2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
official report of
Debates of the Legislative Assembly
(hansard)
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Morning Sitting
Volume 27, Number 6
|
CONTENTS |
|
|
Page |
|
|
Orders of the Day |
|
|
Committee of the Whole House |
8639 |
|
Bill 9 — Natural Resource Compliance Act (continued) |
|
|
B. Simpson |
|
|
Hon. S. Thomson |
|
|
B. Routley |
|
|
N. Macdonald |
|
|
G. Gentner |
|
|
C. Trevena |
|
[ Page 8639 ]
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2011
The House met at 10:02 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Prayers.
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Coleman: Good morning. Today in this House we will be doing the committee stage of Bill 9, intituled the Natural Resource Compliance Act.
Committee of the Whole House
BIll 9 — NATURAL RESOURCE
COMPLIANCE ACT
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 9; D. Black in the chair.
The committee met at 10:07 a.m.
On section 1 (continued).
B. Simpson: I am happy to stand today, and I recognize someone who used to help me be smart on the forestry file when I was first elected and appointed Forests critic. One of the minister's staff members actually used to try and make me look a lot smarter in this House, and I welcome her to the chamber.
On the natural resource officer definition, I just have some questions around the relationship between this new deputized entity and the Oil and Gas Commission. Will these new natural resource officers be deputized, if you will, to be able to do site inspections and other compliance activities under the Oil and Gas Act?
Hon. S. Thomson: I'm pleased to stand again to continue the committee debate. I neglected yesterday to introduce the staff who are here in support today, so I thought I'd do that first this morning. With me are Richard Grieve, director of legislation with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; Norah White, who's a resource policy adviser; and John Harkema, a senior provincial resource officer. I appreciate their support and apologize for not introducing them yesterday.
So just to respond to the question in terms of the new natural resource officers, they will not be deputized specifically to manage those activities under the Oil and Gas Commission. We work closely with them now, and our officers, or our staff, manage some of the statutes under there. But in terms of the initial step with this legislation, it would be specific to the statutes and acts that are under the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.
B. Simpson: I wonder if the minister could clarify that latter part. My understanding is that one of the reasons for doing this is to actually extend the deputization process so that they can potentially do Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Mines — that there are other statutes that will be brought to bear. That's the point of having a natural resource officer designation.
Could the minister clarify that the only deputization that will occur here is under Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations or whether other statutes, like Ministry of Environment and others, will be available to deputize these individuals?
Hon. S. Thomson: Good question. The point I made initially, as I said, was that that would be the first step with respect to our own statutes. In consultation with those other ministries, we'll continue that work to ultimately see where this position could be extended, by regulation, to those other areas.
Where it will work and make sense, we will do that, but initially the focus is on our statutes because that's where we recognized the initial overlap and the initial focus of the reason we brought the bill forward. Clearly, as we want to move to a much more efficient compliance and enforcement process, certainly we'll be having those discussions with those other ministries and looking at how we can integrate those operations as well.
B. Simpson: I appreciate that clarification in terms of the stepwise process. So back to my original question: is it possible at some point, then, that these individuals would be deputized to act and enforce under the Oil and Gas Activities Act?
Hon. S. Thomson: Currently with the Oil and Gas Commission and their responsibility for their act and their activities…. They have specialized compliance and enforcement staff and responsibilities that they're undertaking. As I said, our initial step is with our responsibilities under our statutes and, obviously, having discussions with Environment, because that's a clear area of overlap in many of the areas. At this point our focus is on our statutes and continued discussions — initially, particularly with the Ministry of Environment.
B. Simpson: I apologize to the minister, but the answer is obfuscating. At some point, will the statute governing oil and gas activities be considered? It's just a yes or no. Is that part of the evolution?
I get that the minister is going to focus on Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations first — get that rationalized, make sure these natural resource compliance officers can go and enforce compliance under that one ministry, go out to the other ministries. But is there something precluding — an absolute yes or no — that the oil and gas activity statute will be rolled in and that these natural resource compliance officers will be able at some point in the future to apply and enforce compliance with the Oil and Gas Activities Act?
Hon. S. Thomson: I think the answer is: theoretically. It could be that the legislation would not preclude that. It would need to be by regulation. It would need to be after very significant consultation and determination of need. But theoretically, the answer would be: by regulation, yes, it could be — but very theoretical at this point, because we are focusing on our responsibilities initially in making these changes to work very closely with ministries where there's some very clear overlap to start with.
B. Simpson: In some theoretical future they might do something under the statute. The reason for asking the question.... The minister has already kind of pointed to it. There is one aspect under the oil and gas act — that there's some technical expertise in terms of wellhead, in terms of some of the regulations under that act. But the minister must also know that a lot of what happens is on the land base.
It involves water. It involves forest stewardship. It involves land management. All of those things come under the domain of other ministries that have either a memorandum of understanding or delegated authority to the Oil and Gas Commission. That's why I'm asking the question.
There's other work that these natural resource officers will be doing under the auspices of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, which is work that could automatically be done under the oil and gas regulations because the statutes are the same. I think it is important up there, given the cumulative impact, that somebody is looking at that.
My final question on this section is whether or not natural resource operations compliance officers, duly deputized under Forest Act and FLNRO statutes, will be able to look at the practices and enforce compliance under master licences to cut and cutting permits issued by the Oil and Gas Commission — because that is actually still a forest stewardship activity — and whether or not these individuals will be able to go and look at compliance to Forest Act that's regulated and managed by the Oil and Gas Commission.
Hon. S. Thomson: I'm advised that currently our compliance and enforcement staff do that. They work in collaboration with the Oil and Gas Commission on that. So that work goes on currently with the responsibilities that they have now.
B. Routley: Obviously, management has the unilateral right to take a basket of job duties and change the job duties to create new jobs. I understand that concept and that right that's basically standard in labour relations.
However, it's also standard that when management is going to unilaterally change a basket of job duties and add additional duties, particularly as dramatic as taking somebody that's a forest technologist and adding duties such as predator control or wildlife management, that kind of thing….
My question to the minister is: has there been a letter sent to the union talking about the fact that management intends to do these unilateral changes to job descriptions? Or are you just ignoring all of the job descriptions that you have now and carrying on doing whatever you want with no courtesy whatsoever to the union to notify them of precisely the kinds of…? I mean, if you're dreaming, you might as well dream in Technicolor, and that's what we have going on here.
I mean, we're now hearing oil and gas. It could be a guy specifically trained as a forest technologist that could be doing those kinds of things.
But back to the question. Has there been any kind of notification to the union?
Hon. S. Thomson: I want to make a point here in the debate and the discussion around…. The member opposite talks about job description. I think what's very important to recognize here is that for our compliance and enforcement officers, a major portion of their job description is the skill set that relates to compliance and enforcement. Much of that skill set that they have is transferable in terms of the processes around compliance and enforcement.
Obviously, in creating this position, there will be the need for some additional training in certain specific areas where they may take on those additional responsibilities to do that. But the basic job description of what they're trained for would stay the same under a various number of statutes that they might take part in.
Just to reference your specific point around if there has been consultation with the union. Just to advise, firstly, at the annual meeting of the compliance and enforcement officers last week, a union representative, a BCGEU representative, was invited to attend and participated in part of that discussion when this overall direction was discussed. Secondly, staff in our ministry are meeting directly with the union representatives tomorrow.
B. Routley: The collective agreement would have categories and rates of pay already established in bargaining.
[ Page 8641 ]
Does the minister have a list of the current jobs and the categories — for example, forest technologist? What are all of the existing categories of jobs that could now be turned into the classification of natural resource officer?
Hon. S. Thomson: Just to clarify and confirm, providing the designation of a natural resource officer does not change their existing title or classification. The specific responsibilities they have under the statutes remain. What this will do is provide an authorization or designation that would allow them to have that broader responsibility under the statutes.
I think one of the important things to recognize here is that the impetus for this and the direction for this have come, to a large degree, directly from staff and from the compliance and enforcement staff that work in our ministry and do a great job in that area. This is something they have been looking for and asking for and are excited about, because they get frustrated when they are out doing a very specific responsibility under an existing statute and see the opportunity to address contraventions within other areas. While they're out there on the ground, the ability to do that…. This is something they've been working for and asking for.
This is also something that we see as very important in terms of being able to deliver improved compliance and enforcement activity out in the field and being able to ensure that we can continue to support the overall direction of our ministry in terms of integration and decision-making on the front end, and to support it with a very integrated compliance enforcement process on the back end.
N. Macdonald: What the minister is saying is that the initiative is driven from staff, presumably at the level of compliance and enforcement. But let's just go back a little here. In terms of speaking to representatives, this is a group — compliance and enforcement — that's been hit very, very hard. They have lost a tremendous number of members. You know, if you go back to 2001, when the B.C. Liberals took over, there were 30,000 inspections. The minister now talks about 11,000. There's no question that there are all sorts of issues where compliance and enforcement is simply not up to the standard that is needed.
The minister talked about training. This is a concept that we have talked about being reasonable, but the nub of it is on training. This is a ministry that has consistently seen its funding cut. Despite all the additional responsibilities the ministry has, there still was a significant budget cut. It does not give a great deal of confidence, I'm sure, to ministry staff, as well, who are going to be asked to do this that it's going to be done properly, that there is going to be the training, that you are going to end up with a system that actually does the work.
The pattern so far over the past ten years is cut, cut, cut, and less compliance, less enforcement. If the minister is saying this is something that was asked for, does the minister have a motion? Or does it have correspondence from employee groups asking for this to take place? How did they ask the minister to do this, or was it simply ad hoc discussions? Where is the proof that that is where the initiative has come from?
Hon. S. Thomson: This has been developed over time. There are internal working teams within the ministry that have been working towards this direction over time. It builds on a natural resource coordination project, where they have, over time, worked more and more collaboratively in these areas. In fact, we do have even now some delegations where this takes place — for example, under the Fish Inspection Act or those kinds of things.
What this really does is allows us to streamline, make our process more efficient and be able to do that through a designation that not only creates just the designation, but it creates an identity for that group and that service or that role. This is something that has been developed over time. It has had discussion between internal working groups, where it has been brought forward.
Again, as I said, the real frustration that is being expressed by staff in the field is needing the ability to deal with non-compliance or infractions that they see when they're out in the field. This just makes sense. It's something that will enhance the compliance enforcement efforts in the province. The member opposite references the concerns that we may not be doing as much as we should be doing. This will allow us to enhance our compliance enforcement activities on the land base throughout the province.
N. Macdonald: Just to be clear, the working groups…. I mean, this follows on, going back a couple of years, the surprise announcement from Premier Campbell on the reorganization. It's then natural that you would have working groups that would be tasked with trying to align the current compliance and enforcement in a way that follows the philosophy of the ministry.
I take it what the minister is saying is that this is work that has been going on and that as we ask questions, we will be able to get some detail as to how far along the thinking has gone. I mean, our discussions are with workers' groups, and admittedly these are, again, just individual discussions and with discussions of representatives. But what we are told pretty consistently is something that's different. I'll admit there's a tremendous amount of confusion with the individuals that we're speaking to.
I guess the question is: is it correct to characterize this as when there are working groups? When there are people talking about this, it's because the ministry has tasked them, either explicitly or implicitly, to figure out
[ Page 8642 ]
the logical next step, which is to try to move to a broader compliance and enforcement model.
Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I want to stress to the member opposite that this has been developed over a period of time. Even the discussion around the need for this predates the restructuring of the ministry.
I think compliance officers in the field have recognized that to be more efficient, if you had the ability to cover a broader range when you're there and if you've got the skill set and the ability to do that, that would be beneficial.
Over time there have been internal processes, working groups, the natural resource coordination project. Those kinds of things have all been working towards this. I think what this bill does is give us the efficient process in order to be able to implement that goal.
Obviously, as was pointed out earlier, this is enabling in order to allow us to do it. In terms of moving forward with this and implementing it, it'll be done be in close consultation with staff as it develops.
At the recent annual meeting of the compliance and enforcement officers, where they were all present, this was discussed. As I said, they're excited about the opportunity. They're excited about being able to have that identity, and they're excited about being able to have a more efficient process.
Do we have continued work to do within the ministry to implement this? Certainly. That's part of the ongoing process in putting this in place. But what this legislation does is it gives the ability to do it. It moves away from what is currently a very, very inefficient and complex designation and delegation process within our statutes. It brings it in under one streamlined process and will make it more efficient for the ministry and for the operations in the field.
B. Routley: It's interesting, the context that we just heard and how they framed what they thought happened in Richmond.
We're talking about the definition of this new category of officer. We were just told that the job descriptions are going to stay the same, yet we were told in the briefing that one person is now going to have the ability to tick off four different statutes.
So here's a government that gives out big bonuses for extra productivity, for doing this, for keeping the lights on, all of these things — million-dollar man and all the rest of it. But the workers are supposed to be happy that they're getting all these extra statutes, and maybe there's even a little training.
Well, what we're told went on at that meeting is that the union rep that I talked to, who is himself a C-and-E representative…. He was there at the conference. He talked to people out in the hall, and he told me: "You can go ahead and quote exactly what I've been telling you." What he told me is that there was no plan developed to accomplish these tasks. People were asking: "Well, what…?" At the end of the day, the line workers were being asked how they could help develop a plan to accomplish the task.
So here is management in the back rooms, dreaming in Technicolor, coming up with a half-baked plan on how we might be able to do things. There's no clear plan in terms of the categories that are going to be put together.
They're telling us: "Your mandate is going to change." This is what was reported from the union rep. They told the workers that their mandate is going to change, yet there was no direction from the ministry as to exactly how that was going to be accomplished. There's no training that has been scheduled at this point. There was talk about training, but no actual training has been scheduled.
In terms of the issues…. This is really going to be quite complex, in my view. I think you're underestimating the responsibility you're giving somebody.
You want somebody who's a forest technologist to confront people that have a gun, that are out hunting, that might have an elk in their vehicle or over the hood of their car. They're going to come around the corner, and you want them to confront…? You're going to deputize them to go and deal with that situation without training?
The Chair: Member. Member, through the Chair, please. Through the Chair.
B. Routley: Okay, through the Chair.
Apparently, the minister is going to deputize people to do this with very little training. So my question is: what are all of the various baskets of job duties and the different ministries involved?
Like, we're now hearing about oil and gas. The other day…. What's fascinating to me is that we asked for a briefing. We weren't told anything about oil and gas. At that briefing we were told that water, wildfire, wildlife, forests and mines could be categorized as natural resource officers — any of those duties. And we heard things like how somebody could have a little clipboard, and they could just tick off four different statutes while they're wandering around. And as they run into things, they can deal with them.
This is clearly all about getting more done for less. So at the end of the day, what kind of plan does the ministry have in terms of putting together categories of tasks? Like, we heard about some kind of wall that there may be…. There's a wall between the people who do the permitting and the people who do the actual work of compliance and enforcement.
[ Page 8643 ]
Some of these people have been primarily working in forests. So I'm trying to get a picture of exactly what the minister has in mind. I mean, he might as well give them roller skates and a broom too. You've got all these extra duties — through the Chair. I'm just wondering what kinds of combinations of duties have been dreamt up by management in the back room. Could we have some kind of clarification on what that might be?
Hon. S. Thomson: As we've stated, this new legislation will initially apply to acts within the natural resource sector. Initially, the primary ones include Forest and Range Practices Act, Forest Act, Wildfire Act, Wildlife Act and the Water Act. As we've talked, this list can evolve and grow over time as we identify the areas for improved efficiency.
I want to stress again and point out that this is something that will be developed and implemented in consultation with staff. The staff have had training on the skill sets around enforcement and compliance. Those skill sets are transferable. We will ensure that the training is done. We'll ensure that it will not be done in a way that puts compliance and enforcement officers at risk without the appropriate skill set and training in those areas.
Again, I want to point out that this is a process that will allow us to have a more efficient process of designation, will allow us to have a more efficient process of compliance and enforcement on the ground. It is something that has been developing over time. It is something that staff within the compliance and enforcement areas of all of our ministries have been looking for — that improved collaboration and coordination, both within our ministry and across other ministries.
This is work that will continue and continue to be developed in collaboration with staff. You know, they've already had some training. They get training through the Justice Institute. They do other training. They do mentoring with conservation officers in terms of developing those kinds of skills. So we will continue to do that. Again, this is about creating a more efficient delegation process and providing for more enhanced and efficient compliance and enforcement on the ground throughout the province.
G. Gentner: It's interesting that the minister suggests this is going to find efficiencies and he can't tell us what the job descriptions are going to be. Maybe the minister can nod or shake his head on the following list of possibilities. Is this position going to deal with the integrated land management in its planning? How about the timber export advisory committee; is it going to have any role in that?
How about water protection? How about pest and disease management? How about tenures and pricing? How about Crown land allocations? How about resorts, developments and alpine ski resorts? How about the public back-country recreation? What about weed control? Any authority regarding parks, species at risk, drought management in the forests or in the area? Will it be dealing completely with timber supply and forest protection?
We know that the minister is going to say that this is going to have some role in compliance and enforcement, but what about any role regarding timber pricing, timber sales? Regarding those various descriptions that are found within the superministry at one time, can the minister confirm whether or not the practices and the types of job descriptions are going to fit those areas or not?
Hon. S. Thomson: I'm not quite sure how to respond to this. The member opposite has listed a great number of areas that relate to policy work, to strategic policy work within the ministry. For a number of areas that he touched on, there are compliance and enforcement provisions and regulations under statutes. The natural resource officers that will be designated will, on a coordinated basis, be dealing with the existing compliance and enforcement provisions and statutes that we have under the various pieces of legislation that I listed.
I'm not going to respond to each and every one of those, because he's listed, basically, the whole area of the ministry, much of it in policy areas. That's not what the compliance and enforcement officers or the natural resource officer will do under that designation. They will be, on a coordinated basis and a more efficient basis, dealing with the regulations and the current compliance and enforcement responsibilities that they're under, initially under the legislation within Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.
As I pointed out, discussions will continue with the other ministries about where we see those efficiencies in being able to assist in those processes with other ministries. We will look at that as part of the process. The initial focus is on the responsibilities within our ministry.
N. Macdonald: I think what we'll do here is…. Of course, because section 1 refers to section 2, we've drifted back and forth between items that could be discussed in both areas. As an opposition, we're going to be voting against the sections, simply because it's really unclear as to how this is going to unfold.
The minister has said it's a work in progress and it's a piece of enabling legislation. But in terms of our role as saying whether it's a good idea or not, the devil is in the detail with this, and we don't have the detail.
The concept, we have said, is, I think, broadly supportable. It can make sense, but it can also be a real disaster, just as a Ministry of Natural Resource Operations could make sense, but it has to be implemented properly.
[ Page 8644 ]
I think we will move from this section. We'll be voting against it, and we'll move into the next section, where we will be trying to get, again, a sense of how much planning has gone on and some commitments in terms of how the work that is still to unfold coming from this bill is going to be done.
Section 1 approved on division.
On section 2.
N. Macdonald: Section 1 referred to a definition of a "natural resource officer," and then section 2 deals with the actual designation. Essentially, what the section does is say: "Subject to the regulations, if any, the minister may designate in writing…." Then it basically allows the minister to do anything in terms of describing and setting out what a natural resource officer….
So the legislation gives us really no idea about what a natural resource officer is going to be. I guess the question is…. Presumably, there would need to be regulations. I mean, the minister, I think, has even referred to regulations, so it does beg the question.
Subsection 2(1): "Subject to the regulations, if any…." Why would that line "if any" be there when, presumably, there would have to be regulations?
Hon. S. Thomson: Just to clarify, within our existing legislation and statutes within the ministry, regulations aren't required in order to do the designations. This section is put in here in order to provide for the ability or capacity of executive council or cabinet to set some constraints or some parameters or some boundaries if they wanted to or if they felt that was necessary. We don't see it as being necessary, but we wanted to make sure that the provision was still in the legislation, that that could happen if necessary or if deemed appropriate.
N. Macdonald: So just to understand, the minister is saying that with provisions to look after various elements that the ministry is responsible for, various acts, there does not need to be regulation that would actually assign staff to responsibility in compliance and enforcement on specific acts, that regulation is not needed for that, that it can simply be in policy. Did I understand? That's what the minister is saying?
Hon. S. Thomson: Just to clarify and confirm, within section 2 of the act we don't anticipate that we will need regulations in order to provide the designations within our statutes, but we did, as I said, want to leave the possibility or the availability or the option of cabinet regulations if required in order to put potential parameters or boundaries around it.
In order to implement this, quite clearly, this will need to be done by regulation. That's in section 3, because in order to designate the act under which this provision would apply or to designate an official, we will need a regulation. That's in section 3.
There will be a regulatory process in order to put this in place, but in terms of doing the designations of natural resource officer to staff within our ministry, we have that ability currently. We do have a delegation framework in nature — it's public within the ministry on that — so we don't anticipate regulations being required here. But certainly when we get to the next section there will be, clearly, a regulatory implementation required in order to enact the provisions of this bill.
N. Macdonald: Thank you for the answer. I guess just a series of quick questions, then.
We've had reference to the Richmond meeting with union members, with the workers. Can the minister tell us: what formal union involvement has there been in the process? And maybe the minister could highlight the series of meetings that have taken place involving the union — if there is more than just last week's meeting in Richmond.
Hon. S. Thomson: As I mentioned earlier, this process has been developing over a period of time, been discussed within the compliance and enforcement branches and divisions of the ministry.
We've initiated the formal discussions with the union on this, with, as I said, a meeting scheduled for tomorrow. But again, I want to point out that this is building on processes that have been developing over a period of time, building on natural resource coordination, building on a process, as I've stated clearly before, that the compliance and enforcement resources and staff within our ministry have been asking for.
N. Macdonald: Just to be clear, the question was about the union involvement. We know that there were some workers within the union that were at a meeting in Richmond this last week. We understand that was the case. Is the minister saying that the formal meetings with the union will start tomorrow? Is that what the minister is saying?
Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, the communication with the union was initiated a couple of weeks ago on this. It's taken a bit of time to get the meeting organized, but that meeting and continued communication with the union are taking place, as I said, tomorrow.
[L. Reid in the chair.]
N. Macdonald: The minister has talked about staff and, presumably, other worker groups. The discussions
[ Page 8645 ]
that the minister says have been ongoing — are they with primarily exempted staff working groups?
Hon. S. Thomson: The answer to that is no. The discussions have been with all levels within the compliance and enforcement branch and individuals and people working within that part of our ministry. There have been discussions both on an ongoing basis, as I said, for some period of time with all levels of staff within the organization.
N. Macdonald: Since much of what is going on here is a logical extension of combining the ministry…. And I do know that, like I say, the concept can work if it's implemented properly. Just on that idea, has there been any pilot work done in preparation for this sort of concept?
Hon. S. Thomson: As I mentioned earlier, this process has been underway for a number of years. In fact, well over three years ago we did work internally, which was called the resource management coordination project.
We have done a number of these, this work, in areas of the province. In the northwest there was some coordinated work around road issues. There was some coordinated work around predator control and wildlife impacts. We've been, in a sense, starting to build this model over a period of time, and this bill, this legislation, is one that helps us continue to build this in a more efficient way.
I take the point from the member opposite that the importance of this will be in continued work with our compliance and enforcement branch in terms of implementation of this. I appreciate the comments where the members opposite have said that in concept and in principle, this is a good step, that this is something that can work, and it's our commitment within the ministry to make it work.
Obviously, implementation of this will be critical in it being successful. We'll continue to work with the branch and within our ministry to do that. As I said, it continues to build on work we've already started over a period of time, supported by staff, and we're looking forward to being able to move forward with this designation and provide a tool that the majority of the branches within our responsibility have been looking for.
N. Macdonald: I know the minister takes the point. As a teacher, the concept of integration is one that is broadly supported, but you need to understand that it's not a cheap option — right? You need to make sure that the skill set of the teacher responsible is increased.
That's the danger with this initiative. If it seems the cheap option, then we're going to run into problems. The minister has acknowledged that the training has to be done properly, that there are all sorts of details that need to be worked through. We still have lost so many people in compliance and enforcement. We have to look seriously at whether we have, even if they are doing multiple jobs, the boots on the ground that we need.
The question is: how much is budgeted for the training programs that the minister, I would presume, is going to be initiating within this budget year?
Hon. S. Thomson: The overall budget for this area is $14.3 million. The amount specifically for training has varied from year to year, over the years, up to and around $400,000 towards training. But again, I want to state that as we move forward with implementation of this, as I stated earlier, we will ensure that the training is provided as we implement this.
They undergo significant training even within the existing operational budget where we can do continuous programs of mentoring and enhancing skills in those areas. The training that will be required here will be managed from within base budget. As I said clearly, the key to the success of this initiative, which we feel is essential in improving compliance enforcement across the province, will be in the implementation. We'll work closely with staff and with the division to do that.
This is an enabling piece of legislation that allows us to move forward on this greater integration and collaboration across the ministry, something that they have been asking for, and we'll continue to work with implementing it on an ongoing and incremental basis.
N. Macdonald: It's the nub of the matter, if you're going to do it properly. What the minister has essentially said is that there's no new money. The minister has been tasked with a very complex operation that requires training of staff. Some of it is going to be fairly sophisticated training that's needed — well, very sophisticated training.
You have people doing jobs that bring to those jobs a really massive skill set, and I know the minister has met with these people and knows that when you look at what the conservation officer does, it takes years of training and experience. At the same time, you have forest people involved with forestry that know a tremendous amount about their area, but if you're going to ask somebody to do both jobs, you have to do the work to train them both properly. Otherwise, you're not doing compliance and enforcement in a serious way.
This is the concern with this initiative. If there are no resources and the minister has said that you have to do this within your existing budgets, well, the reality is that this new ministry and the minister will be dealing with this each and every day.
There has been a vast growth in what the minister is responsible for from Ministry of Forests days, but your budget is much less than what the Minister of Forests had
[ Page 8646 ]
to work with simply a year or two ago. We're talking like 16 percent or 18 percent. The minister will know this.
So even with what you are doing now, you don't have the money, and now you're expecting to do training. Now, the minister talked about the Justice Institute possibly doing some of the training. Is the expectation that most of the training will be done in-house? Or is the minister looking at training that will be done with institutions such as the Justice Institute?
Hon. S. Thomson: This is, as is currently the case, a combination of that. We do have continued training through the Justice Institute. All of the compliance and enforcement officers have been through programs with the Justice Institute giving the core skill sets and competencies in that area. We do collaborative work and mentoring with other ministries, with the conservation officer staff in the Ministry of Environment.
We will continue to provide the training. As I said earlier, this will be managed…. We have current training provisions within base budget. This will continue to be managed within that as we continue to build the additional skill sets that will be required.
Again, in moving forward with this, we will make sure that, before the designations of a natural resource officer are provided to any specific individual within the compliance and enforcement group, that skill set that's required will be there.
C. Trevena: To the minister, I've been listening to his explanation about training, but it raises, really, a huge number of concerns rather than putting minds at rest.
These people are dealing with very complex issues. We have people who are already very well trained in forestry or in their other fields, and in no way through the brief training that the minister is explaining would they get the skills necessary.
I use the example in my own constituency. We have a lot of resource-based work and resource-based skilled people. We have many — not as many as we had — foresters working in the Ministry of Forests branch that's in the Campbell River office. Would they be expected to get training to go and be a mine inspector to go and inspect the Quinsam coal mine just up the road?
If that is the case — I know there are only three mine inspectors left in the province, so clearly there is a need for mine inspectors — what sort of training would they be given? Both roles do need explicit training in that field, and it's not likely done by an organization like the Justice Institute.
Hon. S. Thomson: Just to be clear, the Justice Institute training provides the core competencies and skill sets, not the specialized training that would be required.
Where we move forward with this, if there is specialized training that's required, in most cases the very specialized training will continue to be provided by the people who have that specialized training. That's what is taking place now. Where we will move with the natural resource officer designation is in those areas where there are overlaps, where there are opportunities, where the skill sets that exist can be used in collaboration to deal with non-compliance to statutes within our ministry.
If we're moving into other areas, we'll work in cooperation with the respective ministries to ensure that those skill sets are there before the designation may be applied. This isn't about a process of simply, once we have the legislation and the ability to designate the officer, just saying: "Okay, now everybody in the field is a natural resource officer." We'll make sure, when we do the designations and provide that additional cooperation and additional collaboration, that it's applied appropriately.
C. Trevena: From what the minister is talking about, it seems to me to be more a levelling to the bottom, rather than improving skills. Some of this work is highly complex and is highly specialized. If you're asking…. If you're doing it in reverse, a conservation officer being asked to do the duties of a forestry officer….
We don't have many conservation officers in the north Island, and we have fewer and fewer forestry officers. The work of a forester…. Forestry officers in many cases have had to go to university. They're registered forest professionals, and they've gone through many, many years of training to get to the position that they're in. The training of a conservation officer is likely very different to that of a forestry officer.
I think that what the minister is saying is that if they do need other training in other areas.... I would say that they would need training in other areas. Being able to do the levelling out and saying, "You're going to be designated a natural resource officer, and you will get this piece of training," I don't think is going to be sufficient for a proper protection of both the specific job and of the land base.
I'd like the minister to explain a little more about how he expects that natural crossover to occur when you are in the field. When you have a limited number of people and you look at your workforce and say: "Okay, look, we really do have to get out to check on what is happening at…."
I will use again the example of a natural resource officer who is doing both the forestry work and checking on what is happening in the mining industry. You are there working at…. Let's say that you're a forestry officer based in Port McNeill and you're being asked to do work ahead of an assessment of one of the potential mines that people are looking at for copper mining in the north Island.
[ Page 8647 ]
I'd like to ask the minister how he expects that sort of training to happen, when on the ground the reality is that people are very short-staffed. People are very overworked, and it's very likely that the natural resource officer will just have to become a jack of all trades.
Hon. S. Thomson: I just want to be clear, particularly related to this section. The legislation provides where we talk about designation. Under this subsection it enables the minister to adapt a designation to a specific purpose or circumstance, such as designating a person to enforce specific parts of an enactment.
With this provision, that will ensure that when we make the designation, the natural resource officer would only operate within a specified area or scope of practice. This is not about a process where we would be applying the designation to a person within the compliance enforcement where they didn't have that skill set or capacity, but there may be situations where there are elements of those areas where it could be covered by a natural resource operator.
I'll just use a specific example. Under certain provisions there is a notice of work required, and part of the process is to go and check to make sure that work hasn't started before the notice of work has been provided. Quite easily, somebody from within the forest sector or one of our other…. They could be checking that narrow part of that designation, through the designation.
This part of the legislation provides the ability to structure that designation to relate to specific parts of any enactments or regulations so that clearly we would not be putting people without those skill sets or without that ability into a position where they don't have that skill set or capability of doing that.
So we have the flexibility within these provisions to structure the designation for a specific purpose or circumstance.
B. Routley: My specific question is going to be about whether or not there has been a proper safety plan developed. If this has been worked on for three years, I would fully expect that part of the plan would be to do some additional training, and I'm not comforted when I hear that there's no additional money. We're going to be asking people to do more with less.
In my previous career I dealt a lot with safety. I still remember going to safety conferences and hearing from people — in one case telling the story through tears — about the lack of training resulting in fatalities, deaths, and injury. It is totally unacceptable if we have not put the time and effort into…. And the money. You have to put money into proper safety training.
We can't go off with some half-baked plan and have some guy that's out there, normally dealing with compliance and enforcement, wandering around in the trees, suddenly being out there dealing with people with guns without a safety plan. That is totally unacceptable.
I want to know if there is a proper safety plan, and I'm hoping the answer is that there is. How many hours are going to be put towards safety training, and what kinds of specialists have you brought in to make sure that that's done appropriately and properly for the safety of the workers out there doing the job?
Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm that within the branch we have a dedicated training officer that continues to work in those areas. The C-and-E branch has been working through a process of a rewrite of the safety policy. That work continues. The staff also have taken specialized training from police officers, expertise in order to have training in how to deal with what would be at-risk situations. So there continues and will continue to be a strong emphasis on safety policy within the branch.
N. Macdonald: So just to follow on this. The lack of money for training that's additional to the budget, the description of the safety training — it all raises red flags. I'm going to ask a two-step question, but one is going to be simply a yes or no.
The minister highlighted some of the pilot projects. It would be helpful for the opposition to have a list of the pilot projects in the province. I don't expect the minister to read that out, but if he could provide the opposition with a list of the projects, that would be useful.
This is again only anecdotal, but in Castlegar, meeting with some of the staff there, they talked about some of the process. The hope is that it would be different as you move forward, but they talked about somebody trained in forestry being asked to work on or to supplement a conservation officer and being given an afternoon of training. It raises all sorts of questions. Or they raised all sorts of questions.
First, if it's just an afternoon of training…. The worker thought that was inadequate, and the conservation officer who was expected to work with this individual was unhappy with that level of training. So it's the level, the amount of time.
The other issue that we haven't dealt with yet but also needs to be considered is…. The gentleman that I'm talking about used to be looking after an area with a number of colleagues, trying to do the work, and that had been reduced significantly in terms of staff. If there is an extended training period, then these people are not going to be doing the work that they're already supposed to be doing. There are cost implications to that.
I guess there are a series of questions there, but all of them point back to: how much is this thought through, and is the government really committed to doing this in a
[ Page 8648 ]
proper way? So a yes or no on whether we would be able to get access to the pilot projects the minister referenced and, as well, some of the issues that I've raised around what I believe was a pilot project in the Castlegar area.
Hon. S. Thomson: Just to answer the first request quickly. Yes, we'll make a list of some pilot projects and some examples available. We can do that.
With respect to the second question, I wanted to restate the importance of this particular section of the legislation here, which talks about adapting the designation to specific purposes or circumstances and in terms of undertaking the designation with respect to describing a person by name, title, position or class; limiting the designation to a specific time period or area; limiting the powers and duties conferred under this or enactments specified in the legislation; and describing limitations.
Clearly, this is a process of enabling us to do this to be more efficient in exercising those designations. We'll continue to build incrementally on it, and we will also, as I've said, ensure that we won't be providing designations where they are not appropriate, where the skill set is not there in relation to the designations or the responsibilities that we may be providing. This is about making sure we can have a more efficient designation system and process within our range of statutes and regulations that this ministry is responsible for.
B. Routley: I would like to ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
B. Routley: Joining us here in the precinct today are a group of Cobble Hill Elementary students and their teacher, Mrs. Henderson. These are grade 4 students and eight adults. Would the House please join me in welcoming them to this precinct.
Debate Continued
B. Routley: I'd like to now continue with the questioning on the Natural Resource Compliance Act, Bill 9. We're now dealing with section 2, "Natural resource officers — designation."
Under that section of the bill, I would like to hear from the minister the answer to the question regarding the number of square kilometres that will now be expected to be covered by these new designated officers, if the minister has any idea. As a result of the number of changes, I'm told that the number of compliance and enforcement staff in the province of British Columbia has been significantly reduced. We have far less people, actually boots on the ground, out in the woods and dealing with compliance and enforcement actions.
Obviously, there's a growing area that they have to cover. I'm told, shockingly, that the registered forest technologist…. I was told just last week, when they were discussing what was happening with these changes, that there's far too much time being spent doing risk assessments in the office and not enough time to actually get out in the field and do the kind of compliance and enforcement that these people are specialized and trained to do.
Clearly, the number of square miles that they were once responsible for has changed dramatically. Does the minister have an idea of the number of square miles today? Maybe he could reference the number of square miles that were covered by these same compliance and enforcement officers back when the government announced that we were going to get tough on compliance and enforcement and that we were going to have million-dollar fines and people go to jail. I'd like to hear the answer to that question, please.
Hon. S. Thomson: I don't have a square-kilometre or square-mile or number-of-hectares average or coverage. I think the important point to make here is that the process of being able to move to designation, to providing that additional support within those areas….
I think some kind of square-kilometre number can be very misleading, because it depends on the level of activity in the area. Not all of the square kilometres in any area have activity directly within all the area. What the process here is doing is allowing the additional collaboration across the statutes. It allows the additional support, where required, to address priority areas.
Again, I need to stress and want to stress that this is something that the compliance and enforcement staff in the field have been working towards, have been asking for. They recognize that it will assist their efforts and will, in many cases, deal with areas where they currently have frustrations in terms of being limited, under current designations and very specific designations, from being able to address a broader range of non-compliance when they come across it and the ability to deal with it when they do, when they're out in the field.
With this section of the legislation, we'll be very careful in terms of providing the designations. As I said, we'll not be applying those designations to those staff where it's not appropriate.
B. Routley: I'm sure the minister would agree that by adding additional tasks to people who were primarily, in the past, focused on compliance and enforcement of forest regulations….
At one time we had more people out in the field actually doing the work and ensuring that our forests were
[ Page 8649 ]
protected. I know from reading the past compliance and enforcement reports that people were ticketed for violations of the Forest Act. Various other violations were written up, and there's a record of the kind of compliance and enforcement. We heard this government talk about people going to jail, and I know there's been action taken where people are stealing logs, for example.
I worry that if we're reducing the number of boots on the ground that are focused…. I'm talking about the focus. Once we enjoyed a compliance enforcement group of staff that were focused on dealing with what were once various Ministry of Forests regulations.
Now we've got this catch-all basket. We're going to have all these various ministries and statutes to be responsible for, watering down the focus of the Ministry of Forests compliance and enforcement. So I really worry about the lack of compliance and enforcement that's going to happen in our forest land base.
We already see a dwindling number of compliance and enforcement actions going…. It's less than half, the number of compliance and enforcement, what it was ten years ago — more people sitting behind desks, not getting out in the field. Now they're going to be trained up to deal with three or four different ministries.
Can the minister give us the answer to the question? How can the people of British Columbia be assured that we're going to have any real action on the issues of enforcement of all these various statutes when you're watering this down so badly? How can you give assurance that there's going to be a better job, not a watered-down job? How are we going to have a better job done for the people of British Columbia? Or are you simply accepting that we're going to have a watered-down version of what used to be first-class compliance and enforcement in our forests in British Columbia?
Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite is, in many respects, missing the point of what we're trying to achieve with this process.
The process here is designed to increase and enhance the level of compliance and enforcement out in the field by providing the ability to designate the natural resource officer, by being able to have that natural resource officer be able to deal with the potential non-compliance in the field when he is out there and not have to come back and potentially report that and then have to have somebody else go out if that responsibility wasn't covered off within his specific designation or responsibility currently.
The public can be assured that this process is about enhancing the level of compliance and enforcement, providing more scope for those staff that are on the ground and out in the field and being able to deal with those non-compliance issues where people have very significant and legitimate concerns that are not currently being dealt with.
This will provide more time and more opportunity for that to be done. The person doesn't have to come back and get an additional authorization or designation to be able to deal with it, because they will have that broader responsibility where the designation has been provided appropriately.
As I said, this is about making sure we can provide that designation strategically, where the skill sets work and where it makes sense, and enhancing the level of compliance and enforcement in the field.
N. Macdonald: Well, my colleague was exactly on the point. The fact is that the history with this government is to remove people from the ground.
The skill sets that you're talking about are complex skill sets. The experience for Golden was that we had in 2001 two conservation officers. They were removed, and we went for a period of time with no conservation officer until community pressure brought one back.
The minister will know there is a trade in bears, for instance — in bear parts. We had no idea what was going on. This province had no idea that some of the animals that are shot for sport bring a tremendous value. We had no idea what happened. There was nobody out there.
It's not a skill set that others can simply pick up. There's a story of a wounded deer in Golden. It's not like the RCMP knew what to do, whether to destroy the animal, or had the ability to do it properly. So skill sets are not simply transferable. They are people that are very well trained.
What the minister has said so far is that there's no additional money to ramp up training in the way that it needs to, unless these are very minor changes that the minister is foreseeing. That's not really the indication that we've been given. We've been given the indication that this is going to grow.
Just one more thing from Golden. We had a camp of tree planters north of Golden that were doing work for B.C. Timber Sales, a government contract on government land, and the conditions they were in were unbelievable. It was Third World. Nobody knew. Eventually a citizen found out. Just the sheer lack of people on the ground that you have.
If the intention is to try to solve in a cheap way the problems that have been created over the past ten years, this is not going to work. The question I have for the minister is this. Surely there is a training plan that has been put together. The question I would have: can the minister table the report or the plan that lays out how the training is going to be scheduled and moved forward, including budgets? I would presume that the minister anticipates starting with particular acts that are easy and will move up in sophistication of the blending of these positions.
Will the minister be able to table the plan presumably put together by staff in terms of how the training is go-
[ Page 8650 ]
ing to move, unfold forward? You're meeting with the union tomorrow. Presumably that work has been done so that you can meet with the union and lay it out. Will the minister table that plan?
Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm that the training…. We have a dedicated training officer within the compliance and enforcement branch. That dedicated training officer is working with the staff in terms of the initial training that would be required in terms of initial designations as we implement this. The specific requirements of the more enhanced training that would be required as we move farther into this would be developed.
I rise and move the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
Copyright © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ISSN 1499-2175