The committee met at 8:02 a.m.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

M. Bernier (Chair): Today we’re going to be considering another report from the Office of the Auditor General on avalanche safety on provincial highways. Again, I want to welcome all of the people that we have joining us today. The Ministry of Transportation has some staff today, and the office of the comptroller general, of course. Great to see Carl today.

We’re going to be starting off as we always do. Thank you to Michael Pickup and his team from the Office of the Auditor General.

Great to see you on this beautiful Monday morning here in Victoria, Michael.

Without further ado, I think, as always, I’ll just turn it over to you, and we’ll get going.

Consideration of
Auditor General Reports

Avalanche Safety on
Provincial Highways

M. Pickup: Thank you so much. It is indeed a beautiful morning here in Victoria.

Speaking of the beautiful morning, I would like to acknowledge that I’m coming from Victoria, the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ, Songhees and Esquimalt peo­ple as well.

Before I introduce the folks on the team who are with me today and turn it over to them for the presentation, I want to acknowledge that I certainly am wearing orange today, remembering the 215 lives that were found at the burial site in Kamloops as well.

On my walk to work this morning, I purposely counted out 215 steps, and I realized that takes three city blocks. That’s how many people would have been found there. My heart and thoughts go out to all of those folks, particularly being an Indigenous person and knowing well the generational impacts that generational trauma can have on people. This certainly is a very sad event, but I’m hopeful that when you see the outpouring of care coming from non-Indigenous people as well, that is a sign of hope.

[8:05 a.m.]

Anyway, I did just want to mention that before introducing folks with me. So the people with me today are Russ Jones, Deputy Auditor General, whom you all know well. Malcolm Gaston is not with us today. He couldn’t be with us. And René Pelletier, executive director from our performance audit shop; Kevin Keates, manager, who will be walking through a presentation with you; and Cameron Giannotti, who was a critical part of the team as well.

Before turning it over to Kevin for our brief presentation, I want to acknowledge my appreciation to the team for all the hard work that went into this audit, especially given that this was during a pandemic. That created some challenges in doing an audit like this. So I really want to thank the team, including the people that I just mentioned but also Jane Bryant, director on our performance audit team who is not here with us today.

I also want to thank the staff at the Ministry of Transportation for their support and for their work on this audit, recognizing that any audit comes with a certain level of audit burden for those that we are auditing. We get that.

I also want to just put out a special note of thanks to the regional folks that we visited and worked with, who were very accommodating to the team, especially given that the team got to do a helicopter tour to observe avalanche control operations. I want to thank all of the folks at the ministry, including in the region, for helping us do that. I’m just sorry that I missed that, as that predated my time as Auditor General. Maybe at some point down the road.

I think I’m going to turn it over now to Kevin Keates, who is the manager of the audit. In keeping with the rhythm we seem to be in now, he’ll do a brief presentation, essentially walking through the Audit at a Glance with you.

Thank you, Kevin.

K. Keates: Good morning, Chair and committee members. Thank you very much for your interest in our report on the management of avalanche safety on provincial highways, which was tabled April 27.

I’ll essentially be walking you through the information in the Audit at a Glance, which provides a summary of the report, including the key findings. If you have the document in front of you, feel free to follow along.

In B.C., there are approximately 1,600 avalanche paths that pose risks to highway users. Each year, from early fall to late spring, avalanches on these paths can injure or kill highway users and damage vehicles and property. They can also lead to highway closures, restricting the movement of people and goods, impacting the province’s economy.

Our audit assessed whether the ministry is effectively managing its avalanche safety program to ensure the safety of highway users and to minimize the frequency and duration of avalanche-related road closures. We examined the program’s activities from 2018 to 2020 and used historical data to assess trends and indicators of highway safety and reliability.

Overall, we concluded that the ministry effectively managed its avalanche safety program, with some exceptions. In the last 20 years, no avalanche-related fatalities were reported on provincial highways. Over a similar period, both the frequency and duration of highway closures decreased. However, the ministry can still improve in some areas. For example, some data on avalanche paths, road closures and incidents were not recorded or were outdated, impeding performance monitoring and analysis.

We made eight recommendations to improve highway-user safety and reliability in areas that include data collection on avalanche paths, road closures and incidents, avalanche control infrastructure planning and follow-up on incident report recommendations.

Just continuing on halfway down the first page of the Audit at a Glance, I will now highlight our key findings that support this conclusion. First I will go through some of the key areas that need to be in place to effectively manage highway-user safety and reliability. These include avalanche path mapping, weather and snowpack data collection, and resources, tools and training. Later I will provide an overview of our findings in the areas of highway-user safety and reliability.

The ministry had mapped about 1,600 avalanche paths across the province. However, some avalanche path information was outdated. For two-thirds of all paths, there was no indication of when the ministry had last updated the path information. Further, the ministry did not have descriptive information for 14 percent of paths that it classified as active.

The ministry collected appropriate weather data from its 68 remote avalanche weather stations and 99 road weather stations. Further, the ministry collected information on snowpack structure and stability consistent with Canadian Avalanche Association guidelines. We also found that the ministry provided timely avalanche information to key stakeholders.

All but one of the program’s 18 permanent positions were fully staffed. We examined the training and certifications of one staff member from each of the eight field offices and found that in all eight cases, staff met ministry training requirements.

Moving on to the second page of the Audit at a Glance, we also looked at the tools and infrastructure used by the program. We found that the program had the day-to-day tools such as explosives, signs and gates needed to manage the program.

[8:10 a.m.]

Since 2016, the ministry had invested in new avalanche control infrastructure in three locations. However, the pro­gram lacked a provincewide needs assessment process for ranking large-scale investments.

I will now go through our key findings in the areas of highway user safety and highway reliability. Highway user safety is a primary objective of the avalanche safety program. As previously stated, there were no reported avalanche-related deaths on provincial highways in the past 20 years. However, avalanche-related deaths near highways had occurred before that period. For example, in January 1999, two avalanche safety program staff were killed by an avalanche while undertaking field work.

Avalanche-related incidents may range from an avalanche that affects an open highway but causes no vehicle damage to an avalanche that harms highway users and damages property. From 2010 to 2020, the average annual number of incidents was three. This is down from a high of 42 in 1982. While the ministry reviewed incidents, it did not have a process to track and follow up on actions.

The avalanche safety program is also mandated to minimize avalanche-related road closures due to the importance of reliable highways to the provincial economy. The number of closures and total closure time both showed decreasing trends.

In our review of avalanche-related road closures, we found that the ministry’s data was incomplete. We estimated that about 10 percent of road closures were not recorded. The ministry had taken action to improve highway reliability. The ministry had installed new avalanche control infrastructure in recent years, expanded ditches and catchment areas for runout zones and updated maintenance contract requirements. I would like to highlight the three questions that are included in the Audit at a Glance for readers to consider as they review this report.

This concludes my presentation. I would like to thank the dedicated staff at the ministry for their support and cooperation throughout this audit. Thank you very much.

I will now turn it back over to the Auditor General.

M. Pickup: Thank you, Kevin, so much for that.

I wasn’t going to add anything, Chair. We’ll pause at that point.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thank you, Michael. Thank you again to you and your team for this report. For some of us on the screen, we live in zones of the province where we experience some of the challenges that come with a large amount of snowpack and avalanches. So it was an interesting read. I’m sure there might be a few questions later on.

Before we get to those, I think it would be important, maybe, to turn it over to the ministry. It’s great to see Kevin Richter on the screen and some of this staff. Maybe I’ll turn things over to Kevin.

I know you have a few things that you want to go through regarding some of the recommendations and some of the steps forward for the ministry.

Good morning, Kevin.

K. Richter: Good morning. Thank you very much, Chair, committee members and Auditor General.

First, I’d like to acknowledge that I am joining you today from the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, the Esquimalt and Songhees.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to report back on the Office of the Auditor General’s independent audit of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s avalanche safety program.

I also would like to thank the Office of the Auditor General for working with us in their review and for their valuable advice on how we may improve.

The ministry accepts all of the OAG’s recommendations. The ministry has started working on all the recommendations and is committed to completing each recommendation.

Deputy Minister Krishna sends her regrets that she was not able to attend today due to other commitments.

Today I’ll be presenting the ministry’s response to the OAG’s recommendations on the highways avalanche sa­fety program.

I’d like to introduce my colleagues who are joining me here today: Ed Miska, acting assistant deputy minister of highway operations, and Robb Andersen, senior manager of avalanche and weather programs. They are here to help me with answering any questions that you may have.

The Office of the Auditor General, in their summary, has covered much of the information already. So I’ll only provide a brief summary. The audit of the avalanche safety program began in December of 2018 and was concluded with the release of the audit report in April 2021. The OAG reviewed 20 years of data. The OAG interviewed over 20 people in the ministry. They were following four specific lines of inquiry.

I’d like to acknowledge that the OAG did an extremely great job of understanding the uniqueness and complexities of an avalanche risk management program. It was wonderful to note that they recognized certain things such as the ministry collects appropriate weather and snowpack data to manage avalanche risks on highways.

[8:15 a.m.]

The ministry plays an important role in distributing avalanche-related information to various stakeholders and highway users. The ministry provides timely avalanche forecast information to key stakeholders and other people that can enter into the back country, and the public is provided relevant information on avalanche-related highway closures. Technicians are adequately and appropriately trained, and the technicians have the necessary day-to-day tools to do their jobs. In addition, it was good to note that we’ve seen a decrease in avalanche-related closures. We’ve also seen a trending decrease in the duration of avalanche-related closures.

The ministry would like to thank the OAG for all their work. The ministry accepts all the OAG’s recommendations. As such, the ministry has created a workplan and has started work on all the recommendations, with some of the recommendations, about 50 percent, complete so far.

Recommendation No. 1. This is with regards to recommending that the ministry “update its records for avalanche paths that pose a risk to highway users and implement a schedule to periodically update this information.” We’ve started work on this recommendation. Meetings with the avalanche staff have occurred, and a workplan is in place.

Phase 1 of the work requires each avalanche program to review their specific path data to identify and update accordingly. This work is currently underway. Phase 2 will include getting updated photographs and updated avalanche path maps, and this will be done by a contracted third party. We will be issuing this RFP in the spring of next year.

Most of this work will be done by ministry staff. I want the Chair and the committee to recognize that all of our field people are very familiar with their pass. It’s just that we’re missing that important step of making sure that it’s recorded and that it’s updated to reflect wildfires or the growth in vegetation or, with climate change, less accumulation of snow, and we’re seeing less activity. So we’re certainly working on this.

Recommendation 2. We have started work on this recommendation. We’re looking at our current staffing levels. We’re reviewing the roles and positions within the avalanche team, and we do have a provincial safety position. So we’re looking at all of this and also considering a staffing plan on how all these positions can work together to address this recommendation. Staffing will be considered this summer. We have a job description in hand, should we go and post it this summer.

Recommendation 3. The ministry accepts this recommendation and will produce a provincial strategic plan for avalanche investments which will cover the next five to ten years. An initial meeting with district and regional staff has occurred, which included avalanche staff. In that planning process, an identification of projects has begun.

The ministry will then take these projects and the plan to figure out how to evaluate, prioritize and fund these projects in future years. We already have a process of using business cases to evaluate projects and to fit them within our funding envelope. So we’re going to be taking the avalanche investment project ideas and integrating into this process. We’ve already started this, and we hope to have this strategic plan completed by the fall of 2023.

The ministry accepts this recommendation and is working to update our avalanche hazard index. We will be retaining an external consultant to help us with this. The first step is being undertaken by staff, and this is looking at best practices and also other avalanche programs that exist out there to understand what hazard index they’re using. This information will help guide us and inform the consultant that we retain to figure out what sort of index is most appropriate with us. So we will be working in concert with the consultant to develop this new hazard index. This work will be completed by the fall of 2022.

The ministry accepts this recommendation. The work to complete this recommendation is well underway.

[8:20 a.m.]

The avalanche and weather program has implemented a process to ensure incident data is adequately recorded. This includes…. We’ve done an initial phase of training to discuss the importance of this and how the information is data entered, and also the reporting procedures. We’ll then be supplementing it again this fall with a further round of training to all avalanche staff to ensure the data is accurately recorded and make sure that if there are any issues, that those are addressed.

An update to our avalanche safety plan has also been made to clearly define the process and the expectations for incident data recording. An incident tracking system will be implemented and maintained so that we can follow up on this and make sure that the work is being done. Quality assurance reviews will be conducted to ensure that all incident data is accurately recorded and up to date.

The ministry accepts this recommendation, and work is well underway. The avalanche and weather programs have implemented processes to ensure incident data is adequately recorded and followed up. Actions are being considered or taken. An update to our avalanche safety manual has been made, which will clearly define the process and expectations. Then the staffing review that I talked about earlier will also be looking, if that senior avalanche officer or the safety officer will be doing the follow-ups, to make sure that the actions have been considered and taken.

The ministry identified this as a project prior to the OAG’s audit and the work to complete was ongoing during the time of the OAG’s audit. The transportation and infrastructure information management branch is leading this project. The avalanche and weather programs — our program is the project sponsor. The weather services transformation project delivers an avalanche and weather information system, supporting both avalanche and weather programs. The weather services transformation project includes capabilities related to streamlining and improving the collection of avalanche data.

The project is divided into two phases. Phase 1, improving capabilities related to weather stations, will be completed by this fall. phase 2, additional capabilities to streamline and improve avalanche data collection, will be next. This will be making it easier to input and easier to fix errors. The existing system is quite an old system, so with new advances in technology and new software and better user-operator interfaces, we’re taking advantage and updating this system so that it works far more easily for the technicians.

The ministry accepts this recommendation as work has started. This will also involve two phases.

Phase 1. The ministry is currently collecting and analyzing data as well as examining best practices for performance metrics and targets from other, similar avalanche programs. This will aid us in developing performance measures and targets to evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of the ministry’s avalanche safety program.

Phase 2. The ministry will hire a contractor to help develop performance metrics. The ministry intends to issue this RFP next summer, after we’ve done our jurisdictional scan and review. We’ll work closely with the contractor and other jurisdictions to provide input and direction in developing these metrics.

Again, we really appreciate the work of the OAG and would like to thank the OAG for working with us and helping us identify areas we can improve. We’re fully on board and committed to completing all of the OAG’s recommendations. We very much appreciate that the OAG recognizes that avalanches can be unpredictable and that risks to the highway users are ongoing. The ministry can mitigate but not eliminate risk to all highway users, as it continues to strive to keep highways open and safe.

Our avalanche staff are proud of the work they do and are dedicated to providing a safe and reliable transportation system. Again, the ministry would like to thank the Office of the Auditor General for conducting their audit of the avalanche safety on provincial highways in British Columbia. Again, we accept and appreciate all of the recommendations as opportunities to further improve the avalanche safety program.

Thank you very much.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thank you very much, Kevin. To you and your staff, as well, and for all these slides on the screen.

Before we go to questions, maybe I’ll give an opportunity to Carl Fischer, our comptroller general, if he has anything he wishes to add to this.

Carl, good morning.

[8:25 a.m.]

C. Fischer: Good morning. Thank you, Chair. I have no further comments. I think that both the OAG and the ministry identified the opportunities for improving administrative processes. I will send it back to you.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thanks, Carl.

Looking around, then, on the screen, to any of the committee members that have any questions.

I see Brittny. MLA Anderson has her hand up.

B. Anderson: Good morning. Thank you so much for this report. I am certainly in avalanche country, so I really enjoyed reading this.

One of the questions that I had was: what is defined as an incident? I sort of see on page 20, if it’s an avalanche that crosses a highway while open. Does it mean that it’s not considered an incident as long as the highway has already been closed. or how is incident defined?

K. Richter: Robb, can I ask you to respond to the definition of what an incident is?

R. Andersen: Yes. Good morning. Thank you for the question.

An incident is an avalanche on an open highway, not a closed highway, and it’s all of our highways, secondary highways and main highways. But it doesn’t really indicate the potential impact to the highway. It could be a small avalanche is affecting the highway, kind of out to maybe just centre line. It might be kind of a metre deep. That would be enough to be considered an incident.

It’s not necessarily involving people or vehicles or something like that, but it’s just an avalanche on an open highway that might make it to the centre of the road. It might be a bit of a surprise to one of the technicians, as there is some uncertainty within avalanche forecasting. We’re always trying to maintain that balance between safety and reliability.

M. Bernier (Chair): Any follow-up, Brittny?

B. Anderson: No, just thank you for that. When I was first reading it, I was thinking…. Robb, I believe you’re also in Nelson. When we think of the Kootenay Pass and how often it’s closed for avalanches, but an incident isn’t when we’re dealing with an avalanche. It’s when the highway has been impacted, and it was unexpected or the highway hasn’t already been closed. So I just appreciate that explanation.

M. Bernier (Chair): Looking around the screen…. Maybe while others are thinking if they have questions, I have one. Maybe Kevin Richter — I think it would follow under recommendation 1.

One of my questions is around the relationship that the Ministry of Transportation has with other ministries regarding some of the work that is done in those areas. I’m going to talk about resource activities, forestry activities. I know, Kevin, you alluded to some of the challenges around environmental shifts over the years.

Just curious about that because if we have 1,600 paths right now and we’re doing an inventory, what do we do around the relationship for possible future paths that could be created? I look at seismic lines or some forestry activities on a mountainside, for instance, that could create something. How do we detail those rather than waiting for something to happen?

K. Richter: So far we’ve been quite fortunate. For example, licensees that are doing activities in proximity to our road or, for example, recently TMX has been working alongside of our road.

In our approval process to gain access or familiarity with the highway — so far we’ve been very fortunate, but we’ve also been proactive reaching out to licensees and other operators — if we see those works, they work in conjunction with us so that they’re not creating any issues. So far, in the last 20 years, we’ve had a great working relationship with resource sector people and other industry sectors. If they’re planning works adjacent to our highways or whatever, they’re in contact with us, and we’re working with them to minimize any impact.

We continue our vigilance. That’s, again, with our area managers and ops managers, who are driving up and down the highways monitoring not only our maintenance contractors but also keeping a watchful eye if there are any activities occurring in close proximity to our highways and then getting in touch with those people so that we’re alive to any of those changes that could have any impacts to our highway operations.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thanks, Kevin.

Turning it over to the Deputy Chair, MLA Glumac.

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): Thank you. Just a quick question on recommendation No. 2.

[8:30 a.m.]

I’m just curious under what circumstances an audit would trigger this kind of question internally. Did the ministry consider that maybe there wasn’t adequate staffing prior to the recommendation or was it strictly the recommendation that made the ministry aware that maybe there’s not adequate staffing?

K. Richter: We had an existing vacancy. That vacancy we’re now looking at to fill it. We’ve been operating with the distribution of those responsibilities to other staff members. But as the OAG identified, perhaps we’d benefit with this position to help us make sure that our records are up to date or incident records are input. This role would be a quality management role, and perhaps we haven’t been fully meeting that obligation, because of the recommendations identified.

It was a vacancy. I think the OAG saw that there were some gaps in our quality assurance reporting. Now we’re looking at it. Is it a position with our existing provincial safety officer position or with responsibilities in the group, or do we need to fill it? That’s what we’re currently reviewing right now.

A. Mercier: I just have a quick question for Kevin Richter.

When you first look at the audit, I think that it comes across…. The first recommendation, the rationale behind it, comes across initially as a bit jarring, right? The descriptive information is from 14 percent of 1,300 active avalanche paths. It’s unknown when two-thirds of avalanche paths were last updated. In response throughout your presentation to the recommendation, you said that your field people are very familiar with the paths.

I take the point that having folks on the ground with the background experience and practical knowledge can often beat out any kind of data set any day of the week. I’m wondering if you could unpack a bit more. Give us a snapshot of what a typical field person looks like, how long they’ve been with the ministry, what background they come from, what they’re doing and the nature, I guess, of how they approach their work.

K. Richter: I kind of see two parts. I’ll give you a bit of a background as to what sort of data constitutes an avalanche path. When I’m done, I’ll turn it over to Robb, because our technicians are professionals, and they’re registered in a membership. Those technical details I’ll defer to Robb.

Just to give you an idea of when we’re looking at the data for an avalanche path. Climate change has really, really affected it. You may have seen a number like about 1,600 paths in the document. Actually, due to climate change, reduced snow, we’ve seen vegetation grow substantively in paths that have actually made a bunch inactive. Right now we only have 1,377 active paths.

It is timed very well. It’s very much due that we update those. Where we’re missing some information that’s documented, our staff does have the specific information. But it’s the aspects of where the path is sitting, the elevation of the path, what the vegetation is like in the path, has there been any history — what we’re seeing with climate change is some paths aren’t producing avalanches like they have in the past — and the length of the path.

There’s a bunch of physical data that the avalanche technicians have, but they’ve been remiss, we’ve been remiss, in making sure that that’s been updated. With the work that we’re doing, we’re going to be inputting that information. I think the last time some of the vegetation was even recorded was back in the beginning, like 20-some-odd years ago. Trees can grow a fair bit if there hasn’t been activity in that path.

To your specific question about the qualifications and the training of our staff, perhaps….

Robb, can I turn it over to you to talk about the training and the experience of our avalanche technicians?

R. Andersen: Our avalanche technicians come to the ministry with a lot of experience. They already likely have been in the avalanche risk management industry for somewhere between five and ten years: ski patrollers — it’s a good place to start as a background — ski guiding, things like that.

[8:35 a.m.]

Then as one gets more experience, they take specific training courses, certification courses, through the Canadian Avalanche Association. They are the governing body for professional avalanche work in Canada, for training and standards and professional membership and ethics and all those kinds of things.

Generally speaking, those are the types of people that we generally attract to our program. They already have a fairly high level of training, again, certified through the Canadian Avalanche Association. And then a lot of our technicians have been in our program for many years. We have some technicians that have been around for 20 years with our ministry.

Again, to Kevin’s point, when we’re discussing about the missing information in avalanche paths, that really is the specific information on start zone elevation, aspect — north, east, south, west — how long the path is, how big it is. But again, our technicians are so intimate with all those details of their area. They know it so well. It’s really just a matter of grabbing that information and putting it into our atlas. It’s not like we don’t know that information. It just hasn’t been updated within that specific document.

K. Richter: Robb, perhaps you can touch on any supplemental training that our teams have maybe with regards to blasting or transporting or safety.

R. Andersen: Absolutely. The avalanche training is just part of it. All of our technicians have at least an 80-hour first aid course. They have to have a valid blasting ticket, and that’s WorkSafeBC certification. You need a fair amount of experience and training to even get that blasting ticket. You need to have a transportation of dangerous goods certificate. We need to have a security screening through the explosive regulatory division to allow us to purchase explosives, store explosives, that kind of thing. That is some of the other mandatory training that our staff have.

M. Bernier (Chair): Excellent. Thanks for that. I don’t know if there’s more of a follow-up, so I’ll turn to MLA Sharma. I believe she had a question, if she still does.

N. Sharma: I did have a question, but it was answered, actually. You already asked the question, so thank you for all the information. I appreciate it.

M. Bernier (Chair): I’ll go to MLA Starchuk, then.

M. Starchuk: Thank you for the presentation. Inside the report, it talks about remote devices, and there’s a time frame that’s coming up when it’s going to be evaluated for success with the investment that’s there.

I know that we’re not at that point, but is there a brief overview, with one season, so to speak, of how successful it is?

K. Richter: Perhaps I can start off, and then I’m going to turn it to Robb. We’ve actually been using a variety of remote technologies for many years. I was in Nelson for a while. Our children were born in Nelson, so I was working on the remote system in Kootenay Pass. I was the geotechnical engineer making sure these devices would stay put and not shake off the ground.

We have a variety of different technologies that we have been using for many years in Kootenay Pass, in Terrace, on the Duffey Lake Road, to name a few. Interestingly enough, we spent about $9 million over the last ten years installing these different devices and also providing catchment.

Perhaps the one technology that you were talking about, which is new, is the radar technology. We’re using that to understand when avalanches are triggered. That one we certainly are looking at.

These other devices…. Robb, you might want to go through. I just know the Gazex. We have one that’s called the fridge that shoots out things. I refer to it as a fridge. It looks like a fridge. But Robb, could you perhaps talk about the radar but then about the other technologies that your team is using to manage avalanches around the province?

R. Andersen: The radar technology — that’s really new technology that’s coming out of Europe. I guess it’s a few years old now. Essentially, we have…. The best sign of an unstable snowpack…. A lot of the key to good avalanche forecasting is reducing uncertainty. The more you can reduce uncertainty, the better decision you can make. There’s always a certain level of uncertainty when you’re forecasting for avalanches — terrain, snowpack. I’ve been doing this for about 25 years. I’ve never seen the same conditions two winters in a row. It’s very dynamic. It changes all the time.

[8:40 a.m.]

What the radar does for you is watch your slopes 24-7. Again, whenever there’s an avalanche, the radar will pick it up. It’ll alert the technicians exactly where it was, exactly how big it was, how far it went, the speed of the avalanche. That really helps the avalanche technicians make really well-informed decisions.

For example, if you were to close at night…. Again, we’re in the middle of a storm. We’re closing at night. We can’t really see up the mountain. We don’t know how far the avalanches are running. If you have a radar, now you can see how far they’re running. You can see the activity. This, again, reduces that uncertainty.

Again, if you’re in an overnight highway closure, and you can’t see up into the start zone, you don’t know if the avalanche has come down on its own or not, even if the highway closed, because you’re going to err on that side of caution. But if you have that information, it’s like: “Oh no, the avalanche has actually run. There is no more risk anymore. We’re good. We can open up the road.” So it’s actually reducing closure times, because it’s providing us with more certainty in our avalanche forecasting.

M. Bernier (Chair): Any further questions?

R. Andersen: I could go into the remote avalanche control devices too, and the difference between those and the benefit we’re seeing in those, if you’re interested in that.

M. Bernier (Chair): Mike’s shaking his head, it looks like.

R. Andersen: That was sort of the second part.

M. Bernier (Chair): Good information.

R. Andersen: This is one of the ones that I really like for the highway, because it really is having a significant impact to our level of service. These remote avalanche control devices….

The traditional method of avalanche control for us is helicopter bombing. Of course, helicopter control, helicopter bombing, is limited by weather and daylight. The nice thing, one of the main benefits from remote avalanche control system, is you can shoot it 24-7, regardless of daylight or weather conditions, and you can do it from the safety of your vehicle. You don’t have to get into a helicopter and fly in poor weather with a bunch of explosives. So it’s a worker safety piece as well.

These remote avalanche control devices are permanently mounted in the avalanche start zones of our avalanche pads, in strategic areas. Over a computer — what we call a shoot computer — you can connect to these devices remotely, and you can detonate them. They’ll produce an explosion, just like an explosive, and it destabilises the snow pack and reduces the avalanche risk.

The really nice thing about it is that it’s not just the avalanche control that takes quite a bit of time during the closure. It’s also the cleanup. The one really nice thing about the remote avalanche control systems is that we can shoot them more often, because we have the ability to do that, and we don’t have to wait for a helicopter. We don’t have to wait for weather. We can shoot it more often. Keep the avalanche small. Minimize the impact to the highway. The cleanup’s faster, and therefore the closures are shorter.

It’s an actual strategy that we can employ with these RACS to really improve our closure times. In areas that we’ve installed these remote avalanche control systems, we see up to a 50 percent to 70 percent reduction in highway closure times, depending on the specific area.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thank you, Robb. Appreciate that.

Any further questions, then, from committee members? I do not see any.

Obviously, we covered quite a bit there. I want to thank everybody in the Auditor General’s team as well for this audit — for the work that was done. I think it’s also important when we share them, like we are now, and when we talk about them. It gives a little bit of assurance, as we do with a lot of our audits, to the public, that government, the ministries, the Auditor General. Everybody’s working together to try to ensure that we have safety top of mind for everything we do in the province.

For myself and MLA Anderson — a few others who live in areas where there are, obviously, risks to avalanche — it’s nice to know this work’s going on behind the scenes and will continue to look for opportunities for public safety.

I want to thank everybody in the ministry, as well, for accepting those recommendations, for the work that you’re doing, going forward. I know the Ministry of Transportation and how busy it is, but appreciate this being, obviously, top of mind, as we’re coming out of avalanche season. But for some of us, it’s just around the corner to start again.

I want to thank everybody for participating today.

No further questions. I’ll just maybe say adieu and thank everybody, all of our witnesses, who participated today. Thank you very much.

With that, for the committee, we’ll maybe just wait a moment.

For the rest of the committee, there was nothing else on the agenda, except for other business, if there’s anything that came up.

Are there any issues, maybe to the Deputy Chair or anybody else, that we needed to cover off today, or to Jennifer?

I don’t see any. So I want to thank all of you for getting up early on a Monday morning. Great to see everyone. Just need a motion to adjourn from someone. MLA Mercier.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 8:45 a.m.