Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: Bill 2 has been reprinted. It is in all members’ binders. I call third reading of Bill 2.

[2:45 p.m.]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2018

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 44
Chouhan	Kahlon	Begg
Brar	Heyman	Donaldson
Mungall	Bains	Beare
Chen	Popham	Trevena
Sims	Chow	Kang
Simons	D’Eith	Routley
Ma	Elmore	Dean
Routledge	Singh	Leonard
Darcy	Simpson	Robinson
Farnworth	Horgan	James
Eby	Dix	Ralston
Mark	Fleming	Conroy
Fraser	Chandra Herbert	Rice
Krog	Furstenau	Weaver
Olsen		Glumac
NAYS — 40
Cadieux	de Jong	Bond
Polak	Wilkinson	Lee
Stone	Coleman	Wat
Bernier	Thornthwaite	Paton
Ashton	Barnett	Yap
Martin	Davies	Kyllo
Sullivan	Isaacs	Morris
Stilwell	Ross	Oakes
Johal	Redies	Rustad
Milobar	Sturdy	Shypitka
Hunt	Throness	Tegart
Stewart	Sultan	Gibson
Reid	Letnick	Larson
	Foster

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this House, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. In the Douglas Fir Room, Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Environment.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,
LANDS, NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:54 p.m.

On Vote 28: ministry operations, $473,452,000 (continued).

J. Rustad: To the minister: once again, thank you for yesterday, for being able to accommodate those questions that we wanted to inquire about from the Ministry of Agriculture.

[2:55 p.m.]

We’ll start off today with a couple of questions or a little bit of inquiry with regards to tenure, shellfish aquaculture, as well as finfish aquaculture, for which the tenuring components, of course, are within the minister’s purview.

Maybe I can start just by asking a couple of simple questions. How many shellfish tenures do we have in the province of British Columbia? As well, how many finfish tenures are there?

Hon. D. Donaldson: For the finfish aquaculture, there are 125 tenures, but 105 of them are Atlantic salmon finfish tenures. As far as the shellfish goes, there are hundreds of tenures. We’ll get you an exact number. But suffice to say, it’s in the hundreds.

J. Rustad: With regards to the tenures that are out there…. I appreciate that you might not have the number for shellfish at your fingertips. I’ll look forward to receiving that when you do have it available. How many of those tenures are actively being utilized at this stage, if not all of them?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Of the finfish tenures, 65 to 70 have fish in the water.

J. Rustad: Out of those tenures that are active or those that are not active, how many are set to expire in the next, say, two- to three-year window?

Hon. D. Donaldson: If the member is asking about the land tenures, which are the provincial responsibility associated with the federal licences that have jurisdiction over the licensing of the finfish farms, the provincial land tenures for the 65 to 70 that are active…. The question was: how many of those are coming up for renewal over the next two to three years? We can at least let you know that 20 of them will be coming up at the end of June.

We’ll get you numbers on the other remaining ones. We’re just compiling those numbers now. For the other 45 to 50, we’ll be able to provide you with that information shortly.

[3:00 p.m.]

J. Rustad: These tenures, of course, have been in place for many years and gone through renewal for many years. What is the average length of time of these tenures? It starts with that question.

Hon. D. Donaldson: On a site-specific basis, the length of tenure time for the land tenure that’s under provincial jurisdiction, under my ministry, is anywhere from five years to 30 years. As far as the federal fisheries licence, when it comes to the main authority over the aquaculture and what happens in the aquaculture farms, the ones that were mentioned — the 20 that come up in June — have another two years on the federal licence.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the minister for that information with regards to those.

On the tenure, I understand that the tenures…. I understand the difference between the licensing for the federal government and the tenures from the provincial government. On the tenure issue, is it common for the tenures to be out of sync with the licensing?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just a correction on what I informed the member of previously. The federal licences expire on the 20 fish farms, which we have expiring on the land tenure side, in 2022 — not two years from now but four years from now.

The member asked about the harmonization between the federal licences and the land tenure licences. We attempt to harmonize them. That’s the aim, but the assertion that they’re not harmonized by the member is probably correct in most cases.

J. Rustad: These licences, obviously, as I mentioned before, have been renewed a number of times. They’ve been in place for many decades now. I guess the question is…. There’s a fairly straightforward process in terms of renewal. Is the process for renewal of these licences changing in any way?

Let me rephrase that — the process for renewing the tenures, not the licences. I just want to be sure what we’re talking about.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: There’s a rigorous process for replacement of existing tenures. There’s information gathered and taken under review. If any changes have occurred, First Nations consultation is part of the process. Then a designated statutory decision–maker makes a decision on the replacement of the tenure or not replacing the tenure and the length of time associated with that.

That’s been the standard procedure under the Land Act, and we’re not changing that policy.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister on that question. I’m glad to hear that there isn’t a planned change for the process of renewal of those tenures. I’m a little curious about that.

I’ve got to digress into a little bit of politics on this. I’m curious, as the letter that went from the Minister of Agriculture to the sector — in particular, to Marine Harvest — talked about how the tenures may not be renewed potentially. It obviously was viewed as being a bit of a threat. I understand that letter did come through the minister’s office with regards to a review, whether by staff or others, before that was sent out.

I guess the question to the minister is: if there are no planned changes to the process of renewal of the tenures, what was the purpose of that letter?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I’ll entertain the question. It’s removed, I would say, from the budget questions around this ministry, but I would like to offer an answer. It’s that the statutory decision–maker makes the decision about whether to replace or not replace the licence.

I can’t presuppose what the statutory decision–maker’s decisions would be. That person makes them, based on the current Land Act and the policy, and they can’t be fettered in any way. That’s the statutory decision–maker’s responsibility.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that answer. I am just noting, through an FOI request, some information that came through. The letter did go through the minister’s office and was approved before going out, which is why I felt the question was relevant in terms of the minister’s responsibility — around the tenures, the tenures being renewed and the commentary with regard to whether those pens should be restocked, given the potential issue of renewables. However, it’s good to hear that the process is in place. I’m sure that the industry will be interested in knowing that.

The minister, on at least one occasion if not more occasions, in the media talked about the desire to move to a closed-containment system. I am curious whether or not the minister is considering that approach to the tenures and the issue of tenures moving forward.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just to clarify the roles here, the role of my ministry is in tenuring around the Land Act for aquaculture initiatives like the open-net fish farms. The aquaculture policy lies within the purview of the Ministry of Agriculture. In fact, the interest in exploring the possibilities of closed containment, where feasible, is part of the Ministry of Agriculture’s mandate and of overall government policy.

J. Rustad: One of the reasons why I ask this question — obviously, with tenures coming up, there’s a process going through — is that industry needs to know whether or not they can be stocking and whether or not they’re going to be at risk. The Minister of Agriculture was quoted as saying that the status quo was not good enough. That’s why I’m asking whether or not there are any plans, or whether the ministry will be signalling to the industry that there was potential for changes to the way that finfish aquaculture is currently being tenured and operated in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just, again, to emphasize that the restocking is within a federally licensed regime. That’s the responsibility of the federal government. The tenure process, as far as the Land Act goes, for these facilities is under my ministry. That’s the responsibility that we have provincially.

I have met with the industry. We continue to meet with industry on the future of technology when it relates to aquaculture. We really welcome those discussions. It’s been very interesting, some of the progress that’s been made in other jurisdictions — in Norway, for instance — on closed containment.

J. Rustad: It’s interesting. I think the minister’s comments, in particular, were around “where feasible.” There has been one onshore example, I believe, in British Columbia, where the operations for raising the Atlantic salmon were undertaken, and that has failed. Is the minister considering furthering that type of an approach, or pilots, with regard to how finfish aquaculture is handled in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Donaldson: That would be aquaculture policy, which is under the purview of the Minister of Agriculture.

J. Rustad: Along these lines, as well — back to the process of decision-making around renewing the tenures — how does UNDRIP play into the tenuring process, the renewal of the tenures? Will that change any particular approach in terms of the engagement with First Nations?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: How the United Nations declaration may or may not apply to the federal licensing I can’t comment on, but the related impacts of the Land Act tenures currently involve — and have, in past licence applications — First Nations consultations. Legally, First Nations must be consulted in the process of the statutory decision–maker making a decision on the replacement of existing licences.

J. Rustad: I’m aware of the requirement for consultation with First Nations. The question is whether or not the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous people, in the mandate letters of every ministry, will change the process of consultation and, if it is to change the process of consultation, to what extent. What goal is trying to be achieved?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The United Nations declaration is something that we, as a government, have endorsed. It’s a political statement, and it really is about deepening engagement with First Nations to reach reconciliation.

The legal objective, when it comes to First Nations consultation that exists where my ministry has jurisdiction — which is under the Land Act, in relation to the topic we’re discussing here currently — is embarking on deep consultation with First Nations, when it comes to renewal of the tenures. That’s one of the aspects that is incumbent upon a statutory decision–maker to undertake. It’s about creating more certainty, it’s about reconciliation, and I think the application of the consultative process in the tenure renewal is an example of reconciliation in action.

J. Rustad: Thanks to the minister on the question. I need to ask this on the record. The minister has been fairly clear that UNDRIP, or the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous people, is a political statement, but we’ve lots of concern with regard to free, prior and informed consent and whether or not that represents a veto by nations with issuing tenures and tenure renewals.

I just want to ask whether or not the minister is considering providing an opportunity for a veto through the tenure-issuing or tenure-renewing process for finfish aquaculture.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Many authorities have spoken on this topic, and I would be glad to quote one well-known authority in the province, Grand Chief Ed John, who has made it clear that the principles of free, prior and informed consent do not mean a veto. Whenever that has been brought up, it is essentially brought up in a negative context. I think it can damage the atmosphere that we’re trying to create around investment. So I caution anybody who wants to bring up free, prior and informed consent and then follow it or precede it with the word “veto,” because none other than Grand Chief Ed John has stated publicly that that’s not the case.

What we’re trying to do here is reconcile with First Nations in a broad way and create more certainty around investment. Specifically, the topic that we’re discussing here is the jurisdiction, through the Land Act, that this ministry has over making a decision about replacing tenures when it comes to fish farms.

J. Rustad: I believe it was Chief Bob Chamberlin — it may have been someone else — who said that the current operations do not have their consent, in the north end of Vancouver Island. Those are the operations, I believe — the 20 licences that we’re talking about — that are up for renewal in the very near future here, in June.

The reason for asking the question is that obviously, there seems to be some difference of opinion with regards to what that may mean, which is why I asked the minister for clarification. I’m pleased to hear that, in terms of clarification.

I do have a few other questions with regards to this. However, at this time, I’d like to offer an opportunity for the member for Saanich North and the Islands to be able to enter the debate on finfish aquaculture tenures.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the member for Nechako Lakes.

To the minister: in the 2017 election campaign, your party committed to implementing the findings of the Cohen commission. One of the primary findings…. There are lots of findings, but one of the findings was about the siting of fish farms.

Being as you make the decisions about tenures and where they’re allowed to anchor to the ocean floor, will this commitment that you’ve made factor into determining whether or not you’ll renew the tenures that are upcoming?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thanks for the question. When it comes to wild salmon, we’ve made it clear, as a government, that we’re very focused on the protection of wild salmon in migratory routes.

Now, I have to point out that the primary decision of the siting of aquaculture activities, such as open-net fish farms in the water, is the federal government. We have jurisdiction through the Land Act over the anchoring and provincial jurisdiction over seabed and land access to the sites.

[3:25 p.m.]

In the bigger scheme of things, that is a minor jurisdictional authority compared to the primary authority over the siting and the choosing of the sites, which is a federal responsibility. That’s why we’ve been working to get the federal government involved to a greater degree than they are at this moment.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the answer. There is some authority that the provincial government has that it could exert, based on the vision that the minister, the Premier and other ministers of this government have stated — a commitment to wild salmon.

Clearly, the responsibility that the minister’s ministry has on tenures isn’t a non-authority. There is some authorization that the province is required to give, or else we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Can the minister explain that? It appears that there’s an ability for us, as a province, to grant tenures to anchor to the ocean floor. While the federal government has the main authority for where it’s sited, what role do we have?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll try to lay this out to the member as best I can.

Once a decision is made for siting in a general sense by the federal government, then we have the ability through our tenure system, through the Land Act, to work with the federal government to make minor relocation decisions and conditions — for instance, how close to a fish stream one of these facilities is actually anchored once the general site is determined. We can issue conditions around where the attachments to the land or the anchors in the water are located.

Those are the kinds of authorities we have under the Land Act, under my ministry, when it comes to the actual siting of the fish farms, but the major decision authority is with the federal government about where they’re located.

A. Olsen: So the ministry cannot…. Essentially, then, the ministry must grant renewal of these tenures if the federal government has licensed them and chosen the site?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: We, as in the province, under the Land Act under this ministry, are not compelled to grant a renewal. That’s up to the statutory decision–maker, who can grant a renewal or not grant a renewal. But we do have, under the act, the ability to make mitigative measures. If the anchoring is going to cause what our scientists decide is environmental damage, we can insist, through conditions, on mitigative measures that will avoid that environmental damage as a direct result of the anchoring process.

That’s the level of jurisdiction and of decision-making that’s split between the federal government and the provincial government on this topic.

A. Olsen: The minister’s party was very clear that they would ensure that the salmon farming industry does not endanger wild salmon by implementing the recommendations of the Cohen Commission, keeping farmsites out of important salmon migration routes and supporting research and transparent monitoring to minimize the risks of disease transfer from captive wild salmon.

That was the commitment. There’s science that’s coming forward pretty clearly from the strategic salmon health initiative that there is disease in the Johnstone Strait fish farms and that they threaten the wild salmon fisheries — as in the commitment and a commitment to the Cohen Commission.

Presumably, the government — specifically, this ministry — could use its authority over the tenures to enforce what was said during the campaign and enforce providing safety to the Fraser River sockeye.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member is accurate in saying that the tool that we have at our disposal is the Land Act when it comes to how tenure is granted through the province and that it’s not the tool that addresses the siting. That’s within the federal government jurisdiction. We’ve been able to connect with the federal government on this. We’re not happy that we haven’t been able to connect enough at the minister level and the minister responsible. They need to step up on recommendations around the Cohen, and we’re willing to work with them on that.

What we’re trying to achieve in meeting with First Nations who have concerns around fish farms is getting to certainty and getting to reconciliation and using a consent-based process to do that.

This particular topic we’re discussing here, around the replacement of tenure, is an operational consultation. It’s something that a statutory decision–maker has within a very limited framework. That’s what’s underway, as well, with our ministry, with the 20-odd tenures that are coming up at the end of June.

A. Olsen: I believe it’s happened in the past where government has created a policy that provided direction to the statutory decision–maker as to the vision and the direction the government was deciding to go.

[3:35 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I understand that the statutory decision–maker makes the decision about whether or not a certain item, a certain net or operation, can be tied to the ocean floor, but the statutory decision–maker makes those decisions under the direction of the government, of the ministry.

Am I correct in this statement — that the ministry could and the minister could create a policy that no new salmon farm applications will be considered and no renewals will be given due to the Cohen Commission; that if wild salmon are going to be threatened by the fish farm industry, they would be moved; and that under that, this government’s not going to renew these fish farms because of the threat that it poses to wild salmon?

Hon. D. Donaldson: That scenario is not what we could do under the Land Act. What the member is bringing up is overall aquaculture policy, and that’s something that’s under the purview of the Minister of Agriculture. But under the Land Act, the legal obligations are very defined. Under the Land Act, there’s no ability to undertake what the member has pointed out.

I have some answers from a previous question, if you just give me an opportunity, Member. Thank you very much. The critic asked about the number of shellfish aquaculture tenures. There are 468 aquaculture sites, and those are licensed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in our waters. On the licence length that is possible under the federal legislation for those kinds of activities, the maximum term of that licence is nine years.

A. Olsen: Just to clarify this and get this correct. If the Minister of Agriculture creates an aquaculture policy directing the government to follow the commitments to the Cohen Commission, should it be determined that wild salmon be threatened by the finfish aquaculture industry, then the minister of this ministry — Forests, Lands — can direct the statutory decision–maker to not proceed with granting tenure renewals.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the question. Under the Land Act, we have legal obligations and can’t fetter, can’t be seen to fetter, the statutory decision–maker. So that’s not the tool that the member is getting at.

There could be policy created by the Ministry of Agriculture when it comes to finfish aquaculture. But again, it’s the federal government that issues the finfish licences. So it would take…. Any kind of policy that the Minister of Agriculture is interested in pursuing in connection to the finfish aquaculture is dependent on the federal government taking the same direction and being on board.

A. Olsen: Okay. I understand all that. I understand that the federal government’s got its finfish aquaculture policy and it creates the siting and it grants licences. But we can also stand up for wild salmon, or we could also decide as a province that we’re not going to allow nets to be attached to the ocean floor, correct?

[3:40 p.m.]

However, the government has to determine, whether it be through the Minister of Agriculture or another ministry…. We have the ability to say: “No, you can’t attach that to the ocean floor.”

Hon. D. Donaldson: If there’s some type of environmental harm directly related to the anchoring process or whether it’s underwater or on land or there are considerations of moving the finfish farm because it is in too close proximity to a stream on land, those are the kinds of conditions that can be placed through the statutory decision–maker. But again, the overall authority when it comes to aquaculture is with the federal government.

I understand this can be frustrating to some people. I just have to give a little history. Because it was so frustrating to many people under the previous government, a court case was launched by concerned parties. The result of that court case was that in 2009, federal jurisdiction became the primary jurisdiction governing aquaculture industry in B.C. waters. That was unfortunate.

Directly as a result of the ignoring of concerns, some of which you have mentioned, we lost control, because of the court case, over much of what you’re talking about.

A. Olsen: I guess part of the confusion that’s created is the commitments that were made in the election that we were going to get a certain type of policy — policy that implements the recommendations of the Cohen commission, policy that keeps fish farm sites out of important salmon migration routes. All of this was created with the understanding that perhaps this government would have a different approach and, bringing it back to the budget, that we would be looking at other sources of revenue and other opportunities than finfish aquaculture. That would be the expectation, I think, of British Columbians when it came to this government.

What I’m hearing right now is that, in fact, that’s not what is possible — what was suggested in that commitment. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Donaldson: This government is committed to protecting wild salmon and the migratory routes. What is the issue here that you’re bringing up is that the replacement of tenures is not the tool to address concerns that people might have around the impact of fish farms on wild salmon. The replacement-of-tenure process is a process under the Land Act that a statutory decision–maker undertakes.

We are very concerned about wild salmon and protecting the health of wild salmon. The Cohen commission recommendations — the province has acted on a number of them. A number of them are still in the federal government’s court. But the tool to get there is not the tenure replacement process.

A. Olsen: Yeah, you have to, I guess, excuse me then, because I…. The frustration here is that on one hand, I’ve been told, with the tenures, from other ministries: this is the place to come. I’ve been with the Minister of Agriculture, and I’ll be going to other ministries as well, but I was led to believe — and, in fact, have been told — that this was one of the tools that was at the disposal of the provincial government.

[3:45 p.m.]

That is, I think, where the frustration and the confusion is coming up in this ministry. It was that the government — Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development — is going to be making decisions about the tenures for these 20 licences which the federal government has already granted.

The expectation and the confusion in the public is…. There’s an expectation that the minister actually has a decision-making authority on the future of those farms. Indeed, I think one of the fish farms that we met with had that same expectation, so perhaps some clarification is needed. We keep getting “Go to this ministry” or “Go to that ministry” on this. I think that’s where some of the confusion is.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I agree. In the public, there is a perception that the province has way more jurisdiction over aquaculture activities than, in fact, is reality, especially when it comes to tenure renewal through the Land Act. Aquaculture licensing is primarily a federal responsibility.

However, I have read the transcripts the member had with the Minister of Agriculture in her estimates. What she pointed out…. Maybe this will help alleviate some of the confusion. I don’t want the member to get the feeling that he’s been given the runaround: “Go ask this ministry. Go ask that ministry.”

This ministry, when it comes to legal obligations, has the ability, during these estimates, to answer questions about tenure renewal under the Land Act. I have also been charged by the Premier to be the coordinator when it comes to the process that we’ve embarked upon with six First Nations around finfish, Atlantic salmon, open-net aquaculture in the Broughton Archipelago. That, perhaps, is where the member heard from the Minister of Agriculture to refer questions to myself when it comes to that particular topic.

A. Olsen: If, in fact, the provincial government has, say, 10 percent or 2 percent of the decision-making of this — whatever it is today — why is it that the provincial government is leading on that relationship? It leads with the First Nations. It leads the public to believe that the provincial government has more authority than is being expressed here today. If the federal government owns everything, why is the federal government not leading that? Why are they sitting in the back of the room as an observer?

Hon. D. Donaldson: What an excellent question and an excellent observation. We have been asked by First Nations to become involved, and to further reconciliation, we have. It’s something that they’ve asked previous governments, and previous governments haven’t been getting involved to the extent that we have.

We have been successful in bringing Department of Fisheries and Oceans staff to meetings that we’ve had with the six First Nations, who we met with on January 30, and we have ongoing efforts.

It’s an excellent question. This is primarily…. The member quoted right. I would say it’s 90 percent federal jurisdiction as a result of that court case in 2009. So far, I think the federal government is not living up to that majority decision-making authority that they have. We’re continually in touch and trying to bring them to the table more.

In relation to the member’s question, the reason we’re involved is that the First Nations who have concerns asked us to get involved.

E. Ross: To the minister, thank you for your questions to date.

If you haven’t done it already — you don’t have to spend too much time here — I just want to have a really quick summary in terms of what goes into renewing a tenure in regards to fish farms.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the question. I did review this a little bit earlier, but I’ll go into it in more detail now. I’m happy to go into more detail.

The type of criteria that the statutory decision–maker considers when it comes to a decision about renewing or replacing or not replacing a tenure under the Land Act would be things like environmental impacts of the anchoring, related to the fish farm; the past performance of the proponent when it comes to issues under the jurisdiction of the statutory decision–maker under the Land Act, such as whether docks have been kept up to standard and other maintenance issues that could have an adverse environmental impact; and First Nations consultation.

Those are some of the factors that would go into a decision around replacing or not replacing a tenure under the Land Act.

E. Ross: Thank you to the minister for that.

Environmental impacts in terms of anchoring. That makes sense, because it’s connected to the land and past performance. And standards…. When you’re talking about the standards, I’m thinking you’re talking about the standards as delivering something under, say, safety standards, for example, or standards related to protection of the environment as it relates to anchoring, for example.

Does it go as far as safety standards? Or does that go across different jurisdictions? Or do you work with different ministries within the government to actually address these safety standards?

Hon. D. Donaldson: No. Safety standards aren’t part of it, in the way that the member presented. The past performance I’m talking about is in relation to the anchoring and the environmental impacts around the facility but not safety.

E. Ross: I won’t get into the safety issues I have with fish farms in relation to unlawful occupation, then. I’ll save that for a different ministry. But in terms of the renewal of fish farm tenures, we were talking about past performance and issues related to the Land Act, including anchoring. I’ve brought this up before in other estimates as well.

I was glad to see that the House Leader of the Third Party actually brought up evidence-based decision-making. I’m sure that relates to your ministry, as well, when you’re talking about past performance and environmental impacts. I’m sure you’ve got a lot of things to consider when you make these decisions. But how important is professional reliance, as well as evidence-based decision-making, in your deliberations about renewing tenures for fish farms?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just to be clear, I don’t make the decision. That’s a designated statutory decision–maker who makes the decisions under the Land Act for whether to replace or not replace a tenure.

Perhaps I’ll give an example of what I meant about past performance. Past performance would be, for instance, whether the operator has been in compliance with the tenure conditions under the Land Act. Those might be something as straightforward as rental payments: have they complied with the terms and conditions, under the Land Act, of rental payments?

I believe that the member, if referring to professional reliance, might be referring more to the activities that are covered under the federal government, which is the actual aquaculture licence and the activities that are under federal jurisdiction. When it comes to the performance of the operator within the water column, that lies within the fish farm licence.

E. Ross: I don’t want to put words in your mouth, and I understand the statutory decision–maker’s role in this respect. What I’m really trying to get at is at the heart of the controversy for the fish farms up in the north end of Vancouver Island. As far as I can understand it, the standards have been met in terms of past practices as well as past performance, and in other respects as well, including environmental impacts regarding anchoring. I’m assuming, as well, that these fish farms have actually been compliant in terms of the conditions you’re talking about — especially, say, something like rental payments.

The only outstanding issue I can see that may be in question is First Nations consultation. Am I kind of in the same ballpark as the ministry?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the member for seeking further clarification on how the Land Act process applies. It would be presumptuous of either of us to assume that all the conditions associated with the Land Act tenure have been met or not met — that’s what the statutory decision–maker does in reviewing the application for replacement of the tenure — but he is right that a part of that review process is a referral to First Nations.

E. Ross: That’s what I don’t want to do — make assumptions. Everything I’ve seen coming out of the controversy off the north end of Vancouver Island doesn’t mention anything about objections to environmental impacts, anchoring, past performance in general or standards that were breached in the past. I’ve read nothing about non-compliance when it comes to rental payments.

Again, I just want to know if the only outstanding issue, in terms of the renewal of the tenure, is the First Nations consultation.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, again, we can’t presume. That’s going to be the review that’s undertaken by the statutory decision–maker when the replacement of the tenures comes up. That review will cover the topic areas.

We haven’t got to that review yet. I can’t tell the member right now whether all the conditions have been met under the current tenure. That’s something that will be assessed by the statutory decision–maker. This is in regards to the Land Act, strictly. So what might be some concerns or issues that are outside of the Land Act and that are happening in the fish farm water column are federal jurisdiction.

[4:00 p.m.]

As far as the specific tool around the tenure renewal or replacement process, this is something that’s underway. It’s a normal course of procedures and a legal obligation. That’ll be undertaken by staff within the ministry, a statutory decision–maker. I can’t comment on whether all the criteria at this point have been met or not met. I was just trying to give an example of criteria that will be evaluated during the replacement process.

E. Ross: Thank you, Minister. I think what we’re really trying to understand…. Even my colleague from North Saanich was trying to get at this. There are so many different jurisdictions and responsibilities from different levels of government, including within the B.C. government, whether it be the Ministry of Agriculture, your ministry, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and maybe, to a certain extent as well, Attorney General.

I’m just trying to understand the issues related to each ministry, but as I understand it, the issues kind of cross the different ministries. I’ll leave it at that. Assuming that the reports from past reviews are actually public domain, I’ll go check the website, as well, to see if there were any issues regarding environmental impacts or past performance or non-compliance.

In terms of First Nations consultation…. I understand your ministry, just like every other ministry, had a mandate to implement UNDRIP. And I’ve said this before. I don’t oppose the concept of UNDRIP. I just don’t understand how it will get implemented in terms of statutory decision–making — or, in the case of this, your job as renewing a tenure for a fish farm.

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member.

E. Ross: Sorry about that. I retract that.

To the minister through the Chair, is there any up-to-date explanation of how UNDRIP will get implemented, in terms of consultation in regards to the renewal of tenure to the fish farms?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I welcome the question. If the member is interested in a broader discussion around the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, the principles that are encompassed in that, then that would be an excellent question to bring up during the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation’s budget estimates.

I’ll re-emphasize what I talked about earlier, as far as what is going on within the ministry I represent, when it comes to the finfish aquaculture statutory decision–making. Just going back to the previous comments by the member, we know that 90 percent of…. That’s just a rough estimate, but I would be confident to say 90 percent of what happens around fish farm aquaculture in B.C. is under federal jurisdiction when it comes to health concerns with wild salmon and things like that.

When we have the jurisdiction of this ministry, when it comes to referrals to First Nations around Land Act tenure decisions associated with the anchoring of fish farms, consultation is required. Deep consultation is required, and part of that follows, I would say, the United Nations declaration. But this is an operational consultation process around the permitting applications and renewals under the Land Act. That’s the focus of that kind of consultation.

E. Ross: No, I’m not looking for a broader discussion on UNDRIP. I’m looking for a specific conversation in relation to the minister’s responsibilities in terms of renewing the tenure, because it is in the mandate letter to your ministry.

[4:05 p.m.]

If it’s just an operational consultation to First Nations, if I’m hearing that correctly, that poses problems as well. It is probably more specific if it was under existing rights and title case law. But this is my issue with UNDRIP in general: there is no specificity to it. There is no definition. I’ve heard from this government that it’s either a human rights document, a blueprint for success — and I can’t remember what the other…. But really, no definition yet.

Just to be clear, the way I think about this is it creates a lot of uncertainty not only for the government and not only for the fish farm operator itself but also for First Nations. Ultimately, I don’t want to see First Nations end up in court trying to define UNDRIP, when we’ve spend the last 35 years in court trying to define, with great success, section 35 of the constitution.

If it’s an operational consultation only, under UNDRIP, do the First Nations in question — those that support fish farms as well as those First Nations that oppose fish farms — understand that this will only be a consultation on the operational side of things, in regards to the renewal of tenures of fish farms?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I can agree with one part of the member’s question. That is that it’s unproductive for all parties, First Nations and the provincial government, to end up in court over a multitude of issues on the land base, whether it’s aquaculture or forestry or…. That’s totally unproductive time. That is why we want to embark on a better process of reconciliation.

The uncertainty was created, in regards to finfish aquaculture, by the previous government not paying enough attention to concerns that were consistently raised by those concerned about aquaculture, open-net Atlantic salmon fish farms, in their region. We’re trying to address that and create more certainty.

As far as the Land Act process goes, the First Nations who have open-net Atlantic salmon fish farms in their waters will be part of the replacement process as far as consultation. That would include First Nations that have a range of views on the fish farm issue.

E. Ross: I wasn’t around for the previous government’s handling of the consultation with fish farms. But as I understand it, the consultation with First Nations in regards to fish farms will not address the larger issues in relation to what would usually be addressed under rights and title consultation and accommodation case law principles.

They’ll probably have the same questions as I will. Where will that consultation take place, then, if it’s not going to be through FLNRO? FLNRO will only consult on operational subjects, such as environmental impacts of anchoring, for example, past performance of a fish farm and other standards, as well as compliance, including rental payments.

When the ministry is going to consider the rights and title interest or the First Nations interest, whether it be under UNDRIP or under existing case law, what will the minister use to weigh, in terms of whether or not they’ve fully engaged First Nations and understood all their concerns — both supporters and opposers of fish farms?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll cover a bit of ground that I covered with the critic. I appreciate that the member might not have been able to hear that. And I appreciate the question.

The United Nations declaration falls in the realm of a political, principled document. So we have a cross-government exercise where we are looking at how the UN declaration applies. That’s a cross-government exercise. Sorry, a cross-ministry exercise, not cross-government. Cross-ministry. It informs our approach to reconciliation. So that’s, in a broad way, how the United Nations declaration applies.

When it comes to the consideration under the Land Act of the renewal or replacement of tenures, specifically to do with aquaculture and the Land Act, there’s a legally obligated consultative process with First Nations. That’s got parameters around it, and it’s typified as deep consultation.

That would be specific to the impacts of what happens under the Land Act tenure. So consultation around environmentally mitigative measures when it comes to anchoring into the seabed or the final position within a location of the fish farm in relation to streams and things like that.

It’s a very determined, defined and legally obligated consultative process when it comes to the actual tenure replacement. But it’s not the overall large exercise about how we’re approaching reconciliation under the principles of the UN declaration.

E. Ross: The grey area in between that is what I don’t understand and how it merges to either deny or approve the replacement of a tenure, for example.

One is a protocol initiative, basically brought to us by the UN. The other is case law developed in the courts of B.C. and Canada over the last 35 years that’s actually been translated into policies, regulations and the duty to consult and accommodate all levels of government. What I don’t understand is how the two interact or they don’t interact.

[4:15 p.m.]

It goes back to what was brought up in the House today in terms of evidence-based decision-making. Because on one hand, when you’re talking about the duty to consult, the company in question here has made tremendous efforts to consult and accommodate.

They’ve got tremendous amounts of documents relating to the amount of times they’ve requested meetings through emails, phone calls, going to the office in person. That is a portion of what it means to consult and accommodate that’s got really nothing to do with the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

In terms of the renewal of the tenure, where will the emphasis be applied to? Will it be applied to the evidence created over the last few years, in terms of the company trying to consult and accommodate, or will it be more emphasis placed on the principles of UNDRIP?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The replacement of tenure is a specific process under the Land Act, under provincial government jurisdiction. Part of the criteria under what the statutory decision–maker considers when he or she is making that decision around replacement is a referral and a consultation with First Nations. It’s not the company’s purview or how much consultation the companies have done in regards to the First Nations involved. It’s part of the legal obligation of the province to refer the replacement applications to First Nations for consultation. I want to make that clear.

What the member is referring to around whether or not a company has consulted with First Nations on aquaculture could apply to a lot of jurisdictional arrangements that are under the federal jurisdiction licensing-wise. But as far as what’s under the authority of this ministry regarding the Land Act and aquaculture, it’s a statutory decision–maker’s responsibility to consult with First Nations as part of the tenure replacement process. That consultation deals within the parameters of what this ministry has under its jurisdiction around the anchoring of the sites and the land access to the sites.

E. Ross: Well, that’s not entirely correct. There is a duty from the proponent to actually consult and accommodate where delegated by the Crown. In most cases, the proponent is actually requested to deal with some of the technical consultations that you’re speaking of. More importantly, they’re always delegated to actually address the inescapable economic component of rights and title, and that’s where the consultation and accommodation provisions kick in.

If the proponent here is not able to basically provide evidence-based proof of their efforts to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate the First Nations in relation to the overall tenure process, or maybe even the overall fish farm, where does a proponent have an opportunity to prove their best efforts at engaging First Nations?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Definitely the proponent has a role to play. The best scenario is where there is engagement with the proponent and First Nations and the government and also the federal government in matters pertaining to aquaculture and other issues on the land base.

I have to point out, and I know the member has a perspective…. I know that I’m not a lawyer, but the ultimate responsibility for consultation lies with the Crown. If the member has a different perspective than that, I suggest he bring it up at the budget estimates with the Attorney General.

J. Rustad: Perhaps a couple more questions to wrap up, and then we’ll be moving on from fish. Just to start off with a couple more questions on this, in particular: are there any current tenure applications, and will the ministry be entertaining new applications for tenures for finfish aquaculture?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Specifically, I want to clarify…. I believe this was the member’s question, but I want to make sure on the record that I’m clarifying that tenure applications under the Land Act are what I’m responding to. Yes, currently under the Land Act, as far as replacement of tenures, there are 20.

I think the second part of the question is: must we consider them? Well, it’s our legal obligation to consider the applications.

J. Rustad: The question I actually had was whether there were new applications, not renewal applications, for tenures.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member is referring to whether there are new applications for finfish aquaculture, which would come through an application to the federal fisheries, a federal fisheries licence. We’re not aware of any new applications to the federal government, and we don’t necessarily track that, but we learn about them in due course once they’ve been applied to, to the federal government.

J. Rustad: I actually meant whether there are new applications for tenures, not for licences. But perhaps I should, given my lack of knowledge of the topic….

[4:25 p.m.]

Are tenures a process that falls after a licence? I’m seeing a nod from the deputy, so I won’t need to worry about asking the minister to respond to that. Thank you for that.

A couple of other quick questions. The aquaculture industry is somewhere between $500 million and $800 million. I think it’s one of the largest export products, largest agriculture components, within the province. All of that, of course, is not within the minister’s ministry.

Neither is the fact…. I find it interesting that the run up in the Skeena is troubled this year, and there’s not going to be recreational. But the run in the Fraser, where it goes by all of these fish farms, seems to be okay for this year, and it’s collecting to be able to have that operation there.

Regardless of all of that, because obviously that’s not in the purview of the minister, I do want to go back to something the minister said, which was working to get the feds more involved. I understand from another answer that the minister gave that the federal officials were involved in the meetings — I think it was on January 30 — with various groups.

To what extent is the minister looking to further involve the federal government — as well as for future meetings or perhaps other meetings since or around the time of January 30? Have they met with First Nations leaders and/or employee groups that are currently involved in the fish-farming process?

Hon. D. Donaldson: There’s been a lot going on, so I just wanted to make sure that we’re going to cover it all. We have ongoing, regular meetings with the aquaculture industry through staff in my ministry and through staff in the Agriculture Ministry. As well, I’ve had meetings directly in my office with Marine Harvest, with the president and CEO of Marine Harvest, and with the Aquaculture Association, in B.C., as well.

We do, as well, have ongoing meetings and dialogues with the federal government on this topic. We believe, and we are correct in saying, that the primary responsibility jurisdictionally is with the federal government. We’re trying to elevate their involvement in this particular discussion, so we’ve been working on that. I did have one meeting back in the fall with the federal minister. The Agriculture Minister, as well, has been in touch with the federal minister.

We have meetings lined up between the deputy minister in this ministry and the deputy minister in Agriculture. They are lining up and meeting with the federal deputy minister as well. Lots going on, on that front.

[4:30 p.m.]

Since January 30, we’ve been back in touch with the five First Nations bands representing six First Nations overall in the Broughton Archipelago. We’re coming to an arrangement for another meeting on their concerns and proceeding forward together.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for the answer. One last question that I have at this time on this topic is around shellfish aquaculture.

There are many First Nations that have an interest in acquiring tenures and expanding the opportunity. The federal government, I think, came out with zoning — sort of go or no-go types of areas. I’m wondering if the minister can, perhaps, provide us with some details with regards to the minister’s efforts to be able to issue some of those tenures so that they could then approach the federal government in looking for licences.

As you know, shellfish aquaculture has an enormous potential for growth in this province, but the key is to be able to get tenures through a process, and obviously the federal government holds the ultimate key in terms of allowing for production.

I’m wondering if the minister could elaborate on any attempts, or what the minister might be doing with regards to those tenure interests, particularly by First Nations for shellfish aquaculture.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I totally agree with the member’s assessment that there is great potential in shellfish aquaculture, and it’s something that we’re engaged in with First Nations, in consultation and through reconciliation, as another avenue to further our relationship and reach reconciliation. We’ve been meeting with Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials to try to move it along on behalf of First Nations and in conjunction with First Nations.

The member is correct. Until the federal government issues a specific shellfish tenure…. That’s what triggers our process on the Land Act tenures. So we’re very aware of the situation. I’ve met with a number of First Nations who are interested in pursuing those kinds of federal tenures, and we’re engaged with them on it and see it as a big part of reconciliation. We need to bring the feds in, in a bigger way, as well.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

J. Rustad: That’ll wrap up my questions with regards to this topic. I just want to note that we spent a fair bit of time on this, as well as, of course, on cannabis and rural development. I put that at the front end of estimates because last fall, when we got into estimates, we really didn’t get a chance to canvass those. We spent more time, obviously, on wildfires and forestry-related issues.

What I’d like to suggest is that we’re going to move now to forestry questions, but with that, I would ask the Chair for a brief recess to allow staff to change and an opportunity for refreshment.

The Chair: This House will stand recessed for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:34 p.m. to 4:41 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

J. Rustad: B.C., obviously — with part of its coastal forest industry, in particular — exports logs to various places, various other jurisdictions. I’m curious as to what the log export numbers are and what they’re projected to be over the next year or two. I’ll start with those numbers.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll provide some numbers that we have for 2017. The export off Crown lands in 2017 was approximately 3.6 million cubic metres. That was down 1 percent from the 2016 export level. The exports from federal private forest lands in 2017 was 2.6 million cubic metres. Although that adds up to 6.2 million cubic metres of logs that had permits to be exported, six million cubic metres were actually exported.

As far as predicting, those are business decisions that I wouldn’t be able to give an accurate answer on for 2018. It all depends on prices and markets. But those are the numbers for 2017.

J. Rustad: I’m just trying to do the math. I think, given the harvest numbers for the past year, that would represent about 5 percent or less of logs harvested from the Crown lands, then, that would be exported. If that number is wrong, the minister could correct me on that.

[4:45 p.m.]

Given that there have been statements in the throne speech, as well as commentary at the Truck Loggers Convention by the Premier — and, I believe, some comments, as well, by the minister — could the minister explain whether or not there will be policies coming forward that would change the current process for exporting logs?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The number is 6 percent. That volume represents 6 percent, in 2017, that was exported off of Crown lands. The member was pretty close; 5 percent is what he said.

We’re interested in looking at mechanisms to ensure and promote that more B.C. logs are processed in B.C. mills. I think that’s incumbent on any government. It’s a particular focus of this government that we get more employment out of every log that comes out of the forest. So we’re interested in that. We’ve been turning our minds to that.

As far as the log export dynamic goes, I’m fully aware that log exports have always been part of the business model for forest companies to be able to maintain their viability and also to maintain the affordability of harvesting the entire timber profile, as they must do. It’s part of the business model, but the goal of this government is to ensure that more manufacturing happens in B.C. and that those logs that come out of the forest are primarily used in B.C. mills.

J. Rustad: I think we share a perspective there that it would be great to be able to utilize as much of the fibre as we can within the province of British Columbia. There is the goal of trying to achieve that. There are mechanisms that could be applied to be able to achieve that. I’m wondering if the minister could elaborate on the approaches that the ministry is trying in order to achieve the goal that the minister has stated.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Having been in this role now — I’m honoured to be the minister — for approximately eight months, it’s a topic that comes into almost every conversation when I have a forest-related delegation in my office, whether it’s industry, whether it’s First Nations or whether it’s internally amongst staff.

[4:50 p.m.]

We’ve begun those discussions internally. I’ve definitely engaged with industry on what they see as the role of government, and if there is a role for government, to try to create the conditions so that more manufacturing does take place in B.C. Particularly important are the discussions we’ve had with First Nations on this topic as well.

As the member knows, from his former role as minister, many First Nations are extremely interested in opportunities in the forest sector. It’s not only the jobs associated with harvesting but also in value-added opportunities.

We’ve begun all those conversations, and the outcome, the goal, is to improve the employment situation in the province and to try to reverse the trends that we see happening now. Unfortunately, we’ve seen many jobs disappear in the forest sector, so our goal is to try to halt that and reverse it and use these discussions that we’ve been having to arrive at mechanisms and outcomes that will create more jobs.

J. Rustad: Is the minister considering restricting the export of logs from Crown lands or changing the process by which logs are approved for export, to the effect of restricting or delaying the opportunity for export of logs?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the member. Answers might be more involved now, because we’re into a core area of the ministry, and it’s great to be able to talk about it.

The goal is to end up with a reduction in the amount of logs exported from B.C., with the caveat that we know that export has always been part of the business model in order to make businesses financially viable. Part of that is the goal to not negatively impact jobs that are already existing in the industry. We think we can do that, but we’re having discussions about that now and what some of the tools can be.

I’m sure that the member knows that, from when he was part of government, if you are considering anything, you pull on one string, and there are five other strings that are attached to it. So we are very aware of that and want to make sure that anything that we do consider as mechanisms to ensure that more logs are processed in B.C. does have the intended effect, which is to increase employment.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that carefully worded answer, that carefully avoided the question. But that’s okay. I take it, from the minister’s answer, that they are not considering the policies or instruments that would directly be restricting log exports. If I’m wrong on that, if the minister could please correct me, that would be good.

I certainly support initiatives to look at how wood could be better utilized, especially for value-added. Is the minister looking at ideas around that particular component associated with log exports that would be market-driven, or is the minister considering the potential for some sort of subsidies or other types of process that would encourage activities to better utilize the fibre that is in question?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’re considering all tools because the state of the forest sector right now is in a bit of a state, for a lot of factors that I’m sure we’re going canvass throughout this discussion. But we’d like to see more jobs out of every log that’s cut in the forest in B.C.

I’ve had a full briefing on the surplus test, when it comes to exporting logs. I’ve had a briefing on the fee-in-lieu that’s associated with log exports. We want to make sure that those two tools are doing the job that they’re intended to do. That’s always something that we’re considering, the government is considering.

As far as incentives…. The member mentioned subsidies, which is a dangerous word. We have to be careful around the term “subsidy,” especially in connection to what our…. What”s the nicest word that I can say? Unrealistic segments of the industry south of the border say that we subsidize, and we say that we don’t. We’re certain of that, and we’ve won in court cases around that.

What I am looking at, with industry, First Nations and stakeholders, are some of the tools that they’ve put forward. There are lots of times that people have an idea. It might sound good in a casual conversation, but when you dig down into it, it’s a lot more complex, in trying to achieve what we’re trying to achieve. That doesn’t mean we’re not going to stop working on it and considering ideas from all those sectors — from industry, First Nations and other stakeholders.

J. Rustad: Once again, thank you to the minister, especially for utilizing the correct terminology. My intention here today is certainly not to get the minister or the ministry in any sort of pickle in terms of our neighbours to the south and the challenges that we face. But we will be canvassing that before too long, I’m sure, in this chamber.

Associated with the export of logs, of course, is that there are areas of the province that don’t have processing facilities. There are areas that are obviously difficult to operate in, as the member has indicated, where log exports are either the only opportunity for forest activity or an important part of that forest opportunity.

Could the minister provide some numbers if he has them available — if not, at a later date would be fine — around the amount of volume that is made available for B.C. mills through the proportion of logs that are exported from harvesting blocks on Crown land?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Sorry, we need a bit more clarification on that question. Is it the volume that’s put up on the surplus test that actually ends up in B.C. mills? Is that the question? Would the member clarify, please.

J. Rustad: I was specifically thinking about: when a block is sometimes harvested, there might be 17 percent — or pick a number — of a block that is scheduled for export that ultimately pays the freight for the remaining volume, which would be removed and made available to the local mills, particularly on the coast.

[5:00 p.m.]

What I’m wondering is: out of the 3.6 million cubic metres that is exported, how much additional wood has now been made available to British Columbia mills because the export has afforded the companies to be able to go in and harvest those particular areas?

Hon. D. Donaldson: That’s a valid question but a difficult one to actually delve into.

I believe what the member is asking is how much timber that perhaps would not have been economically viable was made available by the fact that the companies could achieve a return on exporting 3.6 million cubic metres of wood and how much, therefore, was made available to mills that wouldn’t necessarily have been made available.

Now, that’s going to take some very site-specific, block-by-block — even down to timber mark — kind of analysis. We can undertake that. It’ll take some time, but if the member is interested in that and wants to get to that, that’s work we can undertake.

J. Rustad: The intent of the question wasn’t to create a significant workload for an individual to try to track that down. Actually, the intent of it was more to see whether the ministry actually tracks that information. Obviously, if there were some form of restrictions in terms of the amount of log that would be exported or through the various components, in some changes of policy or approaches, that may end up creating restriction in terms of logs that would impact on local mills and potential jobs.

That’s why I’m trying to see the number. If the ministry doesn’t track that number, I’m certainly not asking the ministry to start going and digging through all of the cutblock applications and trying to track down those numbers. But that was the intent of the question. So I’ll leave that.

If it’s available, that would be great to get. If it’s not available, if you could also let me know that that’s something that isn’t tracked, because I would suggest that perhaps it would be an interesting metric that might be worth considering when having the discussion around log exports and maximizing jobs.

I’m not sure if I’m quite done with the export questions. But one thing that the minister did mention was creating more jobs out of every log. Of course, that was the slogan out of a campaign in the 1990s, which was the jobs and timber accord.

I’m curious as to whether or not the minister is looking at going back to that policy that was from the 1990s or some form of that policy from the 1990s.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I could talk about the heartlands strategy or Families First. There were strategies there that I don’t think worked, and some did work. So there was no intent to reference some other time where that phrase was used.

I think it’s just that people would like to — and what I’m hearing from communities and First Nations and even from industry — see more jobs created from each and every log that comes out of the forest sector. There’s no reference to anything other than that.

J. Rustad: With that, I’d like to turn the floor over to my colleague from Chilliwack-Kent to ask a couple of local questions.

L. Throness: I just have a couple of small issues I’d like to bring before the member.

[5:05 p.m.]

We have a constituent who wants to abide year-round on his commercial lease. He’s leasing on a commercial basis from FLNRO. My question is: what’s the policy of FLNRO related to people living year-round on commercial leases? Is there a blanket policy, or can this be determined on a case-by-case basis?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thanks for the question. It sounds like a particular circumstance. It really depends on the…. I think the member said a commercial lease. But if he could supply some more details now — or to us in writing, to me in writing — we’ll take it away and get him an answer, I assure him, quickly. The general nature of the question is a little hard for us to dig down into what exactly is the issue.

L. Throness: I will try and get some information to the minister on that.

The other issue takes a little bit longer to explain. The Chilliwack River Valley, in my riding, is just an hour away from the most populous areas of the Fraser Valley and 35,000 quads and motorbikes. There are a lot of conflicts of use in the Chilliwack River Valley.

The ministry built, about halfway up the Chilliwack River Valley by Tamahi Creek, which flows into Chilliwack River, a staging area for off-road vehicles. It’s connected to a forest service road, called Liumchen Forest Service Road, right beside the Chilliwack River. It runs parallel to the river, right beside the river. There is a community on the opposite side of the river, called Bell Acres.

Coming from this staging area, off-road vehicles tear up and down this forest service road. They cause a real noise problem for people right across the river, just a few feet away.

We have been working with FLNRO for a long time. This is as long as I have been an MLA. The former minister came out to Chilliwack, met with all the parties, and the idea was to build a road out of the back of the staging area up into the mountains, away from the residential area, so we could close the Liumchen Forest Service Road to off-road vehicle traffic.

The process has been wrapped up for a long time in negotiations with the Ts’elxwéyeqw First Nation. It’s sort of like fusion power or flying cars. It’s always imminent, but it never happens.

I was given an update a week ago that, yes, a decision is imminent on this. I think it needs some weight, so I would ask the minister to lend his weight to the process, to make an inquiry and to get a briefing on it. We would like an answer — are we going to get an alternative, or are we not? — so that we can move forward with some kind of another plan.

I presented a petition before this House with about 90 names on it, which is a lot for a residential community in a more wilderness area. The people in Bell Acres are really quite fed up with this. I really feel that I need to provide a service to them by finding an alternative for them.

I’m wondering if the minister could commit to looking into this Tamahi staging area issue, and I could follow up with him at a later date.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, it’s unfortunate this staging area was constructed without the consideration of the noise to an approximate neighbourhood. I mean, I know these issues can be very irritating and aggravating. Definitely, I’ll commit to having staff give me a full briefing on it.

[5:10 p.m.]

I’m informed that a resolution is nearly upon us. I’m not going to reference flying cars or fusion, but I take the member’s comments into consideration that it’s been a while. I hope we can provide him with an answer pretty quickly — not just him but, through him, to the residents that are impacted.

I want to go back to the previous question on commercial leases. I have a little bit of additional information to impart. When it comes to commercial leases, there’s not a blanket policy about residency. I think the member used the word “abiding” — a person living at the commercial lease. It varies depending on the circumstances, but again, if you’d like to supply the detailed situation, we’ll get the person an answer.

G. Kyllo: Last year was a very challenging year in Shuswap, where we had a number of debris flows. I actually lost a constituent, Mr. Roy Sharp, due to a debris flow that destroyed his home. It also displaced another family that had their home destroyed, where a creek suddenly appeared and went right through the middle of their home.

I have one constituent, Steve Hobbs. He and his wife are still displaced from their home. Their home is still under an evacuation order since May of last year. There’s still no resolution to this issue.

I was just wondering, Minister, if you were aware of this issue. If you could maybe provide me with an update, either today or in the weeks ahead, as far as what the plan is, for Mr. Hobbs, as far as either providing him financial compensation for his loss or whatever work might be undertaken to allow him to return to his home.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Chair, sorry about the length for the reply. I just wanted to get the latest facts.

I am aware of the situation. The member has done an excellent job of bringing it to my attention in the past. I know we’ve had discussions about it, and I’d asked the staff to pursue it because the situation as described….

You can just nod your head, but is this the couple that has a newborn, and is a doctor…? Oh, it’s the other one. Okay. Let me consult a bit more about that.

[5:15 p.m.]

What I’d offer the member is that we could sit down together and go through the details of this particular case. I remember the other case and the case where there was the very unfortunate situation where a resident lost their life. Then I do remember there’s a third property impacted, and that’s the one that is being referenced here. I offer the ability to get together with the member and staff in the room at the same time, and we can get the further details.

G. Kyllo: To the minister, thank you very much. I really appreciate that offer, and I’ll certainly take you up on that, to review…. It’s Mr. Steve Hobbs, his property on Sunnybrae.

I think we all appreciate that increased logging activity does increase water flows through different watersheds. Another community — Swansea Point in my riding, on Mara Lake — is very concerned. Hummingbird Creek had a significant debris flowback in 1997. It basically took out Highway 97A for a number of days, until it could be put back together. It caused some significant harm to the community.

We saw a repeat event in 2012. I’m very happy, actually, to have been able to work with the previous Minister of Transportation, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, to actually replace the culvert that was under Highway 97A with a significant upgraded bridge and some additional remediation work to the creek to actually improve the water flow through that course.

The residents, however, are still extremely concerned about continued logging within the Swansea Point watershed. Last spring, I know that the previous minister had…. We had some discussions, and there were some general discussions around the opportunity to provide some additional rigour with respect to the amount of modelling and the impact of any further logging within that watershed and how that potentially, accumulatively, would impact the potential for increased water flows through the Hummingbird Creek, which might again lead to a further debris flow. So the residents in Swansea Point are extremely concerned.

Again, I don’t necessarily need the answer today, but if the minister would be willing to commit to meeting with me at a later date to follow up with whatever additional works either have been undertaken to date, or additional works that might be undertaken to provide some comfort to the residents of Swansea Point.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for bringing this matter forward, Member. I understand there are high sensitivities from the people who live there. It’s a major — relating to hydrological issues. Again, this area is part of the timber-harvesting land base. What I would like to do is sit down with the member and staff and go over the forest stewardship plan. It’s not in place, but we’re looking at a forest stewardship plan for the area.

[5:20 p.m.]

Why don’t we do that? Then you can take some of the information to the concerned citizens, and we can see if we can get to some resolution.

G. Kyllo: Yes, a lot of the discussion and dialogue was around providing a bit of comfort to residents, whether it would be a third-party review or the potential engaging with Splatsin First Nations. I know there’s a high degree of respect for Splatsin First Nations, and there was some discussion about potentially bringing Splatsin First Nations in, early on in this stage, to have them actually undertake a bit of work on behalf of the community — again, just to have a bit more of a third-party review.

Anyhow, I thank you very much for your offer, Minister.

One other concern that we certainly have in Shuswap. We had a significant freshet last year. It caused significant challenges in the riding. Snowpack levels this year are significant, about 135 percent of average. I know that just the snowpack alone is not the only indicator with respect to the amount of volumes of water during freshet.

However, I do know that there’s a number creeks and streams within the riding of Shuswap that are in need of some significant maintenance dredging. Previous freshets have increased the bed load in the creeks, reduced their carrying capacity. If that bed load is not removed, a further freshet will just raise the water levels, get closer to the top of bank, where you get into the organics, and then we’re going to have yet further problems.

I know that with emergency B.C., there seems to be funding available for an emergency response, but my question is: is there funding or anything that can be done in the weeks and the months prior to freshet to prepare and prevent a disaster from occurring?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Our staff and people in the ministry I represent are willing to sit down with local government and local people around finding ways to mitigate the spring freshet. I understand that the snowpack is high. I don’t know if it’s as high as it is in the central part of the Okanagan, up in the area the member represents, but I understand that right through the whole watershed, right up to where you are living, it’s perhaps at 141 percent above normal snowpack.

[5:25 p.m.]

We have been working proactively with emergency management B.C. to put measures in place to deal with the spring freshet. The maintaining of culverts and the dredging of creeks and diking…. I know some of that work has been done, specifically, on one of the creeks in the member’s constituency. Our staff are willing to work with the other ministries, as well as local people around, making sure that work continues.

As well, with the whole overall system — how we’ve been managing the water level in Okanagan Lake, for instance. I believe it’s managed right now at 12 centimetres below average level in order to accommodate the potential spring freshet. I know that’s more around lakeside homes, not particularly, maybe, the ones in the neighbourhood that the member’s talking about.

It’s an overall approach. But definitely, on a local level, we’re willing to talk about resources and look at the different mechanisms that the member mentioned.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

Is there a specific budget that is available for FLNRO specifically for maintenance dredging or preventative maintenance work in rivers and streams in the province of B.C.?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Within this ministry’s budget, there’s no specific fund designated for dredging. Having said that, we have different responsibilities where money is available for freshet or erosion control measures, whether it’s maintenance money around roads that we’re responsible for, whether it’s within the general south area budget for forestry operations. Then there’s sometimes local government responsibility for that work as well.

I can’t say, “There is the budget, and this is how much has been expended specifically for dredging,” for instance, but we access money from various places within the ministry to do that kind of work.

G. Kyllo: Just a bit more clarification, then. When residents are concerned…. They see that there are rivers and creeks within the area that have significant debris flow. There’s obviously concern, if there’s another freshet or significant freshet, that the carrying capacity of the creeks or streams has been limited and we’re going to end up with a flooding situation.

In those instances, is it for the residents to then consult with local government, and it’s local government’s responsibility? This particular area that I’m concerned about is largely within the regional district of North Okanagan. Is it their responsibility to identify areas of concern and bring that to the ministry’s attention? Or is it the ministries that are also keeping stock, I guess, of creeks and rivers within particular areas and then identifying where there’s potential risk for future flooding events?

If not, where is the collaboration? And what can be done proactively to ensure that in the chance of a significant freshet, we don’t have emergency situations where there’s a potential for loss of property or life?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: If a person, an individual, has concern, we recommend that they either go to the local district office under my ministry or to local government, because it really depends on the nature of the responsibility. There’s shared responsibility. For instance, if it’s a road issue associated with the freshet, that could be under ourselves, or it could be under the Ministry of Transportation. Another area could be under the responsibility of a forest licensee.

I think it would be important, as you’ve pointed out, for an individual who has a concern to know where to go. We suggest that they either go to the local district office or to local government. Local government is aware of the specialists that we have for the kinds of issues you’re talking about. We do have an understanding within either the local district offices or the regional office, when it is a matter of our responsibility, about where those areas of risk are. We have engineers and field personnel, especially during the flood season.

I’m thinking that the member’s question is about in advance — like somebody who has a concern. This could be really bad come the spring freshet. I would say to the member to direct them either to their local district office of this ministry or to local government.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for the response. I’m just going to turn quickly to a creek in my riding called Deep Creek that runs through some extremely valuable agricultural land. There was a group of farmers a number of years ago that wanted to get together and have a look at doing some maintenance dredging. The procedures, the requirements that were put upon them, were very long and lengthy.

I know that there was some discussions previous to the last election within the ministry, in the Kamloops office, to have a look at what could be done, looking at streamlining the process. So when you have a number of agricultural properties that may want to look at doing some maintenance dredging, having a look at an expedited process for actually getting the permits put in place.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

In the experience with a number of farmers in the Deep Creek area, they were first asked to do an environmental assessment and then a number of months later asked that there was also a requirement for a hydrology assessment. All of these things just added to the overall timeline. I think it was a little over two years in process time.

[5:35 p.m.]

My question to the minister is if there were some discussions. I know that my constituent, Mr. Lorne Hunter, was happy to make himself available to have a look at the lessons learned from the permitting processes that were undertaken at the time and have a look at what could be done to actually expedite or streamline those processes.

I don’t need the answer right now, because it’s quite a lengthy question. I was just hoping that the minister might maybe ask if staff could provide a bit of an update with respect to what efforts have been undertaken in the office to provide further clarity and the opportunity for streamlining and dovetailing of the different works that might be required in obtaining permitting for maintenance dredging, especially in agricultural areas.

Hon. D. Donaldson: My understanding — the members would be much more in depthof the Deep Creek situation — is that there was a number of private property owners that needed to be brought in and coordinated in order to submit the application for dredging.

Of course, we as a government…. I know the member said it was a two-year process, and I know that when the member was part of the government, I know that the focus was on trying to be more efficient in that kind of permitting process. That’s something that we take as a priority as well.

We can always improve timelines. We’re aware of how long that one took. It can be complex. Dredging is often complex when it comes to environmental concerns and First Nations concerns and property owner concerns. But our goal is to streamline, so I would be able to offer to the member that staff could meet with him and bring him up to speed on some of the lessons learned from that Deep Creek process and how things could be streamlined into the future.

G. Kyllo: Just one final question to the minister.

There is a cedar mill that operates in my riding called North Enderby Timber. They provide employment for about 120 people in the community of Enderby. I know they’ve got a significant First Nation workforce. As well, the amount of jobs that they create per cubic metre of log that’s actually processed is significant.

I know that, just previously, the minister was commenting in a response to the member for Nechako Lakes about value-added. When I look at value-added and look at North Enderby Timber, the number of jobs that are created per cubic metre of cedar that’s processed has got to be probably one of the highest in the province.

I guess just more of a comment — and then maybe an opportunity for the minister to provide what his thoughts are — on mills that have a significant amount of job creation per cubic metre of log that’s actually processed. This particular mill also does not have any tenure. So they’re relying, largely, through B.C. Timber Sales or through purchasing through other tenure holders for logs in order to keep their workforce busy.

I’m just wondering if the minister could share with us: does he have a particular position with respect to providing support for those mills that are actively involved in the value-added process, that aren’t just about building the cheapest 2-by-4 but are really looking at the value-added prospect and trying to maximize the amount of jobs created for every cubic metre of log that’s processed?

[5:40 p.m.]

A bit of a long-winded statement and question, but I’d certainly appreciate hearing the minister’s thoughts on that.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member was asking about how I view this kind of situation. For me, it’s a balance between…. We’re dependent for many jobs, and many communities are dependent on, the traditional major licensees who are producing dimensional lumber. That’s always going to be an important part of how we extract value from our forests.

I think what we also need to do is turn a lot more attention to the kind of value-added, smaller mills, as in the example given by the member — North Enderby Timber. The trick right now is that — from what I understand and from what the member said — North Enderby Timber is buying all of their wood on the open market, their logs on the open market. As lumber prices have increased and major licensees are looking for volume and turning their attention to volume, it becomes more of a challenge for those who don’t have a licence or tenure to acquire the amount of wood they need.

We’re working through the Wood Secretariat. We’re working through the ILMA to try to come up with some solutions. Again, previously, the critic was asking about policies or tools. These are the kinds of things that we’re exploring with North Enderby Timber types of operations in order to come up with some more solutions. We need to extract more value and increase the value chain from the fibre in the forest, whether it’s dimensional lumber or making value-added cedar products or doing more with what has traditionally been regarded as residuals or wood wastes. So we’ll be working on those kinds of solutions, and that’s a major focus of what I bring to this role as the minister.

J. Rustad: To the minister and his staff, I’m trying to accommodate my colleagues as they come in and have duty in the Legislature. I apologize for jumping around a little bit there with those questions, but thank you for entertaining them and providing the responses that you did.

On the export issue, I was actually interested in some numbers that came out just in January, not so much on log export but just on our overall export. As the minister, I’m sure, is well aware, forest products and forest product export is an important part of British Columbia’s economy.

[5:45 p.m.]

I noticed with the numbers that I saw for January that solid wood production dropped by 15.6 percent year over year, of export, and a 22 percent drop in softwood lumber exports in particular. I’m just wondering if these are numbers that are part of a trend or whether this is something that seems to be an outlier and if the minister might have some explanation in regards to why the drop in year over year for January.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I hope I got the member’s question right. He was saying that on a monthly comparison from January of last year to January of this year, there was a decrease in the lumber exported. If that is the question, then it’s difficult to compare on a month-to-month basis. Comparing on an annual basis takes into account a lot of the variabilities.

Specifically, the variabilities for what the member has seen between the amount of export a year ago in January to this January could have to do with the variables around the mountain pine beetle — less wood available because of that. It could be delays due to the fires. It could have to do with log inventories because of the fire situation.

What we do know is that the softwood lumber unjust and unfair duties are not impacting the export situation. Mills are wanting to export as much as they can right now because of the very, very high lumber prices, unprecedentedly high lumber prices. Those are some of the factors that make it difficult to actually just focus in on this month in a previous year to this month this year.

J. Rustad: In speaking with industry, we obviously have record lumber prices in the United States right now. Industry is trying to take advantage of that to the best opportunity. But my understanding is that they’re having challenges with actually shipping product and moving product out of the province. I’m wondering if the minister can confirm he’s been hearing about those challenges and, if so, if he has taken any actions to try to assist in resolving those particular issues for mills.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: As far as shipping and moving the product out of the province after it’s been manufactured, we haven’t had any representations directly to the ministry from industry with concerns about that, at the deputy minister level or at the staff level responsible for that.

Having said that, I’ve talked just this past week to at least two of the major licensees in the Interior. It was just a call to address any number of topics that were on their mind, and they didn’t bring this up with me. But I’d be definitely interested in addressing it if there are concerns, especially if those are concerns that are within the jurisdiction of this ministry and within the jurisdiction of the province.

J. Rustad: Softwood lumber. Obviously, the ability to be able to access our markets is an important component to that for forestry — the softwood lumber agreement, that is. Given that the current tariffs and countervailing duties are in place by the Americans and it looks like talks have stalled or are nonexistent, I wonder if the minister could provide this Legislature with an update with regards to the current status and efforts that the ministry is making towards trying to work with Ottawa to resolve this issue.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I can update the member on what’s been transpiring lately. Of course, it’s very difficult, impossible really, to negotiate with a party that’s not interested in negotiation.

After the final determinations were made against us — that was January 3, 2018 — the combined duties averaged 20 percent. Again, we believe they’re unjust and unfair and unwarranted, so we have filed appeals under chapter 19 of the North American Free Trade Agreement through Canada. That’s our input into Canada’s role in that, for the countervailing and anti-dumping investigations.

As well, we filed appeals to the U.S. International Trade Commission’s finding of material injury, which was another finding on top of the anti-dumping and countervailing duties. Through our efforts with the federal government, Canada has formally requested World Trade Organization consultations with the U.S. on both the countervailing and anti-dumping duties, as well as broader systemic issues. In the past, we’ve been successful in these efforts. But, in the past, it’s taken many years to complete. We believe it’s going to be at least a two-year process under these legal avenues we have.

There’s also the ability of companies that were not individually examined in the original countervailing duty investigation to request from the U.S. Department of Commerce to conduct an expedited review to establish a company-specific rate. Obviously, companies would hope to decrease their exposure on the anti-dumping and countervailing duties, and 16 B.C. companies have requested that expedited review. The U.S. Department of Commerce is expected to initiate the review process by the end of this month. So that will be, potentially, some relief in the short term.

[5:55 p.m.]

As well, we have to keep in the back of our minds that the U.S. Department of Commerce does conduct annual administrative reviews to update the duty calculations. The first review of the duties that were imposed is going to be in January 2019 and complete in the spring of 2020. It’s going to cover the review period of April 2017 to the end of 2018. Again, there’s another ability to try to put some pressure on there.

We’re definitely into the litigation part of the process. There are the expedited reviews that are available, and we’ve been working with Canada closely to file the appeals.

J. Rustad: In the recent budget announced by the federal government, they’ve allocated $191 million over five years “to support softwood lumber jobs through litigation.” I believe that is what the reference was to that sum of money.

The question to the minister: what role is British Columbia playing? As part of the litigation, is it allocating funds towards this process? Perhaps a more general question is: what engagement had the federal government with the minister, with regards to that $191 million and how it’ll be allocated?

Hon. D. Donaldson: We make sure, within our fiscal framework each year, that there is sufficient funding to continue, from the provincial perspective, our legal advice and our legal initiatives, as far as seeking justice for this injustice.

Now that we’re in litigation, just as an aside, the U.S. coalition shows no interest in negotiations. We did end David Emerson’s contract regarding his role, but we do have him available to provide advice. If we get back into a negotiated settlement and serious interest from the U.S. on that, we’ll re-engage with David Emerson.

Specifically on the $191 million that the member referenced, we’re just looking up some of the details of that information, and I can provide him with a more fulsome answer before the end of estimates.

J. Rustad: I appreciate that staff will be able to pull up some information with regards to the $191 million and its allocation.

Has the minister been directly in contact with his counterpart in Ottawa with regards to that money and how it will potentially benefit B.C.’s interests in supporting our softwood lumber litigation issues?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Our staff are in constant contact with the respective federal government staff around aligning our interests.

As far as my role, I’m in regular contact with the Natural Resources Minister, Jim Carr. I was on a call with him and other Forests Ministers from across Canada. I believe it was just two weeks ago. It might have been last week. Time flies when you’re having fun. I’m not sure about that, but it was very recent.

I brought up our continued concerns about the softwood lumber agreement. Minister Carr discussed the latest federal initiative — it was after the federal budget — and just made sure that we were aware of the different avenues for industry to get involved with the latest initiatives from the federal government.

I’m in touch with Minister Carr, and our staff is in touch with staff in the federal ministry, to make sure we’re aligned on this issue.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for the answer. Obviously, canvassing the softwood lumber agreement, it’s difficult to project or predict what may or may not happen. Of course, now that we’re into litigation, obviously this will be a lengthy period. It’s unfortunate that the Premier’s efforts and the trip to Washington didn’t bear any fruit, but such is life, I suppose.

Obviously, our softwood lumber industry is performing strong at the moment because of strong lumber prices, despite these unjust tariffs and the process of protectionism that the American government has decided to undertake.

Other than the federal government’s initiative and litigation — that would be companies, apparently supported by the federal government, although I’ll wait for the minister to give me some details as to what that $191 million may be spent on — what direct efforts is the province taking to help further our case, both with Ottawa as well as, obviously, with the neighbour south of the border?

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’re having a little difficulty clarifying the $191 million figure that the member has brought up. I’ll just read to you what we have. Then perhaps he can provide further clarification, and we can get to the crux of that amount in another dialogue.

This is from March 6, from the federal budget. In the softwood lumber aid package, we have it announced that there are loans and loan guarantees of $605 million. There’s expanding market opportunities program of $45 million over three years. There’s investment in forest industry transformation — $55 million over three years.

[6:05 p.m.]

There’s a forest innovation program — $63 million over three years. There’s a work-sharing program within Employment and Social Development Canada of $9.5 million over four years; a labour market development agreement of $80 million for two years; an Indigenous forestry initiative, $10 million over three years.

I’m not trying to trip up the member or anything like that, but I didn’t see the $191 million figure in there regarding the federal package. If he can provide further clarification, we can dig into that more. I do want to dig into it if that number’s out there.

As far as the ongoing efforts, as I said, I’m in constant contact — regular contact, at least — with the federal minister responsible for the same portfolio. I hold Minister Carr…. I just was on a call with the other Forest Ministers, as I said, with Minister Carr. Without breaching confidentiality, I can say that there was airtime available, and I took it up on B.C.’s behalf.

There wasn’t a lot of other input from Forest Ministers from across Canada, and I was able to use the conference call session to really detail the impacts that SLA is having on B.C. and could be having into the future. As well, the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology is in constant contact with the federal minister that relates to his area. We have regular contact at staff level.

We’re pursuing this. Canada has the primary authorization to negotiate with the U.S. and to pursue the legal cases. We’re right up there in conjunction with Canadian officials to make sure that gets done in B.C.’s interests.

J. Rustad: The $191 million number I referred to — I actually will have to go back and pull it out of the budget. It was reported on BNN on budget day with regard to that. That’s the Business News Network. I guess we’ll both go do some homework on that one and come back to it.

Moving on from the softwood lumber directly to the recent announcement here of duties against our pulp industry and the impact from that. Obviously, those were just recent, in terms of those actions. However, the impact has potential to be significant, if it has a detrimental impact to that side of the industry.

Pulp is obviously — as the minister, I’m sure, is well aware — an important component of what we do with our forest industry. Without the ability to utilize the wood waste that comes out of production for pulp — chips, in particular — that would severely impact the rest of our forest industry. To that extent, has the minister or the ministry had an opportunity to do any analysis with regard to the duties that have now been put in place by the Americans, and is there any potential analysis with regard to what that impact could be directly to the pulp industry?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I think that what’s been happening has been typified by some commentators as: “We’re under attack. Our industry is under attack. B.C. is under attack by those who do not believe in open trading and free borders in the U.S.” It’s not necessarily everyone in the U.S. It’s some players that are not interested in trading with open borders, and they’re not necessarily interested in the health of the industry or even that interested in production of lumber. Some of them are simply interested as financial mechanisms, as well as in protecting their own territory. I think that’s a good analysis — that we are under attack.

As far as what happened in the last 24 hours, we knew that, previously, in January, a countervailing duty was imposed on Catalyst, for uncoated groundwood paper, of 6.09 percent. As of yesterday, the anti-dumping duties were 22.16 percent, for a total of 28.25 percent. That’s pretty significant, extremely significant, and it will have impacts on Catalyst.

It has only been 24 hours. We’re doing the analysis now. We’re engaging with Catalyst. They have operations in Powell River, Port Alberni and Crofton. We’re working with them to see what the direct impacts will be in the short term. I have commissioned a working group previously, called the coast pulp fibre working group, and they’ll be bringing a report to me on the fibre situation, and some recommendations around the coast pulp sector, this spring.

We’re also working with the federal government on this. Some of Catalyst’s directory paper is not captured by this. That’ll help, but maybe not enough. I’ve also confirmed with Minister Carr that the softwood lumber relief package that you referenced earlier is available to the pulp and paper sector. We hadn’t been sure if that was just simply to the softwood lumber sector, but it’ll be available to the pulp and paper sector as well.

Analysis is still underway. Again, it’s an unfair, unwarranted and unjust duty. I think it’s an indication that we as a province are under attack by certain forces in the United States.

J. Rustad: Yes, with pulp prices where they are, a 28 percent hit on that, obviously, will be very challenging for industry. I know that was asked in question period today and talked about in statements by both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. I’m sure there will be more to cover with regard to that.

[6:15 p.m.]

Specifically, hon. Chair, I want to ask your permission for a moment, if I could, to utilize some technology. I just want to read a quote with regard to the conversation on the $191 million, if can I do that — because we’re not supposed to use technology with this. Thank you for the permission.

This is from a news article yesterday, specifically around the budget. It says: “The government also announced the allocation of $191 million over the next five years to softwood lumber producers affected by the ongoing World Trade Organization and NAFTA softwood lumber disputes. Details have not been provided, but the allocation signals the government does not believe the dispute to be resolved soon.”

That’s why I’m asking for the details around it, because it’s out there. I’m kind of wondering what that money is for and how that specifically would be utilized. I’ll wait for the ministry to be able to provide some details on that, as those numbers get looked at.

I might come back to another question on trade agreements, but the member for Saanich North and the Islands had a couple of questions around old growth that he wanted to get in before the end of session, so I’ll turn it over to him.

A. Olsen: Good to see you again, Mr. Minister. I just have a couple of questions on land use planning or forestry management, around the remaining old growth, specifically here on Vancouver Island. I’m wondering if maybe you could provide me just a brief overview of what the plans are in terms of old growth on the Island here.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yeah, I’d be happy to give a bit of an overview of what’s been going on. The member may know that over 13 percent of Vancouver Island will never be logged under current designations. That includes 520,000 hectares of old-growth forest. On B.C.’s coast, over 55 percent of Crown old-growth forests are protected. That’s just a bit of background, numbers.

We’re working on a number of new initiatives on Vancouver Island to support and enhance old-growth forest management. These all fall under the current Vancouver Island Land Use Plan. We’re working on a new policy for big and iconic trees, which is of interest to a lot of people, around the protection of those trees.

We’ve been working on new wildlife habitat areas and old-growth management areas that support species at risk. We’ve just been through a process around the marbled murrelet and the northern goshawk that will mean additional protection of those species’ habitats. Both of those depend on old growth for their habitat.

We’ve been looking at policies around additional coastal Douglas fir protection, which is of interest to many people on the Island, and updated vegetation resource inventories and an analysis of second-growth transitions.

[6:20 p.m.]

Those are a number of the initiatives that, since I’ve become minister, I’ve asked staff to continue and work further on, which all relate to old-growth management on Vancouver Island.

A. Olsen: There was recently quite a bit of effort and quite a bit of attention paid to the Walbran Valley and, I think, requests of government to put a moratorium on cutting specifically in that valley. Has there been any consideration in protecting that valley from logging activity and…? Yeah, leave it at that.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The larger areas of protection, like the Carmanah, are part of the Walbran picture. I just go back to some of the new policies that we’ve been working on for big and iconic trees and new wildlife habitat areas and old-growth management areas that support species at risk. That will mean more protection for old-growth forests that are part of the Walbran as well.

It is part of the working forest on Vancouver Island, and there are still a number of mills and industry job opportunities that are associated with the working forest. We also recognize that through things like our new policy on big and iconic tree species, that is also supportive of other sectors of the economy, such as tourism.

A. Olsen: Just one more question. I understand the challenge here, the balance of jobs and cutting trees and managing forests. I think that from our perspective — from my perspective, certainly — there’s a huge benefit to these trees still standing, a huge economic benefit to trees still standing. I think we’ve seen chambers of commerce come out and say that.

In terms of the work that’s being done and the policy that’s being created, is that moving at a quick enough…? My understanding is that the Walbran has been slated to have some pretty extensive logging activities, if not already. I’m just wondering if those policies will help to protect those sensitive and very important habitat and ecosystems.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I appreciate the intent of the question, around the timing. It’s a matter of timing and the fact that this is a working forest and that there are jobs dependent on harvesting in the working forest.

[6:25 p.m.]

We’ve been working with industry, and they’re aware of our new initiatives. They have backed away from some of the opportunities that are available to them, knowing that we have the new policies around big and iconic trees and the new wildlife habitat areas around species at risk that are being implemented. They’re cognizant of that. So those opportunities are going to help further protect old growth in the Walbran.

J. Rustad: Much as I’d like to pursue the topic of old growth, I know that we’re going to run out of time because there are a lot of other topics still to be covered. So I’m going to move.

I want to ask the minister about appurtenancy — in particular, comments from the Premier, as well as the minister, with regard to not going back to what appurtenancy was but a social contract with communities, I think was how it was defined. I’m wondering if the minister could provide some information with regard to the intent of the ministry’s direction associated with this topic.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Certainly. There has been some reporting in the news around using the word “appurtenancy.” There’s no disconnect between what I’ve been saying to industry and stakeholders and what the intent of the Premier’s message was. We’ve been very clear on that. We are not talking about going back to appurtenancy as it was in 2003.

What we are interested in doing is having more of the logs, the public resource, processed in mills in communities that are dependent on those forests. That’s the social contract. What I’ve done and have begun to do is to have this conversation with major licensees and give them the opportunity to address the fact that there are communities that have some concerns around that social contract.

I’ve met with major licensees and said: “This is a concern that I’ve heard from communities, and I’d like you to come back with some solutions about how you believe the social contract between communities and the forests can be reinvigorated and re-established in a better way.” That’s the way we’ve been approaching it.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for that. Of course, I’ve also had a number of conversations with major licensees and others that have expressed a fair bit of confusion around the intent of what this is. As you can imagine — as our forest industry has developed, particularly in the Interior but on the coast as well — we have logs going by each other down highways and along oceanways from one mill to another, from one community to another, from one area, one region to another — all, of course, within British Columbia.

I’m curious. If the minister could perhaps clarify the intent of this review or this direction, as to whether or not there will be a realignment of tenures associated with this or a realignment of allocation associated with various companies or various mills, based on communities.

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: What comes across my desk, and when people pick up the phone and phone me…. In instances, people in communities aren’t happy with what they see happening in their local forest sector, and First Nations as well. Some licensees have very good relationships with communities, but what the member is asking is: is it a policy around the social contract? No. It’s direction we’re giving to licensees that they need to be more responsive and talk with communities about their business model and help communities and communicate better with communities around how they’re managing to remain economically viable.

I believe there has been a breakdown in some areas of the province in that communication. That leads to people being upset and contacting our ministry with concerns. We want to make sure that the licensees are aware of that and that they need to be more responsive. That’s something that perhaps some of them have gotten into a pattern of doing over the last number of years. We’re saying that it’s essential to re-establish that relationship with local communities in order for local communities to be happy with how those licensees are performing in their area.

J. Rustad: I’ve also heard from local communities, as the minister can imagine, in areas that are heavily involved in forestry. We have declining annual allowable cuts and challenges. I’ll talk specifically more around the Interior as opposed to the coast associated with this. There will be, potentially, some additional mill closures. Communities are concerned that wood is going by their door, while a mill in their community might have closed or has the potential to close in the future.

What I am trying to understand from the minister and would like to ask the minister is whether these types of concerns are going to be driving this idea, this social licence, within the community, around the community’s desire to see the processing of logs within their jurisdiction, within their area, as opposed to going to the next community down the road — or whether this is more around, as the minister has suggested, a conversation and a relationship, as opposed to a change in any particular supply scenarios.

Hon. D. Donaldson: There have been some events that have happened — it wasn’t under our government’s watch — that didn’t lead to public trust that the publicly held resource was being used with the priority being jobs being created for people living close to those resources.

[6:35 p.m.]

There were major forest licences flipped between two major licensees, which the member is very aware of. That happened without any prior awareness by communities that this was going to happen so they could prepare or have input. There have been mills closed before they actually became insolvent. These kind of things lead to a general state of people feeling like they don’t have as much benefit from the resources in their own backyards that they should have.

The member is correct that the fibre supply is contracting. There’s no doubt about that, especially in the Interior, as we are coming to the end of the uplift, as a result of the mountain pine beetle, in volume. We’re going back to levels that, in many cases, have been determined by the chief forester, for the annual allowable cut sustainable level, below what the base annual allowable cut level was before the uplift for mountain pine beetle.

It is about having a dialogue with industry in a community about that value chain that I talked about before. How do we manage under these circumstances to extract more value out of the fibre that’s actually there, even though it’s going to be at a diminished supply, especially in relation to dimensional lumber production that’s critical for many communities?

We have other parts of that fibre supply that is generating value in other places in the world that we look at. There are a lot of factors at play there. I agree on the financial viability. But those are the kind of conversations we have to have and that improve the notion of the social contract that’s necessary to get the best value out of the forest and the best return to communities.

It’s also part of what we’re doing within our ministry around rural development and Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. Those are all factoring into improving the social contract around the publicly held resource and the amount of value that communities see from that publicly held resource returning to their communities.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I’ve got to ask a few more questions around this. Obviously, from forest communities’ perspectives, from both companies as well as communities, there are certainly two sides to the argument, and especially when you put the aspirations of First Nations and the issue of title land and tenure, etc., on the table. Not to go into that at the moment, because that will be for tomorrow, if we have enough time to be able to canvass.

I’ll use the example of Merritt and the Merritt timber supply area. The Nicola Valley chiefs, obviously, want to enter into an agreement that would see their issues of land title being addressed and, ultimately, an opportunity for fibre. The community itself, of course, was very devastated by the closure of the mill in that area. But on the other hand, the company that has the tenure is using that fibre to be able to keep another mill in another community open. It wasn’t economical for them to be able to keep the two mills open.

The question to the minister is: in a situation for that, what does that social licence look like? How does that work within a community like Merritt and within the First Nations in the Nicola Valley and with the company that is still operating in the area and requiring that wood for its operations in another community?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Specifically, there are areas that have experienced hardship due to fibre supply declining. That’s happening now. It has happened in the last few years, and it’s going to happen more. There’s a lot of competition for the existing fibre that’s available. People can’t…. Well, I believe the member could imagine. But almost every representation I have in the minister’s office, when it comes to forestry, has to do with wanting a piece of the pie when it comes to fibre. And that pie has shrunk when it comes to the industry and the sector and how we’ve used that publicly held resource to create value-added products in the past.

What I’m interested in doing, and we’re interested in doing as a government, is growing that value — I referenced this earlier — around fibre that’s not currently harvested or not being used in ways that could add value. That gives some communities the ability to look into the future and see: “Well, here’s wood that the licensees aren’t using, and here are opportunities.” That’s what we’re facilitating in dialogues with First Nations, communities and industry.

I think that the member referenced the Nicola Valley chiefs and the agreement they’ve come to in Merritt. I think that’s a great example. I met with the Nicola Valley chiefs a couple of weeks ago in Kamloops.

These are the kinds of things we’re looking at. As well, we’re looking at the ability to add value to the fibre that’s not being currently utilized. If that’s the one point I can make, that’s a way to enhance the social contract. I’ve met with many companies lately who make sure that they get the right log to the right mill, and that’s another part of the social contract.

People in some communities see logs being utilized in mills that could have produced a lot more value if they were used in another mill. Some operations, some operators like Gorman Bros. in West Kelowna, have the ability within their organization — because they have so many different styles of operations — to get the right log to the right mill within their operations and do some trading around that.

Those are the kinds of models that I think we need to promote and support and advocate for more because that means more employment and more value out of the logs being harvested.

J. Rustad: I am in agreement with the minister on the point that we do need to try to maximize value and, obviously, create the jobs, utilizing the fibre that we have to the best of our ability. But as the minister can tell from the line of questioning that I’m asking, there’s a tremendous amount of uncertainty out there, particularly for the milling industry, because they don’t know.

A question like I’ve just asked around Merritt and the fibre supply and the flow…. They’re wondering whether that’s going to change. In a tight fibre market, where that is desperately needed to be able to keep an operation open, they need to know whether or not that is going to flow or whether there’s going to be some sort of change.

[6:45 p.m.]

Specifically, the right log to the right mill and trying to maximize the utilization of the fibre — I don’t have an issue with that. But how that works…. Of course, the devil is always in the detail. The challenge will be any uncertainty that’s created from it. The line of questioning I’m asking around this is to try to get that understanding of what this social licence with communities will look like.

I think about the situation, in my riding, of Fort St. James and Vanderhoof. During the pine beetle epidemic, as it was escalating, there was a tremendous amount of fibre that was harvested out of the Vanderhoof area. It went to various mills throughout the area. Of course, now that that situation is done, there’s not nearly as much mature fibre left in the Vanderhoof area, but there’s plenty that’s north of Fort St. James. So a lot of that fibre is flowing from north of Fort St. James back towards Vanderhoof in terms of how the overall supply goes in the area.

However, if there was pressure…. I’m not suggesting this would happen, but if there happens to be a company that decides to change its mill configuration to the detriment of Fort St. James, obviously that would change significantly the scenario for that community, which would be devastating. But it’s part of how the wood has been flowing over time.

The question remains. In terms of uncertainty, can the minister provide any assurances to the mills, the companies and the communities that are, obviously, part of this overall fibre basket, particularly through the Interior, that have been impacted and are going to see the drops?

Can the ministry provide any type of certainty that would help to alleviate some of the concerns that mills are not going to have fibre taken away from them as part of a social licence, acquiring a social licence to a particular community or working with particular communities or First Nations?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The situation that I came into as Minister of Forests…. There was a great deal of uncertainty. I mean, 30,000 jobs have been lost in the forest sector and over 100 mills closed. So this isn’t something that was created in the last eight months. There was uncertainty in the industry after years of an approach to forestry.

What I want to make sure that’s clear — and I think I did say it before — is that we’re not going anywhere back to what was known as appurtenancy, back pre-2003, where there was volume, in a legal way, tied to local milling in communities. Appurtenancy, from that aspect, is not what we’re talking about with social contract.

I want to make sure that if the member or anybody else listening hears these kinds of concerns from local government, major licensees, minor licensees or people involved in the sector, we have local officials in almost every community — we’re on the ground in pretty well all communities through district offices and elsewhere — that can discuss what the issues are and inform people that we’re not going back to appurtenancy.

We do have to address the issue of value, a value chain and jobs that are required. A big part of this has become the certainty around First Nations. Reconciliation is part of creating more certainty. First Nations who have a major interest in forestry…. That’s something that we need to become better at. I know there were some initiatives from the previous government in that, but we need to have a longer-term view of how First Nations are involved in this as well.

I think that when I talk to major licensees, they get it. They get what we’re getting at. The ones I’ve talked to aren’t fearful, but maybe at a local level, people need to access the officials in my ministry to get a better idea of what we’re talking about.

[6:50 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I know it’s getting close to the end of the day, and the temptation is to get into a little bit of politics. I just want to make one statement to add to what the minister said about job losses.

There are actually 10,000 job gains in the forest sector since 2011-12 in this province. The significant job loss was obviously during the economic downturn that had happened, but we won’t quibble over that at the moment. I’m sure we’ll have lots of time to debate that over the coming weeks and months.

Specifically, though, to this issue — and I recognize we’re getting near the end of the day today — I understand entirely. I look forward, tomorrow morning, to getting into the issue of First Nations and tenures and volume associated with that.

I understand entirely that there will be some changes, and there needs to be some changes. I think everybody understands that. The sooner those changes happen in a way that can bring certainty and that doesn’t create disruption, I think, the better. I think industry would welcome that, and I think, quite frankly, all communities and people in British Columbia would welcome those changes.

Outside of that, it’s the social licence concept that…. I understand if the minister isn’t hearing any concerns relayed to him, but I am hearing those concerns because of uncertainty of just what it means. No one quite knows what it means. It’s a conversation that’s going to start, a conversation that, obviously, will take some time.

Perhaps the minister could provide some clarity in terms of the length of time this conversation will carry on — with communities, with First Nations, with industry around the province — before there will be some determination or direction through policy or regulation that might give some definition to what this may mean — this idea of social licence with communities.

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’re hard workers in these estimates and try to use as much time as we can right to the end of the day. I’ll just finish off with a response to the question from the critic.

This, to me, is nothing scary. It should be an element of conversations we have that infuse all aspects of the work of the ministry.

Really, it’s about a culture of sharing information, of open dialogue. Some companies are doing a good job, and others need to make sure that they involve communities in decisions that they’re going to make. I know that oftentimes there’s proprietary information, but still, there are a lot of places where communications can be better and the culture of social licence can be infused and have an impact on the rural development work that we’re doing, the land use planning work we’re doing and, definitely, the reconciliation work we’re doing.

It’s not about…. I appreciate the member has heard from people around uncertainty. I don’t doubt that. To me, enhancing the discussion around social licence is a way to create more certainty.

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour.

Hon. D. Donaldson: This is great. It’s been written out for me.

Noting the hour, progress has been made. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask for leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:54 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.