Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 35

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Statements

Anniversary of MLAs for Nanaimo and Richmond South Centre

L. Reid

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands,

Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (continued)

Hon. D. Donaldson

J. Rustad

D. Barnett

D. Clovechok

D. Davies

A. Olsen

I. Paton

J. Tegart

C. Oakes

M. Stilwell

Estimates: Other appropriations

Hon. D. Donaldson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health

Hon. A. Dix

M. Bernier

J. Isaacs

L. Larson

J. Thornthwaite

I. Paton

N. Letnick

L. Throness

S. Bond

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2017

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Statements

ANNIVERSARY OF MLA s FOR

NANAIMO

AND RICHMOND SOUTH CENTRE

L. Reid: I would like to ask the House to join with me in wishing the

happiest of anniversaries to the member for Nanaimo. He and I were

elected on this very day, back in 1991.

Orders of the Day

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

Lands, Natural Resources. In Committee A, I call continued estimates, the

Ministry of Health.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,

LANDS,

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

On Vote 28: ministry operations, $459,150,000

(continued) .

Hon. D. Donaldson: There were a couple questions that we committed to getting

information on yesterday, and I’ve got a couple of answers that I’d like

to read into the record for the member and the members who posed the

questions.

The first was the number of B.C. Wildfire Service staff working on

verifying compensation claims. As of October 13 of this year, B.C.

Wildfire Service had 171 private property compensation claims reported

via email. Eight of these claims have been settled. Compensation has

been confirmed for a further 56 claims. That leaves 107 claims still

being verified. B.C. Wildfire Service is working with the private

property owners to determine and verify the damages.

Wildfire Service staff working on the compensation claims for

private property is at 36 now, and completing these claims is a high

priority for the B.C. Wildfire Service as we fully understand the

financial strain and the stress these claimants are under, due to their

experiences this summer and their need to rebuild their lives and

livelihoods.

So that was on the question relating to the number of staff and a

little update on the progress on the claims.

There was a question yesterday — Pressy Lake residents identifying

a structural review July 28,

whereas information that was supplied to

them from B.C. Wildfire Service was that this occurred later. So the

office of the fire commissioner, under EMBC, deployed 25 SPU trailers

and 23 engines in B.C. on July 28, most in the Cariboo Fire Centre. The

office of the fire commissioner, at the request of the B.C. Wildfire

Service, continued to assess threatened communities to ensure deployment

to the highest priority — public safety, followed by the protection of

homes, businesses and other structures.

B.C. Wildfire Service has confirmed that an assessment of Pressy

Lake by a structure protection specialist was completed on July 28 of

this year. This assessment was due to the potential threat from a

wildfire three kilometres north, the little Jim Hill fire. This fire was

brought under control, and structure protection units were deemed as not

needed. This information was not included in the information released to

residents on September 20 and September 29, as it was not associated

with the Elephant Hill fire.

J. Rustad: We have a few more questions on wildfires.

Starting off, I just need a little bit of additional clarity on a

question that I asked yesterday, which was with regards to the Pressy

Lake area and the use of the offer by Safeguard for equipment. I know,

if I remember correctly from the minister, he said that there was a

decision by the local manager not to deploy the equipment. I understand

that.

[1:40 p.m.]

What I’m wondering is two things. It appears, and from the stories

I’ve heard, that structural protection units were not utilized at Pressy

Lake. I’m wondering if the minister can confirm that. Second, whether or

not the local fire manager, the person in charge of making that

decision, would have produced some sort of report with regards to the

decision around Safeguard and the decision around the structural

protection units. I’m wondering if that could be made available, public,

to this Legislature.

Hon. R. Fleming: I would seek leave of the House to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Fleming: Joining us in the gallery, I believe, are a group of grade 10 students

from a fantastic institution, the oldest high school in western Canada,

Victoria High School. I see they are absolutely riveted by these debate

proceedings that are before them. They’ve picked the right day to be here at

the Legislative Assembly, and I’d like all members of the House to make them

feel most welcome here in our precinct today.

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Donaldson: I apologize about the delay in responding — obviously, a complex

topic when you have so many factors at play during a fire of this size,

of the Elephant Hill fire.

[1:45 p.m.]

In answer to the first part of the question, no structural

protection units were deployed in regards to Pressy Lake. I want to

emphasize, again, that that’s the incident commander’s decision, with

firsthand knowledge about what’s happening on the ground at that

time.

The Elephant Hill fire was very volatile and moved quickly. In

fact, it was a ten-to-15 kilometre run — if you can comprehend that —

with this fire. Unpredictable speed. The structural protection units

were already fully deployed. So that was up to the incident commander,

judging on the conditions at the time. Also to add — I believe I touched

on this in yesterday’s answer — it’s incumbent upon the incident

commander to ensure that firefighters’ safety and public safety is

protected when considering different tools, like deploying the

SPUs.

As far as the trial with Safeguard…. As I answered yesterday,

there was a trial done with Safeguard, and the results of that trial are

still being analyzed. So at this point, I can’t clarify with the member

the level of sharing that will go on, because it was a preliminary test.

It requires more analysis, especially with Safeguard, before those

results could potentially be released.

J. Rustad: I apologize, in terms of…. Do the incident commanders in these

fire situations produce reports on their decisions?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Incident commanders have a variety of reports. They keep their own

diaries, and there’s also a variety of reports and notes that they

compile. Specifically on the question that the member posed, the ongoing

reviews are happening within our ministry around the Elephant Hill fire,

and of course, there’s potential litigation. As those reviews are

completed, and as we get a clearer picture of what’s the direction from

the residents, we can relax a little bit of the information-sharing

concerns.

If that isn’t possible…. We have done this already. There are

areas that we were able to get excluded from the RCMP investigation that

we’ve been able to release information on, and as a final tool, there’s

always the freedom-of-information process.

J. Rustad: I was afraid to hear that response from the minister about the

freedom-of-information requests. A lot of the residents, as you know,

have gotten quite frustrated with having to go through that process,

which is why I’m asking these questions with regards to the information

on Pressy Lake and other circumstances of the fires.

I do understand the sensitivity of the information. I do

understand that side of things, but the residents want answers. They

want to know what happened. It’s frustrating to have to go back to them

and say that the only avenue available at this time is a

freedom-of-information request unless, at some point in the future, that

information can be deemed public.

[1:50 p.m.]

Having heard that from the minister, I’ll ask one other question

around that, since the residents of Pressy Lake clearly are going to

need to go that route to find that information. It’s unfortunate, but I

understand the rationale why.

With regards to Safeguard and their experiment, when they came in

and did that, I asked yesterday about whether or not a report was

produced around that, whether that could be made public. I want to ask

again, in the light of the same perspective of…. I’ve got a number of

questions around this. This is information that could be useful

information with regards to the actual experiment or the test that was

done with Safeguard, with regards to what potential terms of reference

or other things could be to the comprehensive review.

So I’m just wondering whether that report, once again, could be

made public here, to the Legislature, with regards to the Safeguard test

that was done.

Hon. D. Donaldson: On the first part, the

preamble to this question, I fully

understand how frustrating it must be to…. Well, I’m sorry, I can’t say

I fully understand because I’ve never had a house of mine or a structure

of mine burnt in a wildfire situation. But I can at least empathize with

the frustration people feel. Obviously, when you are impacted by a

traumatic event — and these were traumatic events — it’s human nature to

want to know exactly what transpired. It’s a form of being able to

recover, process and heal from those kinds of situations.

Fundamentally, we act on the principle of transparency. That’s the

way I direct the ministry and my staff to conduct their work. In this

case, we are bound by the independent Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act. So as we can release information, as we’ve

been doing, we will, and we will also commit to working with Pressy Lake

residents in helping them to narrow their focus for FOI requests in

order to speed up the process when they actually go into the

freedom-of-information office.

As far as the Safeguard test — the trial that occurred, which we

discussed yesterday — I’ll just repeat that our staff is still analyzing

the data that came from that test. I can’t make a commitment today to

say that that information would be public, although having said what I

said on transparency, I would certainly hope it could be. I can’t make

the commitment because it’s incumbent upon us to talk to Safeguard

around the results first. It was a small trial, and they might have some

concerns about that.

The member seems to be in touch with Safeguard, and we’ll find out

from them if they do have concerns. But it could be a competitive issue

as well. I can’t make the commitment at this point, but I’m open to

hearing from Safeguard and the member opposite into the future on

that.

J. Rustad: Thank you. One of the members, from Columbia River–Revelstoke,

will have a question a little later on with regard to a similar type of

situation. But for the member for Cariboo North, who had talked about

the situation…. I think it was the McNab family.

[1:55 p.m.]

They were in a situation where — if I remember correctly on this —

they actually had purchased some equipment. They were promised by the

crews that were there that their structure would be protected. They

weren’t even allowed to go in to deploy structural protection units. Of

course, when the fire came, it was determined — or apparently it’s been

determined — that there were no structural protection units put in

place, and of course, he lost property through this process.

I get that these situations are difficult on the ground, but once

again, this is one of those issues that people want to get to the bottom

of and be able to have closure as to why this happened. I think it’s

also incredibly relevant to the comprehensive review that the minister

had talked about with regards to how we approach these types of

incidents and what people can do to protect their properties through

potential fires in the future.

So I will ask the similar question with regards to the incident

commander and the decisions around the protections: why the individual

was told that the properties would be protected; whether or not it was

the case that those properties were protected — evidence suggests that

perhaps they weren’t; and whether or not there are reports available

that would be able to confirm decisions made on structural protection

for the areas out by Nazko in the Quesnel fire.

E. Ross: If it please the House, I ask for leave to make a late

introduction to the House.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

E. Ross: No nays. Thank you.

I would like to re-welcome Jason Majore back to the House. He is from

the Haisla Nation Council, from my previous job. He is half Métis, and he’s

half Haida, but I do not hold that against him — his Haida portion. I

welcome back Jason Majore.

[2:00 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’re in the process of working with the McNabs — our staff — to

narrow down the FOI requests so they can get their answers through FOI

in a faster manner, because although it’s an independent process, the

narrower you are in scope, as I’m sure people have discovered, the

faster the information usually comes. So we’re working with them on

that.

The member posed some specifics around operational questions. What

I can commit to is that we don’t have the personnel here today. That’s a

very specific question to the on-site manager at the time. I’ll commit

to getting back to him with the information that can be shared from that

incident in regard to his inquiry.

Again, going back to the last question, incident commanders do

keep diaries and notes and various forms of report. We’re in an ongoing

technical review, within the ministry, of response to the fires and are

cognizant of people wanting information. Once those reviews are

complete, then we’ll be able to assess the kind of information specific

to what the member raised that can be released.

Again, we’re seeking to work with people who’ve been impacted, and

transparency is the foundation of what we’re trying to do

here.

D. Barnett: I have a couple more questions here. One great concern, as there

are many, is the plan for the rural water supply. Due to the fires,

wells were impacted; aquifers were impacted. Who is doing the

assessments on these? When are they being done? What compounds are being

tested for? What physical parameters are being tested? Where can my

constituents access information and results? And who is going to be

responsible for this — the ministry, local governments or individual

well owners?

Hon. M. Mark: I rise to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Mark: I looked up in the gallery to see that we have a number of familiar

faces from the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council and our newly elected, newly

minted B.C. Assembly of First Nations Regional Chief Terry Teegee, who are

here with us in the gallery. I’d like to acknowledge…. It’s not my mother

language, so please bear with me. I’m Nisga’a and Gitxsan.

I’d like to welcome Nak’azdli Chief Alan McKinnon, Takla Lake First

Nations Chief John French, Nadleh Whut’en Chief Larry Nooski, Saik’uz Chief

Jackie Thomas, Stellat’en Chief Archie Patrick, Tl’azt’en Deputy Chief Simon

John, Burns Lake Band Chief Dan George and other representatives of their

delegation. Will the House please join me in welcoming our guests

today.

[2:05 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Donaldson: Of course, once the fires have been brought under control, people

start looking at what’s gone on around them and are concerned about

water. Water is vital for any area, but the area that the member

represents is a very dry area so, obviously, top of mind for

people.

Our ministry staff has begun post-wildfire assessments.

Hydrogeologists have begun that process already at the landscape and

localized level. For instance, the member is familiar with…. Many

ranchers have dams and other storage structures that they use to store

water for irrigation purposes. A lot of these structures are earthen

dams, and when the vegetation has been burnt off them, they could be

compromised. So all the critical dam structures have been inspected

already by our staff.

As far as the water quality issue or question. The member

specifically mentioned wells and aquifers. Water quantity — in other

words, the amount of groundwater or surface water that’s available — is

within the ministry that I represent. Water quality is within the

Ministry of Environment.

If people have questions and concerns about their water on their

private property, the wells and aquifers that the member mentioned, they

can go to FrontCounter B.C. in the communities closest to them or in the

community in which they reside. That local FrontCounter B.C. office can

help them navigate to which person in which ministry would be most

helpful for them.

D. Barnett: I could ask questions all day, but we don’t have time. So I have

one last question for now.

The review that is going to be done by your ministry. Are you

hiring an independent to do a review of the forest fires? Do you have

terms of reference? What is the time frame? When will it be done? How

will people throughout the whole fire region, from Anahim Lake to

Ashcroft and in between, be notified of a review and the terms of

reference, and how can they participate? And when will the review be

made public?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: We talked about this a little bit yesterday. I appreciate the

opportunity to provide further clarification to the member. Yes, we will

be hiring an independent person or persons to oversee the comprehensive

review process and to produce a report. The terms of reference are under

development.

I will restate my commitment that I made yesterday to the official

opposition members who have communities impacted by not just the

wildfire but the flood, as well, to have input into those terms of

reference. That way, members in the communities that you represent will

be able to provide that input through you. And I noticed already that

kinds of inputs into the terms of reference.

The public will be notified when there is a public engagement

process in place, once we get this up and running. I want to go back to

the terms of reference. I’ll be talking to each of you individually —

that is, the members opposite, who are representing areas impacted by

wildfires — to talk about a condensed timeline to get that input back

from you.

We want to get this process underway as soon as we can. We want

the report, which will…. Your question was: “Will it be made public?”

Yes, it will. We want that report to be made public in the spring so

that we can use the information to make adjustments or inform our next

season’s activities. The comprehensive report will include the technical

reviews that are underway already within our ministry, within the

ministry responsible for emergency management B.C. and any other reviews

that other organizations or communities have conducted. That will be

pulled together, as well as soliciting new information and analyzing

what actions were taken from previous reports, like the Filmon

report.

Yes, it’ll be made public in the spring. We’ll make sure that

whoever is hired, in the terms of reference, they will know that the

public needs to be notified about the opportunities. I have no issue

with releasing the terms of reference, as well, once they’re

set.

J. Rustad: I’ve got just one other quick question.

I just want to take a moment, also, to welcome the folks from the

Carrier-Sekani. Nice to see you here. We might get a chance here, in the

very near future, to be talking about forest consultation,

revenue-sharing agreements and UNDRIP and other components related to

forestry. It will be a little bit before we can get into it, but I just

thought I would let you know, in case you have an opportunity to stay in

the gallery to watch.

To the minister, I’m happy to hear that those internal reports,

those internal reviews that are being done, are going to be part of the

comprehensive and going through to that. That’s good news.

I’d like to move into talking a little bit about recovery and

various components associated with that, and also around the contractor

payments and the process that happened there. I understand that many

contractors waited long periods of time for payment. I know there are

some challenges with technology and other things that have been in place

for periods of time.

[2:15 p.m.]

A quick question to the minister: are we caught up now on all the

payments for the various contractors working on the fire? And a bit of a

misleading question, and I apologize for that. The Nazko Nation, to the

best of my knowledge, as of last Friday was still owed about half a

million dollars. So I’m wondering the status of Nazko but also whether

or not we are caught up now with the other contractors that had put work

in over the course of the fire season.

Hon. D. Donaldson: On the Nazko question, we do have some updated information. I’m

going to wait to get that from staff. But I wanted to answer the other

part of your question in the meantime, in order just to move things

along, because I know you’ve got a lot of ground to cover.

You know that out of the 26,765 invoices paid, 21,942 have been

paid within 30 days. That was the result of bringing at least 50 staff

on in order to deal with the backlog. We’re 100 percent caught up on the

backlog of invoices. So payments are going out, or have gone out, as far

as the backlog of invoices go, except for 400, the invoices where we’re

still waiting for more clarification from contractors. The staff have

asked for a few more details on that.

Of course, invoices are still coming in. That’s the backlog, and

we’re still dealing with ones within the 30-day period, which is, I

think, a reasonable amount of time. But your concern, and I think the

concern of many people, myself included, was people beyond those 30 days

waiting for payments, and we’ve caught up with that backlog now. I’m

very happy to hear that and want to recognize the staff effort that was

put into it. I know in one weekend they managed to process 1,100

invoices.

J. Rustad: Thanks for the response on that. Along the lines of lessons

learned, how will we handle this differently in the future?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, of course there are lessons to be learned in many aspects —

reinforcing what went well and improving on what didn’t go so well. In a

circumstance where a contractor might have been waiting for a long

period, I’m very aware of the cash flow issues that creates. These,

oftentimes, are small business people, not small in stature but small in

scope. When they’re having to have costs, even fuel costs or costs

associated with maintenance of their equipment that they used in

assisting with firefighting activities, then they’re out of pocket for

those costs until they get paid, especially in times of wildfire

situations, where they’re not necessarily receiving income from other

activities that they undertake, oftentimes logging

activities.

[2:20 p.m.]

We’re very aware of that. What we will do, and we’ve done under

our technical reports so far, is have a look at how that system

operated, a system that was in place before, and how we

react.

I think a good point is how we react to an unprecedented situation

where from July 7 to July 8, there were well over 130 fires started. We

had people actually fighting fires and then invoicing later. When you

get that volume of invoices — that’s the kind of question that we need

to deal with as far as how we undertake that better into the

future.

J. Rustad: Moving onto some topics of recovery. In particular, we know,

understand there’s the amount of money available for the ranching

industry that’s for fencing. We understand that those components…. We

understand, through support from the federal government, you have

recovery managers in place in every community.

I would suggest that you should also think about recovery for

areas that are not in organized communities. Those were the areas that

were most heavily impacted, although, obviously, smaller communities are

the engines of the economy within the broader area.

Specifically, is the Ministry of Forests going to be putting

forward requests, or have they put forward requests, for additional

resources to be able to fund economic recovery plans? Or is that falling

under a different ministry outside of the mandate of the Ministry of

Forests? The impact, of course, whether it’s to recreation, tourism,

wildlife or other types of components….

I’m just kind of wondering what the ministry’s plan is around

recovery. I know agriculture is taken care of. I know there’s the

$100,000, I think — or is it $200,000? — that went to the Williams Lake

tourism association. But obviously, there’s a tremendous amount more

that needs to be done. There are the components, which I’m well aware

of, under the Red Cross. Some of that money has been spent

there.

I’m just wondering what additional plans the ministry has, either

in this budget or in preparing to bring forward, hopefully, as an ask

for the future budget.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I just wanted to clarify something on the last comments — I think

it was alluded to by the member from the Cariboo — about the recovery

managers. We were able to secure federal funding so that communities can

hire recovery managers. It’s not just municipalities. In fact, the first

recovery manager was hired by the Cariboo regional district. So those

unincorporated areas are also being covered by recovery managers, not

simply municipalities.

As far as the recovery efforts, they’re multifaceted. We have the

task force on wildfire. It’s a cabinet task force. We meet regularly to

talk about the wide array of tools that are at our disposal for

recovery. We’re building the recovery plans from the ground up, as was

requested by communities. They want to be able to tell the province what

works best for them. That fits in perfectly with the approach I take,

that local knowledge is essential in recovery.

Again, I’ll iterate the four pillars that’s organized under:

people in communities, environment, economy, and infrastructure and

rebuilding. Based on the feedback that we get from communities, we’re

formulating a plan for the next fiscal year. But right now we are

coordinating with the other ministries under those four

pillars.

The member detailed some of the recovery funding that’s been made

available under those four pillars: the $100 million under the Red

Cross, which is up over that now because of the federal contribution and

individual donations; the $20 million from the AgriRecovery plan; the $6

million for the fencing; the tourism dollars.

This is a coordinated approach, and it is cross-ministry. It’s not

simply the ministry that I’m responsible for, but the efforts are being

coordinated through this ministry. There is work ongoing from my

ministry that actually relates to a recovery plan, as far as the

environment goes and rehabilitating disturbed sites that our crews

disturbed during the wildfires. That’s activity, as well as coordinating

future reforestation programs.

It’s a multifaceted approach under those four pillars. We’ve got

some emergency funding in place, which I’ve described, and we’ll be

learning from the communities what the next steps are as far as their

plans.

J. Rustad: I have a few more questions around recovery, but for the

convenience of my colleagues, I’m going to turn it over to the member

for Columbia River–Revelstoke to ask one question around the fires. Then

I’ll go to the member for Peace River North, around a forestry question,

which we will be getting into shortly thereafter, on the recovery side,

and including stuff on the recovery side. So over to my

colleagues.

D. Clovechok: It has been an unprecedented fire season, no question, throughout

British Columbia. I’ve been up in the Cariboo-Chilcotin twice to see

what’s gone down up there, and it’s a disaster.

[2:30 p.m.]

I also want to underscore that the Kootenays have not been

neglected in terms of fires. We’ve had the Kootenay National Park fire,

which closed our highways I don’t know how many times; the Island Pond

fire, which was a major concern and closed down highways as well; Moyie

Lake fire in the Kootenay East riding of Member Shypitka; and the White

River complex, which was the big one.

Before I get into the questions I have around the White River

complex, I do want to take a minute to thank the minister and to

recognize him for his assistance in my riding during the fire season. I

had the opportunity to talk to him on a couple of occasions. He returned

my calls, and that meant a lot. So I wanted to recognize him.

I had a big push to close our back country not only to motorized

vehicles but also to human use. He listened, and through his ministry,

that happened. I also invited him to, as soon as possible, reopen it,

based upon the B.C. Wildfire Service’s processes so that outfitter

guides and resident hunters could get back into those regions, and that

happened.

Minister, I just want to thank you for what you’ve done. It made a

difference. The proactive processes that we used in Columbia

River–Revelstoke and Kootenay East actually prevented fires from

happening. We want to recognize you for that.

That said, there are a lot of things that need to be learned from

this fire. What I want to do, on behalf of two constituents, Bill and

Doug Thompson, who are trappers, is bring to your attention an issue

that they experienced in the White River complex. If you could just bear

with me, I’m going to give you a bit of a timeline, really quickly,

through this.

On August 3, 2017, the Thompsons sent the B.C. Wildfire Service

the GPS location of their cabin and outbuildings up on the Whiteswan

drainage, which is about 40 minutes from my home. On August 18, the

North White River fire was discovered at about the 60-kilometre mark,

which is exactly the kilometre mark where their outbuildings and their

cabins were located — same mileage marker. They were advised by the B.C.

Wildfire Service that that fire was burning up the mountain, which it

was, and away from their property. So there was nothing, at that time,

to be concerned about.

On August 24, at 1400 hours, they were advised that the fire had

turned and was now tracking towards the road, but their buildings were

not at risk. They were also advised that sprinklers would be deployed if

their structures were threatened. On August 25, at 11:10 a.m., they were

advised that their cabin, storage shed, woodshed and outhouse had

completely been destroyed by that fire.

Minister, there was absolutely no attempt to protect these

structures at kilometre 66, which was ground zero for that fire. But ten

kilometres away, up on the east end of Whiteswan Lake, there are several

private dwellings there that were protected with sprinklers, and so on,

and so forth.

The question I have for the minister is: can the minister offer an

explanation as to why the Thompsons’ property was not protected under

the BCWS modified response process, even though they were told it would

be?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you, Chair. You must have good peripheral vision, because I

didn’t even see you turn your head there.

Interjection.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Twenty-six years.

First of all, I’d like to start off by saying thank you to the

member for raising this and, also, for his introductory comments, of

course. The least onerous part for me is to return phone calls. It’s the

work of the staff that really makes the difference, which he

highlighted. That’s the dedication I saw on a day-to-day basis during

the wildfire season, and I know he would concur with that around the

staff.

I have a number of trappers in my area. I have friends who are

trappers, and I know trappers. I know how much they care about the

environment, how conservation-oriented they are and how connected to the

land they are. So I understand the impact that it must have had on these

trappers to have their infrastructure destroyed by a wildfire. It’s

traumatic. People who are so closely connected to the land are obviously

really impacted by that.

I’ve also been to the White Swan area. I’ve camped up at the lake

and been in that beautiful part of the country. What I will say and what

I will commit to is…. You asked some very detailed operational

questions, including your information about GPS locations and items like

that. What we will do is have the Southeast Fire Centre manager, Brent

Martin, proactively get in touch with you in order to discuss the

details of the situation and, hopefully, provide some more information

that will be of comfort to Bill and Doug Thompson.

D. Clovechok: Thank you, Minister. That’s very much appreciated.

The second question I have is more around wildlife management,

which associates itself to some extent around the fires. It’s my

understanding that there will be an undertaking, a consultation process,

around the grizzly bear hunt. In my region, there are significant

concerns about the ban of the grizzly hunt. One of those concerns is it

will result in a black market for grizzly parts.

In addition, one of B.C.’s expert grizzly biologists, who lives in

Nelson, suggests that there are actually too many grizzlies in the

Kootenays and that this overpopulation may well require some culling as

well as relocation. That culling can take the form of conservation

officers, or hunters as well, putting these animals down. Just last week

I had a three-year-old grizzly go through my property. She shouldn’t

have been there. What that tells us is that there are bigger bears in

the higher country pushing the smaller bears down into the valley

bottom.

That said, my question to the minister. Will the minister explain

how he and his ministry plan to manage the overpopulation of grizzly

bears in my region, and how will these decisions be based upon science

rather than politics?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: To the member, I know he has two ears, so he’ll be able to hear

the answer no matter where he’s sitting.

Yes, we honoured our commitment from November of last year that as

a government we would end the grizzly bear trophy hunt. The member

expressed some concerns about a black market in parts. We’ve embarked on

a consultation process with the most impacted people, through their

organizations, around the actual mechanisms that we’re suggesting to

implement the ending of the grizzly bear trophy hunt.

As far as the black market in parts, what we’re talking to the

impacted parties about is prohibitions with heavy penalties for that

kind of behaviour. We’re confident that that will put a large dent in

any kind of possible black market in the parts, and we’ll continue

monitoring that to see if the tools have to be modified into the

future.

There are approximately 15,000 grizzly bears in the province.

Approximately 250 are harvested each year — killed each year — through

hunting activities.

The member had a question about management of overpopulation. Our

biologists don’t believe that there’s an overpopulation in the area he

represents. They believe that there’s a viable healthy population, but

not an overpopulation.

I understand his description — it’s happened to me before — about

grizzly bears coming close to populated areas. That happens from time to

time and requires a management approach, whether it’s the ability to

trap that grizzly bear in a live trap and relocate it — I’m sure he’s

more than familiar with that, being so close to national parks — or,

with bears that become habituated, it might become necessary to deal

with them in a different manner and terminate their lives. But those are

management decisions on the ground, at the time and over

time.

I’ve also directed staff to update our grizzly bear management

plan. That work is underway right now, so that’ll go a long ways to

addressing some of the concerns detailed.

D. Davies: Just switching up a little bit into a forestry question. Northern

Rockies and Fort Nelson have been hit extremely hard in the local

economy: first of all, forestry — Fort Nelson, in 2006, was the forest

capital of British Columbia; that has since gone — and now, most

recently, the natural gas industry.

I know that there were a number of meetings during the recent UBCM

— speaking with government. Actually, I think the town met with you and

myself. I think we had a meeting. There was obviously pledging to assist

the community in any way possible to move them into some sort of

economic relief with, certainly, a belief that forestry is probably the

best of all of these options for them to move into some economic

strength.

[2:45 p.m.]

So kind of a two-part question. The first is: looking forward,

what does the plan look like for government and your ministry moving

forward to assist them moving toward having a viable forest sector?

Secondly, I’m sure that you’re aware that a lot of the timber rights are

tied up in Northern Rockies. What is the plan to work with that issue to

try and resolve the timber rights and to kind of get a forest industry

started in Northern Rockies?

Hon. D. Donaldson: To the member, I really welcome the synopsis and the question that

he posed in these budget estimates, because there’s lots to be done in

forestry. Some of it is much longer term — we’re talking about growing

trees and things like that — but then there are other opportunities that

present themselves.

The one he is describing, I believe, is an opportunity that could

well become a reality in a shorter time frame than some of the other

projects that are around the province, which would be fantastic. As he

described, we met together with the Northern Rockies municipal district

— I believe that’s their proper term; really, the Fort Nelson people —

and municipal council there. He mentioned that in 2006, it was the

forestry capital of B.C., in that yearly thing. In the last ten years,

there’s been a decline in that kind of activity in the Fort Nelson area.

The mayor described how some property values have decreased by 40

percent. That’s hard for anybody to take, and it’s an unbelievable

number.

From that meeting, we made it clear that if there is a viable

business opportunity, our senior staff are made available to speak with

the investors, to speak with Fort Nelson about potential fibre supply

for that. We’re really anxious and keen to hear from the investors about

their potential business investment.

[2:50 p.m.]

As well, I met with the Fort Nelson band. I believe it was

yesterday. The Northern Rockies municipal district was fully aware how

important it is with partnerships with local First Nations. The Fort

Nelson band is also interested in partnerships, so that builds an

incredibly positive picture for potential fibre. Like I say, we’ve got

senior staff on it right now and just looking forward to moving

ahead.

D. Davies: Thanks, Minister. Okay, that is good. It’s good to see that there

is a bit of plan, moving forward, with the regional municipality of

Northern Rockies, I think is the terminology.

Just the one piece that was missed on the question that I’d asked

was with the land that is tied up. The timber rights are presently tied

up. There was no mention to that. That is one of the big issues right

now for getting the industry moving.

From what I understand…. In fact, I believe that you will have a

letter landing on your desk today. It’s an invitation from the mayor and

council of the Northern Rockies. I think they wrote a letter to you

today, inviting you to come up. They have people that are interested in

looking at the PolarBoard plant that’s up there that is near turnkey.

But the timber rights is where the issue is. I’m just wondering if you

can address how the government will be moving forward with

those.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, the regional municipality of the Northern Rockies. I want to

get that on the record, because I’ll be in trouble with Mayor Streeper

if I don’t say that.

Your question about land tied up in timber rights. I believe

you’re referring to Canfor and the timber rights held by Canfor. There’s

a certain undercut volume there.

What I can say right now is if there’s a buyer for a private

enterprise, like the PolarBoard plant, willing to come forward to

elaborate on their business plan, then we will be there to discuss fibre

supply. Exploring options creatively with First Nations and the

community is what we’ve been doing. But I want you to know that I see

this as a very win-win situation that we can hopefully get underway,

because the people in Fort Nelson deserve those jobs locally.

J. Rustad: Apologies for the quick jump to the wildlife question. I was

hoping we’d be able to add that in near the end of the session, but it

is what it is.

Staying with timber and fibre supply, there are a number of

questions that will range in areas around the province, but I want to

start, of course, on the impacted areas of the fire, the 45 million

cubic metres thereabouts, give or take, that have been impacted —

obviously a limited capacity of harvesting within the Cariboo area and

also a limited life span for much of the wood that has been damaged by

fire.

[2:55 p.m.]

The question, I guess, is: what is the plan that the minister is

developing with regards to maximizing the opportunity to harvest, with

the sensitivities, of course, of wildlife and range, soils and other

conditions that are tricky within some of those areas that have been

impacted? This is critical for the communities and for the forest

workers that are in those communities to be able to see that fibre

supply utilized to the best of its ability, especially given the

compounding effect of the mountain pine beetle and the dropping fibre

supply in the area.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: He alluded to the balance that needs to be struck, definitely,

between getting to the wood that’s been damaged by the fire in a timely

manner so that it still is merchantable and then the other

considerations, as far as the environment and other values. We know

wildlife values, for instance, and the erosion prevention

values.

Having said that, our focus…. The staff have been out on the

ground, analyzing what could be suitable to be harvested first. Those

are primarily within existing cutting permits and existing roads,

because then you don’t need to get into the infrastructure permitting

and additional administration around cutting permits.

So harvesting is currently underway for some of the timber. There

have been negotiations going back and forth, up to this point, on

pricing on the salvage, especially…. We’re getting feedback from

industry on situations around Douglas fir and the pricing that needs to

be worked out on that. Also, our regional office was working with

licensees and First Nations to begin the extraction strategy within the

fire season. So now that the fire season is over in the Cariboo, those

activities have begun.

As far as the longer term, the member knows, having lived in an

area that’s subject to fires, that fires burn in different ways in

different areas. Within the impacted timber, there’s some green wood,

and there’s also salvage timber. We’re focusing, definitely, on getting

that salvage timber out to the mills before it gets too dried or checked

or is not merchantable, with the balance you talked about.

J. Rustad: Thanks to the minister for the answer. There’s no question that we

need to be able to access the fibre. Now, some of this fibre is

obviously in areas that are much simpler and straightforward to operate

in than in other areas. I think I recall hearing from the minister that

the hope was that there would be some planning, and that stuff, later

next year, would be able to be accessed.

Is there a way to expedite the process — given, I’m sure, the

agreement that would be in place by all parties concerned — in those

prime areas where harvest activity would normally be taking that is not

in overlap with mule deer range or other types of constraints on the

land base, so that we could get companies out there as early as late

fall or into the winter harvest season so that they can access this

fibre this year? I guess what that would mean is to displace companies’

harvesting that they may have planned in other areas so that their

harvesting can be focused within this area.

Along those lines, the minister mentioned earlier — in particular,

I think it was in a question period response and just now reaffirmed —

this idea of salvage pricing and negotiating on that. I understand…. At

least, my previous understanding in my life in forestry was that wood

that was damaged, such as by fires or beetles or those sorts of stuff,

tend to fall in the 25 cent salvage range. I’m just wondering why

there’s a negotiation with regards to salvage pricing for much of this

wood.

I’m thinking about that more so just from the concern over the

delay. We need to be able to get at this. We’re in an area that…. With

declining timber supplies, this is critical that we preserve what green

we have left in those areas and be able to get at this fibre before the

value is lost.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’ve got lots to talk about here. That’s why it took a little

longer to talk about some of the points brought up.

Definitely, the regional operations focus is to keep the focus on

burnt timber as long as possible, in order to ensure that that mid-term

supply isn’t touched as quickly. I think that was part of the points

that the member was making. That involves redeploying within an

operating area where the licensee will be harvesting. Again, the point

is to get to the fire-impacted timber first and to leave the stands that

are still green to grow into the mid-term timber supply. We don’t want

to be short-sighted in that, but we want to take advantage of the burnt

timber, keeping the balance of values that is necessary.

As far as the pricing goes, yes, the 25 cents a cubic metre has

been used in the past for grade 4 pine. But this was a highly variable

burn. Some of the wood was lightly touched by fire. Other was heavily

impacted. What we’re looking at, in the next couple years, is

sawlog-quality wood, mostly fir. The 25 cents a cubic metre doesn’t just

necessarily apply to all the wood. We have some more valuable wood still

out on the land, despite the fires.

J. Rustad: To the question…. I understand the minister is interested in

wanting to get the harvesting happening quickly. I do know that there’s

some wood that has been cut for fencelines and other types of things

that will be made available for purchase at this fall/winter.

[3:10 p.m.]

One company — I think it’s Tolko — estimates that even with all

the focusing on harvesting, they might be able to get to 10 percent of

the fibre that has been damaged.

Now, I don’t know if the ministry has been able to do that kind of

analysis or estimate at this particular point, so I guess that the

simple math questions would be: what is the total amount of fibre that

is harvested annually in the Cariboo area, and can the minister commit

to making sure that everything possible is done so that we are

harvesting that wood as quickly as possible this winter to be able to

maximize the value?

Oh, maybe one last piece of that, in terms of the total amount

that’s harvested in the area. How much of the fire volume does the

minister estimate will not be salvageable over the life of the harvest

period?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m not going to talk on a broad level, like provincewide, because

I know time is always of the essence in these budget estimates, and the

member and I have talked about the bigger numbers, like the 1.2 million

hectares impacted. But at least 80 percent of that 1.2 million hectares

of impacted forests occurred in Quesnel, Williams Lake and 100 Mile

House areas. And to the question of what is the total amount harvested

annually — for the 100 Mile, Williams Lake and Quesnel timber supply

areas, it’s about eight million cubic metres annually.

The member’s question was how much volume is available from the

fire-impacted forests, and how much of that represents the eight million

cubic metres that is required by the mills in those areas. The ministry

is in the process of mapping all live and dead timber within the fire

perimeters. Until that mapping is done, we don’t know, absolutely, the

volume available from the fire-impacted areas.

What I can say is that the regional office staff, as well as the

deputy minister — at a COFI, Council of Forest Industries, level — have

been meeting with the forest licensees in those areas I just described,

and the First Nations licensees and First Nations interests as well, in

order to do the job of harvesting as much of that fire-impacted wood as

possible, as soon as possible.

[3:15 p.m.]

Also, being adaptable from the ministry’s point of view, so as we

get feedback from First Nations licensees and other major licensees and

First Nations out on the land, that we’re adaptable in order to reach

that goal of working on getting the attention focused on the

fire-impacted wood.

J. Rustad: When I think about the fibre impacted in the Cariboo, the large

tracts of area, of course, that were mule deer winter range or had other

constraints on the land base, where the wood has been damaged,

potentially in danger of being lost in terms of value….

I guess that the question to the minister associated with that

is…. There are harvesting restrictions, obviously, associated with many

of those habitat and other areas that have designations on them within

the area. Does the minister plan to look at any sort of provisions to

ease or to allow for salvaging of the fibre in that area, with a goal of

getting, obviously, healthy forest replanted and allowing those areas to

be able to be fully utilized for the purpose that they’re designated for

today?

Hon. D. Donaldson: There are lots of opportunities outside of constrained areas right

now for the salvage logging first, and that gives us time to do the

planning around areas that are more constrained. The question was

whether we’d be looking at those constrained areas for salvage

opportunities. Yes, but it depends on what the constraint is.

[3:20 p.m.]

I know the member will be very familiar with that from where he

lives and from his previous ministerial roles. So for instance, if slope

stability is the constraint, then no matter if it’s fire-damaged wood or

not, we might not see that as a viable option — to go in and log if it’s

going to decrease slope stability.

These plans are underway right now. We’re looking at those

constrained areas. If it’s deer winter range, for instance, there might

be areas that are salvageable due to the burn if there are contiguous or

approximate areas that weren’t damaged — so a no-net-loss approach. The

planning exercise that’s underway is with First Nations with licensees

and with the B.C. Timber Sales. We are fortunate enough to have a little

bit of time to work on that because, as I said, there are lots of

opportunities outside the constrained areas that we’ll go after

first.

J. Rustad: I know this is probably work that still needs to be done, but will

there be an AAC adjustment to the areas impacted by the fires? I’m

thinking about the Cariboo, and I want to talk about Kamloops in a short

bit as well.

But obviously, there’s been an impact that will change,

potentially, what the fibre is. AAC determination is something that

happens over a period of time, so obviously that won’t necessarily be

happening imminently. But for the mills that are going to be spending

capital on wanting to be able to salvage fibre, being able to handle any

of the dust, the burnt components…. As part of being able to handle

that, they’ll want to know what their future is going to be in terms of

the fibre and the long-term impact for them to be able to make those

kind of investments.

Does the ministry have plans to be looking at this impact?

Obviously, there’s a significant amount of area and volume in that area.

Do you anticipate there being changes to both — I guess the AAC

determination as well as allocation? In conjunction with that question,

I believe Quesnel is out. But I don’t think Williams Lake or 100 Mile

House are out yet. If they are, perhaps that would be good to add in as

part of the AAC determinations coming forward.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I totally agree that investment rests on certainty, and we

need investment in the industry and the sector because of what it means

for jobs. There has been some investment, but we’re looking forward to

more. Part of my mandate is to look at ways to attract investment, so we

can process more of our logs in B.C., and to look at innovative

processes that attract investment, because we do have some great fibre

in this province and some great innovators. We just need to get the

investment and the markets in place for those kinds of jobs.

As far as the specific question, the chief forester has the

ability to conduct a new annual allowable cut, given changed

circumstances like the impacts of a major wildfire. In fact, she has

started that analysis, and part of it is the scenario analysis that our

ministry is conducting.

The timing of the analysis is in November here with the chief

forester. As I said, some of the information is being collected already

around the fire intensity mapping. So it’ll be up to the chief forester

to determine, after she’s done that initial analysis, whether a new

timber supply review is required. As the member knows, that’s complex

and takes time — a whole new timber supply review.

What the chief forester is able to do outside of a full-on timber

supply review, once she has done the analysis on the changed

circumstances due to the wildfire, the changed volume and socioeconomic

circumstances, is that she can make partitions within the annual

allowable cut to target impacted wood versus green wood.

Those are all things that are underway, but I also wanted to make

sure the member knew that within our mandate letters is a strong focus

on First Nations government-to-government relationships, so these

discussions won’t just happen with the major licensees but will also

happen with First Nations in the impacted areas.

The member is correct. The Quesnel annual allowable cut

determination came out recently this year, not the apportionment. The

Williams Lake determination and apportionment is about four years old,

the same with the 100 Mile House area.

J. Rustad: We’ve got a lot of ground to try to cover through this, so I’m

going to be jumping around a little bit with this, but I do want to go

to Kamloops next.

I know the AAC determination is out, the allocation. If the

minister can confirm whether or not that allocation has been completed

and also, given the amount of timber that was lost within the Kamloops

area, whether or not the chief forester may be looking at any potential

changes to that in advance of or in conjunction with an allocation

decision by the minister.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: The information we have is that the timber supply in the Kamloops

area was not highly impacted. The risk isn’t as high there as other

timber supply areas.

Of course, it’s up to the chief forester, under her statutory

authority, to decide whether to review that or not. But I don’t want to

leave the impression that the forest lands in the Kamloops timber supply

area were impacted as much as up in the other areas we talked

about.

The member is correct. The determination for the Kamloops annual

allowable cut has been determined by the chief forester. The

apportionment has not been completed yet. We’re working on it. It’s very

complex, because there are many players involved. That’s why we’re

treating it very seriously and taking our time with the allocation — or

apportionment, sorry.

J. Rustad: That’s okay. I understand what the minister is trying to say. I

want to thank the minister for that. There are a lot of tough decisions

ahead for the ministry, in a wide variety of things.

Moving up to Prince George. The AAC determination has just been

released. When can we expect the minister to turn his attention to the

allocation of that within the Prince George supply area? What time frame

is he looking at with regards to that? Given the drop, has the ministry

done analysis in terms of what the potential impact is for mills and the

supply for those mills?

[3:35 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, the Prince George timber supply area annual allowable cut

determination came out from the chief forester just this week, I believe

it was. Was it this week or last week? Last week. Weeks run together in

the Legislature.

As the member will know, there was an uplift in the Prince George

timber supply area in 2004, under the government that the member was a

part of, to deal with the mountain pine beetle in a timely manner — to

deal with that wood. With stewardship in mind, the chief forester has

made her determination. The uplifted annual allowable cut, due to the

mountain pine beetle, was 12.5 million cubic metres annually.

In reality, about 9.1 million cubic metres have been harvested in

that timber supply area. That’s an average over the last five years. The

new determination is a sustainable cut of 8.35 million cubic metres in

that timber supply area, as determined by the chief forester. That’s

about an 8 percent drop. That’s the reality of the drop, based on what

the cut has been in the last five years. Yes, on paper, it’s a much

larger drop when considering the annual allowable cut figure, but that

hasn’t been cut by those harvesting timber.

The question was about the apportionment decision that flows from

this determination. Prince George happens to be the largest timber

supply area in the province. There are multiple players, many First

Nations. The apportionment process has begun, now that the determination

is in, using some of the work that the chief forester has

done.

It’s not going to be rushed. I won’t rush it because of its

significance. Sometimes, these apportionment decisions take six months,

and that’s not unheard of. This one might take longer. But it’s

incumbent upon me, as the minister, to give this the time it needs. I

know the member understands the importance of the apportionment

decisions to many of the players in the Prince George timber supply

area.

J. Rustad: I’m fully aware of the complexity of the situation. Of course, as

with everything, everybody wants to know where they’re sitting. I

appreciate that it will take time, but I urge the minister to do that as

quickly as he can, in a timely way.

[3:40 p.m.]

There are many other components of inventory that I’d like to talk

about, whether it’s in the Kootenays or the coastal region or the

northwest. However, given the time frame that we have, I think some of

that may have to wait until next spring, should we both have the

opportunity to be in these seats to carry on with estimates at that

time.

I would want to ask one more question in terms of the uplift from

the pine beetle that was allocated to try to maximize the value of the

timber and harvest in through that area. Has the minister or will the

minister be considering an uplift in the fire-impacted areas to try to

achieve the same results?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The Chair mentioned that I rose fast on this answer. It’s because

I want a bit of a clarification. Is the member referring to the Prince

George timber supply area, because that’s what we were just talking to,

or…? The Cariboo. Okay, thank you.

The emphasis we have in that area is a shift out of the green

timber into the burnt timber in the short term within that eight million

cubic metres of annual volume that’s been already determined by the

chief forester. Whether there’ll be an uplift is up to the determination

of the chief forester. She’ll be analyzing, as I said in that previous

answer, the impacts of the fire on volume in November. It’s her

statutory decision where it goes from there.

J. Rustad: We may want to come back to forestry, if we have additional time,

in terms of fibre and supply. However, I want to move to a couple of

other topics, starting with softwood lumber. If you’d like, for a

changing of staff — just for purposes — following softwood lumber, I

think we should probably talk about UNDRIP, FCRSA, perhaps some other

pricing and other issues that the government has raised.

With that, hon. Chair, I would ask for a quick two or three minute

recess.

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:43 p.m. to 3:51 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Before we proceed on the next topic, I committed to supplying some

information on the Nazko file. As far as the outstanding invoices….

Staff have been able to tally that up. There are invoices totalling

$220,587 for Nazko Logging, ready to be paid, and that should be paid

this week. We’re waiting for some further information from Nazko. This

leaves $306,698.71 owing. Our staff are waiting for documents confirming

wage information so that these bills can be paid — that amount. We

expect to receive this information next week from Nazko.

J. Rustad: To the minister: thank you for that information.

On softwood lumber and the softwood lumber agreement. I’d like to,

perhaps, start with asking a fairly straightforward question in terms of

the minister’s philosophical approach in terms of what he’s working to

and what he’s hoping to achieve through the softwood lumber agreement —

the negotiations.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Much of what I’m going to say is to ensure it’s on the record, but

I believe the member is quite aware of some of the comments I’ll

make.

This is a federal trade arrangement, an agreement, a negotiation

between Canada and the U.S. However, obviously, it’s in my mandate

letter, and the impacts are felt through my ministry and through many

towns in B.C. It’s also part of the mandate letter of the Minister of

Jobs, Trade and Technology, as it is a trade issue. But I feel

comfortable talking to many aspects, and if there are other aspects that

relate specifically to the trade file under the Minister of Jobs, Trade

and Technology, then I’ll let the member know on those

accounts.

The approach has been that any deal is not the best deal for B.C.

Any deal that is arranged must make sense for B.C.’s interests. That’s

been the approach that the Premier has taken in his dealings with the

federal government in Ottawa and the message that he made clear to the

Prime Minister when he visited. And it was also the message he made

clear to U.S. officials, especially with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross

when the Premier was able to secure a meeting with him within 30 days of

forming government, which hadn’t been done before by the previous

government.

Our interests have been well represented by the Premier, dealing

federally and with the U.S. We’re over 50 percent of the softwood lumber

exports to the U.S. from Canada, so we insist on being a strong voice,

not just with the federal government and their dealings with the U.S.

but across Canada. We have developed good relationships with Minister

Freeland federally and with our provincial counterparts. What our

insistence is, is that, first of all, we would believe that an open

trade situation is the best, but if we have to come to agreement on how

that trade is done, then the deal has to be in the best interests of

people in B.C. and the jobs that that represents first.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for that. I left that wide open, because

I just wanted to give the minister an opportunity to maybe talk a little

bit about things, getting more specifically on the softwood lumber

agreement. And I do understand that the trade negotiations and details

will be under a different ministry, and questions will be asked of that

minister when the opportunity arises through estimates.

Specifically, as you are probably well aware, industry in the

province does not have a united perspective as to what a trade deal

could or should look like. There is a current thought that the deal may

end up being some form of market share or quota. Some in industry are

opposed to that idea. So the question to the minister is: how will the

minister take into consideration and reflect the interests of the

various groups in the province when it’s not clear that a deal in its

current form that’s being talked about may be in the best interests of

all of our industry across the province?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member is correct in that, although industry is coalesced

around a fair deal and free trade, quota or market share has been

discussed publicly, as negotiations have been undertaken in the past

softwood lumber agreements. There are varied opinions on that, even

within the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, whether from the value-added

sector or independent processor sector.

Our chief negotiator, John Allan, who reports directly to the

deputy minister, regularly gets updates on development in negotiations,

regularly updates a number of associations — in fact, 13 different

groups in B.C. — and gets feedback from them on how their perspective is

being represented, whether it’s the well-known associations like the

B.C. Lumber Trade Council or more independent associations like the

Independent Wood Processors Association, lots of other organizations,

like the Truck Loggers and the UBCM executive council, because it’s

important for communities. There are 13 different organizations that

John Allan is involved in updating.

Also, we kept David Emerson on, as the member knows, as our trade

envoy. So the strategy is to ensure that the federal government

understands all these perspectives as they’re entering into negotiations

with the United States. I’m confident, through David Emerson and John

Allan and the efforts of the Premier in Ottawa in establishing a

relationship with the Prime Minister, that that’s in fact being

done.

J. Rustad: Given the discussions in the direction of a quota/market-share

type of agreement that has been discussed out in the public as a

possible solution, what is the minister’s priority, or priorities, under

an agreement that would potentially be shaped into that category of a

market-share or quota type of agreement?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m not going to speak publicly around quota or market share or

preference at this point, because I don’t want to presuppose or damage

any potential negotiations that might occur between the U.S. and Canada.

It’s a very sensitive time. We’ve made our views known to the federal

government. We’ve made our views known to Wilbur Ross, the Commerce

Secretary. Minister Freeland, federally, knows our views.

When the member asks what the outcome is that I would like to see,

I would like to see, if in fact it is not a free trade scenario, that

jobs are protected for B.C. workers and opportunities to expand our

businesses in B.C. are available to us. And while B.C. reluctantly

agreed to a market-share-based agreement, we are not prepared to move

further just to get a deal. I think I made that clear in my first

statement.

J. Rustad: So, specifically around softwood lumber, there are obviously

various components. Our industry is very diversified in the products it

produces. And under an agreement that may look like a quota or a market

share, there are certain components of our products that are of

different valuation and a higher sort of importance. I’m wondering if

the minister has turned his mind, or if it’s been part of the

negotiations, to look at exclusion of any particular components, in

particular the high-value products that are produced out of the coastal

area and potentially other areas of the province.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, very aware of the issue of exemptions or exclusions. I’ve met

with a number of the ministry associations and alliances that have that

as part of their core business, as well as individual businesses. I’m

well aware of the impacts of that value-added product to jobs and

revenue in B.C.

We’ve made several proposals for exclusion that the federal

government carried on our behalf in negotiations. All of those have been

rejected by the U.S. at this point. We have some very challenging times,

with the atmosphere in the U.S. right now. I guess I could put that. If

the member has some suggestions he wants to put on the record on how to

deal with that atmosphere, I’d be more than pleased to hear about

them.

[4:10 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Well, if the minister would prefer us to be out on those

negotiations, I’m sure we could make those sorts of arrangements. But

having said that, historically, British Columbia has had about a 56½

percent share of the U.S. market, of the exports into the U.S. That, of

course, has dropped somewhat recently because of the success of our

exports overseas and our diversification. Other jurisdictions in Canada

have not undertaken those types of diversifications and are very

dependent upon the U.S. market.

If we’re in a situation where we have a market share/quota type of

system, what British Columbia gets as a portion of the Canadian

settlement will be almost as critical as the deal with the United

States. How has the minister reflected that need, that issue, with the

Canadian government? What has the reception been with the Canadian

government? And will that be a component that will be resolved prior to

asking industry to accept any kind of softwood lumber deal between

Canada and the United States?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I want to start off this answer to this question from the member

opposite. It flows from his previous comment. Although we were making a

little bit of amusement in the last answer, it’s such a serious issue

that we’re determined to present a united front, not just from B.C. but

across Canada, because we know that the other side will be looking for

divisions within our unity to exploit to our detriment. So I look

forward to absolutely working together, because we know this is in the

best interests of people who live in communities in B.C., both rurally

and in urban areas.

As far as the member’s description…. Yeah, we did do a good job in

B.C. through diversification, and some other provinces have not done as

good a job. That message has gotten through to the federal team and

federal politicians. We’ve said that before a deal is accepted, we must

know how that deal is going to be played out by the federal government

amongst the different provinces — if indeed it is a market share, what

the allocation will be.

[4:15 p.m.]

I have called and been in touch and spoken with the Natural

Resources Canada Minister to make that view known to him. That view was

reinforced at the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers recently, where

the deputy minister was able to attend on my behalf. It’s also

reinforced through the chief negotiator, John Allan, and through the

Premier.

We believe that it’s an important point that you’ve brought up,

and we’re making sure that the federal government understands it

well.

J. Rustad: Thanks to the member opposite for that. I know it’s challenging to

ask and answer questions associated with something that is in the middle

of a negotiation because, obviously, the fields can change. Anything

that is said could potentially be a challenge for our negotiating teams.

I think all sides of this House want to see a deal that works for

British Columbia, that protects our jobs, that supports our forest

industry and offers opportunities for diversification and some renewal.

I appreciate that, but it behooves me to have to ask these questions for

the obvious reasons. This is estimates. This is an important part of the

future of our forest industry and what may come.

I think maybe I’ll leave softwood lumber there. There will be

other chances to talk about it going forward, but there are other topics

that I think we need to be able to spend some time on. I recognize that

I want to be able to give time to some other members as well, near the

end of the session. So we don’t have that much additional

time.

I would like to move, actually, now to talk about the proposed

changes to the carbon tax and what the potential impact of that is on

our forest industry. I believe it’s in the agreement that you have. I

can’t quite remember the name of it off the top of my head. But the

agreement that you have with the Green Party talked about the pricing of

slash and what that could look like and components that are important.

So maybe I’ll start off with something straightforward for the

minister.

If you could provide any kind of details on your thoughts of the

implementation of carbon pricing on slash, what could that potentially

look like? I know the agreement talked about implementing for April 1.

That’s coming fairly quickly, so I would like to know some details of

what the minister might be able to provide at this point.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member brings up a very important topic about dealing with

residuals on the timber-harvesting land base, including slash piles. I

know that dating back to even 2005 — I can say his name now — the

Forests Minister then, Minister Pat Bell, was interested in this topic

as well. Although we’ve seen some progress, we haven’t seen enough

progress on looking at different ways to use that fibre that is, in most

instances now, burned.

So we need to find ways to make it more attractive to get that

wood into a value-added product or into production. There are many

different facets that make that uneconomical at this point, but that

doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep looking at innovative ways to get that

off the land base and into a product that creates more value out of a

so-called slash pile or residual.

[4:20 p.m.]

As far as the carbon tax and carbon pricing, yes, it is in our

agreement with the Green members of this Legislative Assembly. The

actual specifics of how that is to be implemented — I’m going to ask the

member to use that question with the Minister of Environment. That

resides in his mandate letter.

J. Rustad: If I could ask for some clarity. Carbon tax is a taxation issue.

It’s actually an issue of Finance in terms of the implementation of it.

I’m curious as to why you would ask me to go to the Minister of

Environment associated with a taxation issue.

Hon. D. Donaldson: You can go to the Minister of Finance too. The Minister of

Environment deals with carbon pricing. The carbon taxation issue — you

can ask questions of the Minister of Environment when that comes up in

estimates.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister. Certainly, I’ll be bringing those

topics up with both ministries.

However, carbon pricing has the potential for significant impact

on forestry. So obviously input, I would assume, from the Minister of

Forests would be a critical component of making that policy and

developing that over the coming months for an implementation as of April

1. I’m wondering if the minister could confirm whether or not it will be

implemented for April 1. The second piece of that is, as the member has

called it, residuals: what will be included from the forest industry as

residuals or, as it was defined in the budget as being,

slash?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, absolutely, our ministry will have input into both the

Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Finance about how this plays

out.

I didn’t want the member to get the impression that I was lumping

all residuals into this versus slash burning. I just wanted to

demonstrate that we have tried to take action on residuals in this

province, and the slash is part of that residual. Specifically, the term

that is mentioned is “slash burning” and not all residuals, as he

pointed out.

[4:25 p.m.]

Our staff is working on this. We’ll have more to say, but it’s

early timelines right now. Again, on the specifics, I refer the member

to the Finance Ministry estimates and the Environment Ministry

estimates. That’s not to ignore, from my ministry’s perspective, that we

are sensitive to competitiveness and the pricing that’s applicable to

forest sector companies and how they have to be competitive.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that clarification. I didn’t get an answer as to

whether he could confirm this will be implemented for April 1.

Obviously, the potential of this and the impact on forestry could be

significant, and April 1 doesn’t allow a lot of time for companies to

make adjustments to any of their practices that they may be undertaking

over the course of the next six to eight months. I’m wondering if you

can confirm that.

The second piece of that is: does the minister have an estimate or

has the minister engaged with the forest companies with regards to what

the financial impact will be of putting a carbon price on slash or

residuals that are left behind from harvesting?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the question. I have been engaged with industry on

what their views are on this. I’ve had some really positive discussions

around whether and how to incent the utilization of material that’s left

in slash piles. We have had the broader conversation about how that

could happen, various tools, and how carbon taxation might fit into that

and how it fits into that.

I’ve been very impressed with the feedback I’ve got from the major

licensees on this, especially, because they are definitely wanting and

interested in finding different ways to deal with the slash left behind.

We’re doing some analysis on some of that feedback, providing it to the

Ministry of Environment and, as well, in discussions with the Ministry

of Finance.

That will inform the April date of implementation. Again, it’s in

consultation with industry and with our staff — not just in this

ministry, but in Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Finance —

about that implementation date. I don’t have an answer for you

specifically on the slash burning carbon taxation for that April

implementation date.

J. Rustad: I’m a little disturbed by the minister’s response, in not knowing

whether or not this will be implemented for April 1. This has a

potential to have a huge impact for industry. It was in the supply

agreement — or the agreement, whatever it was called — with the members

of the Green Party. It is in the current budget and the budget update

from the Minister of Finance.

I guess I will go to the Minister of Finance and ask for that if

the Minister of Forests is not aware of the implementation date of

something that has such a potential significant impact on the forest

industry. To that extent, just by rough estimates, harvesting can leave

anywhere between 8 percent to perhaps 25 percent or more of the fibre

behind in some of the pine beetle areas. There is currently legislation

in place, I believe, that forces companies to remove slash, to burn the

slash, to prevent fire hazard. Until there is another option, the

government will be forcing the companies to burn a product and taxing

them for burning it.

Is the minister planning to change those regulations so that

companies don’t have to burn, or is the only option for companies, until

they can find some other path — an avenue, with removing of the slash —

to accept the fact that they’re legislated to do something and it will

be taxed to actually do it?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m going to add some additional clarification that will also

provide an answer to his question.

Both the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Environment’s

mandate letters, as I was referring to earlier, include a commitment to

take measures to expand carbon tax to slash burning: “The province will

work towards this commitment over time while developing strategies with

industries to support the transition of carbon-intensive sectors to a

lower-carbon economy.”

So this is something we’ll do over time with industry. We have run

some trials and experimented with different methods other than burning,

including grinding the material into a state that is more easily

distributed across the land base, for instance.

J. Rustad: According to the confidence and supply agreement: “Implement an

increase of a carbon tax by $5 a tonne per year beginning April 1, 2018

and expand the tax to fugitive emissions and to slash-pile burning.” So

not quite sure, I guess, if the agreement with the Green Party is not

going to implement that. I guess that’s interesting to know as

well.

Doing the straight math, if you look at a $50-a-tonne carbon tax,

four years out, when the increase comes into place fully over time…. One

cubic metre of wood is approximately equivalent of a tonne of carbon. So

if you start looking at the slash left behind on a cut of 70 million

cubic metres, ballparkish, as a province, that 8 to 25 percent…. Let’s

use 15 as a percentage. That is a half-a-billion-dollar hit annually on

the bottom line of forest industries if it’s a full $50 a tonne on

carbon that is left behind and potentially burnt as slash in the

woods.

Furthermore, people often will go and use that slash to cut

firewood for heating, bonfires and other things. There are a lot of

unknowns, I guess, in terms of how that goes. Now, I will be exploring

this, obviously, with the Minister of Environment and the Minister of

Finance, but that kind of a hit to our forest industry, particularly

when I talk to the forest companies as the minister has…. And this isn’t

even on their radar screen at this point in terms of the time

screen.

They know that the government is talking about doing this. They

know that this is coming, but they had no idea that it could be coming

as early as April 1, and they have no idea what will be included and

what will not be included.

[4:40 p.m.]

This is a tremendous amount of uncertainty for our forest industry

in terms of carbon tax. I find it challenging that the minister hasn’t

got a comprehensive idea or plan around how to implement something that

could have that sizeable amount of a hit on the forest industry. I don’t

know if the minister wants to have any additional comments associated

with that or not. It’s fine. If you’d like to, great. If not, I’ll move

on to my next topic, which will be First Nations and the timber supply

associated with that.

Hon. D. Donaldson: To the member, again, I encourage him to take up those questions

with the ministries under whose mandate letters the topic is canvassed.

I do want to make sure that he knows, as I’ve already said, that I’ve

been in consultation with industry around this issue — and with specific

major licence holders, as well as some of the associations. The talks

have been very productive to date.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that. I’d like to move on to talking about First

Nations — the relationships with First Nations on the land base and the

forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreements, as well as UNDRIP

and its components of our timber supply, tenure, land base, etc. I

recognize that we may not have enough time to touch on all of this, so

I’ll try to do this at a high level going through from now.

We have — I can’t remember the exact number; I think it’s

something like 147 or 127 or 167 — some number of forest consultation

and revenue-sharing agreements. I recognize that those agreements are

authorized and signed through a different ministry, but the negotiations

are the mandate of the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource

Operations and Rural Development.

I’ve heard from many First Nations, through the recent gathering

of chiefs from around the province, as I’m sure the minister has, that

there is a general level of dissatisfaction with those disagreements.

There’s an expectation for a higher revenue share, as well as other

components.

Perhaps the first question would be: what is the minister’s

perspective on these agreements? Do you anticipate changes to the

mandate of the forest consultation and revenue-sharing

agreements?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m pleased to enter into this segment of the discussions around

my ministry’s budget estimates.

Yes, revenue-sharing is important, as the member knows, with First

Nations, and it’s under a new context now. It’s true. Many First Nations

aren’t pleased with the levels of revenue-sharing when it comes to

forestry revenues.

What we’re approaching this as is on a government-to-government

basis. So the implementation of the revenue-sharing mechanisms… The

forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreements expire at the end of

this fiscal year. So we’ve begun work on how to approach that with our

commitment for the United Nations declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples. We’ve got the Tsilhqot’in decision. That was three

years ago now, and that has to be considered. We’re working with our

Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation as well as other

ministries on a whole suite of engagement activities.

After 12 weeks as minister, much of that consumed by the wildfire

aspect, I’m engaging with our staff who’ve been working on this now to a

much more fulsome degree.

J. Rustad: I’m glad to hear that you are working on that. This is an

important component.

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member.

J. Rustad: Yes, sorry. Through the Chair and through to the

minister.

This is an important component of activities, obviously, on the

land base and an important component of certainty for companies on the

land base in terms of how activities will be happening. My understanding

is that you’re working through, from what you’ve said.

Can the minister provide some ideas or thoughts as to what he

would like to see in changes or future forest consultation and

revenue-sharing agreements, or whatever those may be called in the

future, the various components that he feels are important to be part of

it and whether or not those ideas or components are going to be able to

be met through current mandates or through expanded mandates?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m very excited about this aspect because I think there’s a lot

of unleashed potential, especially in rural areas where there’s a large

First Nations presence on the land base — in the minister’s own

constituency, for instance. I think that we can build upon what we’ve

heard back from First Nations at the recent leadership gathering but

also what staff has been hearing back from First Nations as far as the

current revenue-sharing agreements that are in place.

We know it’s about building local economies. The First Nations

that I know in rural areas are dedicated to the local communities and

local economies, and as we advance towards reconciliation, it’s not

simply…. This is the approach we’re taking. It’s not just simply the

narrow forest revenue-sharing mechanisms — which are important, because

that kind of cash and revenue-generating component is important — but

it’s about a bigger picture and a bigger engagement on a bunch of

different levels, with the revenue-sharing being one of them. It’s about

community stability and bridging that community stability with First

Nations revenue-sharing.

So it’s taking some time to seek the new mandates because we want

to listen to what First Nations have as far as their critiques of what

has happened in the past and improve upon that.

J. Rustad: Specifically, what I would ask the minister — if he could provide

some details as to the components that are a priority for this minister

in new agreements and relationships with First Nations, specifically on

forest tenure, volume and revenue.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member talked about some tools around tenure, around volume,

around revenue. I know he knows that we’re talking a few different

things there. Revenue-sharing is different than tenure and volume, but

the overall approach is to use those tools for First Nations to achieve

a greater stake in the activities that take place outside of their doors

on the forest lands and bringing their approach in to operate on the

land base in a more fulsome manner.

We’ve got different types of tenures that can be issued now,

whether it’s for First Nation woodland licences and those other kinds of

tools in the toolbox. But the approach that we’re taking and what’s

different about it is that we’re not presupposing or prescribing what

First Nations might be interested in. It’s a government-to-government

relationship, and it takes into account the principles of the United

Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the calls to

action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, because what we

understand is that the social cannot be divided out from the economic

when it comes to the health and the welfare of First Nations communities

— and I would also say the health and welfare of most rural

communities.

There’s a direct link between the calls to action and to the Truth

and Reconciliation Commission and what can be done on a forest land base

through my ministry, for instance. It’s about creating healthy people

who depend on a healthy land base, and that’s the holistic approach that

we’re taking. Again, we’re not presupposing or prescribing what that

might entail, but definitely what the member has talked about is in

tenure volume and revenue-sharing.

Those are some of the mechanisms, but the overall prescription or

approach that we’re taking is a government-to-government basis and

through the meeting of the social and the economic factors that plays

itself out on the land base.

J. Rustad: The reality in having had the opportunity to sit in that chair in

that ministry as well as the chair in the other ministry is that the

asks from First Nations are significant, and I understand that. I

understand the values and the principles within UNDRIP as well, the UN

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples — I guess we shouldn’t

use acronyms too much — and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, for

those watching at home.

The reality, however, in a declining fibre basket, the annual

allowable cuts dropping in various areas…. There is a friction point

between what First Nations would like and what is available. The reason

for asking the questions around the principles and the components

specifically, obviously, is to explore how that friction point will be

managed.

First Nations have a desire and, quite frankly, a right to the

land base. That is something that needs to be determined, obviously,

through negotiation wherever possible. But a large component of that

land base is our timber-harvesting land base, and with declining annual

allowable cuts, the amount of available fibre that would fall into those

land bases is somewhat less than I think the ask is or the expectation

is, under those agreements. The woodland tenures are a very small

component, a very small amount of fibre that’s available.

So the question to the minister: is he prepared to put larger

components of volume and land base on the table? I’m asking this from a

perspective of forestry, because, obviously, there are components of

that that fall under other ministries.

[5:00 p.m.]

If he is prepared to be putting those on the table as part of

meeting his mandate around the principles of the UN declaration of the

rights of Indigenous peoples, where may that volume allocation come

from?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Absolutely, we’re interested in partnering and exploring ways for

First Nations to have a broader stake in forestry activity on the lands

that surround their communities and the lands that are in many rural

areas. The approach that we want to take is having a plan in place that

is based on the long term and what’s good for the province and, as well,

what’s good for First Nations and learning from them what that

is.

I’ll give an example of what I don’t think turned out to be a

long-term plan. It was the decision — and I don’t disagree with the

decision, at the time — to use much of the opportunity for the mountain

pine beetle uplift, from the previous government, as a reconciliation

tool. That volume, in many instances, was used as a reconciliation tool,

in awarding some of that volume to First Nations. I don’t disagree with

that. That was a decision at the time. But what I do not find productive

is the fact that there wasn’t a plan after that. Everybody knew that the

mountain pine beetle wood would run out eventually.

Many First Nations, because of the mountain pine beetle wood

allocation, were able to start up businesses and get business experience

within the forest sector. But now that the mountain pine beetle wood

isn’t there anymore…. There was no next step, next plan. That’s not the

kind of plan we want to enter into as a government. We want to have a

long-term plan with First Nations, in partnership, in order to ensure

that both the province and First Nations are successful.

[5:05 p.m.]

As they said in the Delgamuukw case, people who came here are not

leaving. They’re here to stay. So First Nations are working together

with the newcomers in this province. The other reality is that the

Tsilhqot’in decision was fought by the previous government, in denying

that there was Aboriginal title. It was found by the Supreme Court that

that wasn’t true.

What we want to do is recognize that Aboriginal title and Crown

title exist on the land base together and how to work together into the

future to reconcile those — what that means. Reconciling what that means

is: joint decision-making processes, government-to-government

negotiations about how you get to that.

I know I’m entering into a lot of areas where my ministry overlaps

with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, but in

large part, a lot of the reality of where this plays out on the land is

through forestry operations. Those are the two components that I would

say are the foundation of our approach — that we want a long-term

solution, not just short term, even if short term means ten years. No,

we want a long-term solution, comprehensive agreements, and the reality

is finding ways of how Aboriginal title and Crown title coexist on the

land together.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that. It’s probably worth noting that the

Tsilhqot’in case was fought by the NDP as well in the ’90s. It wasn’t

exclusive to any particular government, and it came from an action that

happened under a Social Credit government back in the early ’80s. The

reason for asking the questions around First Nations and tenure

components is, obviously, around uncertainty on the land

base.

I’m about to pass it over to the member for Saanich North and the

Islands, who has a few questions. That uncertainty, of course, is a big

component of companies, the decisions that they make. It is going to be

a very interesting component of the future for B.C. Timber Sales and

timber tenure in general across the province, not to mention potential

impacts on the revenue side for the Ministry of Finance. It’ll be

interesting to explore that more as we go.

I’m not sure if we’ll have an opportunity to come back to this

topic. At this point, there are a number of other things that we want to

wrap up, and I know we’ve only got just over an hour left. There are

other questions we want to do.

At this particular point, I’m going to cede the floor to the Green

Party member to ask some questions, and then we’ll come back. We’ll have

a few other questions from members on this side, as well, and a few

other topics to try to squeeze in, if we can.

A. Olsen: Hello, Minister. This will be my first opportunity to ask

questions in estimates. I want to take a few minutes to canvass some

issues on a pretty high level, a broad level, just to get some ideas

about where you’re going, and then I’ll cede the floor back to our

colleagues across the way.

My first question is around data and the collection of data. I’m

just wondering how you would characterize the ministry’s collection of

data, understanding what we have in our forests. Where do we stand with

that right now? What kind of trees do we have? How many are there? I’ll

continue in just a sec, but that’s my first stab at it here.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the member for the question. It’s the first time

we’ve been able to chat in the Legislature. I look forward to more of it

and more chatting outside of the Legislature as well, which we haven’t

found enough time to do either. I look forward to that, though, because

I think we have lots of shared interests and things to explore

together.

As far as the member mentioned, inventory and data collection, we

in the ministry keep an up-to-date base inventory — so an inventory from

a tree forest aspect — but also inventories of other aspects. When

you’re talking about data collection, I’m a firm believer in the

holistic approach. It’s not just trees that make up a forest. It’s other

vegetation and animals and other species as well.

We have a ten-year inventory plan. We’re four years into it, so

we’re entering the fifth year. As I said, it’s updated every year. It’s

used to support strategic decision-making. You asked…. We were going to

talk about high level, and that’s high-level kind of

decision-making.

I think what’s important is to note that new technologies are

being adopted in that plan as they become available and are proven

effective. For instance, remote sensing information is being used now to

map the fires that have taken place in the Interior. It’s important

because of disease and because of fire that that kind of inventory data

has to be kept up to date. So at a general level, that’s what I’ll

respond to for now. I’ll wait for your further questions.

A. Olsen: You are a bit tracking in the direction that I’m going in. How

would you characterize the investment that the ministry is making in new

technology, the potential partnerships in the B.C. tech industry, in

really driving forward to make sure that we are leading the world in

gathering the data? This will fit into a question that’s coming up with

respect to the decision-making around the cut. How do you characterize

the investments that your ministry is making in making sure that we’re

leading the world in the data collection side of it — potential

partnerships with the technology industry?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: It took a little while to form a response because there are lots

of things happening, as far as the tech front goes.

The investment plan we have now is on track to meet the goals that

are in that ten-year plan. There are nine goals. We believe we’re on

track with the investment plan. But you know, like many government

ministries and subministries, you can always use more resources. The

ones that we have, we’re using efficiently and effectively.

I’ll give a couple of examples. When you talked about new tech and

partnerships, we have a drone working group, and that doesn’t refer to

robots within the ministry. Those are actually the drones that we know

about, that fly through the air. We have a working group about how that

technology can be applied and also protocols about how that technology

should be applied. It’s not just theoretical when we talk about data

collection and when you asked about data collection. We definitely used

the drone technology in the fire season. That’s because drones could fly

when smoke was thick. You can’t do that safely with aircraft.

We’re also looking at economic ways to collect lidar data. I

believe you’re familiar with lidar data. For instance, we’ve got

third-party agreements to get access to lidar data. That’s a way of

partnering with technology businesses.

We have research interests with Natural Resources Canada about new

technologies and, as well, with FPInnovations, which is separate from

government and is able to leverage money from government into

partnerships around technology. So we’re exploring a lot of ways to try

to get the work done in an efficient manner but also in a very effective

manner as well.

A. Olsen: When it comes to collecting the data, understanding where we’re at

in the forest and then making the decision about the annual allowable

cut, what….

I understand that what we have in our forest is one of the

factors. What are the factors that go into…? Again, in broad

characterizations for me, what decisions go into determining that annual

allowable cut? Who makes these decisions within government? Is it just

the chief forester, or are there other factors at play in making that

decision?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ve gotten to know more about the chief forester’s

responsibilities in the last 12 weeks than I ever knew possible. I’ll

relay some of that information to you and how the decisions are impacted

by not just what the statutory obligations are of the chief

forester.

Yes, the chief forester, under

section 8 of the Forest Act, is the

statutory decision-maker around annual allowable cut determination. As a

minister, I cannot fetter or interfere with that determination. She

looks at a number of factors that influence the rate of harvest,

including productivity, age class of the trees, the economic

like disease and disturbance that have impacted the forest harvesting

land base.

However, there are areas that she also has to consider that are

within the purview of the minister and the work that the rest of the

ministry does. That’s, for instance, land use objectives. In the rest of

the work in the ministry, in conjunction with First Nations, communities

and tenure holders, we set land use objectives. That’s the starting

point that the chief forester uses in her determination process when she

looks at all those other factors.

Importantly for me, because I see the forest not simply as an

economic tool but an economic tool linked to communities and linked in

various ways to social outcomes, is that we also are able to set

socioeconomic objectives for that annual allowable harvest. The chief

forester uses those objectives as well in her determination of the

overall cut.

So she has some specifics under

section 8 that include areas where

we can set the objectives under land use planning and social economic

objectives.

[5:25 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I’m just going to ask one more, and then I’ll concede the floor

back, because we’ve got this spring — and maybe many, many more days in

the spring and leading up to the spring — to talk about some of these

issues.

I have to admit that the forestry file is not one that comes

naturally to me, nor is it one that is not intimidating in any way,

shape or form for someone who’s just coming into forestry. It’s an

incredibly important industry in our province, as you know, and it’s

only one part of your ministry, so I intend on taking more time the next

time around.

I would just say that in the number of groups that I’ve had come

through and talk to me about forestry and try to bring a neophyte up to

speed on this file, one of the biggest concerns that I’ve heard over and

over and over again is the decisions about the annual cut — the

potential science or lack of a science basis of the decisions that are

being made on that.

Part of the reason why I was asking the question about data and

why I want to connect the two here is because there have been a lot of

concerns raised, coming through the office, both on the constituency

side and here, about the independence and the decisions that are being

made. So I want to just, I guess, honour what I’ve heard coming through

and try to gain a better understanding. We can do it both here in the

chamber, and we can also do it out.

In characterizing and honouring what I’ve heard, I need to mention

it. However you respond to that, you can. I look forward to the

opportunities to discuss this both privately and in the Legislature as

we go forward.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, absolutely, people are concerned about the annual allowable

cut. I’ve heard that as well, and we hear it not just in the communities

we represent but through the Union of B.C. Municipalities annual

conference or the First Nations leadership gathering. That is top of

mind, and it’s great that it’s top of mind, because it means that people

feel ownership over the forests that surround the

communities.

I think that’s great, because the more people that feel ownership

and are interested, the more eyes we have on the activities and the more

interest there is. I think that it’s great that decisions about the

annual allowable cut are something that are of interest to people rather

than just laissez faire.

A lot of what we’re managing is uncertainty. There are no

absolutes, but in the data collection we try to reduce that uncertainty

to the level that we’re confident in predicting outcomes. But we’d be a

little full of ourselves if we were able to say, in connection to

nature, that we can eliminate all uncertainties, because that’s just not

possible.

However, what I want to do is to offer to the member in his role

as…. I don’t know if the Green caucus calls it critic or spokesperson,

but I know that your portfolio includes forestry, so we would definitely

be able to set up a meeting between you and the chief forester to learn

more about the questions you’ve asked and what the process is that she

undertakes. We can reach out and make that happen with you.

[5:30 p.m.]

I. Paton: Two issues, which I’m going to try and be very brief on because I

know we’re pressed for time. I don’t need huge, long answers, but it’s

certainly something that I hope we can bring back in future with some

answers.

The first one I’d like to talk about is a very, very serious issue

in my community of Ladner and Tsawwassen. We have hundreds of kilometres

of dikes, of course, in my riding, based on the Fraser River, based on

the dikes along Boundary Bay and the Salish Sea.

We have a part of the town of Ladner, in the old village of

Ladner, called Chisholm Street. It’s a street that’s about four blocks

long. It’s kind of this dogpatch part of town that no one wants to

rebuild on, but we’ve got the perfect dike along Chisholm Street, with a

small

section of the Fraser River on the other side of this dike. It’s

the perfect area of our village, and we’re trying to sell it. We’ve

rezoned it, and we’re trying to sell developers to come in and build

gift shops or fish-and-chip shops or restaurants or whatever. We want to

redevelop Chisholm Street in the town of Ladner. We also have a great

number of float homes in the Ladner area, along the edge of the

secondary channels of the Fraser River.

The point I’m getting to is water lot leases. It has become such

an issue. We cannot get developers to come in and build. We want our

community of Ladner to one day look like Steveston, with this beautiful

water frontage along the river, with boardwalks, gift shops and

restaurants. None of the developers will come in because they cannot get

long-term water lot leases.

Also, with our float home people, they virtually can’t sell their

float homes right now because no banks will finance potential customers

to come and purchase float homes when we’re only offering them, through

the province, two-year water lot leases or five-year water lot leases.

We need to deal with these water lot leases and get them bumped up again

to 30-year or 40-year water lot leases so that we can get development on

our water frontage in the Ladner area.

I guess my question is: could we please have a look into this and

move forward with it? I know there’s consultation that has gone on, I

believe with Musqueam, but we need to get to an end to this, try and get

these water lot leases sorted out and get them back up to 30 years or 40

years.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thanks to the member for describing the situation that you have.

We’re now into another area of what this ministry has some jurisdiction

over, and that’s the leases that you referred to.

I met with Mayor Lois Jackson at the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

She outlined the situation that you describe and I can’t really disagree

with, especially from a ministry that has, let’s say, Ladner.… We’ll say

it falls within rural development. I know it’s not, exactly, but within

a ministry that has that in its title. The desire to recreate Chisholm

Street and the vision that was presented at that meeting — it sounds

very exciting.

I know that there have been concerns around the lease transfer

from the federal government to the province, and that involved a lot of

focus with the Musqueam. Initially, two-year leases were issued, which

is…. I take your point fully that that’s really hard to get certainty

around economic investment when you only have a two-year lease. We have

about 70 percent of the leases into somewhat more of a long-term

situation, five to ten years, but there’s lots of work to do with the

Musqueam. We’ve got staff engaged with the municipality, and you have my

commitment that we’re working hard towards a solution to get Ladner to

the point where you want to see it, as the representative

MLA.

I. Paton: Thank you, Minister, for a very concise answer. I appreciate that,

and hopefully, we can move forward. My second question this afternoon

will be in a similar area, called Brunswick Point. If you follow the

secondary channel of the Fraser River under the Westham Island Bridge,

you come to one of the most primo pieces of farmland in all of Canada —

class 1 soils known as the Brunswick Point.

If we recall, in 1968-69, 4,000 acres of farmland was expropriated

in Delta for the expansion of the Roberts Bank coal port. Most of that

land was sold back to the farm families that originally owned that land,

except for the Brunswick Point, this beautiful point of class 1

farmland, still owned and farmed by families such as the Gilmores, the

Montgomerys, the Cuthberts, the Swensons and the McKims. This has been

sitting in limbo. Now, just right next to Brunswick Point…. By the way,

this is the one of the most ecologically fine areas for migrating ducks

and geese and swans from up north to land on the farmland.

Mr. Minister, what we have here is a situation where we have

economic development right across the street from Deltaport Way. We’re

covering up farmland with economic development for TFN with sand and

gravel. We cannot see this happen any further with Brunswick Point. The

farmers there really cannot afford to purchase their land back, but at

this point, we need to put this land at Brunswick Point into some sort

of a covenant that says it’s going remain in agricultural land in

perpetuity, and perhaps a third party could be in charge of it, such as

the B.C. Nature Trust or Ducks Unlimited, to monitor this land and lease

it back to the farming families with a covenant that says Brunswick

Point will always stay in agricultural land.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for drawing my attention to this particular topic. I’ve

never visited Brunswick Point, but it sounds like a tremendously

attractive area. And yes, the member is waving his arm to come on down,

and I would like to do that at some point, because it sounds very

productive, which I’m interested in as a person who grows their own

food. I shouldn’t say “as a person”; it’s my wife who does it all now.

It sounds like a fantastic area for agricultural use.

We don’t have any plans to remove it from the ALR, but I

understand it’s a very complex topic. The briefing note has outlined

some of the complexities. What I would like to offer the member, if he

feels it would be beneficial, is a staff briefing on all the points that

have gone on, as far as the ministry is concerned, in the past and that

have led to the situation that the families at Brunswick Point are

facing now.

J. Tegart: Honest, it’s my last question. I know it’s been a long couple of

days.

I want to talk about McAbee fossil beds interpretive centre. I

know the minister met with local government at recent UBCM meetings and

discussed this centre. This project is a partnership with local

communities, First Nations, Thompson Rivers University and local

government. It’s focusing on learning and research, a world-renowned

fossil bed and very much an economic development driver in our area, in

an area that is going to be challenged after the wildfires and the

floods of this year.

This project had a budget commitment of $5 million in the 2017-18

budget year, with $500,000 for each of the following two years for

operations. The question to the minister is: is the $5 million included

in your current budget? And is the commitment of $500,000 for the

following two years in your budget, also, or in your plans?

[5:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you, Chair, and through you to the member: I’m sorry it’s

your last question. I’d be looking forward to further questions from

you.

I apologize for the length of time it took. After nine hours of

budget estimates, I got into the topic so much that I forgot that we

were supposed to get back to you. That’s the main part of budget

estimates — getting back to the people who ask the questions.

I’m familiar with the project. It was brought to my attention in

emails early on, shortly after I was sworn in — I think in July. It was

also brought to my attention when the Premier and I visited Cache Creek

and met with the council there. And then I had a more fulsome discussion

around it with Ashcroft at the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

To me, the McAbee fossil site — a heritage site, as well — is

something that I’m very interested in from a rural development

perspective. We had some answers earlier around recovery versus rural

development. For me, this is a strictly rural development kind of

project. I know, just in passing, we’ve very, very briefly touched on it

in informal conversation, yourself and I.

My understanding is that through the rural dividend, there was a

business plan funded. It focused on site protection, but it was a

business plan. It had a phased approach — that, as far as I know, is

that the proposal for the amounts of money you discussed was a proposal

from that business plan. It wasn’t locked into this budget that was

presented back in February and renewed, recently, in the budget

update.

[5:50 p.m.]

What I can commit to, though, is that this is a project that is of

high interest, obviously, to the communities. There’s the recovery

aspect, but this is rural development, so we would definitely like to

work further with the working group and discuss how this fits into the

rural development program that we’re going be rolling out.

I know that other areas have had significant economic generation

from the interest in fossils. Tumbler Ridge, who I’ve met with — their

visitation to that community has gone up phenomenally because of the

geocaching associated with the fossils there. It’s something that we’d

love to work more on with the communities. So I’ll be back in touch with

the communities, and I’ll keep in touch with you on moving forward with

this project.

J. Rustad: It has been a long day for sure. I only have another 15 topics or

so to touch on in the next ten minutes. Sorry. I jest at the end of the

day.

Actually, I want to focus a little bit on some of the permitting

and permitting issues that are out there.

Oh, sorry. Just before I do that, there is one other question I

want to ask associated with forestry and forest management. In

particular, the spruce beetle epidemic, of course, is another growing

problem that we have in the province, in the northern areas of the

province in particular. So I’m just wondering — a budget-related

question: what is the funding level that the ministry has allocated for

managing and trying to deal with the spruce beetle for the current year,

and what do you see projected for funding to manage the spruce beetle

epidemic in the upcoming years?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, we’re very concerned about the spruce beetle epidemic. It

seems we just get finished with one epidemic and another comes along.

The devastation from the mountain pine beetle was obviously a major

focus, and the member will know, from his constituency.

Now it’s the spruce beetle. We have a spruce beetle management

plan. I’ve been hearing about this topic from communities at the Union

of B.C. Municipalities, from major licensees as well as First Nations.

In this fiscal year, 2017-2018, there has been a total of over $1

million — $1.655 million — and that’s primarily on surveys to identify

priority operational areas. There are trap tree programs and timber

decay research. Based on the data we get back from that, we’ll be able

to plan our budget and our budget submission for the projected year, as

the member asked about.

C. Oakes: A quick question that I canvassed during the estimates of the

Solicitor General. He mentioned that I needed to bring this forward to

these estimates. Volunteer fire departments are critically important in

the fight our communities faced with the B.C. wildfires. Many of these

volunteer fire departments operate through non-taxation, because they’re

in unincorporated areas. Their operational costs are often bottle drives

and garage sales.

My question is to the minister. Is there any money allocated

towards the replacement of any of the lost equipment that volunteer fire

departments experienced during the B.C. wildfire season — specifically,

the challenges that they have because they’ve used up their trucks and

used up all their equipment and have no capabilities to

replace?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I don’t want to consume too much time, but definitely I’m very

familiar with volunteer fire departments in the area. I live, in fact….

Up until recently, our home wasn’t covered by fire protection. Through

reciprocal agreements through nearby volunteer fire depart