British Columbia Hansard — Monday, October 16, 2017, p.m., Issue 33 (41st Parliament, 2nd Session)
20171016pm-House-Blues
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Second Session, 41st Parliament
(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Monday, October 16, 2017
Afternoon Sitting
Issue No. 33
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
Routine Business
Introductions by Members
Personal Statements
Clarification of comments made in the House
L. Krog
Statements (Standing Order 25B)
Eye health and doctors of optometry
A. Kang
Impact of wildfires on wildlife
M. Morris
ACT Arts Centre in Maple Ridge
B. D’Eith
Pacific Oral Health Society and dental care for low-income
persons
S. Cadieux
Action on homelessness and poverty
M. Elmore
Mental health advocacy by Myles Mattila
S. Bond
Oral Questions
Freedom-of-information requests for wildfire loss cases
J. Tegart
Hon. J. Sims
C. Oakes
Harvesting of timber in areas impacted by wildfires
J. Rustad
Hon. D. Donaldson
Regulation of ride-sharing industry
J. Thornthwaite
Hon. C. Trevena
Government policy on aquaculture
I. Paton
Hon. J. Horgan
Status of fish farms and economic development by First
Nations
E. Ross
Hon. J. Horgan
Tax changes and support for export sector
J. Johal
Hon. B. Ralston
Support for small business in rural B.C.
S. Bond
Hon. C. James
Tabling Documents
Elections B.C., annual report 2016-17 and service plan
2017-18–2019-20
Orders of the Day
Committee of Supply
Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations
and Rural Development
Hon. D. Donaldson
J. Rustad
D. Barnett
J. Tegart
C. Oakes
S. Bond
D. Ashton
M. Morris
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room
Committee of Supply
Estimates: Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions
Hon. J. Darcy
J. Thornthwaite
M. Bernier
J. Isaacs
MONDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2017
The House met at 1:35 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Introductions by Members
T. Redies: I’d like to introduce a number of members of Advocis who are joining
us in the House today. Advocis is the Financial Advisors of Canada
Association. They have 40 chapters across the country. They also have 13,000
members, 2,000 of whom reside and work in British Columbia. The organization
provides financial assistance and advice to British Columbians, helping them
to reach their financial goals and achieve financial stability and
independence.
Joining us today in the House are Peter Tzanetakis, Andrew Kimber,
Greg Pollock, Brad Brain, Mike Reilly, Steve Hammer, David Webb, Jared Webb
and Rob Bauml. Would the House please help me in welcoming them all to the
Legislature today.
Hon. M. Mark: It’s my pleasure to introduce members of the Alliance of B.C. Students
who are here watching question period with us today. The Alliance represents
over 60,000 undergraduate and graduate students from all across B.C.’s
post-secondary institutions. Today representatives are here from Kwantlen,
Capilano, UBC, UBC Okanagan, SFU and the University of the Fraser Valley to
talk to myself and members of this House about issues that matter to
students in B.C. Will the House please join me in welcoming them to the
chambers.
E. Ross: Today in the House we have a guest with me that was instrumental in
getting me to this position here as MLA. She was my campaign chair. As well,
she’s a Terrace businesswoman. She’s a consultant, and she helps First
Nations engage in economic development. But of more relevance, she is a
candidate for the Liberal leadership that’s happening right now. Would the
House please make welcome Lucy Sager and her son Ryan Praught.
Hon. B. Ralston: This week is both Small Business Week and Manufacturing Week here in
British Columbia. A number of leaders in those sectors are here in the
gallery and in the precinct.
I want to introduce Samantha Howard, the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business; Jill Doucette, the founder and director of Synergy
Enterprises; Val Litwin, the president and CEO of the B.C. Chamber of
Commerce; Catherine Holt, the CEO of the Greater Victoria Chamber of
Commerce; Dan Gunn, CEO of VIATeC; Sheila Biggers, president and CEO of
Junior Achievement B.C.; Laurel Douglas, CEO of the Women’s Enterprise
Centre; Paulina Cameron, regional director, B.C. and the Yukon,
Futurpreneur; Cybele Negris, CEO of Webnames.ca; Mark Startup, the
vice-president of MyStore at the Retail Council of Canada; Ian Tostenson,
president and CEO of the B.C. Restaurant and Food Services Association;
Nancy Wyeth, the executive director of Community Micro Lending; and Quinn
Anglin, business ambassador, city of Victoria business hub.
Would the House please make all of those distinguished business
leaders welcome here in the Legislature.
Personal Statements
CLARIFICATION OF COMMENTS
MADE IN THE
HOUSE
L. Krog: I wish to apologize to the House. I apparently misled members this
morning. It was pointed out to me by the member for Chilliwack. I
attributed to Janis Joplin the line, the lyrics, “Freedom’s just another
word for nothin’ left to lose,” when, in fact, the member tells me — and
I believe him, because he’s a notorious fan of music and barbecuing —
it’s Kris Kristofferson. I do apologize.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
EYE HEALTH AND
DOCTORS OF
OPTOMETRY
A. Kang: Friday, October 13, was Optometry Day in British Columbia. As
Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, I would like to highlight the
importance of vision care for British Columbians. Today I have chosen to
wear my glasses. Some members might not recognize me, but I have my
glasses on, and I’m still the Burnaby–Deer Lake
representative.
Vision loss can happen to anyone at any age. One in seven
Canadians will develop a serious eye disease in their lifetime.
Fortunately, 75 percent of vision loss can be prevented or treated.
Preventative measures and early detection of eye disease, even when no
symptoms are present, significantly lower the risk of vision
loss.
[1:40 p.m.]
Many Canadians choose to skip a visit with their optometrist
because they believe that they have good vision. This is despite the
fact that, even with good vision, eye exams can help detect underlying
conditions that may show signs in the eyes, including tumours,
aneurysms, autoimmune disorders, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease
and many other neurological or brain disorders. Our eyes are the windows
to our souls.
I would like to take a moment to recognize doctors of optometry
who play an important role in protecting the health of British
Columbians. The B.C. Doctors of Optometry represents approximately 516
members in 90 communities across British Columbia. Doctors of optometry
are a primary source of vision, eye health and eyewear. Members are
trained to help maintain good vision and manage neutral changes related
to aging or conditions such as astigmatism and glaucoma. Members also
specialize in diagnosing, treating, managing and preventing problems
with the visual systems. They can also prescribe medications and provide
emergency care for some injuries.
It is interesting to note that my community office used to be an
eyewear store. Because I deeply care about the health of British
Columbians, I would like to remind everyone to get your eyes checked
out.
IMPACT OF WILDFIRES ON WILDLIFE
M. Morris: We’ve heard much over the past several weeks about the devastation
caused by the unprecedented fires this year, the impacts on the
residents, their families, their pets and their livestock. Today I want
to speak about the wildlife populations that have been
impacted.
Three-quarters of B.C.’s mammal species are found in B.C., and 24
species are exclusive to B.C. alone. There are over 1,140 vertebrates —
birds, fish, animals, amphibians and reptiles. Over 360 bird species
breed in B.C., and 55 percent of these breed nowhere else in the
world.
The areas impacted by…. This year’s fires occurred during one of
the most vulnerable periods when most mammals are raising their young.
Many birds would still be in their nests. Furbearers would still be
feeding their young in their respective dens or nesting cavities.
Ungulates such as moose would be nursing young calves unable to outrun
the heavy smoke and, ultimately, the fire that followed.
The fires were so large and unpredictable that even the swiftest
carnivores would have had trouble escaping. Species that rely on
riparian areas — creeks, rivers and lakes — may have had a fleeting
chance of survival from the fire but will ultimately end up starving to
death as their food supply would be diminished or burned. The inability
to gather and store feed for the winter months would see many of the
remaining animals starve and die over the winter months.
Over a million hectares of forest have been burned, 872,000
hectares in the Cariboo region alone, a prime area that has abundant
populations of wildlife. Our biodiversity is resilient, but it will
still take years to recover, years for the habitat necessary to support
wildlife to grow back and years for the various species to migrate back
into these areas.
ACT ARTS CENTRE IN MAPLE RIDGE
B. D’Eith: The ACT Arts Centre opened at the heart of Maple Ridge in 2003 and
is run by the Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Arts Council, which formed way
back in 1970. The centre provides excellence in arts programming,
gallery exhibitions and performing arts presentations along with being
home to many cultural and community events. The ACT Presents performance
series includes over 30 live performances of music, comedy and theatre
each season, and there are a number of communities that actually rent
the facility and present their own performances.
The Presents series has included such amazing acts as the Vienna
Boys Choir, Les Ballets Jazz de Montréal, the Canadian Tenors and the
National Acrobats of Taiwan, just to name a few. There have also been
numerous B.C. music artists including the late and great Dal Richards,
54-40, Michael Kaeshammer, the Harpoonist and the Axe Murderer, Kenny
Starr, Corey Weeds, Adonis Puentes and Alex Cuba. They’ve all performed
in the 486-seat theatre in the ACT Arts Centre. Other performances have
included Ballet Kelowna, Vatily magic and Roman Danylo, who is a
comedian.
Over 10,000 patrons visit the ACT art gallery annually. Each year
there are over 80,000 people who visit the ACT Arts Centre. The ACT Arts
art scholarships, community arts group grants, art performance bursaries
and ticket programs as well as a free weekly event called lobby nights
and many, many free workshops and festival events.
[1:45 p.m.]
This past year over 180 volunteers gave 5,700 volunteer hours to
the organization. The ACT Arts Centre is truly the beating heart of the
city of Maple Ridge, and we are very, very lucky to have it in our
community.
PACIFIC ORAL HEALTH SOCIETY AND
DENTAL CARE FOR
LOW-INCOME PERSONS
S. Cadieux: The Pacific Oral Health Society, or POHS, opened its doors in
South Surrey in March of 2013. This state-of-the-art facility became a
reality under the direction of Dr. Harry Dhanju, in collaboration with
the University of British Columbia faculty of dentistry. Dr. Dhanju
recognized the need for low-cost oral health care in the Fraser Valley,
and along with the idea that the centre could deliver continuing
education programs and be used in the training of dental professionals,
he moved forward.
With one of the main focuses to provide dental health care to
lower-income individuals and families in the region, POHS holds an
annual community dental care day that has offered free services to over
1,000 patients. These free clinics are staffed by a team of 50
professionals who volunteer over 450 hours of their time annually to
treat those in need of fillings, extractions and cleaning.
Last month POHS hosted their second annual free oral cancer
screening day, which saw 408 patients. Over 50 volunteers participated
and included doctors and health care professionals from UBC and SFU, as
well as local dentists and hygienists and specialists from the B.C. oral
cancer prevention program.
Just four short years after its opening, the Pacific Oral Health
Society provides training and education for undergrad dental and hygiene
students, graduate students and general practitioners. They’re holding
annual and semi-annual clinics to provide free dental care for
low-income families and low-cost dental care to hundreds more every
month. It’s an outstanding achievement of collaboration and one that we
are most grateful for in my community of Surrey South.
ACTION ON HOMELESSNESS AND POVERTY
M. Elmore: Last week was Homelessness Action Week in British Columbia, a time
to raise awareness and keep those people who are homeless or who are at
risk of homelessness top of mind.
Over the past few years, homelessness in our province has
increased dramatically. In Metro Vancouver alone, 3,605 people were
counted in the 2017 homeless count last March, and those were just those
who allowed themselves to be counted. We know, and the organizations
that conduct the count know, that the real number is much bigger, that
so many people are missed in the count. Thousands more people and
families struggle to keep a roof over their head, barely getting
by.
I’m encouraged to see decisive action to address this growing
problem. To start, we’re working with local governments to build 2,000
new modular housing units for those who are homeless. The first of these
units will roll out in Vancouver as soon as this winter. Other
communities, including Surrey and Smithers, will be added
soon.
This is the first step in creating a homelessness action plan.
We’re working to make life better for all people in our province. Every
person in B.C. deserves to have a place to call home. Tomorrow is the
United Nations International Day for the Eradication of
Poverty.
British Columbia has one of the highest poverty rates in Canada.
Nearly 700,000 British Columbians, including families with children,
regularly struggle to obtain the food, shelter and clothing they
need.
We know that poverty and homelessness are connected. In a province
as wealthy as British Columbia, no one should have to live without their
basic needs being met and a safe place to call home.
As Parliamentary Secretary for Poverty Reduction, I’m pleased to
be working with the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction
to develop B.C.’s first poverty reduction strategy and homelessness
action plan. Our government is committed to bringing real and permanent
solutions for the most vulnerable people in our province. As part of
this work, government will be asking all British Columbians to engage
and to share their thoughts and ideas on how to reduce
poverty.
I encourage everyone in the House and everyone in communities
throughout the province to share their thoughts and ideas during the
consultations, which will be starting before the end of the year.
Finding solutions to poverty and homelessness is all of our
responsibility, and I ask everybody to become part of the
solution.
MENTAL HEALTH ADVOCACY
BY MYLES
MATTILA
S. Bond: When you think of a mental health advocate, you probably don’t
picture a talented young hockey player, but you should. Let me introduce
you to Myles Mattila.
At the age of 14, Myles was approached by a teammate who was
struggling with depression. Wanting to help his friend, Myles went to
talk to their coach. What Myles learned motivated him to tackle a
subject that most people find uncomfortable and difficult to talk
about.
Skilled hockey players feel a great deal of pressure to perform.
The emphasis, of course, is on their physical circumstances, with much
less attention being paid to their mental wellness. Myles set out to
change that.
[1:50 p.m.]
Since that day, Myles has worked to develop the MindRight program,
in partnership with the Cariboo Cougars major midget hockey
organization, supported by his coach, Trevor Sprague, and his wife,
Jessie. He organized a major youth forum in Prince George and is a
member of the youth local action team. He’s a provincial youth
representative for mindcheck.ca, has been recognized for his work with
numerous awards and even received a shout-out from the Prime
Minister.
Most recently he was a delegate to an international youth mental
health conference in Dublin, Ireland. Myles Mattila should be an
inspiration to us all. He certainly is to me. From that unexpected day
in a hockey arena, Myles Mattila has become a difference-maker on the
ice and off the ice.
Ensuring that British Columbians, regardless of their age, who are
struggling with mental illness have the best system of supports possible
is not a partisan issue, but one that every single MLA in this
Legislature agrees on.
In the words of a teenager named Myles Mattila: “I just want to be
an advocate for mental health and speak for people that can’t speak. I
want to make sure they know they’re not alone.”
Thank you, Myles, for being an incredible role model. Now it’s
time for all of us to do our part.
Oral Questions
FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUESTS
FOR WILDFIRE LOSS
CASES
J. Tegart: On September 21, I asked the Minister of Citizens’ Services about
Heather Pederson’s FOI request. Heather is looking for answers about her
property at Pressy Lake that was destroyed by the wildfire. When asked
about the file, the minister said: “Let me assure the members that we
are expediting freedom-of-information requests.” Despite that assurance
nearly a month ago, no documents have been provided to Heather’s FOI
request.
To the minister, these are people who have lost everything. Why
has she not followed through on her promise to expedite FOI requests for
the residents of Pressy Lake?
Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for raising that issue. I will go
back, look into this and get back to her.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Fraser-Nicola on a supplemental.
J. Tegart: The only information Heather has received was, ironically, on
Friday the 13th. It was to tell her that despite all assurances from the
minister, nothing is being expedited.
Let me read what the letter says. “I’m writing in regards to your
recent FOI request.” It goes on to say: “The time limit for responding
to a request may be extended.” And it continues to say: “Therefore, the
new response due date for this file is December 4, 2017.” Delayed by
months. The opposite of expedited.
The minister says she takes information access very, very
seriously. So why has she broken her repeated assurance to expedite
access to information in this case?
Hon. J. Sims: Let me assure my colleague across the way that we will look into
this immediately. As the member knows, after a fire or during a fire,
there are routine investigations. In some cases, investigations are in
process. We are not able to release that information. As soon as we got
permission from the RCMP that some related information could be
released, all of that information was released.
If there are other investigations in process, I will follow up as
soon as I have the information, because we on this side of the House
take this very, very seriously.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Fraser-Nicola on a second supplemental.
[1:55 p.m.]
J. Tegart: The minister said she would expedite the freedom-of-information
request, and I would remind this House that she is the minister, and she
can do that. She’s done the opposite and has, instead, delayed them.
This is a broken promise to people whose homes are in ruins. Actions are
what matter, not words. You promised last time that we would do this
really quickly.
So to the minster, why did she tell people she would expedite
their requests and then do the opposite? And when can the people of
Pressy Lake expect to receive the information about what happened on
their property during the 2017 Elephant Hill fire?
Hon. J. Sims: Let me reiterate that the information that could be released,
because of ongoing investigations, has been released, and I will follow
up on this. We do take this seriously. I will follow up, and I will get
back to the member as soon as possible.
C. Oakes: To the Minister of Citizens’ Services: you say you take it
seriously. You come to our communities, but you refuse to meet, or
you’re not meeting with the people that are affected. So in one
instance, we have the Minister of Citizens’ Services promising to
expedite FOI requests but then delays them.
In the McNab case — and I raised that issue in this House on
September 18 — she has done nothing. In fact, all she has done is charge
$5,000 for the McNabs to have access to the information that they need
to rebuild. They need this information so that they can rebuild. Winter
is coming. They need to be moving forward on their
properties.
Recall that the McNabs were told to FOI documents pertaining to
the loss of structures on their property. After all that’s happened this
summer, why on earth would the minister continue to insist to charge
$5,000 to Mr. McNab, who is seeking documents he requires to rebuild his
life?
Hon. J. Sims: Like members on the other side of the House, people sitting on
this side of the House, each and every one of us empathize and know the
difficult situation citizens who were impacted by the fires are
struggling with. We will continue to work with individuals and with
communities to provide them with the information that they
need.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North on a supplemental.
C. Oakes: To the Minister of Citizens’ Services, I will remind the member
that David McNab lost a sawmill and five other structures on his
property. Presumably, the minister cares about this situation, and she
has said as such. Ironically, she was in Quesnel last week but did not
meet with the McNabs. What can these people expect to think of this
government when expedite means delays and assist means charging? She was
in town and didn’t even bother to meet with them.
So to the minister, enough with the delay tactics. Will she direct
her staff to do the right thing and provide Mr. McNab the information he
requires?
Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank the member for her question. As I said previously,
we will continue to work with individuals to make sure that they get the
supports they need, and we will release the information that they need
as we are permitted after investigations.
HARVESTING OF TIMBER IN
AREAS IMPACTED BY
WILDFIRES
J. Rustad: We’ve heard a couple of cases here, now, of how individuals have
been impacted by fire. But now that the fires are mostly out, we need to
get on to talking about recovery.
[2:00 p.m.]
In the Cariboo alone, it’s estimated that over 45 million cubic
metres of timber, covering just about one million hectares of land, have
been impacted by these fires. Utilizing this wood, getting it out
rapidly before it degrades, is urgent. Harvesting and reforestation are
critical for the workers and the communities in the area.
What provisions has the Minister of Forests enacted to prioritize
harvesting, and has he created incentives to maximize salvage and
maximize the work before the opportunity is lost?
Hon. D. Donaldson: To the member, I welcome the question, because recovery is on the
forefront of our minds after the devastation that many communities in
B.C. faced during this past fire season. At one point, we had 65,000
people evacuated from their homes. Over 1.2 million hectares of forest
land was impacted by the fires.
Now, thankfully, with the weather changing and with the great
efforts of the B.C. Wildfire Service, volunteers and community members,
we’re able to move into the recovery stage. Recovery is organized under
four categories: people and communities, the environment, the economy,
and infrastructure and rebuilding. Under the economic aspect of that
interministry recovery program, we are working closely with companies on
establishing salvage pricing and getting the timber to the mills to
support the jobs before that lumber decays.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Nechako Lakes on a supplemental.
J. Rustad: I’ve heard from the minister and his staff, who talk about getting
this wood moving to the mills and working with companies. The question
really is: how quickly is this going to happen? The workers are very
concerned about their future and about the fibre supply. They don’t need
consultation; they need action. They need to see this wood moving to the
mills so that we can maximize the value in the area.
What steps, specifically, have you taken to ensure that harvesting
of this fire-damaged wood will start immediately and that we can get
this wood to the mills this fall and into the winter so that we can
maximize as much value out of this timber as possible before that value
is lost?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, it’s a very important topic. I welcome the member for
bringing it up.
We have recovery managers now established in all the major centres
in the Interior. That’s through my ministry. We’re working on the ground
to determine the areas that can be harvested. We’ve come to solutions
with the industry about the salvage pricing requirements, and we’re
getting that timber flowing as quickly as possible because the jobs in
the important areas of the communities in the Interior are a matter of
great significance to us.
REGULATION OF RIDE-SHARING INDUSTRY
J. Thornthwaite: The Minister of Transportation has an announcement coming up this
afternoon, apparently, on ride-sharing. It’s a week later than she
promised, but timelines and keeping promises aren’t this government’s
strong suit. In fact, her comments to date suggest she has a problem
with the unequivocal promise made by the Premier that they would
“introduce ride-sharing to B.C. in 2017.”
My question is to the minister. Will ride-sharing happen in
British Columbia by the end of 2017, as promised by the
Premier?
Hon. C. Trevena: I do find it amusing that the members opposite keep poking us
about so-called ride-sharing, when Uber first came to this province in
2012, and we are still no further along. So we are committed to making
sure….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the response. Thank
you.
Minister.
Hon. C. Trevena: We are committed to ensuring that we get to a solution, Mr.
Speaker.
[2:05 p.m.]
Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a
supplemental.
J. Thornthwaite: Let’s be clear. It’s the Premier who made the promise that
ride-sharing will come to B.C. by the end of 2017. The minister and the
Premier ran on that promise during the election.
Our party, our members, my constituents are waiting for
ride-sharing. The minister can avoid this all she wants, but this is yet
another broken promise, just like the renters rebate, the partisan
appointments, the subsidies to political parties.
My question remains. Will the minister confirm that it is another
broken promise and that she has no intention of bringing ride-sharing to
British Columbia in 2017?
Hon. C. Trevena: As the member quite rightly said, I’m going to be making an
announcement in about half an hour. As a former Premier would say, stay
tuned.
GOVERNMENT POLICY ON AQUACULTURE
I. Paton: Today I’d like to comment on a bit of confusion around aquaculture
in this province. There isn’t a week that goes by without the government
sending mixed messages to British Columbians and investors
alike.
Last week was no exception. This is what the Premier said last
week: “Any strategy for aquaculture must…recognize that the industry now
generates nearly $800 million in annual value, while supporting several
thousand jobs in rural and coastal areas of B.C.” Yet, in contrast, the
Minister of Transportation claims: “We will remove fish farms. We are
committed to that.”
My question to the Minister of Agriculture is: which statement is
the government’s policy?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. It’s nice to know that there
are people concerned on that side of the House on issues they were
dealing with for 16 years. And, yes, the member is correct. I travelled
with members of executive council to the north Island, to Alert Bay, to
meet with people profoundly concerned about the impact aquaculture and
other human activity are having on the salmon stocks.
I think all members of this House and all British Columbians agree
that our highest priority must be to protect our iconic Pacific wild
salmon. So this side of the House is going to do what that side of the
House refused to do for 16 years. We’re going to manage our resources in
the best interests of everybody, not just people with the biggest
cheques.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.
I. Paton: It’s great that the Premier is now saying research and meetings
are important, but that isn’t what they promised. The Minister of
Transportation was clear in the election that they would remove fish
farms, but that isn’t what the Premier is now saying.
To the Minister of Agriculture, can she confirm that the statement
made by her colleague is yet another broken promise?
Hon. J. Horgan: Let me be as clear as I can to the member opposite. This side of
the House cares deeply about our coastal economy. That’s why so many
people on this side of the House represent coastal
communities.
We on this side of the House are going to follow through on the
recommendations of the Cohen Commission, which that side of house
ignored…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please.
[2:10 p.m.]
Hon. J. Horgan: …for its entire term of office. We’re going to make sure that
Pacific salmon are protected, not just for this generation but for
future generations, so we can have an economy that works for
everybody.
STATUS OF FISH FARMS AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT BY FIRST
NATIONS
E. Ross: For years, First Nations have been trying to address poverty and
unemployment by engaging in and developing economies. Elected First
Nation leaders not only have to balance environmental issues with
economic development, but they also have to deal with third parties who
do nothing to assist First Nations in their efforts to resolve horrible
issues.
In remote communities, fish farms provide jobs and revenue to
people who only want to chart their own paths out of poverty. That’s all
they want. Now the Minister of Transportation said that they will remove
fish farms. It was a very clear statement.
Can the Minister of Agriculture tell the House which First Nation
leaders she met with to tell them that their people are going to be out
of work and back in poverty?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his questions. I appreciate the premise of
his question is seriously put.
We — myself, my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture, the
Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Indigenous Relations —
met with dozens of leaders in the longhouse, in the big house, in Alert
Bay to hear directly from them their concerns about the impact of
aquaculture on wild salmon and their food fishery and their traditions
going back millennia, as you know.
I fully appreciate the concern the member raised about the lack of
attentiveness to these issues over the past 16 years. I want to assure
him that I will do everything in my power to eliminate the barriers to
economic prosperity for Indigenous people in British Columbia so all of
our boats can be lifted and all British Columbians can benefit from the
bounty of this great province.
Mr. Speaker: The Member for Skeena on a supplemental.
E. Ross: That’s great, but elected leaders have to deal with poverty. They
have to deal with unemployment. This was the question: which leaders did
they meet with? Because it’s only elected leaders that have to deal with
these issues in these remote communities.
We always hear these words about poverty and unemployment in First
Nation communities. We hear about UNDRIP in this House, but they’re just
empty words if you’re not addressing poverty itself.
If the government really wants reconciliation for First Nations,
they will drive this change and help people. For that, you have to get
behind economic development and actually support industries that help
First Nations get out of poverty. They don’t want your handouts. They
don’t want handouts. They want to support themselves. And, yes, this
means supporting fish farms, forest and range agreements, LNG. I know
that these are industries that this government can’t or won’t
support.
My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. How does removing
fish farms, like her colleague the Minister of Transportation stated,
constitute reconciliation with First Nations whose members rely on them
for their livelihoods and which are a critical component of a better
future for all British Columbians?
Hon. J. Horgan: I absolutely appreciate that the member’s questions are heartfelt,
and discussing poverty in his community is close to home. But the people
he’s sitting around oversaw 16 years of the highest child poverty rates
in the country. The people you’re sitting around did not put in place a
poverty reduction plan — the only province in Canada without one. If
you’re going to be genuine and sincere about reducing poverty, you have
to start by addressing the root causes.
It’s not about making promises you can’t keep, like the members
over there. It’s not about debt-free B.C. It’s not about no taxes for
anybody. It’s about working hard and consulting with people so that we
get good outcomes for everybody. That’s exactly what we’re going to do
from now until the next election.
[2:15 p.m.]
TAX CHANGES AND
SUPPORT FOR EXPORT
SECTOR
J. Johal: B.C. has a strong economy thanks, in part, to five balanced
budgets and good fiscal management. Let’s hope that doesn’t
change.
Today members of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters
Association are visiting the Legislature. Their membership represents 82
percent of Canadian manufacturing production. More importantly, their
members employ thousands of British Columbians. Companies they represent
compete and win globally.
This government, in its short tenure, is trying as hard as it can
to hinder those very businesses. Let me show you how. The corporate tax
rate is going up to 12 percent in January. The carbon tax is going up $5
a tonne a couple months later. These changes directly impact the
international competitiveness of companies that export from
B.C.
To the minister of job loss: can he tell these businesses how
raising their corporate tax rate and carbon tax makes them more
competitive in the global market?
Hon. B. Ralston: I appreciate the member asking the question.
A couple of weeks ago I met with officials from Fortinet, which is
a global, leading cybersecurity company in Burnaby. They have about 700
employees now on Still Creek Drive. They have made a decision, and they
announced that a week and a half ago, to hire an extra 1,000 people here
in British Columbia.
When we spoke with their leading CEO, who came up from California,
because they are a global company…. They said that they decided to place
those jobs and expand here in British Columbia because they were so
impressed with the open, diverse society that we have and with the
talent that we have here in British Columbia.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, please. We will hear the response.
Hon. B. Ralston: That was the decision that they made, and that was the basis on
which they made it.
I’m proud to be part of a government that’s building a stronger
and more prosperous British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a
supplemental.
J. Johal: The only thing this minister has succeeded in doing is raising
taxes and getting sued.
We’re talking about not getting in the way of successful and
growing companies. The NDP talk about supporting mining but want to
raise the carbon tax by a 66 percent increase over four years. They talk
about supporting tech and engineering wood manufacturing but raise
corporate taxes. Meanwhile, NAFTA is in danger, the softwood battle
shows no sign of conclusion, and the White House is doubling down on
protectionist rhetoric.
Again to the minister of job loss: how does the government plan to
support exporting companies, given these punishing tax increases in
these uncertain times?
Hon. B. Ralston: In the budget update that was just tabled, a very big tax break
was also part of that budget. The cut in Medical Services premiums is a
big tax cut to businesses. Fifty percent of the Medical Services
premiums are paid for by B.C. businesses. In fact, in meetings this
morning with manufacturers, that point was acknowledged.
Once again, I’m very proud to be part of a government that’s
creating prosperity here in British Columbia.
[2:20 p.m.]
SUPPORT FOR SMALL BUSINESS
IN RURAL
B.C.
S. Bond: We want to make sure that the member recognizes that when he talks
about being proud of a province that has prosperity, let’s remember the
record that that government inherited: the best job-creation record in
the country, the fastest-growing economy, a triple-A credit rating and
five consecutive balanced budgets. That is a record to be proud
of.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the question.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question. Thank you.
S. Bond: While the member opposite speaks about the thousands of jobs that
he’s been talking about with job creators across the province, what
about those small and medium-sized enterprises in rural British
Columbia? I met with a number of small businesses during the last week,
as they’ve been talking about Small Business Month, Small Business Week,
and I can tell the member opposite that they are concerned about the
tax-and-spend attitude of this government.
What is the member of job loss going to do to reassure businesses
in rural British Columbia that they’re going to have the support of this
government?
Hon. C. James: I’m very proud of a reduction in the small business tax, making us
the second lowest in this country. We continue to remain competitive.
Not only that, but I have an opportunity to be able to talk about how
proud I am of this budget. We have increased income and disability
assistance. We have eliminated tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears.
We have waived tuition fees for youth from care. We have taken PST off
electricity to make us competitive, and we’ll continue to do that in the
budget in February.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: If I may, hon. Members, I have the honour to present Elections
B.C. Annual Report 2016-17 and Service Plan
2017-18–2019-20 .
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands,
Natural Resources, FLNRO. In Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry
of Health, along with the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.
[2:25 p.m.]
Hon. D. Donaldson: Chair, I’d like to seek leave to move down a little further so that the
sightlines are better for all concerned, as well as for the Clerk’s desk — and
to bring staff in a little easier too.
Leave not granted.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,
LANDS, NATURAL RESOURCE
OPERATIONS
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the
chair.
The committee met at 2:29 p.m.
On Vote 28: ministry operations, $459,150,000.
The Chair: Minister, do you have an opening statement to make?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes. I’ll be as brief as possible because I know we have a lot of
ground to cover in the next limited number of hours. It’s a huge
ministry with a lot of responsibilities. I recall in budget estimates,
when I was on that side, with the member of the official opposition who
was on this side, that he afforded the same courtesy to me, to try to
keep the opening comments brief so that we could cover more ground in
budget estimates. I’ll attempt to do the same.
[2:30 p.m.]
I’m pleased to be able to rise as the Minister of the Forests,
Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development to talk about
the ministry’s budget today. I am joined by Deputy Minister Tim Sheldan
and assistant deputy minister of corporate services Trish Dohan. We have
Mary Sue Maloughney, assistant deputy minister in charge of the B.C.
Wildfire Service as well as other responsibilities. We have the
executive director of B.C. Wildfire Service, Madeline Maley, and we also
have Mary Myers, the director of corporate services associated with the
B.C. Wildfire Service.
We have lots of people here on hand to help answer the questions
posed by the member from the official opposition. As you know, it’s a
large ministry. As debates progress, I’ll be joined by different staff
members.
I need to start, though, by acknowledging — I know the member
would like to do this as well — and extending my thanks and recognition
to the men and women of the B.C. Wildfire Service, as well as all other
public servants who worked tirelessly this past summer fighting
wildfires and providing the necessary community supports. It was a
really a gargantuan effort that I witnessed on the ground many times.
Over the course of the summer, 65,000 people were displaced, and over
$550 million was spent directly on wildfire fighting costs alone. Over
1.2 million hectares of forest and grasslands were impacted by the fires
— burnt, basically.
As with any significant event, staff have already started their
internal reviews and debrief processes so that we can be better prepared
for next year. Additionally, we’re commissioning an external review, and
we’re fully engaged with First Nations and local governments on recovery
efforts in four of the main areas that we’ll be talking about — people
and communities, the economy, the environment, infrastructure and
reconstruction, in a cross-ministry approach.
There are a number of initiatives that we have embarked on, and
although they’re listed here, I’ll save it, because I’m sure we’ll be
talking about it over the course of the next number of hours, as far as
our wildfire recovery efforts.
It hasn’t just been a summer of wildfire recovery and wildfire
fighting. I’m also the Minister responsible for Rural Development, as
indicated in the new ministry’s name, which becomes longer and longer as
time goes along. I know the ministries were combined in 2010 or 2011,
and now we’ve added rural development. Coming from a small, rural
community, it’s really dear to my heart, that part of the
portfolio.
My mandate letter touches upon some very significant areas for
communities, as far as finding ways to innovate and create more jobs
from the wood that we bring out of the forest. Engineered wood products
is an area that the Premier has specifically mentioned for me in my
mandate letter, and ensuring that we see more buildings built with wood
in B.C. Brock Commons, the student residence at UBC, is the world’s
tallest contemporary wood-frame building. We want to see more of that
happening.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, there are many things that have happened over the last 16
years that we’ll be discussing in these budget estimates, I’m
sure.
We remain committed to diversifying our markets for our
world-class wood products. I’ll be leading a forestry-specific trade
mission to China and Japan in the late fall to continue to expand our
market opportunities there. They have been very important as far as
evening out as we are engaged with the softwood lumber disagreement, as
we see right now.
Finally, as a government, we’ve also made commitments to the UN
declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. It’s a
government-to-government approach that infiltrates every aspect of my
ministry, and other ministries in this government as well.
I am excited about what’s ahead of us and look forward to the
continued discussions over the next four years. I look forward to my
first budget estimates as a minister and focusing on the budget that we
have laid out in front of us.
J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for his opening comments. It’s nice to
see the staff. Welcome, as well. I’m glad to see you’ve got such capable
staff around.
[2:35 p.m.]
Forests, FLNRORD, covers a very wide range, obviously, of topics,
and I recognize that having to have a lot of staff around for this
period of time is challenging. We will try, over the course of these
estimates, to stay focused on natural disasters, which should go through
most of today, I suspect; maybe into tomorrow morning.
Then we’ll start getting into more of the Forests operations,
going from there into perhaps some of the international agreements and
start going from there into Natural Resource Operations — permitting and
other types of things, such as wildlife — and other components of the
ministry.
It’s a lot to go over in a very short period of time, but I’m sure
we’ll have another opportunity, assuming there’s no election in the very
near future, to do this in the spring, so we’ll get a chance to go into
a lot more detail.
I thought, initially, that we’ll start off with the wildfires and
components. How we’re going to handle things on our side is that there
will be a number of people who will want to come in and ask questions
over the course of the day. I decided we would try to do this as we fit
into categories, as opposed to bringing them in at the end, so that the
questions can try to flow in a somewhat logical manner as we move
along.
I would like to actually start with one fairly simple and
straightforward question for the minister. You’ve come in, and you’ve
got a new role with this ministry. The ministry, obviously, has a long
history. I’d like to understand more about your approach and your
philosophy to how you see the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural
Resource Operations and Rural Development.
Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, the ministry, as the member knows from his short stint as
the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and now
it has Rural Development, is widespread and touches the land base in
very, very many different aspects. It is of very great concern to me
because most of those aspects are in the non-urban areas, although as we
look into more areas of the ministry, we also see that urban areas are
touched directly by some of the legislation we’re in charge of. We know
that there’s the connection between what happens in the non-urban areas
of the province as far as wealth and prosperity and how that impacts
jobs in urban areas as well.
I’m a firm believer in the understanding that what is good for
rural communities and what happens on the land base in rural areas is
also good for the urban areas. A lot of people don’t understand that.
They don’t understand that there are hundreds and also thousands of jobs
in urban areas that are dependent on what goes on in the rural areas. We
know that in forestry, many of the operations that are supported in our
communities have a basis in urban areas as well.
My personal philosophy when it comes to this ministry is ensuring
that the resources that are found in rural areas are first and foremost
to the benefit of everybody in British Columbia, especially those living
in rural communities; and, secondly, that we have an approach based
across all the ministries in our government of the
government-to-government relations with First Nations.
The United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples
is in every one of our mandate letters, as is the truth and
reconciliation call to action — all the calls to action — as well as the
Tsilhqot’in decision and how that impacts the decisions made through
ministries, and this ministry especially. What that really says is that
the opportunity is to move forward together with First Nations. I know
the member opposite is familiar with this from his role previously in
what was Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.
[2:40 p.m.]
That’s an important part of the philosophy behind how I approach
the matters in the ministry, as well as ensuring that what we do is
sustainable and that the actions, through the various pieces of
legislation and through the way we approach topics on the land base, are
managed in a sustainable manner. That, therefore, enables the
opportunities that we see now — and the opportunities that are ahead of
us — to be fully realized in a balanced approach.
J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for that. I asked that question just to
try to get a flavour and a feel for what the minister may be thinking in
terms of his ministry and where things are going in light of the
confidence and supply agreement and the types of arrangements that may
have been made in a backroom deal with regards to forestry.
The forest industry, as you well know and as you’ve said, supports
hundreds of communities with thousands upon thousands of jobs around the
province. It’s crucial. It has been a crucial backbone and will continue
to be a crucial backbone for B.C.’s economy. As we go through thinking
about that, of course, one of the big challenges we have is being able
to protect our resources, whether it’s from wildfires or other natural
disasters that may happen on the land base, to make sure those resources
are available to be able to support the jobs, the communities and the
families that so much depend upon a forest industry.
My background. Of course, I was basically born and raised in a
family that worked in the forest industry, so I’m very familiar with how
that works and how communities and families are supported by the
industry.
Given the fires that we’ve had and the position that this has
created in the Cariboo, I’d like to maybe start by asking another
relatively simple question around the fires, which is: what lessons did
the minister learn with regards to the fires this year?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Again, thanks for the broad question. As far as what I learned,
I’ll talk from a personal basis and from a minister basis, I
guess.
From a personal basis, what I learned is that through the
expertise and the professionalism of the people in the public service
and the B.C. Wildfire Service, there is such an amazing resource there.
That led me to understand, throughout the fire season, that politicians
don’t fight fires; professionals do. That was a message that I came to
conclude in my mind after seeing the professionalism amongst our B.C.
Wildfire Service, amongst the people that were brought in and amongst
the people in the communities — that the professionals fight the fires,
not the politicians.
[2:45 p.m.]
What I also saw was the resilience of people in communities, the
resilience of the people in the Interior and other parts of the province
in being able to be displaced from their homes and still have a sense of
hope, and the fact that they really were able to weather the great
stress, in most cases — and the First Nations, as well, in that
capacity. I don’t separate them from communities and
villages.
These are people that witnessed the impacts on the front line and
are able to weather that storm and get back. Most people just wanted to
know if their homes were still standing and get back to them as soon as
they could.
It was the professional work of the B.C. Wildfire Service that put
public safety first. That was the first and foremost concern — safety of
the crews, of the workers out there, whether they were contract workers
or our own staff or staff that had been brought in from other provinces
and countries. Their safety and then public safety were the number one
priority.
As a result…. I don’t want to cast any aspersions on what has gone
on recently in California. But I think that’s a great example of what we
see can happen in fires if they aren’t…. Well, I’m not saying that they
weren’t properly handled there, but it’s just an example of what can
happen with forest fire situations. People can perish, and that’s
something that didn’t happen in our wildfire season, even though it was
the largest on record.
Those are the kinds of thoughts that have gone through my mind. In
meeting at the First Nations leadership gathering and at the Union of
B.C. Municipalities, I know that it’s incumbent upon us to look at what
went well and what could be improved upon. I know communications is
something that can be improved upon, compared to how things could have
been.
We will be having that comprehensive review, as I mentioned in my
opening comments, and not just the technical reviews that are underway
right now, whether it’s in my ministry or the ministry responsible for
emergency B.C., but an overall, comprehensive review of what happened
this summer, right from the floods through the wildfires, to make sure
that we understand the best practices and also what can be improved
upon.
J. Rustad: Politicians don’t fight fires. I agree.
I do want to say a word of thank-you to the professionals that did
work. We heard, many, many stories over the course of the season of the
tremendous work that professionals have put in and their heartfelt
efforts to try to save lives and try to save homes and property values
and work through some very difficult situations.
Politicians do create policies around how fires are fought and
help to set the course for those lessons that can be learned. You’ve
mentioned a couple of times now that a comprehensive review is underway
in terms of the fire season, in terms of the components. I was wondering
if the minister could share with us what he means by comprehensive
review.
There are many, many aspects of firefighting, everything from the
people on the ground and the training to the equipment to the approaches
that are taken, the engagement with locals, the types of activities that
happen on the ground. We heard many cases over the course of the summer
of some of the interactions from some of the locals and contractors, who
would have had suggestions, potentially, of different ways to have been
able to address some of the catastrophic effects that we saw from the
fires. Perhaps you could expand on what you mean by a comprehensive
review.
[2:50 p.m.]
Hon. D. Donaldson: The comprehensive review that I talked about will build on the
current technical reviews that are underway as we speak, within the
ministries. It’ll be right from the flood season to the wildfire season.
We know that the flood season had devastating impacts on people’s
property, and there was a life lost in that episode. Then many of the
emergency B.C. staff and our staff went right on to the wildfire
season.
What we’ll be looking at is beyond that scale. It’ll be an
overarching review of both the actions within the ministry I represent
and within emergency B.C. There’ll be engagement sessions planned in
communities. So the kinds of topics that the member alluded to will have
a full ability to have a hearing — in other words, an informed hearing —
at that stage. We have received correspondence throughout the fire
season on some of the issues that the member alluded to, but this full
review will have that. Engagement sessions in communities are
planned.
It’ll be forward-looking. We haven’t landed on who will conduct
it, but it’ll be informed by documents such as the Filmon report that
came out after the 2003 wildfire situation. It’ll have the ability to
have that independent head of the review so that the public has trust in
the outcomes. Again, it’s to be focused on what went well and what needs
to be improved. From that aspect, it’s definitely going to be a
forward-looking document.
The communities that are represented by many of the members who
are present and in the chamber today are still going through the
recovery phase and will be for some time. Although I’m sure that there
are members of those communities that are keen on engaging in a review
process like this, we want to recognize that some of the communities are
very stressed, still, in their capacity to do that. We’ve got people who
are still trying to deal with their houses and their structures being
destroyed.
I met with the Williams Lake council during UBCM. At that point,
which was just a couple of weeks ago, they said: “Give us a few weeks.
Give us six weeks, and we’ll be in a much better position to have more
specific asks about the recovery program.” That’s just on the recovery
side, but it’s to give you an indication.
We don’t want to overburden communities. We want to recognize that
members are still recovering and trying to get, oftentimes, their lives
back in order. But we do want to be able to give the ability to engage
with this comprehensive review and have it done by next spring so that
we can learn from the recommendations that come out of that to do as
good and a better job looking into the future.
J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister. I’m going to ask for some clarity
around this. I heard you talking about this comprehensive review. You
threw in the word…. I believe it was an “independent head” to the
review. So if I remember correctly, if that’s what you
mentioned….
The Chair: Through the Chair.
J. Rustad: Through the Chair. Yes, sorry. Through to the minister.
[2:55 p.m.]
The question I have around that is: if you’re intending on having
an independent head that is part of this comprehensive review, is this
going to be like the Filmon report in terms of the review? Is this
something that’s different in scope? Who will be involved in that? Maybe
I’ll let you answer those questions, and we’ll go on with the next
components of it afterwards.
Hon. D. Donaldson: There will be similarities with the Filmon review. What is
different is that we intend for this to include the floods as well, and
his review was simply focused on the fire aspect, because that’s what
was being faced at the time.
We know that there was an emergency situation and response from
our ministry with the floods. The terms of reference for this
independent review — we’re still working on those. But the intent is
that the outcome will be helpful to us as a province.
As the member talked about policy, it’s incumbent upon us from a
policy aspect that we honour those who were impacted by the fires by
ensuring that we learn lessons. That’s what the intent of the
independent review will be: to learn lessons from the largest fire
season we’ve ever experienced and, on top of that, the flood
season.
Those two events combined are cross-ministry as far as emergency
management B.C. and our ministry. So it needs a larger view. The details
around the terms of reference and the actual scope, as the member put
it, will be made public once they’re finalized.
J. Rustad: One of the challenges with any independent review…. I’m not sure
if the minister is proposing that this review be done by an individual
or whether there will be a group of people involved as part of doing the
review. I mean, the minister is right when he says that this is the
largest fire season we’ve had on record. It is quite
significant.
The minister was talking about wanting to have this review
completed by next spring, which is admirable. I think that’s a great
goal to be able to have, so we have things in place for next summer. But
I also don’t want to shortchange the impact and the lessons that need to
be learned on all components.
I know this is still, obviously, just in the initial stages of
forming, in terms of this. But can the minister commit to having a group
of people, obviously with a head that is independent? In addition to
that, can the minister commit to having full access to the resources and
information that have been collected and that the various ministries
might have available?
Can the ministry also commit to making sure this committee has the
power to be able to bring in witnesses, not so much from the perspective
of being a trial or anything like that but to bring people in to be able
to make sure that they can ask those tough questions that need to be
asked with regards to it? Not just from people in government but people
also from out in the area.
I know this is a bunch of questions, and I apologize, but I
thought it’s all part of the component.
[3:00 p.m.]
I’m wondering if the minister can commit to making sure that
through this comprehensive review process, all components of the people
in areas that have been impacted by these fires can have an opportunity
to be able to share their experiences and reflections — everything from
the frustrations, as we’ve heard in many questions in the Legislature,
around freedom of information through to the components of actually what
happened on the ground.
I think, most importantly, this independent head — potentially
body, in terms of review — needs to be able to have the experience and
expertise to be able to ask tough questions. I think if we’re going to
learn lessons from this, we need to know that the right questions can be
asked and the components can be put together.
I know, as I mentioned earlier, that the Wildfire Service did a
tremendous job. I mean, this was a very, very stressful time. You had
thousands and thousands of people fighting and hundreds of millions of
dollars spent fighting — these resources — but it is incumbent upon us,
as politicians, to ask those tough questions about how those resources
were spent, the effectiveness of the strategies and components and what
could be considered differently.
For example, in 2003…. That was when we first had the
introduction, I think, of structural protection units. That wasn’t
normally part of the firefighting components that we had — proved to be
very useful through that component.
There are other technologies out there — we’ll get into,
potentially, some questions down the road — that may change the way we
consider or are looking at fighting fires. It’s important that this
review process has the independence and the scope, has enough depth and
expertise, to be able to look at this from a very comprehensive level
and to be able to get to the bottom of some of these
questions.
I’ll, perhaps, leave that there for the minister, and we’ll
potentially follow up this line of questioning a little bit more here
afterwards.
Hon. D. Donaldson: There’s much that the member described that I agree with as far as
the comprehensiveness of this process that we want to embark on,
especially a team of experts who have the expertise to ask the really
pointed and tough questions, which will get to the report stage, where
we can use what we heard to inform our practice in the future. I mean,
even with Gary Filmon and the report he did…. He was the leader, but he
had a team of experts with the ability to ask those questions. He wasn’t
a firefighting expert on his own, but he did have experience with
natural disasters from the floods in Manitoba that preceded the 2003
fires here.
That’s the kind of team and the kind of review that we want to
embark on. There’ll be a full reporting out to the public. Of course,
the expertise will mean that we’ll have people who can identify the
gaps.
[3:05 p.m.]
It won’t be simply with the provincial ministries. Under this
comprehensive review, we’ll be looking at the ability of local
governments, First Nations as well, to respond and how that happened, as
well as ensuring — and this is important to me — that we engage the
communities in this.
I think we’re basically on the same track on this. What I’m
anxious to do is get it underway. As I said, what we call the tier 1
internal debriefs within our ministries have already begun about the
response. This is a larger review. It’s something that’s needed, and I
take the member’s comments to heart. There were very many examples of
positive responses, not just from communities but from ministries and
from local governments and First Nations as well. Sometimes we tend to
focus on the negatives. My approach is to take examples of what didn’t
go well in order to learn lessons to make sure that we do better in the
future. This is the intent of an overarching review.
J. Rustad: I’m wondering: does the minister have an allocation in this budget
— in this current fiscal year, the fiscal year we’re doing estimates for
— for undertaking and starting this review?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for a budget question, although I do like talking in a
broad frame as well. It’s important to set context. I know when I’ve
been involved in budget estimates…. When the member opposite was a
minister, when I did get to a budget question, he’d thank me very much
for getting to budget estimates. First are the overall policy questions,
which are important too, as long as they relate to the
budget.
Yes, there will be and there are resources under the fire
management vote to get this underway in this fiscal year. As we’re
concluding the terms of reference, we’ll have a better idea of what the
allocation will be under the fire management budget, but we will have
the resources under that budget to conduct the review.
J. Rustad: I’m glad to hear they’re making some resources available in this
current fiscal year. We need to get this started, in my opinion, as
quickly as possible, especially if you have a goal to have it completed
for next spring.
The minister talked about completing the terms of reference. The
challenge, I think, in order for the public, members and people in the
impacted area…. They’ll want to be able to see the development of those
terms of reference and, potentially, have some input into what should be
considered as part of those terms of reference.
Will the minister commit to having a process or engagement with
ranchers, First Nations, some of the contractors, communities and other
people, potentially even MLAs, that lived through this for so many weeks
and months of this fire so that we can make sure that the review is done
and comprehensive and that there aren’t questions left that are
considered to be unanswered because the scope of the review was not
comprehensive enough?
[3:10 p.m.]
Hon. D. Donaldson: Yeah, the goal is to have the terms of reference broad enough that
a comprehensive review can take place. It’s also to get it underway in a
— I shouldn’t use the word expedited — timely manner, because we want to
get it completed in order to learn the lessons.
We have got a lot of feedback from various organizations already,
whether it’s the B.C. Cattlemen’s…. At the First Nations leadership
gathering and at Union of B.C. Municipalities AGM, we got a good amount
of feedback that staff have taken away to help mould into a terms of
reference. But I’m open to input from other sources, including the MLAs
from the area. We can set up channels for that, and we can do it
quickly, because we know we need to get this underway.
I know you’ve written and spoken to me often in the last 12 weeks
on this issue, but if you want to get more pointed in what you feel
would be gaps that need to be addressed in the terms of reference,
please, get in touch with me. I can forward that to staff to try to
incorporate it into terms of reference. But let’s get it
underway.
J. Rustad: Thank you for that offer. My colleagues, of course, are in the
House here today, so they’ll have an opportunity to be able to react and
respond to that directly.
I guess just with regards to that. As the terms of reference
develop, often sometimes when you get into these types of reviews, you
can end up with a situation where the group — whoever the independent
individuals are that are in this group — may have questions that fall
outside of the scope, and they can sometimes be constrained.
I’m wondering if the minister would consider starting the review
process, getting an initial terms of reference and having an opportunity
for additional input to be able to then complete or expand or round out
what a terms of reference could look like.
The only reason why I’m thinking that is because I’m thinking the
need to be able to get going as quickly as possible to get started with
this…. I recognize that people are still putting their lives together.
There is still the immediate needs and recovery. But all of these
questions are hanging out there, whether it’s for the folks at Pressy
Lake or the folks impacted by the Hanceville fire or others that would
like to be able to have answers. They’d like to be able to know that
there’s a process that they feel will be able to meet some of these
answers. Through this, there may be some change of scope.
I’m wondering whether the minister will be able to provide any
kind of flexibility within this or whether we want to try to nail down
everything in advance of the actual review process, the independent
review process, starting.
[3:15 p.m.]
Hon. D. Donaldson: I think we’re trying to get to the same place here as far as the
outcome and having a document that provides some guidance about
highlighting what worked and what could be done better. I definitely
will take what you’ve suggested under advisory.
My approach would be to have the scope as broad as possible from
the start and not have to start expanding as we go through, and
therefore not be totally on the prescriptive side on the terms of
reference but have the scope wide enough that we can get this process
underway and have the ability of the team to explore the topics they
need to explore without having to go through another process around
scope expansion.
J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for that. I look forward to seeing the
terms of reference and potentially having some input into that as well.
You know, when you think about where we’re at and how our forests are
and the age of our forests and the changing of the climate conditions,
the likelihood of more significant fires over time will probably be
fairly high in various areas. Having seen and been involved in fires
throughout my area — and, obviously, now seeing and being involved in
the fires in the Cariboo as well — there are various ideas that I think
could be considered.
To that extent, in terms of this review, I understand the
comprehensiveness of components. Will that review look at private sector
approaches and public sector approaches from other jurisdictions in
terms of best practices and measurements that might be effective or
might have potential for being effective or potentially not effective
for British Columbia?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Definitely, my intention with the developing terms of reference
would be a jurisdictional scan. The B.C. Wildfire Service is always
attempting to improve, and we need to look at best practices not just
from the public agencies, like the one we’re discussing here, but from
industry and non-governmental organizations, as well.
Yes, other jurisdictions will be looked at. They already are, but
if there are new things that people feel needed to be emphasized or feel
that they haven’t not been brought to the attention of the ministry,
then that will definitely be able to be considered in the
review.
J. Rustad: A component, of course, to firefighting is not just the fires
themselves. Although we obviously want to be effective as possible, it’s
also laying the groundwork to prevent future fires. Now, the Filmon
report, of course, talked a lot about interface and some of the work we
could do there.
What I’d like to ask about specifically is really around logging
and logging practices and how we actually manage our forests. In
particular, when you think about….
[3:20 p.m.]
We’re doing a lot of interaction with forests — whether it’s our
road networks, whether it’s the harvesting itself, whether it is the
reforestation. We have the opportunity to be able to shape, potentially,
some of the actions and interactions that happen on the land
base.
One of the things that I’m hoping might have a potential to be
looked at, as part of the review, is just that. When logging practices
are in place. What roads are left behind. How those roads are developed
so as to be able to be used for breaks, for certain types of technology
in the reforestation; to be able to look at creating blocks. Where we
look at prescribed burns, and how that can be managed so that you can
create natural breaks in the forest — so fires don’t have the
opportunity to be able to get this large head of steam that this year we
saw devastating so much of our forest at one go.
I’m wondering if the terms of reference and the scope of this
review might be broad enough that it might actually look at a landscape
or forest level management practices with a perspective of how we manage
for fire.
Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes. So I’ll expand. Definitely, what the member discussed at the
landscape level — management practices, prevention — are the kinds of
things that need to be looked at in this kind of review. I fully agree.
We’ve got a situation where I don’t think what we witnessed this past
season is going to be unique into the future. It might not be as large,
but looking at just the last ten-year pattern of the wildfire situation,
it’s different than the last 30 years, for sure.
Looking at those management practices and with an eye to
prevention is what the review will be about. You know, we’ve done a lot
of work already to develop and implement fire management planning. We
can get into that. I mean, we’ve prioritized resource values at risk,
for informed fire suppression decisions. It’s not simply just looking at
fire suppression but at what the values are that we want to protect with
those suppression decisions. We’ve identified priority fuel management
areas to mitigate the fire threat and also where industry can support
fire management objectives in their harvesting capacity.
Obviously, we need to look at this with a new set of eyes, because
we don’t want the situation to…. We want to analyze the situation that
happened and ensure that if there were management techniques that hadn’t
been employed that could have alleviated some of the size and the head,
as you describe, then we want to start looking at implementing those
management techniques. Again, it behooves us to do that based on what
people experienced this summer.
J. Rustad: I’m happy to hear that. As we talk about a changing environment,
how we do things, the environment around us and the needs, whether it’s
for wildlife or for agriculture or for forestry, how we work on the land
base is going to be important to take into consideration and change as
well. So I’m happy to hear that you’re considering that as part of a
terms of reference and a scope of a review.
I want to ask a couple more questions before turning it over to my
colleagues to ask some more specific questions with regard to fires and
the various components.
[3:25 p.m.]
In particular, I understand from one source that our cost of
delivering water on a fire — another budget question for the minister —
was somewhere between $1 and $3 a gallon. That’s obviously through air
and through other types of delivery of water.
In talking with a company named Safeguard, the approach that they
took, they claimed to be able to put water out in front of a fire — as
opposed to our general approach, which is off to the side — for as
little as a penny a gallon. Obviously, I understand they went through
and did a bit of a test and did some work with the ministry, which is
good to see. I think there’s some tremendous potential in that type of
an approach, to be able to look at putting up that kind of a wall of
water.
I’m wondering if the minister has heard of Safeguard, whether the
minister has heard of the test or the component that Safeguard has put
through, and whether or not that type of approach is something that is
being actively considered by the wildfire branch currently?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I think the overall picture is…. You can work on what we
talked about in the last answer, on forest management and prevention,
and not spend as much money as we did this summer. You can also find new
ways of fighting fires so that you can try to alleviate the cost. I
mean, I think it was $550 million just in direct costs, and there are
other costs added on top of that.
Although I know that the staff are very conscious of fiscal
management, yes, we need to look at any innovative techniques that can
help bring that cost down when the fires do come along. Yeah, I was
familiar with….
I understood that the Safeguard innovation was tested out. From
what I understand, there was a trial in September, and that data from
that trial is still being assessed. We want to look at innovative
techniques and have got further trials for other innovations that have
come forward, through the winter.
I just want to also point out that when we were faced with such a
huge challenge this summer, as far as the size and the scope of the
fires and the intensity, it’s often difficult. We had a number of people
wanting us to pilot or try new techniques, and although you want to be
as flexible as possible, to draw staff off to work on new techniques
during the middle of a fire season often can be a pretty impactful
decision, because you want all the resources on the actual fires. You
have to also — understanding it’s an innovative technique — be concerned
about crew safety when you’re facing such an intense fire
season.
[3:30 p.m.]
Having said that, we want to be innovative and look at different
approaches, like Safeguard’s, and ensure that the ones that work well
are there for implementing in the next season, for sure.
[L. Reid in the chair.]
J. Rustad: My understanding is that Safeguard will be setting up a
demonstration next spring — a full demonstration of its capabilities. It
is a process that is widely used now by industry. That has proven to be
effective from that side. Now, I agree it needs to be checked, it needs
to be improved, and it needs to be looked through for this. But they are
planning to do a demonstration, in the spring, of this
technology.
I am wondering whether the minister can commit that the B.C.
Wildfire Service will be in attendance at this demonstration to be able
to gather and learn information as to the effectiveness of this new
technology.
Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, the long and short of it is that we will engage. We’re
hoping to engage with Safeguard before next spring to find out some of
their results and how they’ve tested before and to understand what
they’re planning as a demonstration. It’s incumbent upon the B.C.
Wildfire Service to ensure that if something is being demonstrated, it’s
under the conditions that our professionals set out. That can happen
with Safeguard. We’ll be talking to them before next spring for
sure.
J. Rustad: I’m glad to hear that, as there’s enormous potential. It’s a
different way of thinking of fighting fires, in terms of their approach.
I know our current approach is not to put anything in front of fires,
for very good reasons. We don’t want to risk people or equipment or
anything else. But their technology could change the way we think about
our fires, which is why it’s important, I think, that the B.C. Wildfire
Service is part of that demonstration and sees just what that equipment
is capable of doing.
To that end, before I pass off to…. My colleague from the
Cariboo-Chilcotin, I think, will be up next, asking some questions.
There was an offer made to the B.C. Wildfire Service for this equipment
to be set up a week before the fire advanced on Pressy Lake.
Unfortunately, that offer was turned down. This is the information that
the company passed on to me, so I don’t know that for a fact. But I take
the company at their word for what they’ve said.
I guess the question to the minister is: when the company offered
to set this up, in terms of protection for our community, and be in a
position to test the equipment out, at no risk to the ministry, to
people or to equipment, why wasn’t technology like that considered in
advance of the fire moving on Pressy Lake?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Just to be clear — and I think this is your point — it was
Safeguard that made this offer?
J. Rustad: That’s correct. Safeguard made the offer to the B.C. Wildfire
Service.
[3:35 p.m.]
Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll answer this one again around the fact that politicians don’t
fight the fires; professionals do. What we’re talking about is an
operational decision at that moment, at that time, under the conditions
that the professionals on the ground were experiencing. They made the
decision that doing a trial at that time wasn’t a useful activity at
that moment.
They have public safety as the number one consideration — of crews
and of the public. So to deploy a brand-new resource on a week’s
notice…. There was a week’s notice given by the company to try to test
this. The operational decision wasn’t in favour of doing that at that
time.
J. Rustad: I understand, of course, that these decisions are made by the
operational people, the people on the ground. Given that, apparently,
according to the reports that I’ve received, there were no structural
protection units in place in Pressy — now, maybe I’m wrong about that,
but there weren’t any — it would have been an opportunity. No one can
predict perfectly where fire will go or the direction of fire, but it
would have been an opportunity.
Regardless of that, what I’m wondering as well is…. Safeguard was
brought in under some interesting conditions to do a test with the B.C.
Wildfire Service. It might be questionable in terms of whether the test
was fully allowed to be able to be as successful, given some of the
conditions or some of the directives that were given to the company
under that test.
Having said that, there was a report, apparently, or there’s some
sort of analysis or report that was done on that test. What I’m
wondering is whether the minister can make that report public upon
receiving that report so that the comprehensive review, certainly, will
have access to that information and also so that other people, including
Safeguard and others, will have an opportunity to learn from what that
report says — certainly in advance of potentially doing their tests next
spring.
[3:40 p.m.]
Hon. D. Donaldson: As I mentioned earlier, the results of that trial — for lack of a
better word, or test, as you said — are still being analyzed by staff
within the B.C. Wildfire Service. That should be ready for the reviewer,
to inform and be part of that larger review that we discussed
earlier.
J. Rustad: I was always comfortable with this being a conversational-type
approach. It does need to be formal — which, I suppose, is why we need
to be sitting in our chairs, for it to be a formal process in what we’re
doing.
I have a number of other questions related to fires and fire
activities, but at this time I’d like to give an opportunity for my
colleagues, starting with the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, to start
asking some questions with regards to fires and the experience that they
had over the course of the summer.
D. Barnett: I’d like to thank you for having us here today, Minister. We are
the three girls representing the massive fire area throughout the
Cariboo-Chilcotin and the Thompson region, and of course, we have lots
of questions to ask you. How we’re going to do this: we have quite a few
different topics, so I will start, turn it to my colleague, and she in
turn will turn it over to our other colleague and then back to me so
that we keep the questions on the same theme.
My first question is on compensation for back burning, Minister.
Much back burning was done in areas where there was damage done to
private land. This back burning was done with no permission from private
landowners. It was done in my region, in some ranchland, where there
were cowboys out there looking for cattle. Nobody warned them; nobody
asked permission. The damage that has been done to much of this
ranchland, due to a back burn that should have never been done, is
devastating.
To the minister: will there be compensation for all losses
affected by back burns on private land?
[3:45 p.m.]
Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you, Member, and to the other members from the Interior for
your concern, your work and your obvious passion and care for the people
you represent in your constituencies. I know it was a very trying and
stressful time. I’m sorry, Member, but I’m going to call you three
women, not three girls, for demonstrating the maturity that you brought
to the situations you faced. The fire situation was very volatile, as
you know, as you witnessed and as you heard from your
constituents.
I want to emphasize again that the politicians do not fight the
fires; the professionals do. Back burning is a tool. It was a tool that
is used especially in conjunction with fires where more routine, regular
or traditional means of fighting fires cannot be employed. In this case,
this summer, back burning was used because it was an effective tool when
you have such an intensive and volatile fire situation.
Back burns are only used after a comprehensive analysis, and the
experts who make the decisions around the back burning techniques have
done it for years. They don’t take the decision lightly. There’s a
protocol process that is undertaken before that decision is
made.
If there is damage done on private lands due to the back burning
initiated by B.C. Wildfire Service experts, then compensation is
possible. It’s payable depending on an investigation. An investigation
undertakes a number of interviews and investigations. For instance, was
insurance held by the people impacted? In accordance with the Wildfire
Act, compensation can be provided.
Staff have undertaken reviews already. It’s something that we want
to make sure gets done as quickly as possible because I know that people
have suffered. If they have suffered damage due to back burning, and if
compensation is deemed appropriate after the investigation, then that’s
what will occur. A lot of times it takes a comprehensive review, and
that takes some time. But I’m very aware of the stress and the need for
that process to take place as quickly as it can.
D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, but time is of the essence. A couple of the
places that have been back burned in my riding are huge ranches that
have had huge loss of feed, of hay, of land and of cattle, and they
can’t wait for a long-term review of who did what, when, and why it was
done. My constituents need answers. They don’t have the money available
to put back what was lost.
[3:50 p.m.]
They didn’t ask for it. Of course, there was a wildfire. But there
were back burns that were, in their opinion…. I have to say this.
They’ve got the evidence that they need not have been done and were not
done with permission of private land owners.
These people now may face 40 to 50 years of hard work, devastation
— hoping to turn these particular ranches over to grandchildren. It may
all be lost, at no fault of theirs.
So, Minister, could you tell me today how long this review is
going to take? This is almost the end of October, and winter is here in
another week so.
Hon. D. Donaldson: There have been compensation claims settled with ranchers. You,
obviously, are referring to ones that haven’t been settled.
I know ranchers are suffering. I’ve witnessed it. I’ve talked to
ranchers through the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, and I know ranchers
in my area that know ranchers in your area. So I know as far as the feed
and the hay and winter coming — a grave concern — it’s very
stressful.
We’re not talking about a long-term review like the comprehensive
review that we talked about as far as the investigations go. We’ve been
working with the Ministry of Agriculture and emergency management B.C.
We’ve brought on extra resources in our ministry to try to get these
investigations settled as quickly as we can. Many of them require
verification, which is just part of the Wildfire Act that’s been there
for years. I don’t think ranchers would have any issue with the
verification part of it.
Definitely, I understand the concern. We will try to get these
settled as quickly as we can.
D. Barnett: To the best of my knowledge, we have had no extra help on this
issue in the Cariboo region to go out and discuss these issues with many
of the ranchers.
[3:55 p.m.]
Many of the ranchers do work on issues like this who are not
engaged with the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association. So there are many
ranchers in my region and other regions, Minister, that are not totally
engaged with the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association. It appears that some of
these people are left behind, even though they have some of the biggest
ranches in British Columbia.
My question to you, Minister, is.... We need to have this
resolved. I understand that people from the Ministry of Forests,
wildlife branch, are going out and looking at places where damage was
done by the wildfire branch to put out fires, such as fences, driving
cats through properties, things like that.
I have not heard of one person…. And politicians don’t fight
fires, I know that. But I have many, many phone calls, and there is not
one person that I know of within my Cariboo-Chilcotin that has had
compensation paid to them from the wildfire branch as of yet.
How can we move this forward, and how much extra help has been
brought in to the wildfire branch to look at this type of compensation
for damages from the wildfires?
Hon. D. Donaldson: What I can commit to with the member today is that we can go back
and make sure sufficient resources are there to deal with any backlog of
claims. For her, who I have no doubt is directly in touch with many of
the ranchers in her community, to ensure that if a rancher hasn’t made a
claim that they need to.
[4:00 p.m.]
I assume that, by what she has said, that most of the ranchers
that she’s talked to have made claims, if they feel they need to. We
talked to more than just the B.C. Cattlemen. We’ve talked to individual
ranchers as well. We have redeployed people within the ministry to try
to work on getting these claims processed and investigated for the
compensation.
We know the provincial state of emergency was finally lifted, I
believe, September 15. There have been a lot of resources put, actually,
on the wildfires, but now that that situation is alleviated, we can
definitely redeploy more resources to the investigations. Again, my
offer is that we will, within the ministry, go back and make sure
sufficient resources are there to get that job done.
J. Tegart: Before I start my questions, I just want to say that with many of
the concerns that have come forward, everyone starts out with that they
do not ever want to have this perceived as slamming the firefighters,
the first responders, the people who were on the front line. They
absolutely appreciate the work that was done during the summer. As the
minister just mentioned, people have been working on floods, fires and
now recovery. We understand that people are tired and people need time
off, because it’s been a long, long spring and summer.
I have a few questions on back burns — and they may be repetitive
to my colleagues. We understand that back burns are a strategy for
wildfire. It can slow and stop the fire progression. Can you explain
when a back burn would be used?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I just want to emphasize that back burning, or back firing, is a
tool that is used frequently. It was used almost every day in this past
fire season. It’s a technical question, so I’m going to read an answer
into the record, which is maybe not technical, but it’s detailed. I’m
going to read it into the record, because if I tried to answer it for
you off the top of my head, I wouldn’t capture it as well as it’s
written down here.
Back firing is used when direct attack methods to control the
forward rate of spread of the fire are ineffective. This operation is
normally limited to aerial ignition due to the risk associated with
ground ignition in these situations. Back firing requires good
visibility for the helicopter at the head end of the fire. Back firing
is not possible under stronger wind conditions where the smoke column
from the head of the fire does not provide good visibility for
operations. The decision to back fire is approved by the incident
commander on all incidents.
J. Tegart: What communication process is utilized to inform local residents
that a back fire will be occurring? As you can imagine, it’s pretty
frightening to have fires being started without understanding their
purpose. I’ve heard from constituents who were in the Twenty Mile area,
which many of us saw on Global TV — the helicopters dropping fire onto
the ridge. That was one of our back burns that went sideways. So what
communication do you do with the locals to ensure that everyone’s
safe?
[4:05 p.m.]
Hon. D. Donaldson: The communication is obviously a very, very critical component in
these circumstances, and not just with the back burning or back firing.
It’s a topic that came up repeatedly through UBCM and the First Nations
leadership gathering, so something that will be part of the overall
review and is also part of our technical reviews.
Again, a decision to back fire is approved by the incident
commander on all incidents. I don’t know the specifics of the incident
you’re talking about, although I did see it on Facebook, the video. I
can’t, obviously, comment on the operational decision of the incident
commander at the time.
What I can say is that they work on the best information available
to them at the time. Obviously, they’re not there to endanger people.
They’re there to try to stop the spread of the fire and protect public
safety.
The incident commanders are aware if there are evacuation orders
in place. Then it would be their understanding that, if the evacuation
order was in place for an area that they were going to conduct a back
burn close to, people would adhere to that evacuation order.
The ability to communicate with others, before a back burn occurs,
really depends on the situation. Sometimes it can be in a very
prescribed manner in advance, because the incident of the fire spreading
and the volatility of the fire is not as current, right? But in other
situations, there might not be a lot of time. It’s in those situations
that the incident commander uses every tool at their disposal — like I
say, the evacuation orders, if there have been some in place; and, also,
knowledge that’s been gathered and passed on, for instance, from the
local MLA calls that we’ve had throughout the fire season in the
mornings — gathering information from there and making sure the incident
commanders are aware of that.
[4:10 p.m.]
Again, it varies, depending on how fast the reaction has to be,
but it’s based on the best information. Definitely, in back burning, the
incident commander is totally aware of not doing it in order to endanger
people. It’s a public safety tool.
J. Tegart: In regards to evacuation orders, we asked the question to the
Solicitor General. The recordkeeping of people who have chosen not to
leave so that we can ensure their safety when things like back burns are
being considered…. Can you share with us how that would work?
We had a number of ranchers who stayed on their ranches. I do
believe they were registered to have been staying behind, because many
felt they were locked in. So when I hear from constituents that they’re
out on horses looking for cattle and a back burn begins, I’m thinking
there are some communication links that aren’t working.
Hon. D. Donaldson: Obviously, by the amount of time I’m taking to discuss with staff,
this is complex and of great…. I think there are lessons to be learned.
That’s what I want to really say.
My understanding is that through EMBC, people who decided to stay
behind when there was an evacuation order would register with the
evacuation operations centre.
[4:15 p.m.]
Now, we are next faced with the situation that when people and the
Wildfire Service are considering different ways of addressing the fire,
and they know that there’s somebody who has decided not to obey an
evacuation order, that they’re on their property, at their ranch. But
the situation you’re describing to me is that, obviously, people have
decided to attend to their cattle or their ranch and have gone off their
property.
I think there are some communication gaps that need to be
addressed there about how people who have decided to ignore an
evacuation order and are staying behind are able to inform the Wildfire
Service or others that they’re not just holed up in their house today.
They’re off looking for their cattle, or whatever they might have been
up to.
Again, the nature of the fire situation this summer, I think, has
exposed some of those communication gaps. In past years, the fires were
much more contained, and there wasn’t as wide an expanse that the
landscape was impacted by — a wide expanse of roads, ranches and
communities, and lots of different factors like rapid wind shifts. That
complicated the issue, for sure.
I do believe that as part of that bigger review, we have to look
at those kinds of gaps in the future. If people decide to stay behind,
how do we ensure that their movements are known to the firefighting
people so that when they do decide to do something like back burning,
they know where the people are on the landscape?
J. Tegart: With a fire the size of the Elephant Hill fire, back burns were
used on numerous occasions. As with any process, conditions can change.
Things can go sideways, and we know that this can have a devastating
effect on local landowners.
The minister has indicated that there are compensation programs
available. Could I ask: who does the investigation? What are their
qualifications? What are the criteria? How many of these investigators
are available right now?
[4:20 p.m.]
Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for those questions. The first step is to determine
whether it was a back burn that caused the damage or the wildfire, and
that is really the crux of the compensation matter. That verification
has to happen first. Then, if it is indeed damage caused by the back
burn and the investigation is carried out either….
There are a number of people who’d carry it out — B.C. Wildfire
Service staff, natural resource operations officers, conservation
officers. They’re all trained to investigate fire situations, and in the
particular fire you’re talking about, the Elephant Hill fire, they’ve
been heavily resourced to carry out those investigations.
As far as how many people are available, I’ll ask staff to get
those numbers for you. Your particular questions on the Elephant Hill
fire — we don’t have that number available right now, but we know we’ll
be here tomorrow, too, so we’ll get you that number.
J. Tegart: Last question to the minister. While you’re getting those numbers,
if you wouldn’t mind getting the exact dollars that are available in
this year’s budget to ensure timely investigations. I would like to
share that with my constituents. I don’t expect you to have that number,
because we don’t have the number of investigators yet.
I’d like to say thank you for the opportunity to talk about the
back burns and again emphasize that people in my riding are extremely
thankful to the people who were on the front line. We know how tough it
was. But as we reflect and we look back, we’ve got lots to learn. That’s
where the questions on the backfires are coming from.
Hon. D. Donaldson: I was going to maybe add on to the next question in order to safe
time. But I’ll thank the member for her specific questions and her
budget questions, which are always helpful for us to
understand.
I just want to emphasize that when we get those numbers….We don’t
have a specific line item for fire investigations, but what we can do is
extrapolate from the extra resources, staff salaries that were put in.
That, I hope, will give a little bit more information to her
constituents who are concerned about that particular aspect of the
budget.
C. Oakes: I, first, would like to start by acknowledging the incredible work
that the B.C. Wildfire Service performed this past summer. It was an
incredibly difficult summer for everyone, and we absolutely appreciate
all of the work of the men and women and all of the IMT teams and
everyone who came forward to help support.
I also would like to, perhaps, go on record to provide a very
special recognition to the Cariboo wildfire service team. These are men
and women that, in many respects, have grown up in our communities. When
the wildfires exploded…. They are their communities. They have lived in
these communities, like I said, for most of their lives, and watching
the fires rage throughout this summer was incredibly difficult. On
behalf of all us in the Cariboo, to all the men and women, thank you
very much.
[4:25 p.m.]
I have four very specific questions, and they are budget-related,
you’ll be happy to note. Well, three are budget-related and one probably
more of a policy-driven question. They are around the back burn or the
backfire.
Specifically, probably it starts with a communication question to
the minister, but it does have a request for what the compensated number
is. What was the communication that happened between FLNRO, B.C. Timber
Sales and the B.C. wildlife service during the wildfire
season?
The reason I ask the question is we know that a lot of the local
FLNRO offices were working closely with industry to expedite permits for
fuel mitigation in several of the areas, looking at recovering economic
values that were critically important. Throughout that period, the local
office did provide B.C. Timber Sales opportunities for companies during
the B.C. wildfire stretch, and they put bids in on B.C. Timber Sales,
which then became part of a back burn or a backfire. All of that
economic value was lost, and they lost their bid.
The question to the minister is: what is the money allocated
within the budget to compensate for bids that were lost through B.C.
Timber Sales — or other economic values to companies — because of the
backfires?
[4:30 p.m.]
Hon. D. Donaldson: Thanks for the situation you outlined. From my understanding,
there could be a range of the kind of scenario you described. But before
I get to that, the communications between Forests, Lands, Natural
Resource Operations’ regional operations staff and the Wildfire Service
and EMBC and others was, as far as I know, comprehensive. I mean, there
was a lot of communication going on between all the various branches
within my ministry and then without — emergency management B.C., for
instance.
As far as the situation you described — I hope I understood the
question correctly, but if you’ve got more, I’m sure you’ll let me know
— it could have been a range where a certain contractor had a bid
deposit on a sale in a B.C. Timber Sales licensed area. If that timber
is completely destroyed by the fire or no longer salvageable or loggable
or merchantable, then there’s the ability for that bidder to get their
deposit back so that they’re not out of pocket directly on
that.
If they started logging that timber sale and they had deck logs
and the fire went through and destroyed that, that’s another scenario.
Then if they’re dealing with blackened wood, that’s another scenario as
well. So there’s a whole range. B.C. Timber Sales staff are willing to
evaluate each of those situations with the bidders and are glad to meet
with them to go through those different scenarios and what the impacts
are.
Just on a different note, our staff — whether it’s B.C. Timber
Sales or working with some of the major licensees in the recovery
process, the salvage — are on the ground, analyzing the salvageability
of the timber that has been burned. They’re assessing it in conjunction
with other factors — sustainability factors, environmental factors — and
with an eye to getting as much of that wood as possible into the hands
of local operators and local mills as soon as possible.
C. Oakes: This is a good segue into permitting, as it relates to some small
businesses. I should tell you that I asked the question of the Solicitor
General around small business compensation for backfires, and he said I
would have to bring it forward here to request to see where that money
was in the budget.
I have two specific questions. The first is around
guide-outfitters and trappers. There are significant small business
economies in much of the Cariboo, as the minister well knows, having
lived in the north. They’re incredibly important small businesses. In
many cases, they’re small businesses that have been operating for
generations in our area. The dynamic that they are now faced with — and
the minister knows this — is with the backfires that were required,
specifically around the Plateau fire. In order to stop that fire,
significant fuel was burned, and the minister outlined the tools made to
fight fires.
We are in a situation where in this particular area, over 500,000
hectares of area is burnt. That has significant impact on wildlife and
specifically for trappers and guide-outfitters. The guide-outfitters go
to their shows. They market their shows a year in advance. In many
cases…. We have one particular guide-outfitter in our area who sold
$80,000 worth of guide-outfitting operations last year. He used that
money to operate his small business. Now this fall 90 percent of his
area is burnt out.
[4:35 p.m.]
We have a precedent in this House where we have compensated
guide-outfitters specifically around the Tsilhqot’in agreement, around
the moose management clause. Is there something specific in this budget
for the guide-outfitters or trappers who have lost percentages of their
small businesses due to the back burn and the wildfires?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I absolutely agree that guide-outfitters and trappers are a
central component of the rural economy. As you pointed out, it’s
something I’m knowledgable about because of the area that I represent as
well. There’s no doubt the fires have had a pretty significant impact on
the areas that they need to conduct their business and conduct it
successfully.
There are a couple of items I’m going to talk about that I’m sure
you’re aware of, and then we’ll talk in a little bit bigger
scenario.
If these businesses have not registered with the Red Cross, they
should, because although it’s a small amount, there has been the ability
for the Red Cross to make $1,500 grants to small businesses impacted by
wildfires in areas that were under evacuation order. I recognize that’s
not a big amount, but I do recognize that there’s a cash flow issue with
many of these small businesses. They depend on the seasons you talked
about, while seasonal business depends on the season to make or break
the rest of the year.
I know it’s a little further south than your area, but the council
of Williams Lake made it very clear that there are a lot of small
businesses that are going to make or break this coming year on the cash
flow issue.
[4:40 p.m.]
The Red Cross is also looking at a case-specific scenario now that
they’ve gone through the crisis phase and are into the recovery phase.
There’s that $100 million that was allocated to the Red Cross, and
there’s a substantial amount of that funding left. Part of their
case-by-case scenario now will be with small businesses which have been
impacted and are facing the cash flow crisis in ability to pay fixed
costs. I encourage the small businesses that you’re talking about,
whether it’s guide-outfitters or trappers, to contact the Red Cross in
your area.
You know that we’re looking to the future, as well, to try to
attract people back into the area impacted by the Plateau fire, the
largest single complex that took place this year. With some of the
financial commitments we’ve made to the tourism associations in your
area — that’s underway to try to get people to come back. I know that
that doesn’t directly address the cash flow issues of businesses, but
it’s also something, looking into the future, as next steps.
On a larger level, the cabinet level, we have the cabinet task
force on wildfires, and we’re into recovery deliberations now. We’ve
instituted a few processes already and a few programs, like I said,
through the Red Cross. The exact nature of that cash flow issue is going
to be addressed through that task force.
Finally, I think part of it also has to be the amount of ability
for these small businesses, whether they’re able to recover any of it
through insurance. Many times, I know, they can’t, but in some cases,
there is the ability to recover some of the costs that they are
encountering through insurance — on returning deposits, for instance. I
know guide-outfitters have taken deposits on hunts that probably aren’t
possible now.
We’re working with the guide-outfitters in looking at the wildlife
populations and health of those after the fires and ensuring that those
populations are viable into the future. It’s a topic that’s close to my
heart and on my mind.
C. Oakes: I appreciate the minister’s comments. I can tell you that trappers
and guide-outfitters are having significant troubles accessing the
$1,500. They’ve all applied, and they’re being required to go through
disruption insurance. In all the cases, they’ve been denied, so there is
a significant gap.
That’s what this is. Part of our process is to raise to you the
opportunity to identify areas that currently are not, perhaps, working
as smoothly as possible. I think, in many instances, when we talk about
these types of small businesses — guide-outfitters, trappers, placer
miners — they’re really unknown types of small businesses, perhaps, in
what people generally would term as small businesses. Often their
practices are so wilderness-remote that things such as insurance
opportunities are not as readily available as what one might deem a
small business in a rural-urban setting.
I’m going to jump, actually, to what I was going to leave to my
final question. I am going to move it up one, because I think it’s
relevant and it helps set the tone on the challenges we’re having around
the back fires. This is a more specific one, and it does range around
the Plateau fire.
We really appreciated the fact that the IMT teams would come, they
would meet with the industry on a weekly basis, and they would update us
on how the fires were progressing, the work that was being required. So
we appreciated that. On July 28, we met with the incident management
team, and they were very positive about the efforts that were being
taken at that time with Quesnel East and Quesnel West as it ranged to
the fire situation. Then something dramatically changed.
I guess it’s a twofold question, because it outlines the
challenges we’re having in so many respects. Maybe this is the reason
why we’re having trouble with Red Cross.
[4:45 p.m.]
Something significant happened during those first two weeks of
August. We know that we raised these concerns around resources on the
morning calls during those first two weeks leading up to August 12. We
raised considerable concerns that we had repeatedly heard on the ground.
There were concerns we did not have enough resources on the ground.
There was concern around the replacement of IMTs. There were concerns
around crews coming in, in order to fight the fires.
We now know that a lot of industry equipment was…. Decisions…. Due
to some challenges with payments, industry had removed themselves from
those fires. We also know that we had a lack of structural protection
units in the area leading up to August 12, and some were removed to be
placed on priority areas in the area.
I raise this on twofold. When we canvass the Solicitor General, we
understand that under a state of emergency, it provides us with the
ability to access all available resources that are required. We know
from the calls that we placed every morning that there were significant
concerns on the ground that we did not have adequate resources leading
into August 12. We also knew that on the Sunday before August 12, on
August 6, there was a call that was made with all elected officials
advising us that we would have significant weather coming to the
area.
During the week of August 6 to August 12, when we knew that we
were challenged with resources, we were challenged with ensuring that
there was enough structural protection units for people’s homes and
properties, and we knew that we were in a perfect storm, from a
financial perspective, where we had equipment leaving to protect those
areas….
I guess my first question, quite honestly is…. There was a back
burn that happened during that week. We knew that there was a weather
event. We knew that we were challenged with resources. We were hopeful
that the fires that we had managed, those 19 fires…. We were confident
that we had them relatively in control.
My question to the minister is: why did the resources change
leading up to August 12? Why would a back burn have happened, or a back
fire have happened, when
section 12 of the firefighting, when all
industry was shut down because of the fire…? We knew, as of August 6,
that the weather was going to perform poorly. Why would we have moved
forward with a back fire?
[4:50 p.m.]
Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the situation you outlined and your obvious concern
and care about it. I’m going to talk about the bigger level and then
more specifically about the actual incident that you
described.
At a provincial level, bringing it back to the budget, we did
allocate the resources as they were required, especially financial
resources. You know that $550 million was spent in direct forest fire
fighting activities by our ministry — as well, other costs and
associated costs were covered — and that through the Canadian
Interagency Forest Fire Centre in Winnipeg, we ensured that there was
enough personnel for the rotations that were necessary.
After 14 days, people on the firefighting crews, for safety
reasons, are on mandatory three-day break. So that kind of scenario, as
the season went on into the longest provincial state of emergency ever
encountered, became something that logistics had to deal with, and it
was dealt with.
We brought in…. Well, basically, we cleaned out the resources that
the ministry had in other areas of the province that weren’t as impacted
by the fires — on the coast and in the north, especially — and
redeployed them into the areas that needed the attention, like the area
that you represent.
As far as the situation you’ve described, it’s an operational
decision that’s highly technical, based on the incident commander’s
understanding of the situation at the time, on the ground. What I can
offer to you is that Madeline Maley, our executive director of the
Wildfire Service, who’s with us today, will meet with you at your
convenience to go into further detail on the operational
decision.
C. Oakes: Madeline, thank you. She was on the calls. We really appreciated
the support that you provided to us as MLAs on the ground as we were
trying to address…. It was like a triage every day of trying to resolve
challenges that we had on the ground, and we really appreciated
that.
I think what has been identified…. And it is highly technical. The
challenges we’re having right now with the people that are living in the
Plateau fire…. We heard it raised this afternoon in question period, and
I’ve raised it prior. What is happening is that the people who have
small businesses now who live in that affected area can’t get support
through Red Cross.
When they phone the B.C. Wildfire Service for support…. I’ll read
it out. I think it may be in an investigation, but at least let people
know that that’s why they are having the challenges.
[4:55 p.m.]
For example, this morning we raised the McNabbs, who were told
that in order to prove that it was a back burn, in order to get
compensated — the minister walked us through that process earlier in
estimates today, on how you access funds if a back burn goes bad — you
have to, under an investigation, prove that there was something that
went wrong. The challenge is that you’ve got all of these people that
live within the Plateau fire that can’t get support.
I just received this from today. I raised the McNabb one earlier
on today. “They’ve just informed us that there is officially no help or
compensation from emergency management B.C., as wildfires are an
insurable claim, and they don’t cover anything that is insurable. B.C.
Wildfire are not accountable for their actions or inactions regarding
fire.”
What they are saying or hinting…. Here is the process that
happened. You lose everything. You get burnt out. They give you a phone
number to call B.C. Wildfire’s risk management. You phone that number in
order to get help to figure out how you’re going to rebuild your life,
and you are told you need to FOI what the incident management commander
did during that time to identify if it was a back burn that went bad.
Was there structural protection on those units?
We know now, from having gone through daily updates with B.C.
Wildfire Service, that every day the incident command team would fill
out a report on what properties had structural protection units on them
and on what actions were taken every day. That is a part of the IMT
team’s responsibility.
What people are saying is that they need access to that
information in order to move forward any claim for compensation. They’re
being told that in order to get that information, they have to pay
$5,000 through freedom of information to get access to that. These
people just want to move on with their lives. They just want to take
those steps. Winter has actually arrived, I can tell you, in Cariboo
North.
They want to start the process of rebuilding. In order to rebuild,
they need compensation. In order for compensation to happen, they
require information. In order for that information to happen, the
incident management teams need to release it. Will the minister please
release the information so that people can move forward with rebuilding
their lives?
[5:00 p.m.]
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
Hon. D. Donaldson: There was a lot to that question, so I’ll go at it a few different
ways.
Where there was backfiring on public land, and it impacted private
land, and that’s verified, then there’s no onus of proof on the impacted
person on private land. I know that was part of something that you had
mentioned. It’s probably not the intent of the question, but I just
wanted to make it clear. When there’s a situation where backfiring on
public land — in order to address the fire control situation and public
safety — inadv