Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. In Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of 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); R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

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

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’ll just collect the answer that happened before the break on the Bowen Island situation.

J. Rustad: Yes, if you could provide that answer in writing, that would be helpful, if you’re not prepared to be able to read it into the record today.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: In regards to the situation of B.C. Timber Sales and logging on Bowen Island, we’re very aware of the sensitivity of the landscape there and that many residents of the island don’t necessarily want to see logging of the forests on that island.

What we want to do is have some time to engage in discussions with the residents and, as well, with our own BCTS personnel. That’s why the forest stewardship plan was pulled back. We’re going to embark on those discussions, and that’s to really dig down into some of the topics that residents are concerned about.

The suggestions that the member made on behalf of some of the residents about completely removing the forests there from the timber-harvesting land base might not be in the best interests of what some of the residents want, as far as, for instance, community wildfire protection plans that might need to be put in place.

We’re aware of the concerns that the member representing that constituency, on behalf of the Bowen Island residents, articulated. And we’re going to make sure that we have some time for further dialogue with residents and the B.C. Timber Sales.

D. Barnett: I’m sure, Minister, you’re aware of the announcement this morning by Norbord Inc., with the OSB plant in 100 Mile House in my riding. They will be suspending operation on or around May 14, 2018, due to lack of fibre. They are the largest consumer of deciduous timber and low-quality, non-sawlog-grade conifer logs in the Cariboo.

In the short term, there is wood, I know, around the mill that could be logged if permits were given. In the longer term, this mill needs stability. It needs long-term fibre commitment from the Ministry of Forests. There are many things that have happened in the Cariboo, such as wildfires and pest damage, but fibre constraints on this company and others need to be addressed very quickly.

The other issue, of course, is my community. This will create massive job losses in a small community with only two major corporations, one being Norbord. This will affect our families and our communities. Without long-term timber supply, Minister, there are no logging contractors available, as they need security too. For three or 3½ months they did not work this summer due to wildfires. Many of them had to move on.

What we must have, as quickly as possible, Minister, is a long-term timber supply for this company so we can put people to work, keep people at work, keep people in our communities. I would like to have a commitment from the minister. I will be happy to work with him on whatever I can do to ensure stable fibre in the very near future for the OSB Norbord plant in 100 Mile.

The question to the minister is: will the minister commit to making this a priority?

Hon. D. Donaldson: As far as this budget estimates process goes, I’m happy to talk about the concerns that the member has brought forward. They are concerns that I share with her, and I will definitely take her up on her offer to provide assistance as we have initiatives to resolve this situation. I’m committed to doing that.

[1:45 p.m.]

I want to say that we just got the news this morning, as well, about this temporary shutdown, as of or around May 14, of the Norbord plant. I’m fully aware of the impact it has on 100 Mile. The fact that 160 direct jobs but also that jobs in the bush associated with that and the multiplier effect…. It’s going to be a very, very difficult situation. So my sympathies go out to the workers at this point. My regional economic operations staff have reached out to make sure appropriate services are in place, if needed, for the workers.

I had a telephone discussion with senior executives in Norbord this morning, including Robert Fouquet, the vice-president of engineered wood export and forest products, and, as well, with Noel Roberts, who’s the general manager of woodlands for B.C. and Alberta for the company. They did inform me that they are looking at redeployment of some of the workers. I asked, made sure, to be kept up to speed with how that’s going. They didn’t have an exact number, but when I hear from them how that redeployment will be carried out, I’ll ensure that the member gets that information as soon as I get it.

In the short term, of course, the reasons cited by Norbord for the temporary closure of approximately four weeks, beginning May 14, were that fires prevented their contractors from getting access into the forest for timber supply for their yard, for breakup here, and a severe winter as well.

There are a couple of things in the short term. The logs will still be coming in. They’re still going to be bringing logs into the yard. The planning work has been done and consultation with First Nations. Under their existing non-replaceable licence, which is up to 220,000 cubic metres a year, they’ll be able to access burnt whitewood. That’s one of the decisions we’ve made, and that’s available now as a means to get more wood flowing in the short term.

As well, they were the successful bidders, just this week, I believe, on a B.C. timber sale of 60,000 cubic metres, which is pretty well right outside their door, towards Gustafsen Lake. That’s good news, in the short term, as far as getting some log supply into the yard. We want to see that log supply in that yard filled up so that the temporary shutdown is as short as possible and that we’re working.

I committed, on the telephone this morning — and I want to make sure it’s on the record for the member here today — to meet shortly with the CEO of Norbord to discuss some of the proposals they have for long-term fibre supply, proposals that they’ve put forward around a deciduous profile, around accessing fire-impacted timber, which we’ve already been able to resolve, and around fibre utilization and getting to fibre that other licensees aren’t using currently, which is an important part of what we need to be doing in the forest. They also pointed out that the long-term timber supply has been a long-standing issue.

Our staff is actively engaged with Norbord, as we speak, to address the short term and the long term. Again, we’ll be there for the workers, and I commit to meetings with Norbord and commit to make this a priority.

D. Barnett: The biggest issue, Minister, is long-term tenure. Short-term tenure, after what we’ve just been through in the fire season, will not work anymore. They have done this for years, and they’ve been able to manage. But due to the wildfires and due to what happened to our contractors, who have had to pack up and leave because they didn’t make any money for 3½ months…. They fought fires, and the money they made from fighting the fires only paid wages and bought fuel and kept equipment running. So we have other issues.

[1:50 p.m.]

The most important part of my question is: will the minister ensure that Norbord receives some long-term tenures so our community can be stable, our contractors can come back and we have stability for our families and our community?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, as I said, we’re working on that with Norbord. I can’t make that commitment in the House at this moment. But I’ve got to say that talks are underway on those three areas.

As well, these are their own words from the senior executives this morning. They’ve had been working hard for long-term commitment for many years. We’ve been in government eight months. The many years before that was a different government. So that situation has been unresolved for a long time, and we would like to resolve it with them.

D. Barnett: Yes, Minister. I was one of the people that was there when we first got our PA 16, our pulpwood harvesting agreement. So nobody knows the history of Norbord, Ainsworth and this whole issue better than I do. Unfortunately — maybe it’s fortunate — I’ve been around for that time.

I just want you to know the importance of keeping this facility open so that our community can have stability. I know the ministry’s got economic people out there. But if there’s no jobs, there’s no money coming into our households. Nobody talking to people works. We’ve had enough over the past year.

I look forward to working with the minister, and I hope the minister will keep in touch with me, as I am in constant contact with Norbord. I’ve been fighting with Norbord for many, many years. It is a tough issue, but we need this resolved as soon as possible or we will have communities where, at the end of the day, you won’t be worrying about housing because there will be lots of empty houses in the Cariboo region.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Duly noted. I look forward to working closely with the member, who has Norbord in her constituency, in a coordinated effort. I think we need to pull together on this. I mean, Norbord’s own numbers: 160 family-supporting jobs at the plant, 113 contracted jobs, an additional 368 indirect and induced jobs — all from a PricewaterhouseCoopers report. Those aren’t just made up numbers. It’s the single largest contributor to the tax base in the region.

Your point is heard. You’ve heard the commitment from me, and I look forward to getting onto this as soon as we can.

J. Rustad: Before we had the break, we were talking about allocation and fibre supply. I’ve got a few other questions, along with fibre supply, that I want to look at asking. In particular, I understand the allocation decisions following a determination are going to be challenging.

What steps is the minister taking to try to expand the availability of fibre, particularly waste fibre that is currently being left behind or, potentially, fibre that might be uneconomical because of lack of road access or lack of ability to be able to haul over distances?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: This is a topic that is of utmost importance to this government and to the province as a whole, I believe. Because as we’ve talked about with the decreasing annual allowable cut, we need to get as much utilization out of fibre as we can for economic initiatives. Some of that means that we’re going to have to find ways for businesses to access and use wood that’s currently not been being utilized.

The use of post-harvest residual fibre, another word for wood waste, after logging, is closely tied to market conditions and the economics of using that fibre. We know the member’s familiar with stories about the economic viability. However, we’re still following on with the fibre action plan from 2014. We’ve made available low-end-quality fibre to secondary users in a way that is cost-effective for them. I struck a coast pulp fibre working group in the fall. They’re going to be coming to me with recommendations soon in connection with our ministry staff and mill owners.

Every area is somewhat local when it comes to waste wood and residuals and timber salvage. So we have a suite of forest licences in order for companies to access that kind of wood, and it depends on the forest and the local community and more local attributes. If there’s a facility looking for a fibre, our staff is always ready to listen and try to find ways for that company to access the fibre.

We’ve done a lot on the timber-salvaging portfolio after the wildfire situation. We managed to get 1.3 million cubic metres of wood under cutting permit, and that’s just since the fires stopped. I think that’s an example of the priority of this government to get the fibre available.

Then there’s residual fibre utilization when it comes to pellet plants, for instance. We just had an example of an oriented strand board plant that we’re working with to find ways for them to get access to the fibre that’s sometimes burnt. That’s not a good use of wood when it can be used for a value-added product.

We also have to be careful about how we approach this. We don’t want to inflame the situation any further. We know it’s unwarranted in the United States — their assertion that we’re subsidizing our forest industry. That’s wrong, and it’s incorrect. We also are aware that there’s heightened sensitivity around that and that there’s a potential for countervailing duties to be adjusted year to year.

We have a lot of tools, and we’re putting them in place. Definitely, I take what the member says around making sure that we get the most use out of the fibre that’s slated for harvest.

J. Rustad: Last fall we canvassed a topic — I also canvassed the Ministry of Environment, at the minister’s request — which is around this notion of a carbon tax on wood waste.

[2:00 p.m.]

I noticed, with this budget, that topic was not included in the budget. I didn’t expect it necessarily to be, but I am curious as to whether that is still a tool that the minister is considering in terms of trying to encourage the utilization of residual waste that’s left behind in the blocks.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member is correct. There are no plans to implement a carbon tax on slash pile burning in this coming fiscal year. We’re working closely with the climate action secretariat under the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. This, then, gives us time to work with industry as well.

I can’t give a firm answer on when that carbon tax will be implemented as far as slash pile burning, but it was part of our platform. We just want to make sure it’s implemented in a manner such that we have enough time to discuss it thoroughly with industry and make sure it’s getting to the goals that we want to get to.

J. Rustad: One of the other components of the question I asked earlier was around access and being able to get out to more remote areas and expanding the amount of fibre that might be viable for harvesting within our timber-harvesting land bases.

Is the ministry considering, in conjunction with or working with industry, any major main-line roads or other types of upgrades that would extend the viability of being able to access wood that is perhaps uneconomical at the moment?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The topic of the government directly taking on the role of building roads for access for timber for a licensee would be construed as a direct subsidy, so we want to stay away from that. However, when there’s an ability to coordinate with B.C. Timber Sales, building roads into their charred areas in connection with a major licensee’s desire to get to volume, then those are the kinds of coordinated activities that we undertake in order to access lumber and areas of the working forest.

We do have, in the budget each year, approximately $13 million for road upgrades. That’s to maintain and improve existing roads. That’s another part of it, as well.

J. Rustad: The rationale and the reason for the questioning around this is, obviously, the AAC’s, annual allowable cuts, decline.

[2:05 p.m.]

There’s going to be increasing pressure to try to find and utilize more fibre that can be economical for those areas to be able to protect the jobs and operations in communities. So that’s the rationale for asking these questions, as to what the minister may be looking at doing.

More specifically, there are a number of major licensees in various areas of the province, coastal and other areas, that have annual allowable cuts for their renewable tenures. In some cases, those tenures are undercut for a variety of reasons, but the levels aren’t being harvested.

Does the minister have any numbers or estimates in terms of the percentage or the amount of volume that might be currently being undercut by mills on their renewable tenures?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, there is volume in undercuts. I’m not sure if the member mentioned, but there’s a five-year cut control period, where a licensee has the opportunity to harvest the full allotted volume. Those cut control periods are not synchronized across all licensees. So it makes it more difficult to say, “This is the amount of undercut we have right now,” because some licensees have one year left in their cut control period. Others have three. Some might even have five.

We can get that information, though, if the member is interested. It’s not tracked at this point, but we can find it within our numbers.

J. Rustad: The reason…. I guess maybe one quick question, then, around undercut on renewable licences on the five-year cut controls for a licensee if they are unable to achieve their cut control. I know there is a percentage over and a percentage under that’s allowed. If they aren’t within that percentage of their annual cut, what is the penalty of both being overcut as well as being undercut within those boundaries?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: A couple of things. There’s no carrying forward of an undercut volume by a licensee. If they’ve been found to have an undercut at the end of their five-year cut-control period, then they can’t carry that forward into another five-year period. There are options available to the ministry. That undercut can then be disposed of to others interested in that volume.

If there’s an overcut, then the way that that is dealt with is that the overcut is taken off the next five-year cut-control period. That’s the way the sustainability issue is dealt with.

J. Rustad: Thanks for the clarity on that. The reason for asking the question is that in some cases — particularly on the coast, but it could be in other locations in the province as well — you have licensees that have significant volumes in renewable tenures and that sometimes find some of the volume challenging to get to, from a price perspective. Rather than harvest that volume, they’ll go after B.C. Timber Sales to meet the needs that they have in their blocks.

By itself, of course…. I mean, that’s market. They’re eligible to do that. Of course, what is happening is that other companies, which don’t have the volume in a renewable tenure and rely on being able to access B.C. Timber Sales, can sometimes struggle and find it challenging to be able to get volume through B.C. Timber Sales.

The reason for asking about the undercuts and the undercut volume is whether or not there’s any consideration by the ministry to look at eligibility, in terms of bidding on B.C. Timber Sales, or, if there is an undercut or perhaps a pattern of undercuts within an area, whether that volume would be put up for a timber sale if that volume is being replaced by a purchase somewhere else.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thanks to the member for the question. I appreciate and acknowledge any ideas that he has had or he gets forwarded to him about how to ensure that the volume out there in the forests is used.

Specifically to his question, the undercut is not usually put up as volume on B.C. Timber Sales, because the operating area for B.C. Timber Sales is usually different from the operating area of the licensee. It is possible to do that, and it’s something we’re having to look at.

I think that was pretty well the question. There’s no policy change at this point, though.

J. Rustad: Once again, the angle, the reason, for these questions is simple. We’re having a shrinking fibre supply, and we’re in a situation of demand and just looking to see what considerations the minister might be looking at to try to find ways to expand the access to fibre.

One of the other issues — I think the minister mentioned that or talked about it a little earlier — was around the residual, the wood that’s left behind, the potential for pulp logs being left behind in blocks. What steps has the minister taken to find ways to coordinate access to that type of fibre that’s being left behind — if a primary has gone in and harvested and left fibre behind, for a variety of reasons — for other licensees to be able to access that fibre and, perhaps, the coordination between operations, so that they can reduce costs?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: This is an important topic. I recall — before I even was an MLA, in 2005 — a meeting with the Forests Minister at that time, Pat Bell, meeting with him at the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I was a municipal councillor, and other municipalities were bringing the same concern to then Minister Pat Bell around access to the residuals on the site. It’s been a topic of concern for a long time.

The forestry fibre working group that began in 2014 is focusing their attention on this. There is the ability…. Well, first of all, we encourage business-to-business relationships so that there can be some coordination. But failing that, district managers have a series of tools. We call it a cascading approach to coordinating the utilization.

At the end of that approach, the district manager could issue an order to prevent destruction of a pile if there’s a secondary user who wants to get to that pile in a serious way. It’s a do-not-destroy order. There are also incentives for the licensee to take that wood in a take-or-pay policy — so to have to pay for the lumber that’s left behind.

There’s a whole series of steps, and the district manager has some tools at his or her disposal. The first step is that we try to facilitate a coordination between businesses for that exact topic that the member brought up around coordinating ways to get the fibre out.

J. Rustad: One of the challenges, of course, is that once wood gets put into a pile, it becomes very expensive to be tearing apart a pile and trying to access the fibre. That is why the coordination needs to be there in advance of harvesting, so that it can be managed accordingly and reduce the costs.

One other problem had come up. I don’t know if this has been solved or not, so I’ll ask the minister whether or not this has been solved. When a licensee buys a block or puts forward a block within their renewable licence, they harvest the volume that’s in there. All the volume that comes out of that block, of course, is accounted towards the licensee. If the licensee has one million cubic metres a year that they’re harvesting, they take one million cubic metres off the block, and they’re good to go.

However, if additional fibre is taken off, waste fibre, that is also measured. There was a time when licensees would be very reluctant to want to see that volume come off, because it would actually come off their bottom line. If somebody was able to recoup another 200,000 cubic metres out of one million cut because they were utilizing pulp logs or other type of volume out of a block, that would ultimately go against that licensee’s cut.

Has that issue been addressed within the ministry so that there isn’t a penalty against the licensee for having another operator come in and be able to partner and utilize fibre that came out of a cut?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: A couple of things in answer to this question. Generally, the wood that is left behind, in most circumstances that we’re talking about, is grade 4 material. There is the ability — we have that ability — to provide a cut control credit to the licensee if that wood is used and provided to a non-saw-log mill. That volume would not come off of the volume that the licensee is already holding. It’s a good tool because it encourages the use of that grade 4 lumber. That has been, oftentimes, what has happened with the mountain pine beetle situation.

Wood that normally would have been left behind because of the factors that the member pointed out is now being utilized in a non-saw-log mill. Oftentimes, pellets — but sometimes cants and things like that — are produced out of it, and that volume does not come off the major licensee’s volume. Now we’re getting into some technical details around situations where perhaps that isn’t a grade 4 type of timber. Whether it’s a saw log…. In that case, the previous scenario applies — that either the licensee has to take that wood and bring it in or has to pay for it regardless. It’s a take-or-pay policy.

If the member would like a further, more detailed briefing on some of the situations he has described, then I can arrange that with staff or staff can provide it to him in a letter.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the offer.

The challenge, I think, is that some mills are far more efficient at utilizing smaller diameter, whether it’s tops or other components that are left behind. There is some challenge, I think, in terms of that accounting. I would suggest to the minister that the ministry needs to look at some tools to make sure that there isn’t a disincentive to utilizing fibre in the best way possible so that we can try to maximize that fibre that comes out.

Once again, all of this is around how we try to minimize the impact of the dropping or declining annual allowable cuts. One of the other components, of course, to that is the inventory work that is done, as well as the growth and yield that feed into the calculations.

I’m wondering. I read an interesting article back a few months ago with regards to the greening of the earth. There is more carbon in the atmosphere. There is more growth that is coming from that. It’s measurable in many places. I’m wondering whether or not there has been any analysis done to growth and yield on the production of our land base that may impact on future calculations for fibre availability and annual allowable cuts.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, some very interesting variables are out there when it comes to assessing growth-in-yield predictions and inventory work, as far as our forests go, and some human-caused changes in the atmosphere that could have an impact.

First off, we have a number of monitoring plots across the landscape to really ground-truth our growth-in-yield assumptions. Those are used to ensure that what our scientists and our foresters have as far as a model is ground-truthed and is verified as being accurate. So those are something that we have in place.

We also have plots that are monitored — not around, necessarily, the growth-in-yield assumptions but on productivity. We know that with climate change, some variables like temperature and water are going to change, and we want to make sure that our productivity assumptions can be tested on those temperature and water changes.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Those are a couple of things that we do currently. We also have…. This is exactly why the annual allowable cut determination is reviewed from an independent scientific lens by the chief forester every ten years, to look at those growth-in-yield assumptions and climate impacts on our productivity. So that’s an important mechanism — that every ten years we’re able to do that determination.

Also, just to finish off, I want to make sure that the member knows that we recently — I believe it was just a few weeks ago — appointed a blue-ribbon panel to conduct an inventory review. What that three-member panel will do….

Interjection.

Hon. D. Donaldson: It’s five members. A five-member panel of esteemed professionals will review the inventory program and make recommendations to me, I believe, by the end of the year on improvements or how the inventory work and system is functioning.

The Chair: The member for Nechako Lakes.

J. Rustad: Hon. Chair, welcome to the discussion on estimates.

Just in regards to that and along the same lines of the previous question, inventory, of course, is an important component of determinations that obviously need to be updated from time to time.

I’m wondering: what is the minister’s budget for doing inventory work in the current fiscal year and within this three-year window? And, perhaps, what is the timeline for this blue-ribbon panel to be able to report back? Does the minister see that potentially changing for a budget ask or through contingencies for any sort of recommendations that might come?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: The budget for inventory work is the same as it’s been the last number of years — $8.13 million per year. There are 33 staff involved in that.

As far as the blue-ribbon panel goes, we expect their work to be done by the end of the year. I’m open-minded about what their recommendations are. I can’t speculate on whether it’ll require additional spending, but given that their recommendations will be in by the end of the year, if there are budgetary implications in their recommendations, it’ll be in time for the next fiscal year.

J. Rustad: I seem to remember questions over the years with regards to the level of funding on inventory work as to whether or not that was sufficient.

Does the minister see the amount of work that’s required and the changes that are in the forest that have been occurring — certainly over the last 16 years, but now that the pine beetle has run its course, the changes that are in place here for going forward…? Does the minister see the $8.13 million as sufficient to be able to update inventory information at a time when we have these declining AACs? More importantly, what is the schedule, within those impacted areas of beetles, whether it be pine beetle or the spruce beetle, for the work that needs to be done on inventories?

Hon. D. Donaldson: With the advent of more modern techniques when it comes to conducting inventory work — technology, computer modelling, remote sensing…. Within that context, the $8.13 million is adequate to conduct the inventory work that’s required.

Again, the technology doesn’t preclude ground truthing, as far as the assumptions that are made under the computer modelling. We have those monitoring plots to make sure those assumptions are ground-truthed.

As far as the schedule, as the member put it, for addressing inventory work, disturbed areas are always prioritized within the inventory work.

[2:40 p.m.]

What I can tell him is that ten of the 20 TSAs that have been impacted by forest health, like the mountain pine beetle situation, are currently being focused on — techniques like ground sampling and phase 1 photo interpretation.

J. Rustad: Of course, all of this comes back to some of the original questions around the apportionment — that these decisions need to be made.

I’ve just got a quick question — maybe it’s not so quick — in the light of UNDRIP, in the minister’s mandate. Those decisions around apportionment that will be happening within various areas. Is the ministry consulting with First Nations, and do First Nations play any role in the decisions of apportionment within various cut areas?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Currently in the legal framework, the determination for annual allowable cut is the responsibility of the chief forester, and apportionment decisions are part of the decision made by the minister.

That framework didn’t previously contemplate the consultation process that’s now required. Not only through principles such as the United Nations declaration; successive court cases have laid that out as well. So First Nations do expect to be increasingly involved in apportionment decisions, and that’s something we recognize.

The tenures branch is currently creating an approach for more effective consultation on apportionment decisions. We’re embarked on that process. We haven’t finished it yet, but we do recognize that First Nations are wanting to be increasingly involved in those apportionment decisions.

J. Rustad: Noting the time that we have, I think I’m going to move on to a couple of other topics. I want to ask a few questions associated with B.C. Timber Sales. In particular, some of it has to do with what we have just been talking about, but some of it has to do with some other components.

B.C. Timber Sales obviously has targets in terms of the volume that it tries to get out in each area around the province. I know that, historically, there have been some struggles in some areas in terms of its ability to be able to meet those targets of volume. There have been undercuts in some areas.

I guess the question to the minister, or the first question the minister can start with on B.C. Timber sales, is this: is the minister considering any sort of policy changes or approaches that would help to see the issue of undercut or the issue of no-bid sales on blocks be resolved so that more of that fibre can make it into the market?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: B.C. Timber Sales is on track to sell its full business target by the end of next year, and that’s the end of the five-year business cycle that B.C. Timber Sales operates under. With that, there aren’t any policy changes being considered at this time around undercuts, because we believe the business target will be met. It’s on track for that.

The member did bring up a valid point around when there are no bids on particular B.C. Timber Sale sales. What our staff does in that case is get those sales back on the market as quickly as they can, making adjustments that would make them more likely to be bid on.

J. Rustad: Particularly for the coastal area, where there’s harvesting that takes place by licensees of varying kinds, or contractors, on B.C. timber sales, can the minister provide any information with regards to the percentage of logs that may end up being exported or put up for the domestic test before they get exported from B.C. Timber Sale blocks?

Hon. D. Donaldson: B.C. Timber Sales operates under the same robust regulatory process when it comes to exporting timber from Crown lands.

[2:50 p.m.]

B.C. Timber Sales puts up the blocks, and the bids are entertained. The winning licensee then has the ability to harvest the timber, and then if they so decide that they want to test the market to export some of that timber, that timber is put on the surplus test, the same as timber that is harvested from other areas by licensees. So it has to pass the surplus test before being exported.

As far as the numbers go for B.C. Timber Sales on the coast, I can give the member the last four years’ volumes that were exported by licensees that passed the surplus test and that came originally from B.C. Timber Sales cutting permits.

In 2014, it was 730,680 cubic metres. In 2015, it was 441,211 cubic metres. In 2016, it was 545,705 cubic metres. And in 2017, it was 657,552 cubic metres.

J. Rustad: I want to go into forest health questions, but I’m going to overlap a little bit between B.C. Timber Sales and forest health here. In particular, I’m thinking about spruce beetle impact in the areas up north of Prince George but in other areas as well.

B.C. Timber Sales has a lot of blocks, a lot of operating areas, that have been fairly heavily impacted by the spruce beetle epidemic. Those areas do not currently have a lot of infrastructure in terms of roads and bridges being able to go into those areas.

I see the budget for B.C. Timber Sales is increased. I’m curious as to whether or not there will be a focus from B.C. Timber Sales on infrastructure development to be able to start getting access to those areas that have been heavily impacted by the spruce beetle.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, the spruce beetle is becoming, and has become, an issue. Especially in the Omineca, we’re now witnessing the largest spruce beetle outbreak ever recorded.

As far as how that wood is being accessed…. First of all, in a general sense, every licensee is redirecting their focus on beetle-impacted stands. That includes B.C. Timber Sales as a licensee. B.C. Timber Sales is collaborating and cooperating with the other licensees who have interests in those stands in order to coordinate on infrastructure development and in order to get to those stands.

J. Rustad: I’m going to come back to questions around the spruce beetle, but I just want to ask specifically around B.C. Timber Sales with regards to the access through there.

[2:55 p.m.]

In addition to the development — obviously, the things that need to be done around spruce beetle — there are cells that Timber Sales is responsible for, particularly in the North Coast and other areas that, without milling operations, aren’t as utilized. I know there are some operations that are going on within those areas.

I guess the question for the minister…. B.C. Timber Sales helps to drive the market pricing system within the various areas. Where you have things like the impact from the beetle or areas where you don’t have milling operations, particularly the areas that aren’t…. How is that wood made available to companies that might be outside of that area, or how does that wood help in terms of the pricing model if it is exported? Does it fit into the categories, or is the pricing system just simply for the areas that have the milling facilities?

Hon. D. Donaldson: A couple of good questions there. There are operating areas that are uneconomic that are under the purview of B.C. Timber Sales. It might be uneconomic due to profile or distance to mills. From time to time, B.C. Timber Sales tests the markets to see if conditions have changed and the timber is seen as more economic to access.

The stumpage is set the same as using a market pricing equation. That’s the same as used by licensees in many ways. It covers a number of the same variables. That’s the way that the market pricing system impacts the stumpage set for those blocks. One of the variables addressed is log export. But generally speaking, if an area isn’t being accessed when B.C. Timber Sales puts up a block, there’s probably not other licensees harvesting in that area either.

J. Rustad: Could the minister provide numbers to the House? What is the projected revenue for B.C. Timber Sales in the upcoming year?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: The predicted revenue generation for 2018-19 for B.C. Timber Sales, the gross revenue projected, is $315.780 million. That’s the gross revenue. The expenses that need to be calculated off of that are $195.761 million. That’s for infrastructure development, silviculture work — all the responsibilities that B.C. Timber Sales holds. So the net revenue predicted for 2018-19 is $120.019 million. Of course, that could change upwards, depending on stumpage that’s directly linked to the high lumber prices right now.

J. Rustad: What are the current stumpage rates? No, let me rephrase that. Obviously, the stumpage rates are very different, depending on species and region, and there’s a whole bunch of variables associated with it.

I guess the real question is: what is the comparison of stumpage rates today — broadly speaking, not so much by species and region — compared to when lumber prices were up high, prior to the market pricing system being in place?

We have the current stumpage prices, with the lumber prices that are obviously record highs here today. Back in, I believe, 2005 or somewhere in there, before we had the market pricing system in place, lumber prices were north of 400 at that point. I’m just curious what the comparison is between stumpage levels being paid by licensees for access to fibre then versus today?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Overall, as far as for all licensees, stumpage revenues are broadly going to approach $1 billion gross this fiscal year, which is the first time we’ve approached that number since before the market price system was put in place. I believe that’s a good-news story to be putting on the record.

Now as far as the member’s question, which I believe was directly related to B.C. Timber Sales comparing stumpage rates today, when lumber prices are high, to an era before MPS when lumber prices were in the same category…. We can get that information — we don’t have it available at this point — but also with the caveat that it’s a challenging comparison to make. MPS, market price system, in place now is not directly comparable to the stumpage system that was in place before MPS. It could be a little bit like comparing apples and oranges, but we can get those numbers for the member if he wishes.

J. Rustad: Thanks to the minister for that information. I would be interested. I understand that, obviously, you’re comparing apples and oranges in some aspects, because the pricing system was different back then versus MPS. That was the intent of why MPS was put in place. It would just be interesting to compare numbers, to see roughly what revenues were.

Now, lots of variables. Pine beetle and all of those types of things are at play — right? — in terms of it. But just in a broad sense, it’d be an interesting number to look at. I thank the minister for gathering that information — whenever, obviously, there’s an opportunity to send it to me.

A couple other quick questions, and then I want to move to one local question. Then we’re going to move to wildfires and floods and, from there, into, perhaps, other beetle issues. In particular, I want to ask about salvage and salvage permits. I’ve been hearing from a number of people some challenges, in terms of being able to access fibre through salvage licences, licences designed to be able to access fibre that typically gets isolated. The purpose — in my understanding, at least — of the salvage program is to be able to bring fibre that otherwise would be lost and unaccounted for within the AAC determinations back into the system by being able to go out and salvage that fibre.

Can the minister provide any update with regards to the salvage program that’s in place — whether or not there have been any changes or whether there are any anticipated changes that may impact on these small operators’ ability to be able to go in and access that fibre that is currently considered salvageable?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just as a broad statement to start the answer to the question, salvage harvesting is always done based on stewardship objectives to ensure proper consideration of all resource values and through ongoing discussions and partnership arrangements with First Nations. That’s the overall envelope, and there are no changes there.

The appetite for salvage is a very local issue. It depends on what the local conditions are and what local entrepreneurs are trying to do. It might be a fire situation. It might be a blowdown situation. But what happens is that it’s determined whether a major licensee is wanting to go after that wood, and if not, then there’s a salvage opportunity. But it really is district by district, and the district managers know their local salvage operators and know what they’re looking for. That’s unchanged, and we’re not anticipating any changes on small operators from that aspect.

J. Rustad: One of the challenges I’ve heard from some of the salvage operators has been the stumpage rates for access on some of this fibre. The rates, in some cases, actually can be higher than regular blocks and regular access to fibre.

I could, potentially, bring in an example, if the minister would require it. But I’m just wondering whether or not the minister has heard this issue, whether or not there is an opportunity to review the stumpage rates for salvage fibre. Given the fact that the intent, as far as I understand, of the salvage program is to bring fibre that would normally not be accounted back into the system, it seems that that would be a benefit to us as a province and to the forest industry in general. If stumpage becomes a barrier, I’m curious as to why that would become an issue.

If the minister could, perhaps, look into that issue and provide any comment now, if you have it. But certainly, salvage operators are providing a great benefit in terms of bringing that fibre into the system, and the cost of stumpage and the cost of reforestation can sometimes make that prohibitive.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I guess, in a general way, when I have discussions with people who are interested in harvesting timber off the public lands, they always raise stumpage rates as a concern. So it’s a matter of balance.

[3:15 p.m.]

With some salvage operations, the stumpage could be reflective of the fact that there are no development costs, necessarily, associated with bringing that wood out. But it’s not our intention to disincent salvage operators. We want to get that balance of a fair return to the taxpayer for a publicly held resource but not to the point of disincenting a salvage operator from going into the woods and removing that lumber.

When it comes to fire-damaged wood, we work closely with the market pricing branch to ensure that as the wood degrades, that is reflected in stumpage value. It’s a very specific situation. If the member has a specific case he’d like us to have a look at and analyze, we’d be more than happy to do that.

J. Rustad: If I may have an opportunity, I might be able to bring that forward. I won’t bring it forward here in estimates but at another time.

We’re going to move on now to wildfire — to a local issue in the Cariboo prior to going into that. One quick question before we do that, and that is that you were mentioning to my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin about the contractor stability review that was submitted, I believe, at the end of January or into early February. I understand your response to my colleague was that that report is with staff at the moment; it hasn’t come up to your desk yet. That’s understandable. Obviously, it needs to go through that process.

Given that we’ll likely have a three-week break here and then be back before we wrap up our estimates, a quick question is: will there be an opportunity to pursue that particular report when we return from our three weeks back in our ridings — in estimates, obviously? When it’s out, there’ll be opportunities to pursue it, but the question is whether or not there’ll be an opportunity to canvass that here in estimates.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, the member is correct. The recommendations from the review have not hit my desk yet. The question is: will they have been reviewed in order for us to discuss them in estimates three weeks from now? My preference is that we finish estimates today, but I know that that is looking more and more unlikely. That’s okay, too, because this is a public process where members get to ask questions around how the government is spending money, and it’s important.

I would say the probability of having the publicly releasable elements of the report ready in three weeks is low. It’s a low probability just because the recommendations have not made it up through the system yet and there’s going to have to be some consultation between this ministry and stakeholders before those are released publicly.

To be totally forthright, during this three-week break, we might not have all staff who are required available to have a look at that, because some people are actually taking holidays. I’m not sure if the member is, but definitely, some members of staff in a senior capacity are. So I would say it’s a low probability that we’ll be able to address it in estimates in three weeks.

J. Rustad: Well, perhaps if we end up going to Ottawa, maybe we have a chance to chat about it then.

With that, just before we move on, I would suggest that perhaps we take a brief recess.

The Chair: The committee will recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:20 p.m. to 3:34 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling the committee to order. Minister.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I believe the next question is up to the critic.

The Chair: Okay, member for Nechako Lakes.

J. Rustad: Thank you, hon. Chair. When you said “minister,” it confused me, so I just stayed with doing what I was doing.

Like I say, we’re going to move into one regional issue in the Cariboo, and then we’ll go into the wildfire stuff.

I’d like to turn it over to my colleague from Cariboo North.

[3:35 p.m.]

C. Oakes: Dragon Lake is a 225-hectare lake east of Quesnel. It’s a major economic driver for the region, supports approximately 10,000 to 12,000 anglers and contributes approximately $1 million annually to our local economy. It is also significant as a broodstock lake. In fact, it’s one of three major sources in British Columbia and a primary source of the blackwater strain of rainbow trout. The province takes two to three million eggs annually from Dragon Lake for stocking throughout the province.

Since the spring and fall of 2016, there’s been a high concentration of goldfish seen. Anglers and residents have brought forward serious concerns about the impact of the goldfish.

At a meeting in September 2017, the ministry said that there would be an independent evaluation of the lake’s fish population, with the results compared to the last survey completed in 2014. These results are critical to the ongoing assessment for future management decisions and the commitment made to report out to the community in January or February.

Constituents have been on my doorstep waiting for the report and an action plan. I am meeting with a group of concerned residents and anglers of Dragon Lake on March 19. Will the minister commit to having someone from his ministry at this meeting, and will they release the results of the report as well as the necessary funds and permits for an action plan moving forward this spring?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. If it’s the same Dragon Lake that’s south of Quesnel, I’ve camped there before. I think camping would be overstating it. It’s a beautiful RV site there. It’s a great location.

Definitely. We will commit to having someone from our staff at the meeting that you talked about that can answer questions. Yes, goldfish are a known invasive species. What we know to date is that, so far, the collection of the eggs of the blackwater rainbow is still able to be done. There’s not a concern about a lack of eggs at this point, but ongoing management is definitely a concern.

We’ll have a staff member attend locally. We’ll get you some answers around if there’s some documentation that we have that can be released, but at least you’ll have somebody there to answer specific questions and make commitments.

[3:40 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for the answer to that question.

Moving on to talking about wildfires. I just want to start, initially, with one question. The minister has mentioned that 1.3 million cubic metres of wood impacted by last year’s wildfires was under permit. Can the minister perhaps provide the House with any details as to how much volume was harvested over this past winter?

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’ve got some numbers for the member. For the areas that were most impacted by the Cariboo and Thompson rivers fires, four areas — Williams Lake, 100 Mile, Thompson rivers and Quesnel — the total submitted volume for application was 911,727 cubic metres. The total cutting of that that’s been approved by our ministry is 579,715 cubic metres, and the total harvested to date — this is as of February 28 — is 237,385 cubic metres.

J. Rustad: If I remember correctly, the amount of wood, roughly, that was impacted by the fires was around 50 million cubic metres, plus or minus. Perhaps the minister could provide an update in terms of the amount of fibre that has been impacted by the fires.

Is the minister anticipating that the amount of wood, or the applications coming in for access to that fibre, will be increasing significantly over the course of this next year?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, we expect to see a significant increase in volume that will be applied for and that will be permitted. Our staff has finished working through engagement and consultation with First Nations — and on pricing as well. We expect to see some really significant volumes in this coming period of time, really ramping up. As far as the amount of fibre impacted by fires, I just want to make sure we get an accurate number for the member. We’re just awaiting that; it’s coming.

J. Rustad: What is the life expectancy of the fibre that has been impacted by fire? Obviously, that will vary, depending on the severity of the impact, but I’m just looking for what an average would be.

Hon. D. Donaldson: On the question of the life expectancy, the member is correct. There are lots of variables involved with that. The variables depend on the species, how severely impacted the tree was by the fire and what the final use is, intended for, by a licensee. In broad terms, what we can say is that for the most severely impacted trees that are still salvageable, we anticipate there’s about a four-year life expectancy for their merchantability. Of course, that’ll be longer for moderately to lightly burned wood.

J. Rustad: It may have been over the course of the summer, but I think it was last fall that there was some talk about the potential for a new tool being created, or a new process being created, to be able to streamline or be able to access this fibre. There is concern, of course, that the length of time to build access, particularly for licensees that may not have an operating area in the area or want to look at it as salvage opportunities…. I’m just wondering whether the ministry has any plans to create any tools outside of the normal process to be able to expedite the opportunity to access this fibre.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I just want to commend staff. It turned out it wasn’t a need to create new tools, because they were able to work within the existing tools to get an amazing amount of volume ready for market — 1.5 million cubic metres, overall, of fire-impacted wood. The fires just ended in late September, so it was a pretty amazing process.

They were able to do that by…. They pulled a team approach together to consult and engage with First Nations and licensees and took a broader strategic stewardship approach around stewardship plans. That has now been done, and some of that has to do with retention, but it’s also harvesting plans. Really, it covers off a lot of what we consider as required through consultation with First Nations.

All that took place within the existing tools that the ministry has, and we believe now that things will ramp up considerably. The numbers I quoted already were pretty incredible, I think. I want to thank the team and the work that was done after fighting fires and turning attention in a big way to this. It’s been a really intensive exercise, but it’s been successful.

As far as it goes, the licensees who are able to operate in the area, we believe, will be able to harvest the volume that’s set to go over the next four years. The one thing that might be more limiting than the harvesting aspect is the milling capacity aspect. But it’s not a question of whether the licensees will be able to harvest. We believe they’ll be able to harvest that volume in the most fire-impacted wood over the next four years.

J. Rustad: I also want to recognize the staff and the work they’re doing. I know they’re doing their best to try to move this wood and salvage it. I know they recognize the timelines and the seriousness of the issue.

One more quick question, and then I’m going to turn it over to my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin for some questions around fire and fire-related issues. You have the operators in the Cariboo that have licences. Some don’t have licences, or some licences may be adjusted to be able to go in there. You’ve got the Timber Sales, obviously, that have licences in there.

[3:55 p.m.]

For operators that are outside the Cariboo or even operators inside the Cariboo, other than the wood that will be made available through B.C. Timber Sales, is there any other opportunity, whether it is short-term licences, salvage licences, other types of…? I think we used to call them NRFLs, or non-replaceable forest licences. Are those being contemplated so that we can maximize the utilization of the fibre that has been made available because of the impact of wildfires?

Hon. D. Donaldson: At this point, we don’t believe that we need any other tools to get that volume out of the forest. We do have the ability to put non-replaceable forest licences in play. It’s always an option. But at this point, we don’t think we’ll need to be creating any new ones.

Again, some of the limiting factor will definitely be…. The biggest pinch point will be the milling capacity locally that’s at play for all the fire-damaged wood that’s going to be coming out of the forest.

D. Barnett: I once again would like to commend our staff in the Cariboo region, how hard they have worked and the good work they have done through the fires and, now, trying to get permits out.

In the short term, I don’t believe that we have had any extra staff. I could be wrong. But in the long term, what does the ministry see as far as increasing staff in the Cariboo region to assist the existing staff, not just with permitting but with rebuilding, with stabilization, with reforestation — those types of things?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the budget-related question. I just want to talk about a few things. Generally speaking, we have regional operations teams, and they work together. So if there’s a need in one region that’s not being fulfilled, the other regions chip in and help out. That’s one way we deal with it when one region gets an amount of work they aren’t able to handle, themselves.

There is, in this budget, over the next three years, an allocation of $72 million extra — $22 million for wildfire recovery and $50 million for wildfire resiliency. There’ll be staff included in those dollars as well.

The member listed a number of areas — rebuilding, stabilization, reforestation. We also have, when it comes to reforestation, the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. and Forests for Tomorrow. Those two organizations — one is an organization, and one is a part of our ministry — will have resources and staff, as well, allocated to some of the activities that the member describes.

D. Barnett: To the minister: could you tell me, over the next three years, what is allocated for reforestation funding?

Hon. D. Donaldson: We’re compiling that. We’ll get it to you. I don’t want to sit in silence for too long because I know time is of the essence here. So we’re compiling that, and we’ll have an answer for you once we get it compiled. I think that we’ll have it by the end of this estimates debate today.

D. Barnett: I do have one or two small bills that have not been paid by the wildfire branch. Just so you know, I put one in an envelope today, and it is being sent to your office. I would appreciate if you could take a look at it and get these small bills paid as quick as possible.

The other question or two that I have talk about rebuilding. When you go into the new part of rebuilding the land base, there are lots of issues out there from the fire that need to be considered.

When you go out to rebuild, will you be having other agencies, such as ranchers and range, work with the ministry on the long-term plan? As we know, there are some issues out there that would help ranchers move forward after the fires with different types of work on the land base. So will you be coordinating the rehabilitation with the agriculture community?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Before I get to that answer, I just wanted to thank the member for forwarding an outstanding invoice.

The numbers that we have right now…. I just want to make sure this is on the record. Of the 38,495 invoices received provincewide, 38,066, 99 percent, have been paid to date. That leaves 1 percent still in the process of being verified and paid in the Cariboo Fire Centre and Kamloops Fire Centre. The outstanding invoices are those received within the last 20 days, or those awaiting clarification from the vendor. I just wanted to give that background information and to thank the staff that have been working on that file.

The answer is yes. Ranchers and those with an interest in rangeland will be involved in the long-term planning. We’re already working with the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association in that regard. The plans are created at the local level under the district manager, so that’s the level we’re working at. We’re hearing the suggestions and taking into consideration the interests of ranchers and rangeland users.

D. Barnett: The forest access roads that are funded by the Ministry of Forests. Some of them, of course, were damaged during the fires. What is in the budget to rehabilitate these roads and to put them back to the standards that they were before the fires?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thanks for the question about roads that were damaged during the wildfires.

If the road was damaged as a direct result of the firefighting activities, the funding for that will come directly from the firefighting wildfire allotment. It was over $600 million last year. This coming year, I believe…. We’re coming up to the vote, but it’s approximately $67 million. That’s the envelope that’s used to address roads that were directly impacted from our wildfire-fighting activities.

[4:10 p.m.]

If the road was damaged in a way by the fire, outside of those activities, then we have our provincial budget of $13 million for addressing road maintenance and repair. If we find that those funds, those first two mechanisms, are insufficient, then we can look within our internal budget, within the ministry, to provide additional funding. Finally, as a last resort, if those first three mechanisms aren’t sufficient, then we can go directly to Treasury Board on an expedited process.

The engineering work is still underway on these roads. They were able to get to some of the areas before the snow came, but in the spring, once the snows diminish, we’ll be able to get to further inventory. Inspections to date, just so the member knows, have shown that there’s been some surface damage but limited structural damage to those roads.

D. Barnett: What is in the budget for mitigation for our communities who are concerned about pine beetle and concerned about what needs to be cleaned up around their communities? What funding is in your budget for this?

Hon. D. Donaldson: There are a number of areas of funding, in response to the member’s question, about fire resilience in communities. I want to highlight the first one, especially. It’s $50 million of new funding over the next three years to fund resilience activities like prevention and mitigation work. That’ll help not just in planning but actual on-the-ground work in and around communities.

The other program that’s still available — that was available before and has been available for several years — is the SWPI program through Union of B.C. Municipalities that we fund and they deliver. That’s been used by communities to help fireproof their communities.

The third area is Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. There’s $140 million over the next three years in that organization to work on the land base for mitigative measures when it comes to fire resilience.

J. Rustad: I just apologize to staff. We’re going to fit in one local question in the Okanagan area before we carry on with the wildfires. My apologies for the breakup.

D. Ashton: To the minister: thank you very much, and I do apologize for this.

There have been questions in the Penticton area about the Carmi recreational area, which is a long-established cross-country ski area about four miles, as the crow flies, east of Penticton. It has all now been flagged off for possible logging. There’s grave concern by the individuals that have used and maintained this over the many years about the effect of the logging that will take place — what is going to be the effect on the trails, the drainage, etc.

[4:15 p.m.]

Is there a possible explanation that could either come now or in the future about what is going to take place in that Carmi recreational area for logging?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for raising that issue in your constituency, Member. We’ll get staff to get in touch with you on the specific details. We don’t have anything right off the bat for you here, but if we do get something before the end of the day, I’ll make sure I read it into the record, in case you’re not here. We’ll get staff in touch with you to follow up, because we don’t have the information available right here.

C. Oakes: First, I want to share the comments that were made by my colleagues from Cariboo-Chilcotin and Fraser-Nicola — how much we appreciate the B.C. wildfire branch for everything that they did during the past summer and into the fall. I think people forget that the fire activity actually extended for a significantly long time, longer than we have ever experienced before in this province. For that, I just want to share, from all of our constituents, our sincere appreciation.

A few questions, perhaps, around preparedness. As we head into the spring and the summer, I am certain that the minister, coming from the north, probably shares the similar thoughts that my colleagues have — that we spend a lot of time worried, a lot of late nights wondering: “Are we ready? Are we prepared? Have we done everything that is necessary to ensure that our communities are in a position, coming up this summer…?”

My questions to the B.C. wildfire branch will be around that. Can the minister advise on how many new Incident Management Teams have been trained in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Donaldson: As an opening comment, I share the concerns that the member has for her communities. I share that for my communities, as well, and as minister for communities across the province. We want to be as prepared as we can. We want to learn from what happened this past season, and we want to keep our fingers crossed that it’s not going to be as extensive or nearly as severe a wildfire or flood season as we saw this past year.

As far as Incident Management Teams, I just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing. These are the senior management teams. They’re not the initial attack crews, but these are the senior management teams.

[4:20 p.m.]

We’re constantly training new members. We have what we feel is sufficient Incident Management Teams in B.C. They’re all trained…. The members of the teams are trained to the same standard across Canada, so under extreme circumstances, where we need more Incident Management Teams, we can bring them in from other provinces, as we have done, and as we will continue to do.

C. Oakes: In 2017, how many incident management teams did we have trained in British Columbia? And as of this spring, how many trained incident management teams do we have in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the question. We have six incident management teams. We had six in 2017, and we have six now.

C. Oakes: One of the challenges that was faced with the extensive timeline that we faced and the necessary rotation that was required with incident management teams…. It is my hope, and it was certainly discussed with colleagues and people in the constituency, that we do find a way to train more incident management teams regionally and across the province. It certainly would be my hope that by the time summer comes, we’ve done the necessary work to train.

It is discouraging to hear that we had six teams, we went through the most significant wildfire season ever, and we continue to have not trained any new incident management teams.

Could the minister advise, I guess for my constituents…? One of the other challenges that we had through the B.C. wildfire branch was that by the end of month 2, we were running short of equipment — whether it’s hoses, axes, just general equipment on the ground. They did their best. One of the challenges that we faced was supply.

Can the minister report out if all necessary equipment caches have been replaced with the ministry and if we’re ready with equipment for this summer?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: So far this year, we’ve spent $18 million replacing equipment. We’ve spent a considerable amount of money ensuring that the equipment that is needed will be there for the fire season. As well, if there is an issue, despite spending that amount of money to replace equipment, during the fire season that we’re running short, we have agreements to bring equipment in from across Canada for those needs.

I think, likewise, in the previous question around the incident management teams, not only can we bring them in from outside of the province…. When the member expressed her disappointment that we have six teams, the same as last year, I just want to make sure that it’s on the record that those teams are highly specialized personnel. It’s not simply six teams. We have a whole raft of people that work underneath them, bolstered from our fire centre staff and from other ministries in that team’s approach. So the six are highly specialized incident management teams, but they have a whole foundation of people that work underneath them.

C. Oakes: I know that this will not come as a surprise to the minister, and it certainly would have been highlighted in every single community consultation that has happened. But the significant challenge, again…. We are prepared in British Columbia if there is a fire event that lasts for four to six weeks. We are pretty well managed for that.

Where we run into trouble — and what we saw in the wildfire season of 2017 — is when we move beyond that. One of the most significant challenges that we had with the IMT teams is that there would be a two-week rotation. So they’d be in for two weeks. You would see about a three-day gap in training the next IMT team.

Often, on the morning calls, we knew that there was trouble or there were challenges on where that next IMT team was going to be coming from. We did broadcast throughout international partnerships.

The challenge that we found when we were reaching into the extended period of time through the B.C. wildfire 2017 season is we were having trouble getting IMT teams. We were having trouble with the turnover. We were having trouble with…. We were reaching out far and wide across Canada and across the United States for equipment. So we are prepared short term. We are not prepared in British Columbia long term.

I would hope that we learn from this experience and that we invest in local British Columbians to ensure that we have more specialized teams in the province of British Columbia, that we have the ability to make sure that the investment in equipment caches are prepared, because we should learn from what has happened.

I will turn to a few more questions that have come from my riding. I still have outstanding invoices, and we will continue to work with the ministry on that.

What is more troubling…. The response that I’m getting back from contractors is that anyone who has worked with the B.C. wildfire branch over the course of this past summer…. I understand the incredible challenges of the invoicing and trying to get people paid. The challenge is I am not sure that contractors will want to do business with the B.C. government again. I’m hearing messages back from contractors that they will not register to fight fires due to the experience that they have had.

To the minister: what is the plan if we do not have contractors that choose to register to fight fires?

[4:30 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you, Chair, and welcome.

There are a lot of different aspects to the question and the statement the member made. We believe…. I’m going to go back to the incident management teams. We’re learning from this past fire season, for sure. We’ve done internal reviews. We also have the Chapman-Abbott independent review going. Their recommendations and their report are due by the end of April. So we’ll have that perspective to bring as far as all aspects of what could be done better.

We believe that we’re bringing more consistency to managing the turnover for IMTs. But we definitely welcome the on-the-ground experience that the member is explaining. I would be definitely willing to meet with her around what she’s hearing from local contractors.

We’ve worked on a process of streamlining the invoice-processing component. This was a component that had never been faced with such a high number of invoices. As I said, it was over 38,000, I believe, that came in, in a short period of time. This was a system that was in place before this government became government. We dealt with it, and we’re learning from it. We’ll be able to do that better with a streamlined process.

As far as engaging with and investing in local people in order to help to fight fires, we’ve engaged with industry to do training so that we have people who are a lot closer to the fire that can react more quickly. That’s outside of the B.C. Wildfire Service.

We’re moving on a number of fronts, with the intent of having more local people involved, with the intent of streamlining the invoicing process and with the intent of managing the incident management teams in a more efficient way.

[4:35 p.m.]

C. Oakes: Has the minister made a submission, or is he working with…? There are changes currently or discussion around the labour code. One of the most significant challenges…. The minister has mentioned he has engaged in conversations with industry. Then the minister surely understands that the labour code was a critical component to challenges that industry had in reacting and responding to the wildfires.

There were incidents with contractors that were out on cut blocks that refused to fight fires because of the labour code. Has the minister worked with government to ensure that the necessary changes in that code are made so that industry can be a partner in fighting these fires?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll try to portray this as a budget estimate answer. I know it’s a serious topic, but we’re talking about budget estimates here. So what we’re talking about is how we address gaps or situations where things could have been done better from the fire season last year and, in the budget, whether we have a budget that responds to the wildfire situation that we encountered last year.

We do have uplifts in the budget to address both land-based recovery and socioeconomic recovery. Our B.C. Wildfire Service staff have sat down with industry to work through more efficient and improved integration of not just industry equipment but industry personnel into any incidents that might occur in the 2018 wildfire season. These discussions have taken place in a Council of Forest Industries venue as well.

We’re utilizing the resource that industry provides in a local way. The kinds of gaps that the member mentions are gaps that…. We’re waiting to hear from the independent review recommendations that are provided there. But we’re not just waiting for that review. We have a cabinet task force on wildfire. There are six of our cabinet colleagues that sit on that. So that’s a venue for discussions around gaps as well.

C. Oakes: In the vein of engaging with industry…. Perhaps this has been resolved. One of the challenges that we also had during the past season was the communication or gaps between B.C. Timber Sales, the FLNRO office and B.C. Wildfire. We have many logging contractors and companies that…. Some had put bonus bids out on B.C. Timber Sales to the tune of, in some instances, close to $1 million.

[4:40 p.m.]

Will the minister be returning those bonus bids to individuals that put forth those bids through B.C. Timber Sales and later found that B.C. Wildfire burned them through back burns to stop the fire?

Hon. D. Donaldson: We know that the topic, generally, of communication has come up in many instances, based on what we’re hearing from the community meetings that the Chapman-Abbott review were holding as well as what B.C. Wildfire staff have garnered through analysis of the season and the communication between local governments and municipalities and First Nations or whether it’s regional districts. We’re looking at that and looking forward to some of the recommendations, which I’m sure will address better communication, from the Abbott-Chapman report.

As far as timber sale licensees who are holders of timber sale licences from B.C. Timber Sales and that were impacted by the wildfires, we’ve heard from some specific cases that there are legal processes that we must follow in order to deal with those kinds of cases.

The intent is not to have timber sale licensees completely out of pocket for something that was totally destroyed. That’s not the intent, and that’s what we’re working on. It has to be a step-by-step legal process. Part of that is to also investigate whether there’s insurance available and those kinds of steps. But we’re working on an individual basis on those cases, and like I say, the intent is for those licensees not to be out of pocket for something that was totally destroyed in the fire.

[4:45 p.m.]

C. Oakes: I have lots more questions, but my allotted time allows for just one more question. I would look forward to an opportunity to talk further, perhaps outside of the estimates process.

Perhaps just a quick statement to say that from my personal experience…. I must share with the minister that the experience that we had with our local B.C. wildfires…. Our regional teams, our teams trained in British Columbia, were exceptional. An investment in our British Columbia teams, in training and supporting these teams, is critical to the future British Columbia.

My other statement I would make is that I really appreciate the work that Chapman and Abbott have done in collecting data around communities. One of my concerns is the fact that it comes out at the end of April. Does that provide us adequate time to get prepared for a wildfire season that can potentially start quite early in British Columbia? That’s my statement.

My final question is this. The city of Quesnel has brought forward — and we have forwarded — a letter on to the minister around Crown lands that are both adjacent or within a community and the responsibility of whose that is to manage from a FireSmarting interface perspective. Have there been changes or discussions with local governments on the responsibility around Crown land within local governments?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thanks again for more of the questions that are really important for preparing not just for the coming season but seasons in many years to come.

As far as the member’s statement about the Chapman-Abbott review, we are already making changes within the ministry from the internal reviews we’ve done, as far as getting in a better place for the upcoming fire season. With their report due at the end of April, yes, that’ll give us time. I can’t presuppose what the report will say, but I would anticipate that there would be some priority topics and then more medium-term and longer-term topics. So we feel and believe that there’ll be time to implement the most important of the recommendations before the coming fire season.

As far as what is going on with the Crown land adjacent to communities and the letter from the city of Quesnel, yes, we’re talking to communities. We’ve talked to many of them, starting as far back as the Union of B.C. Municipalities annual convention in September.

[4:50 p.m.]

As far as resources, I mentioned SWPI, the program that’s been in place up until now, and that’s continuing. But we’re in the middle of an analysis of that program, which is a funding program that we fund and administer through UBCM for activities on the land around communities to reduce the risk of wildfire. So part of the analysis is how it fits in with….

We have an extra $50 million over the next three years to address wildfire resiliency. So we want to make sure that SWPI and the activities that we undertake in wildfire resilience are aligned and make sense and respond to what communities actually need to do on that Crown land close to their communities.

As well, there’s the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C., which is an application-driven organization. There’s, I believe, $140 million, $235 million overall, that’s available in the next three to five years. Local governments and First Nations and forest licensees can apply to that organization, with the explicit intent of doing work that reduces fuel load around communities.

Those are three areas where we’re working with communities on the whole issue of how they reduce fuel load and let their communities become more fire resilient in the years to come.

J. Rustad: The minister’s comments have unfortunately added a bunch of questions. I’m not quite sure whether we’ll get through fire stuff or not today, in terms of the changes in progress. I was not going to ask a lot of questions about changes, because obviously there’s a report that we’re all waiting for with great anticipation. I might get to a few of those questions around change, but I want to ask specifically around some budget stuff to start with. After all, this is the estimates of budgets.

To the recovery, the $72 million, $22 million of that is, I believe, for recovery, and $50 million is for preparation or other activities. Out of that $22 million — and the minister can correct me if I’m wrong — I understand that $5 million of that is in the first year, and then it ramps up in the following years. I think it was $5 million, $7 million and $10 million, I believe, over the three years.

Could the minister provide some details as to what that funding will actually be spent on?

Hon. D. Donaldson: We have some other information coming in, in response to some previous questions, so I’ll get to that before we run out of time today.

The member is right. The $22 million allotted over the next three years for wildfire recovery is $5 million in this fiscal year, $7 million in 2019-20, and $10 million in 2020-2021.

To give the member an example of how these activities, these new resources could support, I’m going to read off a list of what we’re anticipating: landscape level planning, land-based investment, engagement in partnerships with Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, replacement enhancement of resource values in infrastructure, processing increased authorizations and working with the industries within the Interior to understand and mitigate impacts from fire and floods.

[4:55 p.m.]

J. Rustad: It sounds like, basically, most of that is going to be spent on increasing staff, on staffing in terms of response for all of those activities. That’s fair enough, in terms of it.

I also was wondering whether or not there’s any money coming in from the federal government — whether it’s money that is part of that or anything that might be coming in, in addition to that — for recovery or whether the minister has made any ask of the federal government for money for recovery.

Hon. D. Donaldson: That $72 million over the next three years, $22 million for recovery and $50 million for resilience, is strictly provincial moneys.

We are working with the federal government, still, to try to secure additional resources. We’re in discussions with them on that. We believe in the Canadian Wildland Fire Strategy that’s been signed by the federal government. We’re consistently saying it’s nice to sign that document, but we want to see the resources that should be put towards that document as well.

As far as other areas where we’ve been able to secure federal dollars in recovery, we’ve been able to do that through emergency management B.C. on a disaster financial assistance fund. So there are some federal dollars associated with that, and we’re working on federal infrastructure-related dollars to help us with recovery and resiliency.

J. Rustad: As the minister, I’m sure, is aware, there’s more than just the response and the staffing on the ground, but there’s obviously a significant economic impact.

I know there was the money that was parked with the Red Cross that has done a number of things. How much money is remaining in the money with the Red Cross? And out of any money that may be remaining, what are the plans to request from the Red Cross, in terms of how those dollars should be spent?

Hon. D. Donaldson: This information might have been canvassed with the minister responsible for emergency management B.C. But I acknowledge it’s a shared responsibility because my ministry also has not only land-based recovery but socioeconomic recovery as part of its mandate.

[5:00 p.m.]

The Canadian Red Cross — I’ve got some figures here that are fairly recent, just as of the end of the last calendar year — has a total of $161.6 million at their disposal, and $50.8 million has been spent and committed. Out of that amount, $44.1 million is spent and committed on household assistance. That was, as the member knows, during the actual fire situation, and still, in individual support to self-recovery.

Under the community partnership program, $2 million is spent and committed. Under support to small business, $6.8 million is spent and committed.

There is still, as I said, in those three areas, despite what is being spent and committed…. The household assistance, out of that $161.6 million, still has $109.8 million allocated to it; the community partnership program, $21.6 million; and support to small business, $29.1 million.

What we’ve heard from the Canadian Red Cross is that in situations where they’ve dealt with major disasters, for instance in Alberta, Fort McMurray…. In the Fort McMurray situation, the commitment from the Canadian Red Cross is to expend these funds, but over a two-year period. What they’ve found in Fort McMurray and other places is that the need escalates in different areas, but it escalates throughout time. Although it might appear that only $50.8 million has been spent out of $161.6 million, there are still going to be a lot of needs to be addressed in the following year.

I’m just going to ask if I can use an electronic device to read some information that came in to us — a specific question that we didn’t have the ability to answer right at the time. Okay.

This is in answer to the member’s question about the Carmi recreation site. Carmi is a designated recreation site with minimal facilities, managed by recreation sites and trails. As the member said, it’s quite close to Penticton. It is a network of trails primarily used by mountain bikers, but was historically identified as a cross-country ski area, as the member pointed out.

BCTS has proposed logging in the recreation site. Recreation sites and trails recommended that BCTS consult with the South Okanagan trail association, and the trail association had no concerns with the proposed logging. Unaffiliated members of the public saw logging layout ribbons and have expressed concerns to recreation sites and trails, the minister and the Premier.

BCTS has agreed to meet with the concerned public and review logging plans during the summer and explore options for changes. Harvesting is not proposed until the fall at the earliest, and recreation sites and trails has not yet approved logging in the recreation site, which will be required. Recreation sites and trails will continue to work with BCTS and stakeholders to ensure that recreational values are considered in the logging plans before authorizing. I think that’s that.

Then we have some information for the member who was asking about reforestation resources. Under FRPA, the Forest and Range Practices Act, section 108, $65 million is available for this coming fiscal year for reforestation. Under Forest Enhancement Society of B.C., $95 million is available for the coming fiscal year. Under Forests for Tomorrow, $39.4 million per year is available, which will amount to $118 million over three years. My team will commence in the fire areas in 2020. Approximately 22 million trees will be planted.

[5:05 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Just one quick suggestion or thought. Obviously, we’ll have to see how things play out in the second year with the Red Cross, in terms of the help that is needed within the communities, but if there are some funds that are left over from that, it might be an idea to consider utilizing the Northern Development Initiative Trust as a special fund to help with economic opportunity or economic development within the Cariboo as part of its mandate.

Just a suggestion. It’s not exactly what estimates is for, but I want to be able to see those funds utilized. Given the economic impact of the fire within that area, they’re going to need some assistance, particularly through tourism and other activities within that area.

To the other side of the money that’s being allocated, the resilience side, is it $10 million, $20 million and $20 million or something like that — 10, 15 and 25? I can’t remember exactly what the numbers were over the three years. What is the minister’s plan for that funding?

Is that going to be funnelled through UBCM, through the existing wildfire prevention initiative, or is that going to be a separate program within the ministry? Is that money going to be partnered to communities, or is that something that is going to be spent internally within the ministry?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just of note on the lead-up to the question, I certainly have known the work of the Northern Development Initiative Trust and endorse it. They’ve done great work in the past. In our rural development strategy, they’ve been one of the key informants that we’ve interviewed, so we’re well aware — and I’m well aware, having come from the north — of the great work they can do. We want to be able to partner with them into the future, for sure.

The member was correct. The $50 million for wildfire resiliency breaks down into $10 million for 2018-19, $20 million for 2019-2020 and $20 million for 2020-2021. We’re in the middle of designing how that money will be rolling out. We have a wildfire resilience initiative, and we’re seeing and looking at how that will align with SWPI. But I just wanted to read off what kind of activities we’re targeting for that $50 million investment.

“It will involve dedicated, streamlined funding for local authorities and First Nations or Indigenous communities to undertake planning, capacity-building, engagement and implementation of resiliency and preparedness tools — for example, fuel treatment, land-use planning policies and bylaws, education and incentives to participate.

“We’ll also have target investment for provincial priorities and critical assets necessary to maintain community resiliency, such as power, communications, water supply and rural commercial entities, such as ranchers and mountain resorts.”

The B.C. Wildfire Service is currently developing an implementation strategy and terms and conditions for assessing the community and First Nations components of this new funding. Lots of really good and interesting work is going to be undertaken.

J. Rustad: I have a couple other questions, but at this time, I would like to provide an opportunity for another local question that he wanted to get in before we get to the break. I’ll turn the floor over to the member for Sea to Sky.

[5:10 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for time here. I have something of a long saga that the minister may be familiar with. It involves a subdivision created by the province in 1911, which is district lot 1818, plan 3565, in the Squamish River valley in the Cheekye drainage.

The situation here is a challenging one, a difficult one, and I understand that. I’m seeking support and working with the ministry to try and resolve an issue for a number of constituents who live in this particular location in this subdivision, which has quite a few lots, actually. At this point, I’m only aware of three owners and buildings on that lot.

The lots were originally accessed via a provincial highway that went up the valley and that ultimately was taken over by B.C. Rail when the B.C. Rail line was put in, and the road was then realigned. It became, by thumb story, a forest service road that accesses woodlot 27, services B.C. Hydro land and accesses these properties.

About a couple years ago, the bridge that went over the Cheekye River to access these properties was washed out. It had been washed out on a number of occasions and replaced. Ultimately, the decision was made by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to remove the structure completely.

The net result is that I have constituents, by the three surnames of Dittas, Smith and Holt, in their 60s and 70s, who live full-time on this property and whose only access, at this point, is to walk across a B.C. Rail bridge, or a CN bridge now — so essentially, trespass — and walk several kilometres to access their property.

I think there’s an element of responsibility that I think the province has to help solve this problem. Albeit it is within the district of Squamish, it does also, as I’ve pointed out, access a number of other interests, including a woodlot. I’d seek the minister’s advice and support in helping these constituents in a very, very difficult situation.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I want to say thank you to the member. You’ve been a strong advocate for your constituents. You’ve brought this issue to me before and explained what these people are facing.

Definitely, these are the kinds of situations that I’ve run into, not exactly but in other circumstances, where there are some historical reasons around why people had access to their properties in the first place. Those reasons involved Crown land and government infrastructure.

What I can say is that I think there’s a lot of detailed history that needs to be gone over in a briefing. I want you to be able to provide that to ministry staff in a more formal way, but not during the estimates debate, because I think it’s going to take some time to really dig down into some of the issues. There are some legal obligations, obviously, but I am sensitive to what he talks about.

It’s not an ideal situation that he describes for the people who have to access that property by virtually trespassing on a rail bridge. Rather than getting into a lot of detail here, I think it’s best that we offer up an opportunity for a briefing and get more detailed information.

I move that the committee rise, report progress — I don’t necessarily want to ask leave to sit again, but I know we will — and ask leave to sit again. I’ll see you in three weeks, I guess.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:15 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.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I’m advised that the Administrator is in the precinct. Please remain in your seats.

[5:20 p.m. - 5:25 p.m.]

His Honour the Administrator requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018

Tla’amin Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2018

British Columbia Innovation Council Amendment Act, 2018

In Her Majesty’s name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these acts.

Supply Act (No. 1), 2018

In Her Majesty’s name, His Honour the Administrator doth thank Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this act.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We could do another 30 minutes of committee debate, but instead I think I move the House will now adjourn.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I know that people outside will think you’re on a break for the next few weeks, but we all know you won’t be. You’ll all be busy in your ridings.

Please travel safe. We’ll look forward to seeing you back when this House comes back at 10 a.m., April 9. It stands adjourned until then.

The House adjourned at 5:28 p.m.