closed for

this long?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the member for bringing up this topic. I do recall

very well the issue when it came to the mud-bogging event and

appreciated the member’s support at that time in our efforts to keep

people safe, basically. That is still the focus.

I don’t want to split hairs, but I believe the member does know

that

section 58 applies to Crown land. People can still camp in

designated camping spots and rec sites and parks within the area. This

section 58 is still in place because we are still in a volatile

situation.

We know that despite the provincial health officer orders and

constant warnings by the Minister of Health, we do see, as we open up

into phase 3, an uptick in COVID cases in the province. Out of an

abundance of caution, we want to make sure that we have the ability to

control, during these summer busy months, the kinds of activities that

are going to occur on Crown lands. That’s the reason that

section 58 is

still in place.

T. Shypitka: Thanks to the minister for that. As the minister knows, he says it

doesn’t include all areas inside the recreation area. Designated areas

such as rec sites and provincial parks are still open. So it really

doesn’t explain the rationale of closing this due to COVID, because we

still do have camping in that area, just not on the Crown

land.

The biggest concern — and this is one of the concerns I brought up

with the minister at the time of putting this into force — was the

displacement that it was going to cause. This area isn’t just a small

recreational park area. This is thousands and thousands, tens of

thousands, of hectares surrounding the Koocanusa reservoir. This

includes the villages of Wardner, Jaffray, Baynes Lake, Grasmere and

Newgate. This area is huge, and it plays host to thousands of recreators

every summer. The displacement alone was a big concern of mine. These

recreators are not going to just come and go back home. They’re going to

go elsewhere, and that’s exactly what’s happening right now.

Can the minister tell me if this displacement was ever considered

when the

section 58 was put into use? We are now seeing recreators going

back into the back country, cutting down trees, plowing through roads,

setting up their fires, setting up their camps at a time when we need

our COs to be enforced. Now, instead of being in an area that was

contained to a certain degree, and was well known by the COs, now it’s

literally impossible for these officers to do their job.

They’re pulling their hair out. As a matter of fact, they’re even

going as far as sending recreators that are from out of province to our

provincial campgrounds, which were identified as going to be B.C.

residents only for those provincial parks. Now you’re getting our locals

that can’t go camp in their own backyard, in their Crown land. They

can’t go to B.C. Parks or rec sites because they’re overrun with the

displacement that this has caused, and they’re upset.

Now there is an actual blockade and a protest that’s being set for

this Saturday long weekend on the bridge, a major bridge, that connects

two areas of the recreation area. This has a major potential for

violence, unrest and safety concerns.

[4:05 p.m.]

I guess the question is: did the minister consider, when they put

in the

section 58, this displacement that it would cause?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the question, to the member. We are aware that some

residents and visitors who don’t support closure are mobilizing the

action that the member discussed at the key access point. RCMP are aware

of that as well.

For sure, we considered the displacement topic that the member

well articulated. What we balance that against is the extent of the

concentration of on-the-land activities in the Koocanusa area versus

disbursing those activities to designated camping sites throughout the

region. Of course, when you have designated camping areas, people have

camping pads and camping spots. It avoids the situation of large numbers

of people camping together in an unstructured manner, and that’s what we

wanted to avoid.

We haven’t had widespread reports of the kinds of activities that

the member described, about people going off and chopping down trees and

plowing roads. The member, for those who can’t see, seems to be

disagreeing with me on that, but we’ll definitely be monitoring the

situation.

Again, it’s about public safety. We depend on people being

responsible for their actions. That’s the message that the provincial

health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry has emphasized and what the Minister of

Health has emphasized. The message has also been emphasized, if you are

coming from out of province, to enjoy your own backyard first. If you

are coming from far away to an area like Koocanusa, the message has

been, again, enjoy your own backyard first.

T. Shypitka: Well, a couple things there. First, the minister might need some

better intel on what’s actually happening in the back country of

Kootenay East. I can assure you that it’s a real problem right now, and

there are people that are doing things their own way.

The other part to it is that these people aren’t going to rec

sites. There’s only a limited number of rec sites and parks in this

area, and they’re full during the summer anyways. You have taken,

literally, thousands of campers and pushed them all over the place

outside this area, and it’s creating havoc.

[4:10 p.m.]

It is a safety issue. The minister is absolutely right. It is a

safety issue. Because of this

section 58 being in place, it is going to

cause some major safety concerns, one of them being a protest on a

bridge during a long weekend. We’ll see. God help us all that nothing

terrible happens there.

I’m relying on the COs and the RCMP. Once again, we’re pulling our

resources for something that could have been mitigated by simply

enforcing for COVID-19 — to have our COs in a designated area they know

very well and to tell people: “Try to keep to groups of less than six in

your own little campsite, and no large gatherings.” All that kind of

stuff. Everything would have been fine. This displacement has caused a

lot of unrest. I don’t think it was well-thought-out.

I guess the final question…. We’ll see how the minister responds.

When can we expect this lifted? Surely this isn’t until a vaccine is

implemented. We have camping all over the province right now. We have

camping on Crown land all over the province right now, just not at

Koocanusa. The argument that this is COVID-related just doesn’t just

hold a lot of water for me right now.

I think there’s something else at play. That’s my own theory, in

my own mind, right now. The COVID theory doesn’t fly, because we have

camping all over the province of British Columbia. We don’t see any of

these

section 58s enacted anywhere else other than here. I guess maybe

another question is: why is it just the Koocanusa area that has had this

section 58 imposed on it?

Hon. D. Donaldson: To the member, I would remind him…. I appreciated — I mentioned it

right off the bat — that the member was in support of the shutting down

over the mud-bog event because of the large, unpredictable concentration

of people. Koocanusa is unlike other areas where people in the province

are accessing camping on Crown land, in that we see repeated instances

of large numbers of people using this area.

I’ll just go back to this as a public safety issue. It’s

temporary. We can’t predict when it will be lifted because we’re just

entering phase 3. We’ll have to monitor and see how the reopening of

many of the recreation sites and park sites is dispersing people and

enabling people to find other places to camp, which wasn’t the situation

earlier. We will monitor it, and I can assure the member that the

implementing of

section 58 was for public safety concerns around

COVID-19 impacts.

[4:15 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Thanks to the minister. Absolutely, I was in support of

section

58. It was the only option that was available, but I saw the logic in

it. At the same time, it was my understanding that it would be over by

the end of the May long weekend.

The two mud-bog events, which were the primary reason for this,

have long gone, and we’re actually two phases since that support that I

gave. Now we’re into our phase 3 and phase 4, I guess, hopefully,

eventually. But that’s a vaccine, in my opinion — phase 4. I could be

wrong. But surely, this area isn’t the only area in British Columbia

that has heavy Crown-use recreation. I could be wrong on that, but it

absolutely boggles my mind to think that this is the only place in B.C.

that has a safety issue on recreation use because of high

volume.

I guess my last question is on the displacement this has caused.

People in the back country bring another threat, and that’s the threat

of forest fire. People are outside quadding in other areas that,

perhaps, aren’t treed well. There are tight confines with vegetation

that is now dry. It lends itself to forest fire. I know in the south

country, where Koocanusa is, it’s a very dry area, very dry, like most

of the parts of Kootenay East and the Kootenays as well.

Can the minister help me out a little bit here and talk to the

Southeast fire centre and put a request in that…? Due to the increased

traffic outside the Koocanusa recreation strategy area into the back

country, we’re seeing an additional threat to forest fire this year that

we have never seen before — thousands of people recreating in different

areas that they’ve never recreated. Can the minister help me out and put

a request in to the Southeast fire centre to push for a fire ban in that

area? Thank you.

Hon. D. Donaldson: We are seeing, and we do see, a concentration of camping in this

particular area, the Koocanusa, on Crown land that we don’t see in other

areas of the province. I just want to make sure that the member is aware

of that. He was asking about that. We want people to camp responsibly

and conduct their activities in the forest responsibly when it comes to

potential wildfire risk.

The member is right. We’re seeing an increase in drying

conditions, in temperatures in the southern part of the province

especially. We already have category 2 and 3 fire prohibitions in the

southeast and in many other parts of the province. I think what we’re

discussing here is category 1 and other activities that might lead to

the causing of forest fires. The member mentioned quadding. I know well

how that could potentially create risk.

[4:20 p.m.]

The fire centre experts and managers are who I depend on. They do

assessments based on indices and risks. The local fire centre manager,

of course, the Southeast region fire centre, is very aware of the

building risk when it comes to the potential for wildfires. If the

member is so inclined, we’re pleased to set up a discussion between him

and the Southeast fire centre managers. He can get a full briefing on

how the indices are playing out at this point and the decision-making

process for that fire centre manager to look at other activities that

might be high risk and creating prohibitions to those

activities.

The Chair: Members, we’ll take a five-minute recess now as we change

Chairs and do our safety protocols to make sure that we’re in good

order here.

The committee recessed from 4:21 p.m. to 4:27 p.m.

[M. Dean in the chair.]

J. Rustad: I appreciate the minister taking the questions from my colleague

from Kootenay East. It’s obviously an important issue, coming up on the

weekend. So it was important to get those questions out

there.

We’re going to now move on to a discussion of wildlife management.

I’m curious. Just to start off, let’s get some of the budgetary issues

associated with wildlife management out of the way. Perhaps the minister

could detail what has been allocated within his ministry for wildlife

management and, as well, include a breakdown of what will be spent on

inventory research and monitoring.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I can provide the member some of the figures that we have here in

this budget for this fiscal year, 2020-2021. We’ll spend approximately

$43 million on wildlife management and habitat conservation. That

includes a $10 million annual budget uplift for wildlife and habitat

stewardship committed to support the implementation of our Together for

Wildlife strategy.

That’s not the only money that’s spent on wildlife management.

There are other ministries. For instance, in the Ministry of

Environment, approximately $2.5 million is allocated for staffing that

relates to functions like mapping and for staffing like ecologists and

wildlife biologists. In the Ministry of Transportation and

Infrastructure, approximately $6.7 million is spent for staffing

associated with wildlife and environmental issues, specialists and

staff, as well as wildlife monitoring.

We also dedicate $2.6 million to the Habitat Conservation Trust

Foundation, whose mandate is to improve habitat — obviously, it’s in

their name — beyond the government program requirements.

I do have some specific investments in the three areas that the

member inquired about under our land-based investment strategy. For big

game, for instance, under inventory and monitoring, there is a spend

this year of $1.1 million, and for habitat enhancement, $600,000 under

the big game category under our land-based investment

strategy.

As far as the remainder of the budget and what’s specific to

population monitoring, for instance, we don’t have that figure at hand

right now. We can get that, and I’ll read it into the record when it’s

provided.

J. Rustad: The minister has mentioned $43 million, which included habitat

conservation. Can the minister break out how much of that $43 million is

on habitat conservation and what constitutes the work that will actually

be done under habitat conservation?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I can provide some detail for the member. Again, that $43 million

overall budget for wildlife management and habitat

conservation….

As I already indicated, $10 million of that is allocated to a

budget uplift to support implementation of the Together for Wildlife

strategy. Forty percent of that $10 million…. I did go beyond high

school math, but by my calculation, that would be $4 million for

on-the-ground stewardship activities, including habitat

restoration.

The remainder of that $33 million is for basic programs for

wildlife and habitat. I mentioned this before, but I don’t know if it

was clear. Specifically, out of that $33 million, $2.6 million is

dedicated to the Habitat Conservation Trust, whose primary focus, of

course, is to improve wildlife and their habitats beyond what our

program and government requirements are. Out of that $33 million, there

is $2.6 million specifically for that kind of habitat

enhancement.

As far as the remainder of the spend, dividing between wildlife

management and habitat conservation…. We can try to get further numbers

on that for the member. I would say, though, that it does become

complex. Staffing associated with habitat…. They might work on a number

of things. The staff might work on inventory. They might work on

monitoring, and they might work on habitat issues as well.

That’s why I don’t have that answer as forthcoming as the member

might wish, but he has some other numbers there that we’ve provided

specifically on habitat.

J. Rustad: I think, in general, I wasn’t looking for a breakdown of staffing

costs for each of the various categories. What I was really trying to

get a sense of I think you provided, in terms of the conservation side,

but also the amount that is being spent, in particular, on the inventory

work. It’s so important, when trying to make science-based decisions on

wildlife management, that we have good inventory information.

I’m curious as to the amount of resources that are going to be

allocated towards the inventory and monitoring components and how that

compares to previous years.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I agree with the member that inventory work is important. If you

don’t have that, then it’s hard to manage effectively. Again, it’s a bit

complex, but what I can say is the extra uplift of $10 million to this

$33 million base budget to make it $43 million is a considerable uplift

and shows our commitment to the Together for Wildlife

strategy.

I did indicate in the member’s earlier question about habitat that

40 percent of that $10 million uplift, approximately, was for objectives

around setting habitat restoration. But that leaves 60 percent. A large

portion of that is to improve the collection and sharing of biological

information, for instance, which is exactly in the wheelhouse of

inventory and monitoring. I would say that a good $3 million of that $10

million is for that collection and sharing of biological

information.

That’s an increase over and above the basic $33 million program

that’s in place. The $33 million program that’s in place as the base

budget is similar to previous years. It’s just that we’ve also created a

$10 million uplift, and at least $3 million of that is towards inventory

and monitoring.

J. Rustad: I wonder if the minister could break out of the $43 million, if he

has the numbers available, including the $10 million for the Together

for Wildlife, how much of that money is allocated towards caribou

management, the science associated with caribou issues and, of course,

the other components that would potentially fall under

caribou.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I think he’ll be aware that we have a $47 million commitment over

five years to our caribou recovery program. This year we have $10

million allocated towards caribou management. That is above and beyond

the $43 million that we’ve already been discussing.

J. Rustad: I guess the question is: out of the $43 million…? I appreciate the

$10 million or, I should say, the $47 million commitment over five

years.

The question, I guess, still remains. How much of the base budget,

the $43 million base budget plus the $10 million of Together for

Wildlife, is also allocated towards caribou and caribou management

issues? Perhaps, while he’s at it, maybe he could give a breakdown of

the amount being spent on predator management, both for caribou and

outside, or for other species, if he has that ability to break those

numbers out.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member had a few questions there. Each question was around….

In addition to the $10 million that I discussed earlier that’s

specifically targeted to caribou management, he was wondering about

what, out of the $33 million base budget and the $10 million in Together

for Wildlife uplift that we’ve provided this year, was specific to

caribou.

The answer to that is that there is nothing in that budget

dedicated specifically to caribou. There might be some side benefits to

work that’s done under that base budget and uplift budget around

monitoring other ungulate populations that could be used to help us

manage caribou better, but that’s not the primary or dedicated focus of

that spending in that category.

When it comes to predator management and, specifically, that $10

million that’s focused on caribou management in the province,

approximately $2 million of that $10 million is allocated to predator

management.

J. Rustad: Out of the $33 million and $10 million, the $43 million, how much

of those resources are being allocated towards predator

management?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: In answer to the member’s question, out of that $33 million base

budget and $10 million uplift, constituting $43 million, a very small

amount is allocated to predator management, in the range of $150,000, in

this budget year. As I said before, the bulk of the predator management

budget comes out of the $10 million allocated for caribou management,

and that would be $2 million.

J. Rustad: I guess a simple or a straightforward question to the minister. In

terms of the science being used for caribou decisions and the work

that’s being done up in the Peace country, in particular, for the areas

that fall under protection….

Maybe this is just a little softball to the minister for a quick

answer. I’m assuming that all these decisions are based on the best

science available, whether that’s the amount of funding put together for

it or the protection measures that have been taken, in terms of wildlife

management, predator management, etc. I’m assuming all these decisions

are based on the best science available. Is that accurate to

say?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes. Our biologists make decisions based on science. There’s

continual monitoring and improvement. They base it on science and actual

results, as they accumulate data from implementing science in the field,

more so than on modelling and forecasting, where there’s more of a

variety of perspectives and

interpretations. We especially use the

science that’s based on actual results in the field.

J. Rustad: For confirmation, I think he mentioned…. The biologists and the

wildlife specialists come forward with the information. Obviously, their

recommendations are based on the best science available, knowing that

modelling predictions can vary, depending on some other

things.

I just want to confirm that the decisions, therefore, that are

coming from the ministry, in terms of, for example, the $2 million out

of the $10 million that is being spent on caribou for predator

management…. That these decisions that the minister is making and that

his government is making are being driven by the science that is being

provided by the biologists.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, the recommendations that come forward to me are based on

science and peer-reviewed science. Of course, the biologists keep up to

date on science, and as more discoveries — I suppose you’d say — are

made and more data collected, they are able to further refine the

recommendations they make, based on those findings.

J. Rustad: Once again, I just want to try to be clear with the question here.

Then the minister’s decisions are based on science, based on the science

provided by the staff. Is that true?

Hon. D. Donaldson: When recommendations come to me — and the former minister likely

knows this from when he was in government — there are often a series of

options for the minister to choose from. Those decisions, when they come

from biologists, are based on scientific data, and those are the options

that are presented to me. So I would say these are science-based

decisions.

J. Rustad: Going along the same lines, I’m thinking about the decision

associated with the area protected for caribou up in the Peace country.

We’ve seen a situation, for example, in Tweedsmuir Park, where we’ve got

one million hectares protected, and caribou herds are in decline. In

other parks where there are significant areas are protected, various

species are in decline, including species like caribou.

I’m wondering if the minister can provide the science to show that

the protection measures that have been taken up in the Peace River area

for caribou will have better results than the protection measures that

have been taken in other areas around the province, in terms of being

able to help restore caribou populations.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I think the example that he brings up is a good one. It

demonstrates that not every situation is the same in the province when

it comes to our caribou herds and habitat.

For instance, he mentioned Tweedsmuir area. I believe his premise

was that even though habitat is protected there, the population is in

decline. It’s true. Eighty percent of the habitat in the Tweedsmuir area

for caribou is protected. But the important part here is that of that

area protected for caribou habitat, 75 percent has been disturbed

through mountain pine beetle infestations and wildfires. That

disturbance has led to an increase in wolf population and, therefore, a

decrease in the caribou population.

I think the short answer is that you have to dig deeper than just

the percentage of habitat protected but also to the condition that

habitat is in. That is why out of the $10 million this year that I had

previously said is allocated to caribou management, $2 million is

dedicated to habitat restoration.

J. Rustad: It’s interesting. The minister mentioned the pine beetle issue

associated with Tweedsmuir Park and some of the damage that has done,

obviously, and changed some of the dynamics in the Tweedsmuir area. But

I won’t go to the obvious point of the politics; rather, I go up to the

area that has now been decimated up in the Peace country for caribou

protection.

There is a significant spruce beetle outbreak that is devastating

a significant amount of the forested land and values that have been

protected. Without control measures of that spruce beetle epidemic in

that area, it will likely destroy a significant portion of the habitat

which is to be protected.

I’m just curious with regards to what the science may say about

the future value of that habitat and the decision that has been made to

protect that habitat for caribou, when there is such an obvious forest

health pest issue that is running uncontrolled throughout that

area.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member brings up a very interesting topic.

As far as we can determine, in the 700,000 hectares that has been

set aside under the partnership agreement around caribou management in

the Peace area, the spruce beetle outbreak is not as prominent as in

some areas outside of the 700,000 hectares. So in those

timber-harvesting land bases outside of the 700,000 hectares where

spruce beetle infestation has arisen, we are focusing our mitigation

measures around those areas.

Sometimes the mitigation measures also occur within caribou

habitat protection zones. That includes, as the member is probably

aware, traps and removal and factors.

[5:10 p.m.]

There have been cutblocks approved before the partnership

agreement was signed, prior to that, that lie within the protected area

that have, as part of the activities, to remove spruce beetle for

harvesting purposes.

We’re aware of the circumstances that the member has raised, and

we’ll be monitoring it closely.

J. Rustad: It does beg the question. Obviously, the ministry is aware of the

problem and is aware of how to manage spruce beetle, which is through

baiting and removal of the area that has been impacted through

harvesting. Other methods are, of course, to have a rather large-scale

burn through the area to try to eradicate the pest problem, all of

which, of course, impacts on the potential habitat values and the values

in the regions and the rationale for why the area was added in the first

place.

I think we could go on at length about that, back and forth on

that topic. I’m not sure if we would get anywhere, in terms of the

decision. But I am curious, though, in terms of the spruce beetle and

knowing how spruce beetle advances…. I know the ministry is well aware

of how the spruce beetle advances.

Was any modelling done on the habitat values and the impact of the

habitat values for forest health issues? Were there any consultants

engaged, associated with that? Is that modelling information available,

especially in terms of the value of the habitat and the potential impact

to those values from forest health issues?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll just ask for clarification. Is the member referencing

specifically the 700,000 hectares that were set aside for caribou

protection, habitat protection?

J. Rustad: Yes. Specifically the area that has been set aside for caribou

management, whether or not there was modelling done in advance, given

the information that the ministry is well aware of in terms of the

spruce beetle epidemic and the potential for the spruce beetle epidemic

to grow and, as the minister has referenced, the impact of other forest

health issues in habitat in other areas of the province.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: A couple of things. The 700,000 hectares was identified by the

federal government through the federal recovery strategy and by the West

Moberly and Saulteau, based on their Indigenous knowledge that supported

the 700,000 hectares set aside. So based on that advice from both the

federal government and the First Nations, we looked at that

area.

I wouldn’t say there was…. The type of work that was done

regarding spruce would’ve been inventory work looking at the stands and

the seral stages of the stands when it came to spruce.

I think it’s important…. Perhaps I didn’t explain myself

thoroughly in the answer to the Tweedsmuir issue, but in that situation,

the mountain pine beetle epidemic created a massive amount of fuel for

wildfire, and the wildfires that have swept through have had the impact

on the caribou habitat. So that was the main factor — the

wildfires.

In this instance, we know that the spruce beetle spreads a lot

more slowly than the mountain pine beetle. In addition, part of the

settling on the area being set aside, the 700,000 hectares, is a

recognition that wildfire behaviour in this area does not mean that

wildfire would consume the entire 700,000 hectares and, therefore, all

the potential habitat for caribou would be lost in the instance of a

natural wildfire.

As I said, we’re monitoring. We’ll be managing for long-term

results and keeping our eye on the natural processes that are evolving

in that 700,000 hectares.

J. Rustad: I think that the minister is well aware, probably, that all of

Tweedsmuir Park didn’t burn, in terms of the habitat for caribou,

through the fires, although there certainly have been devastating

impacts.

The spruce beetle problem, given the history of spruce beetle in

other areas of the province as it grows…. It does grow slower, because

it doesn’t have as much jumping capabilities as the pine beetle did. It

still builds significant fuel loads, and there have been significant

fires that have happened because of spruce beetle impacts in other

areas.

It’s curious, but I think that the minister did answer the

question, not directly but indirectly, which was that there wasn’t

modelling done associated with the forest health outbreak. But that’s

okay.

I do want to move on to another aspect of it that the minister

talked about, which was the recommendations from the First Nations based

on the local knowledge and their interest within the area. The ministry,

as well as other ministries, I’m sure, had a lot of engagement with the

First Nations on that land base management decision, as well as on the

wildlife management decisions.

[5:20 p.m.]

I guess I’m asking the minister — it may be a rhetorical question

— if he could confirm that level of engagement before making that

decision around the wildlife management in the Peace country and whether

that similar type of engagement is being considered or is being

undertaken in the other caribou habitat areas that the ministry is

currently looking at for potential future actions.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m just wondering…. A little bit of clarification, please. Are

you talking about the engagement process with interested parties around

our other caribou herd planning initiatives under the

section 11

agreement with the federal government? Is that the topic you wanted to

explore?

J. Rustad: For clarity, obviously in the world of UNDRIP…. The minister

mentioned how the recommendations that came forward from the First

Nations were obviously a significant component in guiding the decision

around the land base component, and there are many, many other First

Nations around the province which impact over caribou areas.

[5:25 p.m.]

I’m curious, with regards to the level of engagement the ministry

has with those other nations, if it’s at a comparable level to the

engagement with the First Nations in the Peace country and how much

influence, I guess you could say, those nations have on the

science-based decision-making that the ministry is making around the

caribou management.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m happy to get into the answer to this question. I just didn’t

want to let a statement by the member pass previously about modelling

when it came to the spruce beetle and the potential infestation in the

700,000 hectares that were set aside under the partnership

agreement.

We understand, as a ministry, the dynamics and the likely impact

of the spruce beetle infestation. The impacts in that area were

considered and discussed, and we do impact-modelling every year for

spruce beetle. That helped us inform our considerations and discussions

when it went into that decision.

As far as the question at hand, the requirement and our desire to

engage First Nations in herd planning under the

section 11 agreement for

other herds around the province is clearly enshrined in the

section 11

agreement that we have with the federal government. It’s explicitly laid

out there. And we appreciate and take seriously Indigenous traditional

knowledge in the decision-making that goes into the herd planning, along

with engagement with other interested parties. In fact, we are

acknowledging the importance of Indigenous traditional knowledge in all

of our wildlife decision-making areas.

[5:30 p.m.]

That’s typified by the discussion paper that’s publicly available

around changes to the Wildlife Act that will require our scientists, our

biologists, to incorporate that knowledge into decision-making, which is

something they do already.

The partnership agreement that applies with the West Moberly,

Saulteau and Canada and B.C. is unique, in that the requirements Canada

had as a prior condition to entering into that agreement around the

participation of the Saulteau and West Moberly…. Nonetheless, as I said,

we value the input we get from First Nations on their traditional

territories under the

section 11 agreement, when it comes to other herds

in the province.

J. Rustad: I want to move from caribou to talk a little bit about other

species — in particular, one of the things that is being spent, with the

$2 million on predator management, for the caribou, to protect the

caribou herds. Does the ministry have good scientific data on the size

and the number of predators — wolves, in particular, but other predators

as well — across the province?

My understanding from talking to those in the field science, as

well as the hunters, is that those predator numbers have been increasing

significantly over the years. I’m just wondering whether the ministry

has reliable data, reliable science, on the number of predators across

the province. And along with that, out of the $2 million being spent on

predator management for caribou, how many predators the ministry

believes that they’ll take out for that amount of money?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: We have an approximate number for wolf population overall in the

province of about 8,500. He asked for sort of an overall number and how

reliable that was. I need to emphasize that that’s an

approximation.

Where we have more detailed population numbers is in areas where

caribou populations are at risk. Whenever we embark on a predator

control program such as has been done with wolves, we do a detailed

population estimate in those areas first, not just that but an analysis

of the causes of mortality of caribou in those particular

areas.

We do this by radio-collaring caribou. When the collar stops

moving, our biologists move in and find out why the caribou is no longer

alive. We have more detailed population numbers for specific wolf

populations as they relate to caribou management.

The budget that the member quoted is $2 million for predator

management. That was approximately the same for last year, and 474

wolves were removed with that type of budget last year. Some of that

work is done in collaboration with First Nations where they desire to

undertake the work on the land.

We also have embarked on a limited amount of cougar population

management as it relates to caribou, especially in the central Selkirk

herd.

J. Rustad: Does the ministry have a current moose population estimate around

the province, sort of a total amount? I’m going to give the minister an

opportunity to talk about 16 years, I suppose, by asking this

question.

Moose populations over the last couple decades, and even longer,

have declined dramatically across the province, for a variety of

reasons. In some areas, they may have stabilized and gone up a little

bit over the last five years. In many other areas, they are down

significantly, 80 percent or more by some accounts.

I’m just wondering what the ministry has in terms of data

associated with the moose inventories and the totals that we might have

across the province.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I want it noted on the record that the first time 16 years came up

was not off the lips of myself but of my official opposition critic.

Thank you for that.

Yes, the overall populations…. Again, we have much better data at,

I guess, a more specific region or management unit, but the

overall number of moose in the province is approximately

160,000.

J. Rustad: I want to get into some of the issues that I’m sure the minister

is aware of and that we’ve talked about. I just want to ask one question

straight up.

There are many people around the province who like to hunt for a

living. Obviously, moose is a very important species, as well, for First

Nations in terms of food, and the population levels of moose are a

concern for many areas. The hunting opportunities are limited. Some

First Nations have held back from hunting moose because they’re so

concerned that the numbers in their particular supply units are too low

— their recruitment is one of the most important factors, and all of the

studies, obviously, have shown that — whether it’s loss to predators or

other factors.

Given that recruitment of moose means the survival of the babies,

does the minister believe it is a good practice for us to be killing

baby moose?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m happy to discuss this topic. I would pose to the member

whether he had ever posed the same question to his cabinet colleagues

when he was in cabinet, who were in charge of this exact same program,

which was more widespread and more abundantly used when he was in

government.

For instance, going back to 2011, there were 584 cows or calves

harvested under the previous government. Last year, under our

government, there were 79. I think that’s a pretty clear answer about

the trend that we see as being important. I’d also want to point out

that, in 2011, out of the 584 cows or calves that were harvested, only

28 were harvested in caribou recovery areas.

[5:45 p.m.]

In other words, 95 percent were harvested in regions around the

province — where, as the member pointed out, there are significant areas

for First Nations and other people to harvest moose for sustenance

purposes —

whereas last year, under our government, out of the 79 cows

or calves that were harvested, 74 were harvested from caribou recovery

areas. In other words, only five were harvested from areas outside of

caribou recovery areas.

We not only decreased this practice, compared to when the member

was in government — and, I might add, never raised this issue — but

we’ve also focused the harvest of cow-calf moose into specific areas

around caribou recovery and areas where the moose population can be

stabilized at a sustainable level. The two areas, specifically, have

been in the Parsnip and Revelstoke areas.

Those are the management techniques that we’re focused on. I think

it’s clear that we’re managing. Caribou recovery has been important, and

we want to take control of caribou recovery.

J. Rustad: I don’t want to put words in the minister’s mouth. He didn’t

answer the question, but his answer did indicate that he is okay with

the killing of baby moose.

That being the case, I just want to make sure, on the record….

It’s worth noting that, in 2019, there were 357 tags for cows or calves.

In 2020, this has increased now to, I think, 400 or more. It’s also the

third time in a row, under this government, where these tags have been

implemented — and an increase.

The minister talked about how this has been focused on the caribou

areas. Yet on the ministry’s own two-pager on moose, found on the

government’s website, it clearly states: “Reducing moose numbers may

help to keep wolf numbers low, which relieves predation on caribou. In

the Parsnip, this strategy did not appear to benefit

caribou.”

When I look at this, I look at the results — in particular, the

lack of conclusive evidence within the province. The province is a

leader in terms of this practice of alternate prey management. It seems

to be not very scientifically based. In terms of the results, the

desired results, as stated by the minister and this government, are to

improve caribou herds.

I think, more importantly, the minister has said clearly, in terms

of the caribou management and the caribou management issues, that the

input from First Nations is critical. The input from the nations he

relies on was a big piece of the decision around the caribou management

area.

Obviously, this government, with the introduction of UNDRIP, wants

to be significantly consulting with First Nations on those decisions.

Yet here we are, with a First Nation that is up in the Parsnip area,

which is the McLeod Lake Indian Band, that has sent a letter, dated July

20, to the minister, who is very opposed. “To that end, it is

disheartening to read that the B.C. limited entry hunting, published by

the ministry, states that the cow-calf moose tags will be increased to

400 in 2020.”

Here we have a case where the minister’s own website suggests that

up in the Parsnip area it is ineffective and that it does not appear to

benefit caribou. We have a local First Nation that is opposed to this

and that relied very heavily on moose for sustenance and for moose

hunting.

[5:50 p.m.]

Yet the ministry seems to ignore the input of this nation and, by

the minister’s own information, the lack of science that conclusively

points that the practice would have a benefit for caribou.

Why is the ministry proceeding with the LEH on cow calves when

they don’t have approval from the First Nations, and clearly, the

science isn’t supportive of the operation? As

part 2 of that question….

Maybe this is a bit much. I might have to go back to this as a different

question. Did the ministry consult with the local First Nations up in

that area or in other areas of the province before making the decision

to increase the LEH opportunities for cow-calf moose?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Let’s get serious here. There were 584 cow-calf moose harvested in

2011 and over 2,000 authorizations under the previous government. The

member never raised this publicly.

[5:55 p.m.]

That continued with 399 harvested in 2012; 206 in 2013. These

numbers were absolutely so much higher than what we see today. We have

79 harvested last year under our government. So for the member to talk

about being okay killing baby moose…. If he was so concerned about the

culling of moose cows and calves, why didn’t he raise this when he was a

member of government? It was just silence — crickets. Now, all of a

sudden, there’s some kind of epiphany.

I would say that we have to take these measures — and they are

very considered measures — because of a lack of action on caribou

management by the previous government. We are taking these measures in

order to manage the caribou populations to sustainable and healthy

levels. We need to do this because it’s apparent that the lack of action

by the previous government resulted in a threat, under the Species at

Risk Act, by the federal government that they would impose a unilateral

action on habitat conservation.

That would have been bad for B.C. It would have been bad for

communities. It would have been bad for workers who depend on the forest

industry. So let’s really get realistic here around this tool that we’re

using to manage caribou populations in a sustainable manner.

Now, as far as the specific situation that the member raises

around the McLeod Lake concerns in the Parsnip area regarding cow-calf

harvest, I want to make sure that the member knows that the McLeod Lake

Indian Band was consulted deeply four years ago about the development of

the regulations at the time, and four years ago was when the member

asking the questions was in government.

These consultations over the change in regulations that have

resulted in the cow-calf harvest were done under the previous

government. I think the member, if he’s concerned about that, has to

look to his colleagues and look to the time he was in

cabinet.

As far as the management tool that we’re using here, we’ve

decreased wolf populations in a predator management approach. Those

populations can spring back quickly when there are large numbers of

moose, so we’re using this tool in a very specialized, expeditious

manner, very concentrated, in order to stabilize moose populations at a

level that will not result in a boom in the wolf population and,

therefore, the side impacts that has on the caribou

population.

Overall, I think and I believe that our management approach is

sound. It is also much more specific and targeted than what was done in

the past under the previous government.

J. Rustad: Well, the minister seems to want to ask me some questions. If

you’d like to exchange roles, just let me know. We can arrange for that

to happen, and then you would have an opportunity to ask those questions

if you so desire.

In all seriousness, the minister’s own website, on this, clearly

states: “In the Parsnip, this strategy does not appear to benefit

caribou.” So what we have here is no consultation by the current

government on a strategy that, quite frankly, needs to change. That was

then; this is now. We’re talking about going forward.

There was no consultation with those First Nations, and not just

with that First Nation. As a matter of fact, across the province…. I

think there are about 24 or more letters that have gone in now to the

minister. There are least 41 different nations that have expressed

concern and want to see this practice stopped.

[6:00 p.m.]

We’re looking at a situation where clearly, the desire and the

interest, the local knowledge, the needs of these First Nations are not

being considered, their concern, in particular, for the health of moose

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20200730pm-CommitteeA-Blues
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20200730pm-CommitteeA-Blues
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2083a50959158c5132a37ea160b06cbc2d12bc41

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).

British Columbia Committee Hansard (Blues) — 30 July 2020, p.m., Issue 18 (41st Parliament, 5th Session)

(HANSARD)

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY,

SECTION A

ISSN 2563-3511

CONTENTS

Section A

THURSDAY, JULY 30, 2020

Section A

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED

EDUCATION, SKILLS AND TRAINING

COVID.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,

LANDS, NATURAL RESOURCE

OPERATIONS

AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

section 58 of the Forest and Range Practices

section 58 would only be enforced until the end of May, or at the

Section 58 is still in

section 58 applies to Crown land. People can still camp in

section 58 is still in place because we are still in a volatile

section 58 is

section 58 was put into use? We are now seeing recreators going

section 58, this displacement that it would cause?

section 58 being in place, it is going to

section 58s enacted anywhere else other than here. I guess maybe

section 58 imposed on it?

section 58 was for public safety concerns around

section 11

section 11 agreement for

section 11

section 11 agreement, when it comes to other herds

part 2 of that question….

Document details