Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 106

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M210 — Family Day Amendment Act, 2018

A. Weaver

Bill M211 — Hunting and Fishing Heritage Amendment Act, 2018

J. Rustad

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

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

Hon. D. Donaldson

D. Barnett

J. Rustad

C. Oakes

D. Ashton

J. Sturdy

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018

Bill 3 — Tla’amin Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 4 — British Columbia Innovation Council Amendment Act, 2018

Bill 8 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2018

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (continued)

T. Shypitka

Hon. G. Heyman

R. Sultan

P. Milobar

THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M210 — FAMILY DAY

AMENDMENT ACT,

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Family Day Amendment Act,

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Family Day Amendment Act, 2018,

of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a

first time now.

This is the second time that I’m introducing this bill, which, if

enacted, would amend the Family Day Act to prescribe that the third

Monday in February each year is observed as Family Day. This amendment

would align the date of B.C.’s Family Day with family days and other

public holidays across the rest of Canada and in the United

States.

The purpose of Family Day is to highlight the importance of family

and bring families together, not cater to corporate lobbyists in the ski

industry. In B.C., we observe Family Day a week earlier than all other

provinces. Families spread out beyond B.C. aren’t able to be together.

Federal employees and many who work in business are forced to work

Family Day, since it is a business day everywhere else.

On February 9, the Premier announced that beginning 2019, Family

Day would shift as outlined in this bill. Unfortunately, that cannot

occur without a change in legislation. To assist government, I’m

bringing forward this bill in the hope that the ball is not dropped. I

would have brought this forward earlier had I realized we had such a

light legislative agenda this session.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M210, Family Day Amendment Act, 2018, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M211 — HUNTING AND FISHING

HERITAGE AMENDMENT ACT,

J. Rustad presented a bill intituled Hunting and Fishing Heritage

Amendment Act, 2018.

J. Rustad: I move that a bill intituled the Hunting and Fishing Heritage

Amendment Act, 2018, of which notice has been given in my name on the

order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

The Hunting and Fishing Heritage Amendment Act, 2018, is about

wildlife management, which is the science of managing wildlife and its

habitat, including people. Conservation is a key component, and it is

the wise, sustainable use and management of natural resources, including

wildlife, water, air and earth deposits. Adding this to the act provides

a clearer direction as to the intent of the act in managing

wildlife.

Public safety must also be at the forefront of the mind when

interfacing with B.C.’s wildlife. Appropriate courses of action must be

defined to minimize wildlife-human conflicts while maintaining natural

populations of wildlife.

[1:35 p.m.]

I’m pleased to be moving this bill and to add these key components

of conservation and public safety to the Hunting and Fishing Heritage

Act.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

J. Rustad: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M211, Hunting and Fishing Heritage Amendment Act, 2018,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the Ministry of Forests,

Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. In Committee A, I call

continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,

LANDS,

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

On Vote 28: ministry operations, $473,452,000

(continued) .

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’ll just collect the answer that happened before the break on

the Bowen Island situation.

J. Rustad: Yes, if you could provide that answer in writing, that would be

helpful, if you’re not prepared to be able to read it into the record

today.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: In regards to the situation of B.C. Timber Sales and logging on

Bowen Island, we’re very aware of the sensitivity of the landscape there

and that many residents of the island don’t necessarily want to see

logging of the forests on that island.

What we want to do is have some time to engage in discussions with

the residents and, as well, with our own BCTS personnel. That’s why the

forest stewardship plan was pulled back. We’re going to embark on those

discussions, and that’s to really dig down into some of the topics that

residents are concerned about.

The suggestions that the member made on behalf of some of the

residents about completely removing the forests there from the

timber-harvesting land base might not be in the best interests of what

some of the residents want, as far as, for instance, community wildfire

protection plans that might need to be put in place.

We’re aware of the concerns that the member representing that

constituency, on behalf of the Bowen Island residents, articulated. And

we’re going to make sure that we have some time for further dialogue

with residents and the B.C. Timber Sales.

D. Barnett: I’m sure, Minister, you’re aware of the announcement this morning

by Norbord Inc., with the OSB plant in 100 Mile House in my riding. They

will be suspending operation on or around May 14, 2018, due to lack of

fibre. They are the largest consumer of deciduous timber and

low-quality, non-sawlog-grade conifer logs in the Cariboo.

In the short term, there is wood, I know, around the mill that

could be logged if permits were given. In the longer term, this mill

needs stability. It needs long-term fibre commitment from the Ministry

of Forests. There are many things that have happened in the Cariboo,

such as wildfires and pest damage, but fibre constraints on this company

and others need to be addressed very quickly.

The other issue, of course, is my community. This will create

massive job losses in a small community with only two major

corporations, one being Norbord. This will affect our families and our

communities. Without long-term timber supply, Minister, there are no

logging contractors available, as they need security too. For three or

3½ months they did not work this summer due to wildfires. Many of them

had to move on.

What we must have, as quickly as possible, Minister, is a

long-term timber supply for this company so we can put people to work,

keep people at work, keep people in our communities. I would like to

have a commitment from the minister. I will be happy to work with him on

whatever I can do to ensure stable fibre in the very near future for the

OSB Norbord plant in 100 Mile.

The question to the minister is: will the minister commit to

making this a priority?

Hon. D. Donaldson: As far as this budget estimates process goes, I’m happy to talk

about the concerns that the member has brought forward. They are

concerns that I share with her, and I will definitely take her up on her

offer to provide assistance as we have initiatives to resolve this

situation. I’m committed to doing that.

[1:45 p.m.]

I want to say that we just got the news this morning, as well,

about this temporary shutdown, as of or around May 14, of the Norbord

plant. I’m fully aware of the impact it has on 100 Mile. The fact that

160 direct jobs but also that jobs in the bush associated with that and

the multiplier effect…. It’s going to be a very, very difficult

situation. So my sympathies go out to the workers at this point. My

regional economic operations staff have reached out to make sure

appropriate services are in place, if needed, for the

workers.

I had a telephone discussion with senior executives in Norbord

this morning, including Robert Fouquet, the vice-president of engineered

wood export and forest products, and, as well, with Noel Roberts, who’s

the general manager of woodlands for B.C. and Alberta for the company.

They did inform me that they are looking at redeployment of some of the

workers. I asked, made sure, to be kept up to speed with how that’s

going. They didn’t have an exact number, but when I hear from them how

that redeployment will be carried out, I’ll ensure that the member gets

that information as soon as I get it.

In the short term, of course, the reasons cited by Norbord for the

temporary closure of approximately four weeks, beginning May 14, were

that fires prevented their contractors from getting access into the

forest for timber supply for their yard, for breakup here, and a severe

winter as well.

There are a couple of things in the short term. The logs will

still be coming in. They’re still going to be bringing logs into the

yard. The planning work has been done and consultation with First

Nations. Under their existing non-replaceable licence, which is up to

220,000 cubic metres a year, they’ll be able to access burnt whitewood.

That’s one of the decisions we’ve made, and that’s available now as a

means to get more wood flowing in the short term.

As well, they were the successful bidders, just this week, I

believe, on a B.C. timber sale of 60,000 cubic metres, which is pretty

well right outside their door, towards Gustafsen Lake. That’s good news,

in the short term, as far as getting some log supply into the yard. We

want to see that log supply in that yard filled up so that the temporary

shutdown is as short as possible and that we’re working.

I committed, on the telephone this morning — and I want to make

sure it’s on the record for the member here today — to meet shortly with

the CEO of Norbord to discuss some of the proposals they have for

long-term fibre supply, proposals that they’ve put forward around a

deciduous profile, around accessing fire-impacted timber, which we’ve

already been able to resolve, and around fibre utilization and getting

to fibre that other licensees aren’t using currently, which is an

important part of what we need to be doing in the forest. They also

pointed out that the long-term timber supply has been a long-standing

issue.

Our staff is actively engaged with Norbord, as we speak, to

address the short term and the long term. Again, we’ll be there for the

workers, and I commit to meetings with Norbord and commit to make this a

priority.

D. Barnett: The biggest issue, Minister, is long-term tenure. Short-term

tenure, after what we’ve just been through in the fire season, will not

work anymore. They have done this for years, and they’ve been able to

manage. But due to the wildfires and due to what happened to our

contractors, who have had to pack up and leave because they didn’t make

any money for 3½ months…. They fought fires, and the money they made

from fighting the fires only paid wages and bought fuel and kept

equipment running. So we have other issues.

[1:50 p.m.]

The most important part of my question is: will the minister

ensure that Norbord receives some long-term tenures so our community can

be stable, our contractors can come back and we have stability for our

families and our community?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, as I said, we’re working on that with Norbord. I can’t make

that commitment in the House at this moment. But I’ve got to say that

talks are underway on those three areas.

As well, these are their own words from the senior executives this

morning. They’ve had been working hard for long-term commitment for many

years. We’ve been in government eight months. The many years before that

was a different government. So that situation has been unresolved for a

long time, and we would like to resolve it with them.

D. Barnett: Yes, Minister. I was one of the people that was there when we

first got our PA 16, our pulpwood harvesting agreement. So nobody knows

the history of Norbord, Ainsworth and this whole issue better than I do.

Unfortunately — maybe it’s fortunate — I’ve been around for that

time.

I just want you to know the importance of keeping this facility

open so that our community can have stability. I know the ministry’s got

economic people out there. But if there’s no jobs, there’s no money

coming into our households. Nobody talking to people works. We’ve had

enough over the past year.

I look forward to working with the minister, and I hope the

minister will keep in touch with me, as I am in constant contact with

Norbord. I’ve been fighting with Norbord for many, many years. It is a

tough issue, but we need this resolved as soon as possible or we will

have communities where, at the end of the day, you won’t be worrying

about housing because there will be lots of empty houses in the Cariboo

region.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Duly noted. I look forward to working closely with the member, who

has Norbord in her constituency, in a coordinated effort. I think we

need to pull together on this. I mean, Norbord’s own numbers: 160

family-supporting jobs at the plant, 113 contracted jobs, an additional

368 indirect and induced jobs — all from a PricewaterhouseCoopers

report. Those aren’t just made up numbers. It’s the single largest

contributor to the tax base in the region.

Your point is heard. You’ve heard the commitment from me, and I

look forward to getting onto this as soon as we can.

J. Rustad: Before we had the break, we were talking about allocation and

fibre supply. I’ve got a few other questions, along with fibre supply,

that I want to look at asking. In particular, I understand the

allocation decisions following a determination are going to be

challenging.

What steps is the minister taking to try to expand the

availability of fibre, particularly waste fibre that is currently being

left behind or, potentially, fibre that might be uneconomical because of

lack of road access or lack of ability to be able to haul over

distances?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: This is a topic that is of utmost importance to this government

and to the province as a whole, I believe. Because as we’ve talked about

with the decreasing annual allowable cut, we need to get as much

utilization out of fibre as we can for economic initiatives. Some of

that means that we’re going to have to find ways for businesses to

access and use wood that’s currently not been being utilized.

The use of post-harvest residual fibre, another word for wood

waste, after logging, is closely tied to market conditions and the

economics of using that fibre. We know the member’s familiar with

stories about the economic viability. However, we’re still following on

with the fibre action plan from 2014. We’ve made available

low-end-quality fibre to secondary users in a way that is cost-effective

for them. I struck a coast pulp fibre working group in the fall. They’re

going to be coming to me with recommendations soon in connection with

our ministry staff and mill owners.

Every area is somewhat local when it comes to waste wood and

residuals and timber salvage. So we have a suite of forest licences in

order for companies to access that kind of wood, and it depends on the

forest and the local community and more local attributes. If there’s a

facility looking for a fibre, our staff is always ready to listen and

try to find ways for that company to access the fibre.

We’ve done a lot on the timber-salvaging portfolio after the

wildfire situation. We managed to get 1.3 million cubic metres of wood

under cutting permit, and that’s just since the fires stopped. I think

that’s an example of the priority of this government to get the fibre

available.

Then there’s residual fibre utilization when it comes to pellet

plants, for instance. We just had an example of an oriented strand board

plant that we’re working with to find ways for them to get access to the

fibre that’s sometimes burnt. That’s not a good use of wood when it can

be used for a value-added product.

We also have to be careful about how we approach this. We don’t

want to inflame the situation any further. We know it’s unwarranted in

the United States — their assertion that we’re subsidizing our forest

industry. That’s wrong, and it’s incorrect. We also are aware that

there’s heightened sensitivity around that and that there’s a potential

for countervailing duties to be adjusted year to year.

We have a lot of tools, and we’re putting them in place.

Definitely, I take what the member says around making sure that we get

the most use out of the fibre that’s slated for harvest.

J. Rustad: Last fall we canvassed a topic — I also canvassed the Ministry of

Environment, at the minister’s request — which is around this notion of

a carbon tax on wood waste.

[2:00 p.m.]

I noticed, with this budget, that topic was not included in the

budget. I didn’t expect it necessarily to be, but I am curious as to

whether that is still a tool that the minister is considering in terms

of trying to encourage the utilization of residual waste that’s left

behind in the blocks.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member is correct. There are no plans to implement a carbon

tax on slash pile burning in this coming fiscal year. We’re working

closely with the climate action secretariat under the Ministry of

Environment and Climate Change Strategy. This, then, gives us time to

work with industry as well.

I can’t give a firm answer on when that carbon tax will be

implemented as far as slash pile burning, but it was part of our

platform. We just want to make sure it’s implemented in a manner such

that we have enough time to discuss it thoroughly with industry and make

sure it’s getting to the goals that we want to get to.

J. Rustad: One of the other components of the question I asked earlier was

around access and being able to get out to more remote areas and

expanding the amount of fibre that might be viable for harvesting within

our timber-harvesting land bases.

Is the ministry considering, in conjunction with or working with

industry, any major main-line roads or other types of upgrades that

would extend the viability of being able to access wood that is perhaps

uneconomical at the moment?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The topic of the government directly taking on the role of

building roads for access for timber for a licensee would be construed

as a direct subsidy, so we want to stay away from that. However, when

there’s an ability to coordinate with B.C. Timber Sales, building roads

into their charred areas in connection with a major licensee’s desire to

get to volume, then those are the kinds of coordinated activities that

we undertake in order to access lumber and areas of the working

forest.

We do have, in the budget each year, approximately $13 million for

road upgrades. That’s to maintain and improve existing roads. That’s

another part of it, as well.

J. Rustad: The rationale and the reason for the questioning around this is,

obviously, the AAC’s, annual allowable cuts, decline.

[2:05 p.m.]

There’s going to be increasing pressure to try to find and utilize

more fibre that can be economical for those areas to be able to protect

the jobs and operations in communities. So that’s the rationale for

asking these questions, as to what the minister may be looking at

doing.

More specifically, there are a number of major licensees in

various areas of the province, coastal and other areas, that have annual

allowable cuts for their renewable tenures. In some cases, those tenures

are undercut for a variety of reasons, but the levels aren’t being

harvested.

Does the minister have any numbers or estimates in terms of the

percentage or the amount of volume that might be currently being

undercut by mills on their renewable tenures?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, there is volume in undercuts. I’m not sure if the member

mentioned, but there’s a five-year cut control period, where a licensee

has the opportunity to harvest the full allotted volume. Those cut

control periods are not synchronized across all licensees. So it makes

it more difficult to say, “This is the amount of undercut we have right

now,” because some licensees have one year left in their cut control

period. Others have three. Some might even have five.

We can get that information, though, if the member is interested.

It’s not tracked at this point, but we can find it within our

numbers.

J. Rustad: The reason…. I guess maybe one quick question, then, around

undercut on renewable licences on the five-year cut controls for a

licensee if they are unable to achieve their cut control. I know there

is a percentage over and a percentage under that’s allowed. If they

aren’t within that percentage of their annual cut, what is the penalty

of both being overcut as well as being undercut within those

boundaries?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: A couple of things. There’s no carrying forward of an undercut

volume by a licensee. If they’ve been found to have an undercut at the

end of their five-year cut-control period, then they can’t carry that

forward into another five-year period. There are options available to

the ministry. That undercut can then be disposed of to others interested

in that volume.

If there’s an overcut, then the way that that is dealt with is

that the overcut is taken off the next five-year cut-control period.

That’s the way the sustainability issue is dealt with.

J. Rustad: Thanks for the clarity on that. The reason for asking the question

is that in some cases — particularly on the coast, but it could be in

other locations in the province as well — you have licensees that have

significant volumes in renewable tenures and that sometimes find some of

the volume challenging to get to, from a price perspective. Rather than

harvest that volume, they’ll go after B.C. Timber Sales to meet the

needs that they have in their blocks.

By itself, of course…. I mean, that’s market. They’re eligible to

do that. Of course, what is happening is that other companies, which

don’t have the volume in a renewable tenure and rely on being able to

access B.C. Timber Sales, can sometimes struggle and find it challenging

to be able to get volume through B.C. Timber Sales.

The reason for asking about the undercuts and the undercut volume

is whether or not there’s any consideration by the ministry to look at

eligibility, in terms of bidding on B.C. Timber Sales, or, if there is

an undercut or perhaps a pattern of undercuts within an area, whether

that volume would be put up for a timber sale if that volume is being

replaced by a purchase somewhere else.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thanks to the member for the question. I appreciate and

acknowledge any ideas that he has had or he gets forwarded to him about

how to ensure that the volume out there in the forests is

used.

Specifically to his question, the undercut is not usually put up

as volume on B.C. Timber Sales, because the operating area for B.C.

Timber Sales is usually different from the operating area of the

licensee. It is possible to do that, and it’s something we’re having to

look at.

I think that was pretty well the question. There’s no policy

change at this point, though.

J. Rustad: Once again, the angle, the reason, for these questions is simple.

We’re having a shrinking fibre supply, and we’re in a situation of

demand and just looking to see what considerations the minister might be

looking at to try to find ways to expand the access to fibre.

One of the other issues — I think the minister mentioned that or

talked about it a little earlier — was around the residual, the wood

that’s left behind, the potential for pulp logs being left behind in

blocks. What steps has the minister taken to find ways to coordinate

access to that type of fibre that’s being left behind — if a primary has

gone in and harvested and left fibre behind, for a variety of reasons —

for other licensees to be able to access that fibre and, perhaps, the

coordination between operations, so that they can reduce

costs?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: This is an important topic. I recall — before I even was an MLA,

in 2005 — a meeting with the Forests Minister at that time, Pat Bell,

meeting with him at the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I was a municipal

councillor, and other municipalities were bringing the same concern to

then Minister Pat Bell around access to the residuals on the site. It’s

been a topic of concern for a long time.

The forestry fibre working group that began in 2014 is focusing

their attention on this. There is the ability…. Well, first of all, we

encourage business-to-business relationships so that there can be some

coordination. But failing that, district managers have a series of

tools. We call it a cascading approach to coordinating the

utilization.

At the end of that approach, the district manager could issue an

order to prevent destruction of a pile if there’s a secondary user who

wants to get to that pile in a serious way. It’s a do-not-destroy order.

There are also incentives for the licensee to take that wood in a

take-or-pay policy — so to have to pay for the lumber that’s left

behind.

There’s a whole series of steps, and the district manager has some

tools at his or her disposal. The first step is that we try to

facilitate a coordination between businesses for that exact topic that

the member brought up around coordinating ways to get the fibre

out.

J. Rustad: One of the challenges, of course, is that once wood gets put into

a pile, it becomes very expensive to be tearing apart a pile and trying

to access the fibre. That is why the coordination needs to be there in

advance of harvesting, so that it can be managed accordingly and reduce

the costs.

One other problem had come up. I don’t know if this has been

solved or not, so I’ll ask the minister whether or not this has been

solved. When a licensee buys a block or puts forward a block within

their renewable licence, they harvest the volume that’s in there. All

the volume that comes out of that block, of course, is accounted towards

the licensee. If the licensee has one million cubic metres a year that

they’re harvesting, they take one million cubic metres off the block,

and they’re good to go.

However, if additional fibre is taken off, waste fibre, that is

also measured. There was a time when licensees would be very reluctant

to want to see that volume come off, because it would actually come off

their bottom line. If somebody was able to recoup another 200,000 cubic

metres out of one million cut because they were utilizing pulp logs or

other type of volume out of a block, that would ultimately go against

that licensee’s cut.

Has that issue been addressed within the ministry so that there

isn’t a penalty against the licensee for having another operator come in

and be able to partner and utilize fibre that came out of a

cut?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: A couple of things in answer to this question. Generally, the wood

that is left behind, in most circumstances that we’re talking about, is

grade 4 material. There is the ability — we have that ability — to

provide a cut control credit to the licensee if that wood is used and

provided to a non-saw-log mill. That volume would not come off of the

volume that the licensee is already holding. It’s a good tool because it

encourages the use of that grade 4 lumber. That has been, oftentimes,

what has happened with the mountain pine beetle situation.

Wood that normally would have been left behind because of the

factors that the member pointed out is now being utilized in a

non-saw-log mill. Oftentimes, pellets — but sometimes cants and things

like that — are produced out of it, and that volume does not come off

the major licensee’s volume. Now we’re getting into some technical

details around situations where perhaps that isn’t a grade 4 type of

timber. Whether it’s a saw log…. In that case, the previous scenario

applies — that either the licensee has to take that wood and bring it in

or has to pay for it regardless. It’s a take-or-pay policy.

If the member would like a further, more detailed briefing on some

of the situations he has described, then I can arrange that with staff

or staff can provide it to him in a letter.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the offer.

The challenge, I think, is that some mills are far more efficient

at utilizing smaller diameter, whether it’s tops or other components

that are left behind. There is some challenge, I think, in terms of that

accounting. I would suggest to the minister that the ministry needs to

look at some tools to make sure that there isn’t a disincentive to

utilizing fibre in the best way possible so that we can try to maximize

that fibre that comes out.

Once again, all of this is around how we try to minimize the

impact of the dropping or declining annual allowable cuts. One of the

other components, of course, to that is the inventory work that is done,

as well as the growth and yield that feed into the

calculations.

I’m wondering. I read an interesting

article back a few months ago

with regards to the greening of the earth. There is more carbon in the

atmosphere. There is more growth that is coming from that. It’s

measurable in many places. I’m wondering whether or not there has been

any analysis done to growth and yield on the production of our land base

that may impact on future calculations for fibre availability and annual

allowable cuts.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, some very interesting variables are out there when it comes

to assessing growth-in-yield predictions and inventory work, as far as

our forests go, and some human-caused changes in the atmosphere that

could have an impact.

First off, we have a number of monitoring plots across the

landscape to really ground-truth our growth-in-yield assumptions. Those

are used to ensure that what our scientists and our foresters have as

far as a model is ground-truthed and is verified as being accurate. So

those are something that we have in place.

We also have plots that are monitored — not around, necessarily,

the growth-in-yield assumptions but on productivity. We know that with

climate change, some variables like temperature and water are going to

change, and we want to make sure that our productivity assumptions can

be tested on those temperature and water changes.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Those are a couple of things that we do currently. We also have….

This is exactly why the annual allowable cut determination is reviewed

from an independent scientific lens by the chief forester every ten

years, to look at those growth-in-yield assumptions and climate impacts

on our productivity. So that’s an important mechanism — that every ten

years we’re able to do that determination.

Also, just to finish off, I want to make sure that the member

knows that we recently — I believe it was just a few weeks ago —

appointed a blue-ribbon panel to conduct an inventory review. What that

three-member panel will do….

Interjection.

Hon. D. Donaldson: It’s five members. A five-member panel of esteemed professionals

will review the inventory program and make recommendations to me, I

believe, by the end of the year on improvements or how the inventory

work and system is functioning.

The Chair: The member for Nechako Lakes.

J. Rustad: Hon. Chair, welcome to the discussion on estimates.

Just in regards to that and along the same lines of the previous

question, inventory, of course, is an important component of

determinations that obviously need to be updated from time to

time.

I’m wondering: what is the minister’s budget for doing inventory

work in the current fiscal year and within this three-year window? And,

perhaps, what is the timeline for this blue-ribbon panel to be able to

report back? Does the minister see that potentially changing for a

budget ask or through contingencies for any sort of recommendations that

might come?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: The budget for inventory work is the same as it’s been the last

number of years — $8.13 million per year. There are 33 staff involved in

that.

As far as the blue-ribbon panel goes, we expect their work to be

done by the end of the year. I’m open-minded about what their

recommendations are. I can’t speculate on whether it’ll require

additional spending, but given that their recommendations will be in by

the end of the year, if there are budgetary implications in their

recommendations, it’ll be in time for the next fiscal year.

J. Rustad: I seem to remember questions over the years with regards to the

level of funding on inventory work as to whether or not that was

sufficient.

Does the minister see the amount of work that’s required and the

changes that are in the forest that have been occurring — certainly over

the last 16 years, but now that the pine beetle has run its course, the

changes that are in place here for going forward…? Does the minister see

the $8.13 million as sufficient to be able to update inventory

information at a time when we have these declining AACs? More

importantly, what is the schedule, within those impacted areas of

beetles, whether it be pine beetle or the spruce beetle, for the work

that needs to be done on inventories?

Hon. D. Donaldson: With the advent of more modern techniques when it comes to

conducting inventory work — technology, computer modelling, remote

sensing…. Within that context, the $8.13 million is adequate to conduct

the inventory work that’s required.

Again, the technology doesn’t preclude ground truthing, as far as

the assumptions that are made under the computer modelling. We have

those monitoring plots to make sure those assumptions are

ground-truthed.

As far as the schedule, as the member put it, for addressing

inventory work, disturbed areas are always prioritized within the

inventory work.

[2:40 p.m.]

What I can tell him is that ten of the 20 TSAs that have been

impacted by forest health, like the mountain pine beetle situation, are

currently being focused on — techniques like ground sampling and phase 1

photo

interpretation.

J. Rustad: Of course, all of this comes back to some of the original

questions around the apportionment — that these decisions need to be

made.

I’ve just got a quick question — maybe it’s not so quick — in the

light of UNDRIP, in the minister’s mandate. Those decisions around

apportionment that will be happening within various areas. Is the

ministry consulting with First Nations, and do First Nations play any

role in the decisions of apportionment within various cut

areas?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Currently in the legal framework, the determination for annual

allowable cut is the responsibility of the chief forester, and

apportionment decisions are part of the decision made by the

minister.

That framework didn’t previously contemplate the consultation

process that’s now required. Not only through principles such as the

United Nations declaration; successive court cases have laid that out as

well. So First Nations do expect to be increasingly involved in

apportionment decisions, and that’s something we recognize.

The tenures branch is currently creating an approach for more

effective consultation on apportionment decisions. We’re embarked on

that process. We haven’t finished it yet, but we do recognize that First

Nations are wanting to be increasingly involved in those apportionment

decisions.

J. Rustad: Noting the time that we have, I think I’m going to move on to a

couple of other topics. I want to ask a few questions associated with

B.C. Timber Sales. In particular, some of it has to do with what we have

just been talking about, but some of it has to do with some other

components.

B.C. Timber Sales obviously has targets in terms of the volume

that it tries to get out in each area around the province. I know that,

historically, there have been some struggles in some areas in terms of

its ability to be able to meet those targets of volume. There have been

undercuts in some areas.

I guess the question to the minister, or the first question the

minister can start with on B.C. Timber sales, is this: is the minister

considering any sort of policy changes or approaches that would help to

see the issue of undercut or the issue of no-bid sales on blocks be

resolved so that more of that fibre can make it into the

market?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: B.C. Timber Sales is on track to sell its full business target by

the end of next year, and that’s the end of the five-year business cycle

that B.C. Timber Sales operates under. With that, there aren’t any

policy changes being considered at this time around undercuts, because

we believe the business target will be met. It’s on track for

that.

The member did bring up a valid point around when there are no

bids on particular B.C. Timber Sale sales. What our staff does in that

case is get those sales back on the market as quickly as they can,

making adjustments that would make them more likely to be bid

on.

J. Rustad: Particularly for the coastal area, where there’s harvesting that

takes place by licensees of varying kinds, or contractors, on B.C.

timber sales, can the minister provide any information with regards to

the percentage of logs that may end up being exported or put up for the

domestic test before they get exported from B.C. Timber Sale

blocks?

Hon. D. Donaldson: B.C. Timber Sales operates under the same robust regulatory

process when it comes to exporting timber from Crown lands.

[2:50 p.m.]

B.C. Timber Sales puts up the blocks, and the bids are

entertained. The winning licensee then has the ability to harvest the

timber, and then if they so decide that they want to test the market to

export some of that timber, that timber is put on the surplus test, the

same as timber that is harvested from other areas by licensees. So it

has to pass the surplus test before being exported.

As far as the numbers go for B.C. Timber Sales on the coast, I can

give the member the last four years’ volumes that were exported by

licensees that passed the surplus test and that came originally from

B.C. Timber Sales cutting permits.

In 2014, it was 730,680 cubic metres. In 2015, it was 441,211

cubic metres. In 2016, it was 545,705 cubic metres. And in 2017, it was

657,552 cubic metres.

J. Rustad: I want to go into forest health questions, but I’m going to

overlap a little bit between B.C. Timber Sales and forest health here.

In particular, I’m thinking about spruce beetle impact in the areas up

north of Prince George but in other areas as well.

B.C. Timber Sales has a lot of blocks, a lot of operating areas,

that have been fairly heavily impacted by the spruce beetle epidemic.

Those areas do not currently have a lot of infrastructure in terms of

roads and bridges being able to go into those areas.

I see the budget for B.C. Timber Sales is increased. I’m curious

as to whether or not there will be a focus from B.C. Timber Sales on

infrastructure development to be able to start getting access to those

areas that have been heavily impacted by the spruce beetle.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, the spruce beetle is becoming, and has become, an issue.

Especially in the Omineca, we’re now witnessing the largest spruce

beetle outbreak ever recorded.

As far as how that wood is being accessed…. First of all, in a

general sense, every licensee is redirecting their focus on

beetle-impacted stands. That includes B.C. Timber Sales as a licensee.

B.C. Timber Sales is collaborating and cooperating with the other

licensees who have interests in those stands in order to coordinate on

infrastructure development and in order to get to those

stands.

J. Rustad: I’m going to come back to questions around the spruce beetle, but

I just want to ask specifically around B.C. Timber Sales with regards to

the access through there.

[2:55 p.m.]

In addition to the development — obviously, the things that need

to be done around spruce beetle — there are cells that Timber Sales is

responsible for, particularly in the North Coast and other areas that,

without milling operations, aren’t as utilized. I know there are some

operations that are going on within those areas.

I guess the question for the minister…. B.C. Timber Sales helps to

drive the market pricing system within the various areas. Where you have

things like the impact from the beetle or areas where you don’t have

milling operations, particularly the areas that aren’t…. How is that

wood made available to companies that might be outside of that area, or

how does that wood help in terms of the pricing model if it is exported?

Does it fit into the categories, or is the pricing system just simply

for the areas that have the milling facilities?

Hon. D. Donaldson: A couple of good questions there. There are operating areas that

are uneconomic that are under the purview of B.C. Timber Sales. It might

be uneconomic due to profile or distance to mills. From time to time,

B.C. Timber Sales tests the markets to see if conditions have changed

and the timber is seen as more economic to access.

The stumpage is set the same as using a market pricing equation.

That’s the same as used by licensees in many ways. It covers a number of

the same variables. That’s the way that the market pricing system

impacts the stumpage set for those blocks. One of the variables

addressed is log export. But generally speaking, if an area isn’t being

accessed when B.C. Timber Sales puts up a block, there’s probably not

other licensees harvesting in that area either.

J. Rustad: Could the minister provide numbers to the House? What is the

projected revenue for B.C. Timber Sales in the upcoming year?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: The predicted revenue generation for 2018-19 for B.C. Timber

Sales, the gross revenue projected, is $315.780 million. That’s the

gross revenue. The expenses that need to be calculated off of that are

$195.761 million. That’s for infrastructure development, silviculture

work — all the responsibilities that B.C. Timber Sales holds. So the net

revenue predicted for 2018-19 is $120.019 million. Of course, that could

change upwards, depending on stumpage that’s directly linked to the high

lumber prices right now.

J. Rustad: What are the current stumpage rates? No, let me rephrase that.

Obviously, the stumpage rates are very different, depending on species

and region, and there’s a whole bunch of variables associated with

it.

I guess the real question is: what is the comparison of stumpage

rates today — broadly speaking, not so much by species and region —

compared to when lumber prices were up high, prior to the market pricing

system being in place?

We have the current stumpage prices, with the lumber prices that

are obviously record highs here today. Back in, I believe, 2005 or

somewhere in there, before we had the market pricing system in place,

lumber prices were north of 400 at that point. I’m just curious what the

comparison is between stumpage levels being paid by licensees for access

to fibre then versus today?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Overall, as far as for all licensees, stumpage revenues are

broadly going to approach $1 billion gross this fiscal year, which is

the first time we’ve approached that number since before the market

price system was put in place. I believe that’s a good-news story to be

putting on the record.

Now as far as the member’s question, which I believe was directly

related to B.C. Timber Sales comparing stumpage rates today, when lumber

prices are high, to an era before MPS when lumber prices were in the

same category…. We can get that information — we don’t have it available

at this point — but also with the caveat that it’s a challenging

comparison to make. MPS, market price system, in place now is not

directly comparable to the stumpage system that was in place before MPS.

It could be a little bit like comparing apples and oranges, but we can

get those numbers for the member if he wishes.

J. Rustad: Thanks to the minister for that information. I would be

interested. I understand that, obviously, you’re comparing apples and

oranges in some aspects, because the pricing system was different back

then versus MPS. That was the intent of why MPS was put in place. It

would just be interesting to compare numbers, to see roughly what

revenues were.

Now, lots of variables. Pine beetle and all of those types of

things are at play — right? — in terms of it. But just in a broad sense,

it’d be an interesting number to look at. I thank the minister for

gathering that information — whenever, obviously, there’s an opportunity

to send it to me.

A couple other quick questions, and then I want to move to one

local question. Then we’re going to move to wildfires and floods and,

from there, into, perhaps, other beetle issues. In particular, I want to

ask about salvage and salvage permits. I’ve been hearing from a number

of people some challenges, in terms of being able to access fibre

through salvage licences, licences designed to be able to access fibre

that typically gets isolated. The purpose — in my understanding, at

least — of the salvage program is to be able to bring fibre that

otherwise would be lost and unaccounted for within the AAC

determinations back into the system by being able to go out and salvage

that fibre.

Can the minister provide any update with regards to the salvage

program that’s in place — whether or not there have been any changes or

whether there are any anticipated changes that may impact on these small

operators’ ability to be able to go in and access that fibre that is

currently considered salvageable?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just as a broad statement to start the answer to the question,

salvage harvesting is always done based on stewardship objectives to

ensure proper consideration of all resource values and through ongoing

discussions and partnership arrangements with First Nations. That’s the

overall envelope, and there are no changes there.

The appetite for salvage is a very local issue. It depends on what

the local conditions are and what local entrepreneurs are trying to do.

It might be a fire situation. It might be a blowdown situation. But what

happens is that it’s determined whether a major licensee is wanting to

go after that wood, and if not, then there’s a salvage opportunity. But

it really is district by district, and the district managers know their

local salvage operators and know what they’re looking for. That’s

unchanged, and we’re not anticipating any changes on small operators

from that aspect.

J. Rustad: One of the challenges I’ve heard from some of the salvage

operators has been the stumpage rates for access on some of this fibre.

The rates, in some cases, actually can be higher than regular blocks and

regular access to fibre.

I could, potentially, bring in an example, if the minister would

require it. But I’m just wondering whether or not the minister has heard

this issue, whether or not there is an opportunity to review the

stumpage rates for salvage fibre. Given the fact that the intent, as far

as I understand, of the salvage program is to bring fibre that would

normally not be accounted back into the system, it seems that that would

be a benefit to us as a province and to the forest industry in general.

If stumpage becomes a barrier, I’m curious as to why that would become

an issue.

If the minister could, perhaps, look into that issue and provide

any comment now, if you have it. But certainly, salvage operators are

providing a great benefit in terms of bringing that fibre into the

system, and the cost of stumpage and the cost of reforestation can

sometimes make that prohibitive.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I guess, in a general way, when I have discussions with people who

are interested in harvesting timber off the public lands, they always

raise stumpage rates as a concern. So it’s a matter of

balance.

[3:15 p.m.]

With some salvage operations, the stumpage could be reflective of

the fact that there are no development costs, necessarily, associated

with bringing that wood out. But it’s not our intention to disincent

salvage operators. We want to get that balance of a fair return to the

taxpayer for a publicly held resource but not to the point of

disincenting a salvage operator from going into the woods and removing

that lumber.

When it comes to fire-damaged wood, we work closely with the

market pricing branch to ensure that as the wood degrades, that is

reflected in stumpage value. It’s a very specific situation. If the

member has a specific case he’d like us to have a look at and analyze,

we’d be more than happy to do that.

J. Rustad: If I may have an opportunity, I might be able to bring that

forward. I won’t bring it forward here in estimates but at another

time.

We’re going to move on now to wildfire — to a local issue in the

Cariboo prior to going into that. One quick question before we do that,

and that is that you were mentioning to my colleague from

Cariboo-Chilcotin about the contractor stability review that was

submitted, I believe, at the end of January or into early February. I

understand your response to my colleague was that that report is with

staff at the moment; it hasn’t come up to your desk yet. That’s

understandable. Obviously, it needs to go through that

process.

Given that we’ll likely have a three-week break here and then be

back before we wrap up our estimates, a quick question is: will there be

an opportunity to pursue that particular report when we return from our

three weeks back in our ridings — in estimates, obviously? When it’s

out, there’ll be opportunities to pursue it, but the question is whether

or not there’ll be an opportunity to canvass that here in

estimates.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, the member is correct. The recommendations from the review

have not hit my desk yet. The question is: will they have been reviewed

in order for us to discuss them in estimates three weeks from now? My

preference is that we finish estimates today, but I know that that is

looking more and more unlikely. That’s okay, too, because this is a

public process where members get to ask questions around how the

government is spending money, and it’s important.

I would say the probability of having the publicly releasable

elements of the report ready in three weeks is low. It’s a low

probability just because the recommendations have not made it up through

the system yet and there’s going to have to be some consultation between

this ministry and stakeholders before those are released

publicly.

To be totally forthright, during this three-week break, we might

not have all staff who are required available to have a look at that,

because some people are actually taking holidays. I’m not sure if the

member is, but definitely, some members of staff in a senior capacity

are. So I would say it’s a low probability that we’ll be able to address

it in estimates in three weeks.

J. Rustad: Well, perhaps if we end up going to Ottawa, maybe we have a chance

to chat about it then.

With that, just before we move on, I would suggest that perhaps we

take a brief recess.

The Chair: The committee will recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:20 p.m. to 3:34 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling the committee to order. Minister.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I believe the next question is up to the critic.

The Chair: Okay, member for Nechako Lakes.

J. Rustad: Thank you, hon. Chair. When you said “minister,” it confused me,

so I just stayed with doing what I was doing.

Like I say, we’re going to move into one regional issue in the

Cariboo, and then we’ll go into the wildfire stuff.

I’d like to turn it over to my colleague from Cariboo

North.

[3:35 p.m.]

C. Oakes: Dragon Lake is a 225-hectare lake east of Quesnel. It’s a major

economic driver for the region, supports approximately 10,000 to 12,000

anglers and contributes approximately $1 million annually to our local

economy. It is also significant as a broodstock lake. In fact, it’s one

of three major sources in British Columbia and a primary source of the

blackwater strain of rainbow trout. The province takes two to three

million eggs annually from Dragon Lake for stocking throughout the

province.

Since the spring and fall of 2016, there’s been a high

concentration of goldfish seen. Anglers and residents have brought

forward serious concerns about the impact of the goldfish.

At a meeting in September 2017, the ministry said that there would

be an independent evaluation of the lake’s fish population, with the

results compared to the last survey completed in 2014. These results are

critical to the ongoing assessment for future management decisions and

the commitment made to report out to the community in January or

February.

Constituents have been on my doorstep waiting for the report and

an action plan. I am meeting with a group of concerned residents and

anglers of Dragon Lake on March 19. Will the minister commit to having

someone from his ministry at this meeting, and will they release the

results of the report as well as the necessary funds and permits for an

action plan moving forward this spring?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. If it’s the

same Dragon Lake that’s south of Quesnel, I’ve camped there before. I

think camping would be overstating it. It’s a beautiful RV site there.

It’s a great location.

Definitely. We will commit to having someone from our staff at the

meeting that you talked about that can answer questions. Yes, goldfish

are a known invasive species. What we know to date is that, so far, the

collection of the eggs of the blackwater rainbow is still able to be

done. There’s not a concern about a lack of eggs at this point, but

ongoing management is definitely a concern.

We’ll have a staff member attend locally. We’ll get you some

answers around if there’s some documentation that we have that can be

released, but at least you’ll have somebody there to answer specific

questions and make commitments.

[3:40 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for the answer to that

question.

Moving on to talking about wildfires. I just want to start,

initially, with one question. The minister has mentioned that 1.3

million cubic metres of wood impacted by last year’s wildfires was under

permit. Can the minister perhaps provide the House with any details as

to how much volume was harvested over this past winter?

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’ve got some numbers for the member. For the areas that were

most impacted by the Cariboo and Thompson rivers fires, four areas —

Williams Lake, 100 Mile, Thompson rivers and Quesnel — the total

submitted volume for application was 911,727 cubic metres. The total

cutting of that that’s been approved by our ministry is 579,715 cubic

metres, and the total harvested to date — this is as of February 28 — is

237,385 cubic metres.

J. Rustad: If I remember correctly, the amount of wood, roughly, that was

impacted by the fires was around 50 million cubic metres, plus or minus.

Perhaps the minister could provide an update in terms of the amount of

fibre that has been impacted by the fires.

Is the minister anticipating that the amount of wood, or the

applications coming in for access to that fibre, will be increasing

significantly over the course of this next year?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, we expect to see a significant increase in volume that will

be applied for and that will be permitted. Our staff has finished

working through engagement and consultation with First Nations — and on

pricing as well. We expect to see some really significant volumes in

this coming period of time, really ramping up. As far as the amount of

fibre impacted by fires, I just want to make sure we get an accurate

number for the member. We’re just awaiting that; it’s coming.

J. Rustad: What is the life expectancy of the fibre that has been impacted by

fire? Obviously, that will vary, depending on the severity of the

impact, but I’m just looking for what an average would be.

Hon. D. Donaldson: On the question of the life expectancy, the member is correct.

There are lots of variables involved with that. The variables depend on

the species, how severely impacted the tree was by the fire and what the

final use is, intended for, by a licensee. In broad terms, what we can

say is that for the most severely impacted trees that are still

salvageable, we anticipate there’s about a four-year life expectancy for

their merchantability. Of course, that’ll be longer for moderately to

lightly burned wood.

J. Rustad: It may have been over the course of the summer, but I think it was

last fall that there was some talk about the potential for a new tool

being created, or a new process being created, to be able to streamline

or be able to access this fibre. There is concern, of course, that the

length of time to build access, particularly for licensees that may not

have an operating area in the area or want to look at it as salvage

opportunities…. I’m just wondering whether the ministry has any plans to

create any tools outside of the normal process to be able to expedite

the opportunity to access this fibre.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I just want to commend staff. It turned out it wasn’t a need to

create new tools, because they were able to work within the existing

tools to get an amazing amount of volume ready for market — 1.5 million

cubic metres, overall, of fire-impacted wood. The fires just ended in

late September, so it was a pretty amazing process.

They were able to do that by…. They pulled a team approach

together to consult and engage with First Nations and licensees and took

a broader strategic stewardship approach around stewardship plans. That

has now been done, and some of that has to do with retention, but it’s

also harvesting plans. Really, it covers off a lot of what we consider

as required through consultation with First Nations.

All that took place within the existing tools that the ministry

has, and we believe now that things will ramp up considerably. The

numbers I quoted already were pretty incredible, I think. I want to

thank the team and the work that was done after fighting fires and

turning attention in a big way to this. It’s been a really intensive

exercise, but it’s been successful.

As far as it goes, the licensees who are able to operate in the

area, we believe, will be able to harvest the volume that’s set to go

over the next four years. The one thing that might be more limiting than

the harvesting aspect is the milling capacity aspect. But it’s not a

question of whether the licensees will be able to harvest. We believe

they’ll be able to harvest that volume in the most fire-impacted wood

over the next four years.

J. Rustad: I also want to recognize the staff and the work they’re doing. I

know they’re doing their best to try to move this wood and salvage it. I

know they recognize the timelines and the seriousness of the

issue.

One more quick question, and then I’m going to turn it over to my

colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin for some questions around fire and

fire-related issues. You have the operators in the Cariboo that have

licences. Some don’t have licences, or some licences may be adjusted to

be able to go in there. You’ve got the Timber Sales, obviously, that

have licences in there.

[3:55 p.m.]

For operators that are outside the Cariboo or even operators

inside the Cariboo, other than the wood that will be made available

through B.C. Timber Sales, is there any other opportunity, whether it is

short-term licences, salvage licences, other types of…? I think we used

to call them NRFLs, or non-replaceable forest licences. Are those being

contemplated so that we can maximize the utilization of the fibre that

has been made available because of the impact of wildfires?

Hon. D. Donaldson: At this point, we don’t believe that we need any other tools to

get that volume out of the forest. We do have the ability to put

non-replaceable forest licences in play. It’s always an option. But at

this point, we don’t think we’ll need to be creating any new

ones.

Again, some of the limiting factor will definitely be…. The

biggest pinch point will be the milling capacity locally that’s at play

for all the fire-damaged wood that’s going to be coming out of the

forest.

D. Barnett: I once again would like to commend our staff in the Cariboo

region, how hard they have worked and the good work they have done

through the fires and, now, trying to get permits out.

In the short term, I don’t believe that we have had any extra

staff. I could be wrong. But in the long term, what does the ministry

see as far as increasing staff in the Cariboo region to assist the

existing staff, not just with permitting but with rebuilding, with

stabilization, with reforestation — those types of things?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the budget-related question. I just want to talk

about a few things. Generally speaking, we have regional operations

teams, and they work together. So if there’s a need in one region that’s

not being fulfilled, the other regions chip in and help out. That’s one

way we deal with it when one region gets an amount of work they aren’t

able to handle, themselves.

There is, in this budget, over the next three years, an allocation

of $72 million extra — $22 million for wildfire recovery and $50 million

for wildfire resiliency. There’ll be staff included in those dollars as

well.

The member listed a number of areas — rebuilding, stabilization,

reforestation. We also have, when it comes to reforestation, the Forest

Enhancement Society of B.C. and Forests for Tomorrow. Those two

organizations — one is an organization, and one is a part of our

ministry — will have resources and staff, as well, allocated to some of

the activities that the member describes.

D. Barnett: To the minister: could you tell me, over the next three years,

what is allocated for reforestation funding?

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’re compiling that. We’ll get it to you. I don’t want to sit in

silence for too long because I know time is of the essence here. So

we’re compiling that, and we’ll have an answer for you once we get it

compiled. I think that we’ll have it by the end of this estimates debate

today.

D. Barnett: I do have one or two small bills that have not been paid by the

wildfire branch. Just so you know, I put one in an envelope today, and

it is being sent to your office. I would appreciate if you could take a

look at it and get these small bills paid as quick as

possible.

The other question or two that I have talk about rebuilding. When

you go into the new part of rebuilding the land base, there are lots of

issues out there from the fire that need to be considered.

When you go out to rebuild, will you be having other agencies,

such as ranchers and range, work with the ministry on the long-term

plan? As we know, there are some issues out there that would help

ranchers move forward after the fires with different types of work on

the land base. So will you be coordinating the rehabilitation with the

agriculture community?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Before I get to that answer, I just wanted to thank the member for

forwarding an outstanding invoice.

The numbers that we have right now…. I just want to make sure this

is on the record. Of the 38,495 invoices received provincewide, 38,066,

99 percent, have been paid to date. That leaves 1 percent still in the

process of being verified and paid in the Cariboo Fire Centre and

Kamloops Fire Centre. The outstanding invoices are those received within

the last 20 days, or those awaiting clarification from the vendor. I

just wanted to give that background information and to thank the staff

that have been working on that file.

The answer is yes. Ranchers and those with an interest in

rangeland will be involved in the long-term planning. We’re already

working with the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association in that regard. The plans

are created at the local level under the district manager, so that’s the

level we’re working at. We’re hearing the suggestions and taking into

consideration the interests of ranchers and rangeland users.

D. Barnett: The forest access roads that are funded by the Ministry of

Forests. Some of them, of course, were damaged during the fires. What is

in the budget to rehabilitate these roads and to put them back to the

standards that they were before the fires?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thanks for the question about roads that were damaged during the

wildfires.

If the road was damaged as a direct result of the firefighting

activities, the funding for that will come directly from the

firefighting wildfire allotment. It was over $600 million last year.

This coming year, I believe…. We’re coming up to the vote, but it’s

approximately $67 million. That’s the envelope that’s used to address

roads that were directly impacted from our wildfire-fighting

activities.

[4:10 p.m.]

If the road was damaged in a way by the fire, outside of those

activities, then we have our provincial budget of $13 million for

addressing road maintenance and repair. If we find that those funds,

those first two mechanisms, are insufficient, then we can look within

our internal budget, within the ministry, to provide additional funding.

Finally, as a last resort, if those first three mechanisms aren’t

sufficient, then we can go directly to Treasury Board on an expedited

process.

The engineering work is still underway on these roads. They were

able to get to some of the areas before the snow came, but in the

spring, once the snows diminish, we’ll be able to get to further

inventory. Inspections to date, just so the member knows, have shown

that there’s been some surface damage but limited structural damage to

those roads.

D. Barnett: What is in the budget for mitigation for our communities who are

concerned about pine beetle and concerned about what needs to be cleaned

up around their communities? What funding is in your budget for

this?

Hon. D. Donaldson: There are a number of areas of funding, in response to the

member’s question, about fire resilience in communities. I want to

highlight the first one, especially. It’s $50 million of new funding

over the next three years to fund resilience activities like prevention

and mitigation work. That’ll help not just in planning but actual

on-the-ground work in and around communities.

The other program that’s still available — that was available

before and has been available for several years — is the SWPI program

through Union of B.C. Municipalities that we fund and they deliver.

That’s been used by communities to help fireproof their

communities.

The third area is Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. There’s $140

million over the next three years in that organization to work on the

land base for mitigative measures when it comes to fire

resilience.

J. Rustad: I just apologize to staff. We’re going to fit in one local

question in the Okanagan area before we carry on with the wildfires. My

apologies for the breakup.

D. Ashton: To the minister: thank you very much, and I do apologize for

this.

There have been questions in the Penticton area about the Carmi

recreational area, which is a long-established cross-country ski area

about four miles, as the crow flies, east of Penticton. It has all now

been flagged off for possible logging. There’s grave concern by the

individuals that have used and maintained this over the many years about

the effect of the logging that will take place — what is going to be the

effect on the trails, the drainage, etc.

[4:15 p.m.]

Is there a possible explanation that could either come now or in

the future about what is going to take place in that Carmi recreational

area for logging?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for raising that issue in your constituency, Member.

We’ll get staff to get in touch with you on the specific details. We

don’t have anything right off the bat for you here, but if we do get

something before the end of the day, I’ll make sure I read it into the

record, in case you’re not here. We’ll get staff in touch with you to

follow up, because we don’t have the information available right

here.

C. Oakes: First, I want to share the comments that were made by my

colleagues from Cariboo-Chilcotin and Fraser-Nicola — how much we

appreciate the B.C. wildfire branch for everything that they did during

the past summer and into the fall. I think people forget that the fire

activity actually extended for a significantly long time, longer than we

have ever experienced before in this province. For that, I just want to

share, from all of our constituents, our sincere

appreciation.

A few questions, perhaps, around preparedness. As we head into the

spring and the summer, I am certain that the minister, coming from the

north, probably shares the similar thoughts that my colleagues have —

that we spend a lot of time worried, a lot of late nights wondering:

“Are we ready? Are we prepared? Have we done everything that is

necessary to ensure that our communities are in a position, coming up

this summer…?”

My questions to the B.C. wildfire branch will be around that. Can

the minister advise on how many new Incident Management Teams have been

trained in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Donaldson: As an opening comment, I share the concerns that the member has

for her communities. I share that for my communities, as well, and as

minister for communities across the province. We want to be as prepared

as we can. We want to learn from what happened this past season, and we

want to keep our fingers crossed that it’s not going to be as extensive

or nearly as severe a wildfire or flood season as we saw this past

year.

As far as Incident Management Teams, I just want to make sure

we’re talking about the same thing. These are the senior management

teams. They’re not the initial attack crews, but these are the senior

management teams.

[4:20 p.m.]

We’re constantly training new members. We have what we feel is

sufficient Incident Management Teams in B.C. They’re all trained…. The

members of the teams are trained to the same standard across Canada, so

under extreme circumstances, where we need more Incident Management

Teams, we can bring them in from other provinces, as we have done, and

as we will continue to do.

C. Oakes: In 2017, how many incident management teams did we have trained in

British Columbia? And as of this spring, how many trained incident

management teams do we have in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the question. We have six incident management teams.

We had six in 2017, and we have six now.

C. Oakes: One of the challenges that was faced with the extensive timeline

that we faced and the necessary rotation that was required with incident

management teams…. It is my hope, and it was certainly discussed with

colleagues and people in the constituency, that we do find a way to

train more incident management teams regionally and across the province.

It certainly would be my hope that by the time summer comes, we’ve done

the necessary work to train.

It is discouraging to hear that we had six teams, we went through

the most significant wildfire season ever, and we continue to have not

trained any new incident management teams.

Could the minister advise, I guess for my constituents…? One of

the other challenges that we had through the B.C. wildfire branch was

that by the end of month 2, we were running short of equipment — whether

it’s hoses, axes, just general equipment on the ground. They did their

best. One of the challenges that we faced was supply.

Can the minister report out if all necessary equipment caches have

been replaced with the ministry and if we’re ready with equipment for

this summer?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: So far this year, we’ve spent $18 million replacing equipment.

We’ve spent a considerable amount of money ensuring that the equipment

that is needed will be there for the fire season. As well, if there is

an issue, despite spending that amount of money to replace equipment,

during the fire season that we’re running short, we have agreements to

bring equipment in from across Canada for those needs.

I think, likewise, in the previous question around the incident

management teams, not only can we bring them in from outside of the

province…. When the member expressed her disappointment that we have six

teams, the same as last year, I just want to make sure that it’s on the

record that those teams are highly specialized personnel. It’s not

simply six teams. We have a whole raft of people that work underneath

them, bolstered from our fire centre staff and from other ministries in

that team’s approach. So the six are highly specialized incident

management teams, but they have a whole foundation of people that work

underneath them.

C. Oakes: I know that this will not come as a surprise to the minister, and

it certainly would have been highlighted in every single community

consultation that has happened. But the significant challenge, again….

We are prepared in British Columbia if there is a fire event that lasts

for four to six weeks. We are pretty well managed for that.

Where we run into trouble — and what we saw in the wildfire season

of 2017 — is when we move beyond that. One of the most significant

challenges that we had with the IMT teams is that there would be a

two-week rotation. So they’d be in for two weeks. You would see about a

three-day gap in training the next IMT team.

Often, on the morning calls, we knew that there was trouble or

there were challenges on where that next IMT team was going to be coming

from. We did broadcast throughout international partnerships.

The challenge that we found when we were reaching into the

extended period of time through the B.C. wildfire 2017 season is we were

having trouble getting IMT teams. We were having trouble with the

turnover. We were having trouble with…. We were reaching out far and

wide across Canada and across the United States for equipment. So we are

prepared short term. We are not prepared in British Columbia long

term.

I would hope that we learn from this experience and that we invest

in local British Columbians to ensure that we have more specialized

teams in the province of British Columbia, that we have the ability to

make sure that the investment in equipment caches are prepared, because

we should learn from what has happened.

I will turn to a few more questions that have come from my riding.

I still have outstanding invoices, and we will continue to work with the

ministry on that.

What is more troubling…. The response that I’m getting back from

contractors is that anyone who has worked with the B.C. wildfire branch

over the course of this past summer…. I understand the incredible

challenges of the invoicing and trying to get people paid. The challenge

is I am not sure that contractors will want to do business with the B.C.

government again. I’m hearing messages back from contractors that they

will not register to fight fires due to the experience that they have

had.

To the minister: what is the plan if we do not have contractors

that choose to register to fight fires?

[4:30 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you, Chair, and welcome.

There are a lot of different aspects to the question and the

statement the member made. We believe…. I’m going to go back to the

incident management teams. We’re learning from this past fire season,

for sure. We’ve done internal reviews. We also have the Chapman-Abbott

independent review going. Their recommendations and their report are due

by the end of April. So we’ll have that perspective to bring as far as

all aspects of what could be done better.

We believe that we’re bringing more consistency to managing the

turnover for IMTs. But we definitely welcome the on-the-ground

experience that the member is explaining. I would be definitely willing

to meet with her around what she’s hearing from local

contractors.

We’ve worked on a process of streamlining the invoice-processing

component. This was a component that had never been faced with such a

high number of invoices. As I said, it was over 38,000, I believe, that

came in, in a short period of time. This was a system that was in place

before this government became government. We dealt with it, and we’re

learning from it. We’ll be able to do that better with a streamlined

process.

As far as engaging with and investing in local people in order to

help to fight fires, we’ve engaged with industry to do training so that

we have people who are a lot closer to the fire that can react more

quickly. That’s outside of the B.C. Wildfire Service.

We’re moving on a number of fronts, with the intent of having more

local people involved, with the intent of streamlining the invoicing

process and with the intent of managing the incident management teams in

a more efficient way.

[4:35 p.m.]

C. Oakes: Has the minister made a submission, or is he working with…? There

are changes currently or discussion around the labour code. One of the

most significant challenges…. The minister has mentioned he has engaged

in conversations with industry. Then the minister surely understands

that the labour code was a critical component to challenges that

industry had in reacting and responding to the wildfires.

There were incidents with contractors that were out on cut blocks

that refused to fight fires because of the labour code. Has the minister

worked with government to ensure that the necessary changes in that code

are made so that industry can be a partner in fighting these

fires?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll try to portray this as a budget estimate answer. I know it’s

a serious topic, but we’re talking about budget estimates here. So what

we’re talking about is how we address gaps or situations where things

could have been done better from the fire season last year and, in the

budget, whether we have a budget that responds to the wildfire situation

that we encountered last year.

We do have uplifts in the budget to address both land-based

recovery and socioeconomic recovery. Our B.C. Wildfire Service staff

have sat down with industry to work through more efficient and improved

integration of not just industry equipment but industry personnel into

any incidents that might occur in the 2018 wildfire season. These

discussions have taken place in a Council of Forest Industries venue as

well.

We’re utilizing the resource that industry provides in a local

way. The kinds of gaps that the member mentions are gaps that…. We’re

waiting to hear from the independent review recommendations that are

provided there. But we’re not just waiting for that review. We have a

cabinet task force on wildfire. There are six of our cabinet colleagues

that sit on that. So that’s a venue for discussions around gaps as

well.

C. Oakes: In the vein of engaging with industry…. Perhaps this has been

resolved. One of the challenges that we also had during the past season

was the communication or gaps between B.C. Timber Sales, the FLNRO

office and B.C. Wildfire. We have many logging contractors and companies

that…. Some had put bonus bids out on B.C. Timber Sales to the tune of,

in some instances, close to $1 million.

[4:40 p.m.]

Will the minister be returning those bonus bids to individuals

that put forth those bids through B.C. Timber Sales and later found that

B.C. Wildfire burned them through back burns to stop the

fire?

Hon. D. Donaldson: We know that the topic, generally, of communication has come up in

many instances, based on what we’re hearing from the community meetings

that the Chapman-Abbott review were holding as well as what B.C.

Wildfire staff have garnered through analysis of the season and the

communication between local governments and municipalities and First

Nations or whether it’s regional districts. We’re looking at that and

looking forward to some of the recommendations, which I’m sure will

address better communication, from the Abbott-Chapman report.

As far as timber sale licensees who are holders of timber sale

licences from B.C. Timber Sales and that were impacted by the wildfires,

we’ve heard from some specific cases that there are legal processes that

we must follow in order to deal with those kinds of cases.

The intent is not to have timber sale licensees completely out of

pocket for something that was totally destroyed. That’s not the intent,

and that’s what we’re working on. It has to be a step-by-step legal

process. Part of that is to also investigate whether there’s insurance

available and those kinds of steps. But we’re working on an individual

basis on those cases, and like I say, the intent is for those licensees

not to be out of pocket for something that was totally destroyed in the

fire.

[4:45 p.m.]

C. Oakes: I have lots more questions, but my allotted time allows for just

one more question. I would look forward to an opportunity to talk

further, perhaps outside of the estimates process.

Perhaps just a quick statement to say that from my personal

experience…. I must share with the minister that the experience that we

had with our local B.C. wildfires…. Our regional teams, our teams

trained in British Columbia, were exceptional. An investment in our

British Columbia teams, in training and supporting these teams, is

critical to the future British Columbia.

My other statement I would make is that I really appreciate the

work that Chapman and Abbott have done in collecting data around

communities. One of my concerns is the fact that it comes out at the end

of April. Does that provide us adequate time to get prepared for a

wildfire season that can potentially start quite early in British

Columbia? That’s my statement.

My final question is this. The city of Quesnel has brought forward

— and we have forwarded — a letter on to the minister around Crown lands

that are both adjacent or within a community and the responsibility of

whose that is to manage from a FireSmarting interface perspective. Have

there been changes or discussions with local governments on the

responsibility around Crown land within local governments?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thanks again for more of the questions that are really important

for preparing not just for the coming season but seasons in many years

to come.

As far as the member’s statement about the Chapman-Abbott review,

we are already making changes within the ministry from the internal

reviews we’ve done, as far as getting in a better place for the upcoming

fire season. With their report due at the end of April, yes, that’ll

give us time. I can’t presuppose what the report will say, but I would

anticipate that there would be some priority topics and then more

medium-term and longer-term topics. So we feel and believe that there’ll

be time to implement the most important of the recommendations before

the coming fire season.

As far as what is going on with the Crown land adjacent to

communities and the letter from the city of Quesnel, yes, we’re talking

to communities. We’ve talked to many of them, starting as far back as

the Union of B.C. Municipalities annual convention in

September.

[4:50 p.m.]

As far as resources, I mentioned SWPI, the program that’s been in

place up until now, and that’s continuing. But we’re in the middle of an

analysis of that program, which is a funding program that we fund and

administer through UBCM for activities on the land around communities to

reduce the risk of wildfire. So part of the analysis is how it fits in

with….

We have an extra $50 million over the next three years to address

wildfire resiliency. So we want to make sure that SWPI and the

activities that we undertake in wildfire resilience are aligned and make

sense and respond to what communities actually need to do on that Crown

land close to their communities.

As well, there’s the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C., which is

an application-driven organization. There’s, I believe, $140 million,

$235 million overall, that’s available in the next three to five years.

Local governments and First Nations and forest licensees can apply to

that organization, with the explicit intent of doing work that reduces

fuel load around communities.

Those are three areas where we’re working with communities on the

whole issue of how they reduce fuel load and let their communities

become more fire resilient in the years to come.

J. Rustad: The minister’s comments have unfortunately added a bunch of

questions. I’m not quite sure whether we’ll get through fire stuff or

not today, in terms of the changes in progress. I was not going to ask a

lot of questions about changes, because obviously there’s a report that

we’re all waiting for with great anticipation. I might get to a few of

those questions around change, but I want to ask specifically around

some budget stuff to start with. After all, this is the estimates of

budgets.

To the recovery, the $72 million, $22 million of that is, I

believe, for recovery, and $50 million is for preparation or other

activities. Out of that $22 million — and the minister can correct me if

I’m wrong — I understand that $5 million of that is in the first year,

and then it ramps up in the following years. I think it was $5 million,

$7 million and $10 million, I believe, over the three years.

Could the minister provide some details as to what that funding

will actually be spent on?

Hon. D. Donaldson: We have some other information coming in, in response to some

previous questions, so I’ll get to that before we run out of time

today.

The member is right. The $22 million allotted over the next three

years for wildfire recovery is $5 million in this fiscal year, $7

million in 2019-20, and $10 million in 2020-2021.

To give the member an example of how these activities, these new

resources could support, I’m going to read off a list of what we’re

anticipating: landscape level planning, land-based investment,

engagement in partnerships with Indigenous and non-Indigenous

communities, replacement enhancement of resource values in

infrastructure, processing increased authorizations and working with the

industries within the Interior to understand and mitigate impacts from

fire and floods.

[4:55 p.m.]

J. Rustad: It sounds like, basically, most of that is going to be spent on

increasing staff, on staffing in terms of response for all of those

activities. That’s fair enough, in terms of it.

I also was wondering whether or not there’s any money coming in

from the federal government — whether it’s money that is part of that or

anything that might be coming in, in addition to that — for recovery or

whether the minister has made any ask of the federal government for

money for recovery.

Hon. D. Donaldson: That $72 million over the next three years, $22 million for

recovery and $50 million for resilience, is strictly provincial

moneys.

We are working with the federal government, still, to try to

secure additional resources. We’re in discussions with them on that. We

believe in the Canadian Wildland Fire Strategy that’s been signed by the

federal government. We’re consistently saying it’s nice to sign that

document, but we want to see the resources that should be put towards

that document as well.

As far as other areas where we’ve been able to secure federal

dollars in recovery, we’ve been able to do that through emergency

management B.C. on a disaster financial assistance fund. So there are

some federal dollars associated with that, and we’re working on federal

infrastructure-related dollars to help us with recovery and

resiliency.

J. Rustad: As the minister, I’m sure, is aware, there’s more than just the

response and the staffing on the ground, but there’s obviously a

significant economic impact.

I know there was the money that was parked with the Red Cross that

has done a number of things. How much money is remaining in the money

with the Red Cross? And out of any money that may be remaining, what are

the plans to request from the Red Cross, in terms of how those dollars

should be spent?

Hon. D. Donaldson: This information might have been canvassed with the minister

responsible for emergency management B.C. But I acknowledge it’s a

shared responsibility because my ministry also has not only land-based

recovery but socioeconomic recovery as part of its mandate.

[5:00 p.m.]

The Canadian Red Cross — I’ve got some figures here that are

fairly recent, just as of the end of the last calendar year — has a

total of $161.6 million at their disposal, and $50.8 million has been

spent and committed. Out of that amount, $44.1 million is spent and

committed on household assistance. That was, as the member knows, during

the actual fire situation, and still, in individual support to

self-recovery.

Under the community partnership program, $2 million is spent and

committed. Under support to small business, $6.8 million is spent and

committed.

There is still, as I said, in those three areas, despite what is

being spent and committed…. The household assistance, out of that $161.6

million, still has $109.8 million allocated to it; the community

partnership program, $21.6 million; and support to small business, $29.1

million.

What we’ve heard from the Canadian Red Cross is that in situations

where they’ve dealt with major disasters, for instance in Alberta, Fort

McMurray…. In the Fort McMurray situation, the commitment from the

Canadian Red Cross is to expend these funds, but over a two-year period.

What they’ve found in Fort McMurray and other places is that the need

escalates in different areas, but it escalates throughout time. Although

it might appear that only $50.8 million has been spent out of $161.6

million, there are still going to be a lot of needs to be addressed in

the following year.

I’m just going to ask if I can use an electronic device to read

some information that came in to us — a specific question that we didn’t

have the ability to answer right at the time. Okay.

This is in answer to the member’s question about the Carmi

recreation site. Carmi is a designated recreation site with minimal

facilities, managed by recreation sites and trails. As the member said,

it’s quite close to Penticton. It is a network of trails primarily used

by mountain bikers, but was historically identified as a cross-country

ski area, as the member pointed out.

BCTS has proposed logging in the recreation site. Recreation sites

and trails recommended that BCTS consult with the South Okanagan trail

association, and the trail association had no concerns with the proposed

logging. Unaffiliated members of the public saw logging layout ribbons

and have expressed concerns to recreation sites and trails, the minister

and the Premier.

BCTS has agreed to meet with the concerned public and review

logging plans during the summer and explore options for changes.

Harvesting is not proposed until the fall at the earliest, and

recreation sites and trails has not yet approved logging in the

recreation site, which will be required. Recreation sites and trails

will continue to work with BCTS and stakeholders to ensure that

recreational values are considered in the logging plans before

authorizing. I think that’s that.

Then we have some information for the member who was asking about

reforestation resources. Under FRPA, the Forest and Range Practices Act,

section 108, $65 million is available for this coming fiscal year for

reforestation. Under Forest Enhancement Society of B.C., $95 million is

available for the coming fiscal year. Under Forests for Tomorrow, $39.4

million per year is available, which will amount to $118 million over

three years. My team will commence in the fire areas in 2020.

Approximately 22 million trees will be planted.

[5:05 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Just one quick suggestion or thought. Obviously, we’ll have to see

how things play out in the second year with the Red Cross, in terms of

the help that is needed within the communities, but if there are some

funds that are left over from that, it might be an idea to consider

utilizing the Northern Development Initiative Trust as a special fund to

help with economic opportunity or economic development within the

Cariboo as part of its mandate.

Just a suggestion. It’s not exactly what estimates is for, but I

want to be able to see those funds utilized. Given the economic impact

of the fire within that area, they’re going to need some assistance,

particularly through tourism and other activities within that

area.

To the other side of the money that’s being allocated, the

resilience side, is it $10 million, $20 million and $20 million or

something like that — 10, 15 and 25? I can’t remember exactly what the

numbers were over the three years. What is the minister’s plan for that

funding?

Is that going to be funnelled through UBCM, through the existing

wildfire prevention initiative, or is that going to be a separate

program within the ministry? Is that money going to be partnered to

communities, or is that something that is going to be spent internally

within the ministry?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just of note on the lead-up to the question, I certainly have

known the work of the Northern Development Initiative Trust and endorse

it. They’ve done great work in the past. In our rural development

strategy, they’ve been one of the key informants that we’ve interviewed,

so we’re well aware — and I’m well aware, having come from the north —

of the great work they can do. We want to be able to partner with them

into the future, for sure.

The member was correct. The $50 million for wildfire resiliency

breaks down into $10 million for 2018-19, $20 million for 2019-2020 and

$20 million for 2020-2021. We’re in the middle of designing how that

money will be rolling out. We have a wildfire resilience initiative, and

we’re seeing and looking at how that will align with SWPI. But I just

wanted to read off what kind of activities we’re targeting for that $50

million investment.

“It will involve dedicated, streamlined funding for local

authorities and First Nations or Indigenous communities to undertake

planning, capacity-building, engagement and implementation of resiliency

and preparedness tools — for example, fuel treatment, land-use planning

policies and bylaws, education and incentives to participate.

“We’ll also have target investment for provincial priorities and

critical assets necessary to maintain community resiliency, such as

power, communications, water supply and rural commercial entities, such

as ranchers and mountain resorts.”

The B.C. Wildfire Service is currently developing an

community and First Nations components of this new funding. Lots of

really good and interesting work is going to be undertaken.

J. Rustad: I have a couple other questions, but at this time, I would like to

provide an opportunity for another local question that he wanted to get

in before we get to the break. I’ll turn the floor over to the member

for Sea to Sky.

[5:10 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for time here. I have something of a

long saga that the minister may be familiar with. It involves a

subdivision created by the province in 1911, which is district lot 1818,

plan 3565, in the Squamish River valley in the Cheekye

drainage.

The situation here is a challenging one, a difficult one, and I

understand that. I’m seeking support and working with the ministry to

try and resolve an issue for a number of constituents who live in this

particular location in this subdivision, which has quite a few lots,

actually. At this point, I’m only aware of three owners and buildings on

that lot.

The lots were originally accessed via a provincial highway that

went up the valley and that ultimately was taken over by B.C. Rail when

the B.C. Rail line was put in, and the road was then realigned. It

became, by thumb story, a forest service road that accesses woodlot 27,

services B.C. Hydro land and accesses these properties.

About a couple years ago, the bridge that went over the Cheekye

River to access these properties was washed out. It had been washed out

on a number of occasions and replaced. Ultimately, the decision was made

by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to

remove the structure completely.

The net result is that I have constituents, by the three surnames

of Dittas, Smith and Holt, in their 60s and 70s, who live full-time on

this property and whose only access, at this point, is to walk across a

B.C. Rail bridge, or a CN bridge now — so essentially, trespass — and

walk several kilometres to access their property.

I think there’s an element of responsibility that I think the

province has to help solve this problem. Albeit it is within the

district of Squamish, it does also, as I’ve pointed out, access a number

of other interests, including a woodlot. I’d seek the minister’s advice

and support in helping these constituents in a very, very difficult

situation.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I want to say thank you to the member. You’ve been a strong

advocate for your constituents. You’ve brought this issue to me before

and explained what these people are facing.

Definitely, these are the kinds of situations that I’ve run into,

not exactly but in other circumstances, where there are some historical

reasons around why people had access to their properties in the first

place. Those reasons involved Crown land and government

infrastructure.

What I can say is that I think there’s a lot of detailed history

that needs to be gone over in a briefing. I want you to be able to

provide that to ministry staff in a more formal way, but not during the

estimates debate, because I think it’s going to take some time to really

dig down into some of the issues. There are some legal obligations,

obviously, but I am sensitive to what he talks about.

It’s not an ideal situation that he describes for the people who

have to access that property by virtually trespassing on a rail bridge.

Rather than getting into a lot of detail here, I think it’s best that we

offer up an opportunity for a briefing and get more detailed

information.

I move that the committee rise, report progress — I don’t

necessarily want to ask leave to sit again, but I know we will — and ask

leave to sit again. I’ll see you in three weeks, I guess.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:15 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I’m advised that the Administrator is in the

precinct. Please remain in your seats.

[5:20 p.m. - 5:25 p.m.]

His Honour the Administrator requested to attend the House, was

admitted to the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018

Tla’amin Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2018

British Columbia Innovation Council Amendment Act, 2018

In Her Majesty’s name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to

these acts.

Supply Act (No. 1), 2018

In Her Majesty’s name, His Honour the Administrator doth thank Her

Majesty’s loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this

act.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We could do another 30 minutes of committee debate, but instead I

think I move the House will now adjourn.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I know that people outside will think you’re on a break for

the next few weeks, but we all know you won’t be. You’ll all be busy in your

ridings.

Please travel safe. We’ll look forward to seeing you back when this

House comes back at 10 a.m., April 9. It stands adjourned until

then.

The House adjourned at 5:28 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

AND

CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 1:39 p.m.

On Vote 22: ministry operations, $133,949,000

(continued) .

[1:40 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister, for taking some more questions

today.

Last time we were here, before I turned it over to the other

member, we were talking about competitiveness. We were talking about

certainty. We all agreed that it’s a very big part of what helps our

industry grow and attract new jobs and grow our economy. I’m glad we’re

all on the same page there.

The last time I was just a little interested in…. We talked about

rebates going back, through carbon taxing, to the industry. I think

that’s great.

I’d just like a little bit more detail on what that model looks

like, the pay schedules. I think you actually mentioned somewhere in

there that when they meet the targets, they get more rebates or

something to that effect. I’d like some more detail on that.

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the opportunity to explain a bit

further.

First of all, the final details of the plan are still the subject

of discussion with various industrial sectors, particularly

high-emissions sectors, as well as with the Climate Solutions and Clean

Growth Advisory Council. But in broad strokes, the idea is that we will

work with industry and set benchmarks in each industry. The benchmark

would be the lowest greenhouse gas intensity in the world for that

industry based on, in other words, what we know is feasible with

existing technology and within existing economics.

Then, as a particular company within that industry approaches that

benchmark, there’s an increasing level of percentages of the carbon tax

— increments above the $30 a tonne — that they will get back, right up

to the possibility of 100 percent of it if they meet or exceed the

world-leading benchmarks. We already know that, in some cases, we have

industries that are world-leading.

Also, in order to help industries achieve and implement the

technology that will reduce their emissions, some of the proceeds of the

carbon tax are going into a technology fund that will spur new

technologies to help reduce emissions in sectors and work with industry

to make that happen.

T. Shypitka: Thank you for the answer. So subject to discussion.

We know that the industry is paying the carbon tax at the present

time, and we’ve already determined that certainty is one of those things

that drives the industry. It gives investors confidence to

invest.

It seems like this is a fairly complicated model. Maybe it’s not,

but it’s subject to discussion. To give industry certainty, would the

minister be able to tell us when this model would be provided to the

industry so that it provides certainty?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, industry is well aware of the direction this is

going because we’ve been working it out with them. In fact, much of the

design is based on suggestions that they brought forward to us when they

said: “We need some help to prevent job loss and carbon leakage.” We

said: “Let’s have your best ideas.” We’ve had a lot of back and forth.

This is not news to them. I’ve certainly talked to broad groups of

industrial representatives at the Business Council of B.C. about the

general principles.

In any event, our goal, our aim is to have the final model ready

by the fall. I can’t absolutely, 100 percent promise that, but that is

our aim and our intention. Certainly, they will have that model in place

before, well before, they finish counting their 2018 emissions on which

the rebate will be based.

T. Shypitka: Can you tell us where we are in Canada, or where we are as a

province in Canada, on carbon tax? Where do we rate? Do we pay the most

in Canada right now, or are other jurisdictions close?

Hon. G. Heyman: Currently B.C. and Alberta have the highest carbon price at $30 a

tonne. But on April 1, we’ll be $5 higher some time before Alberta

raises theirs.

T. Shypitka: Thank you for that, Minister. Now, of course, we don’t just trade

within our country. We also trade globally. Can the minister also tell

me where we sit globally as far as our major trading partners, where

they sit with carbon tax?

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s a complicated question. If we look at Europe, as a

significant trading partner, the tax there ranges from $7 a tonne to

$174 a tonne. If you look at California, it is currently $19 a tonne.

Washington state is talking about implementing a carbon tax but has not

yet done so. China is intending to bring in a carbon tax as

well.

T. Shypitka: Anything from Australia? That’s one of our bigger trading

competitions.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Let me just correct one of my earlier comments for the record. I

said China was moving toward a carbon tax. What I should have said is

they’re moving toward a carbon price, which is not exactly the same

thing. But in effect, it is.

Australia is more complicated. Australia has had a carbon tax. The

carbon tax was removed by a subsequent government from the one that put

it in — as, I’m sure, the member knows. The result of that has been some

volatility or instability, in terms of industrial expectation, about

what may or may not occur in Australia.

We believe that predictability and stability, especially in a

world in which carbon pricing is increasingly seen as an important and

inevitable tool to address climate change, as well as a tool that opens

up new opportunities — for instance, the opportunities I referenced in

the tech fund — can spur tremendous innovation in our tech sector, which

also benefits our resource sector. Those are the kinds of advantages

that we see for British Columbia.

T. Shypitka: Just on the global part of it for a second here. In regards to

that, I’m just looking at the people that we compete against the most.

With oil, it would be Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Africa. Any thoughts on

carbon pricing in those countries? Those are our direct competitors:

Saudi Arabia, Africa and Venezuela.

Hon. G. Heyman: I think, first of all, if we’re going to talk about

competitiveness in one aspect, we’re making a mistake. We should talk

about all the factors that go into competitiveness.

We believe that business in British Columbia wants and needs

predictability and stability and that business in British Columbia, and

in many parts of the world, understands that they, along with all of us,

have a responsibility to address climate change. There are huge

financial and economic costs, let alone all the other costs to humanity,

if we don’t address it.

They’re eager to work with governments to find effective means to

reduce emissions, and by and large, they see carbon pricing as an

effective way of doing that. The former Premier of British Columbia,

Gordon Campbell, recognized that when he brought in the first carbon tax

and also saw the economic opportunities that came along with being

predictable, stable and working with industry as we bring that

in.

[1:55 p.m.]

We’ve had repeated presentations — I certainly have had, both as

opposition critic and as minister — from significant industrial sectors

in B.C., who’ve said: “We get that there has to be carbon pricing. Let

us know what it will be, when it will come in, how it will increase and

how we can then work with you to prevent carbon leakage and the

subsequent job loss.”

We’re trying to do that, and do that effectively. I think I’ve

pointed out the economic advantages to resource sectors and other

sectors spurring technological growth and job growth in the tech sector

for technologies that can be applied in B.C. and exported. Those are all

advantages.

There are also reasons that people choose to do business in

British Columbia. They may choose to do business in British Columbia

because of the rule of law, because there’s stability. When they see

government policies that are stable and predictable and governments that

will work with them to mitigate any adverse impacts, they appreciate

that.

They also have the ability and the technologies to reduce

emissions. Frankly, in some other less developed jurisdictions, those

just don’t exist.

T. Shypitka: Yeah, I appreciate that. I really do. When we talked yesterday, we

talked about certainty. We also talked about the low cost of producing,

or reducing our production costs, as being one of those components of

being sustainable, an industry that sustains itself and grows. So this

is just one aspect, and I appreciate all the other parts of it that make

up the whole piece. But just speaking strictly from lowering your

costs…. This is a very important piece to industry — being competitive

through reducing their costs.

We’ve talked about B.C.’s top competitors being the U.S., Africa,

Venezuela, Australia. They’ve all got an advantage on us in that area.

That’s just one of the concerns I have. And thanks for pointing that out

to me.

I’ll go to environmental assessment review, just a quick question

on the EAO. If the minister could tell me a little bit on how he feels

the EAO has done in regards to reviewing projects up until

now.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, let me begin my answer by saying I’ve had the

opportunity to work closely with a number of senior staff at the

environmental assessment office.

[2:00 p.m.]

I’ve attended an information and question-and-answer session, as

the new minister, with staff at the environmental assessment office a

couple of months ago and had a chance to meet, if not all of the

employees, certainly a lot of them. I am very impressed with their level

of knowledge, their commitment to doing a good job and the work they’ve

done.

I will say, however, that I believe that for quite some time,

there’s been a sense in the general public that the process is less than

transparent. It’s one in which it’s not clear to them all of the

criteria that are used to make decisions or that all of the criteria

they believe should be used to make decisions are being

applied.

I think that in the past, there has been conflict with a number of

Indigenous nations and communities around assessment processes butting

up against asserted rights and title. I would say that in the assessment

reports that I’ve had the opportunity to see since I’ve become minister,

which number a grand total of two, I think significant strides have been

made to consult and engage with First Nations much more deeply. I think

that flows from some recent court decisions as well as a general

evolution in societal thinking.

I think the important point is that these things are not yet baked

into the process or legislation. They are certainly something to commend

the staff for, but they’re not in the process as a matter of course or

law or policy yet.

T. Shypitka: How much does the minister see the changes proposed for the

National Energy Board playing a role in the EA review?

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m going to proceed in answering the question on the assumption

that the member was referencing not just changes to the National Energy

Board but also the establishment of the new impacts assessment

legislation. It appears that I’m correct in that.

I would say that there has been ongoing dialogue between officials

in the B.C. ministry and officials in the federal ministry. I’ve met

with the federal minister on a couple of occasions. Among the topics

we’ve discussed has been environmental assessment generally. Certainly,

as we’ve framed out our general terms of reference for reviewing

environmental assessment in B.C., we’ve been very cognizant of the

direction the federal government was taking.

[2:05 p.m.]

I think that generally speaking, many of the changes introduced in

the Impact Assessment Act, although not necessarily all, line up nicely

with directions that we think are good ones, although I don’t want to

prejudge the work of the advisory committee that has recently been

struck.

I also want to say…. I’ve said publicly on a number of occasions

that it makes no sense to me that we don’t have synergies between the

federal process and the provincial process. It makes no sense to have

processes that don’t mesh nicely and line up.

I think both levels of government have made it clear that within a

framework of transparency, respect for First Nations, robust

science-based processes and good public participation, we believe in a

one-project, one-process regime. Not all provincial projects require a

federal assessment, so obviously, they won’t both be involved on

both.

Generally speaking, we believe in one project, one process and

working together in the investigations, as we have done in some cases.

That’s not to say that each level of government wouldn’t retain

independent decision-making, but we would be making decisions based on

the same review and the same fact set.

T. Shypitka: I’m going to totally throw another ball here to a different court.

I’ll get into caribou recovery for a second and how the ministry is

involved in that federally driven….

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Oh, sure. You’ve got to get the other guy….

Hon. G. Heyman: Sorry, just in the interests of being effective, if you have any

more questions on environmental assessment, maybe we can take them. If

not…. Okay. We’ll switch out.

T. Shypitka: We’ll go to the question now. Is the minister or the ministry

currently involved in any discussions with the federal government on the

caribou recovery plan?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: As my staff say, we’ve been engaging with the federal government

on caribou on an almost daily basis for the past two years. We’ve been

working with the federal government with respect to the federal Species

at Risk Act since 2003.

We have developed, with the federal government — and this is

because we have no species-at-risk legislation in B.C. — joint caribou

plans on a number of herds. We’re currently working on a

section 11

joint agreement to work on a recovery plan for the central herd of the

Southern Mountains.

There was a joint news release between the federal government, the

provincial government, the West Moberly First Nation and the Saulteau

First Nation in December. We haven’t quite finalized this yet. But that

is the plan, to work in cooperation.

T. Shypitka: As it is a federally driven initiative, the province is able to

step in and assist, I guess, with the direction that the federal

government wants to go. I guess the question is: in the plan, this

caribou recovery plan, are socioeconomics a part of or a factor in the

recovery plan?

Hon. G. Heyman: Federal recovery strategies under the federal Species at Risk Act

cannot consider socioeconomic factors, but provincial recovery plans can

and, in fact, do consider socioeconomic factors.

T. Shypitka: What are the plans for the provincial government, the ministry, in

addressing socioeconomic activity in the caribou recovery plan when it’s

mandated by the federal government saying that’s not a factor? When the

federal government is basically driving this initiative and you say the

provincial government can introduce or implement socioeconomics into the

recovery plan, how can that get past the federally driven

mandate?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer is that what the federal government is after is

outcomes. So if we craft a provincial recovery plan that gets to

outcomes acceptable to the federal government under their legislation,

using another route that encompasses socioeconomic factors, then we have

an acceptable plan.

T. Shypitka: Would that include the use of predator control?

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer is yes. Predator control is one of a number of

mechanisms available to protect species at risk. Perhaps anticipating a

further question, other ones are maternal penning, to protect animals

from predation; habitat protection; habitat restoration; managing

recreation; as well as alternate prey management.

T. Shypitka: Is predator control one of the tools that the federal government

implements, or is that just a provincial decision?

Hon. G. Heyman: There’s only one tool under the federal act, and that’s habitat

protection.

T. Shypitka: Is predator control being implemented right now?

Hon. G. Heyman: Yes, it has been for a number of years.

T. Shypitka: What species, please?

Hon. G. Heyman: Currently grey wolves. But in the past, cougar has been another

species.

T. Shypitka: No more questions.

R. Sultan: I have a series of questions to the minister on the subject of —

what else? — carbon.

[2:20 p.m.]

I’d like to begin with a contemplation of the public acceptance of

the carbon tax, going back to the tax neutrality feature of the carbon

tax when it was first introduced, under the leadership of Gordon

Campbell, a number of years ago. Having been there at the time and

listened to the debate in caucus, I would have to report that it was an

important feature of gaining public and business acceptance of the

carbon tax.

With hindsight, it was a success. At least, the people at the

Marrakech conference of the United Nations said so. They gave our

minister — I guess he was the minister of the day — a plaque recognizing

our global leadership in introducing, successfully, a carbon

tax.

I guess we would probably all agree that the acceptance of the

carbon tax across Canada certainly