Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the estimates of 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 and Climate Change Strategy.

[2:40 p.m.]

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 2:43 p.m.

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

J. Rustad: Thank you, hon. Chair, and to the minister and staff, good to see you back here again as the estimates process continues.

We are going to start by going back to an issue that we canvassed three weeks ago with regard to tenures and the tenure process on fish farms. There was a report that came out from the Minister of Agriculture’s Advisory Council on Finfish Aquaculture that made some recommendations to this government. I believe the comment from the Minister of Agriculture, at the time, was that they will be considering these recommendations.

The reason for asking is that there was a discussion that we had specifically around the tenures and the renewal of tenures for fish farms. The minister, I believe, stated that there would be no change to the current process in terms of renewable tenures. The recommendations from this report suggest that there would be a change if these recommendations were adopted.

[2:45 p.m.]

Starting off, I’d like to ask the minister whether or not he and this government are endorsing these recommendations brought forward from this advisory committee.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Chair, welcome back to estimates as well. I jokingly heard today that we’ve covered two months in these estimates, in that we started in March and now we’re in April.

I welcome any questions in these estimates. It’s the time for the official opposition to have a chance, on behalf of the public, to question the expenditures within the ministry.

As far as the member’s question regarding the Minister of Agriculture’s Advisory Council on Finfish Aquaculture final report, known as the MAACFA report, I just want to commend the amount of work that went into this report. It’s taken pretty well almost a couple of years, and I understand the members of this council met at least a dozen times.

There are at least 29 recommendations. It’s a matter of looking at these recommendations, analyzing them. It’s a complex issue. We will be having our staff look at them. Also, we need to make sure that we consult with First Nations and industry around the recommendations as well.

I welcome the recommendations. I welcome the analysis that the people on the council took in providing the report. As I said, it’s a complex report — over 200 pages, over 29 recommendations. We’ll be taking our time to look at them, along with consulting First Nations and industry.

J. Rustad: As the minister is likely aware — and by the way, thank you for that response — there are tenures that are up for renewal this spring into summer. There are decisions that need to be made by companies with regard to restocking, moving forward with their operations.

I guess the question is: what time frame is the minister looking at, is this government looking at, in terms of a review of these recommendations and any potential changes? Will any permitting requests for renewals that are in the system go through under the current rules, or will they be facing potential changes midway through the process?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, we have statutory obligations to begin consultation with First Nations around the renewal of the 20 tenures that come up for renewal at the end of June — those being in the Broughton Archipelago.

At the same time, we’re proceeding with First Nations. We began meeting with them. It’s a historic coming together of six First Nations and five band council representatives at the table. That’s important, because we have the process proceeding with the statutory obligations around tenure renewal. But it has to also be considered within the whole framework of how we’re proceeding with First Nations on the question.

Importantly, there’s also a major role for the federal government to play here. I would just roughly estimate that 90 percent of the responsibility around aquaculture is within federal jurisdiction, so we’ve had discussions with the federal government as well to try to bring them to the table in a more fulsome manner on this topic.

[2:50 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I didn’t really hear an answer to the question, so maybe I’ll try to restate the question. I understand the federal government’s role in terms of the licensing. It is a provincial role in terms of the tenures, which is what we’re talking about in terms of process.

I’ll re-ask, if I may: can companies expect the process to be what is, under the current rules and the current process…? Can they expect that to be able to go forward in terms of renewals of those 20 permits through the process through the end of June? Or is there potential for that to change, in light of the report on finfish aquaculture?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Of course, the intent overall in this process is to ensure that wild salmon populations are sustainable, not just in the Broughton but in the province generally. I know that they’re important in the area I represent. They’re important provincewide. Those populations are important in the constituency that the member represents.

Just for clarification, when the member uses the term “tenures,” we’ve got to make sure, for the record, that we’re at least talking about two different types of tenures. The tenures that we’re responsible for as a province are Land Act tenures. They’re the tenures that are affiliated with the anchoring of the fish farms, either to the foreshore or to the seabed, a seabed that is under provincial jurisdiction in these cases.

Then there’s the fisheries licence, and that’s a federal jurisdiction. That has to do with issuing a licence for aquaculture activities such as open-net fish farming, the water column beneath those fish farms. The majority of what people would consider the concerns around Atlantic salmon and the impact that they possibly have on wild salmon are within federal jurisdiction.

We have entered into significant negotiations with First Nations who are concerned and who are in support — and do not support — fish farms. But those significant negotiations are underway, and I will not prejudice those negotiations by predicting an outcome in any way. But we’re on a time trajectory to try to resolve this situation. It’s been around for a long time, and we want to make sure it’s resolved in a manner that’s going to be able to have both industry and First Nations move forward.

J. Rustad: I, unfortunately, am going to be required to ask the question once again. The minister, a few weeks ago, through the estimates process, said that there would not be any change to the current process which those tenures would go through. It’s a process I understand well, and it’s a process that statutory decision–makers will be making through the establishment of how these tenures get renewed and have been renewed many, many times in the past.

The question, once again, to the minister is: will the expectation of that process going forward to renew those permits be subject to changes, or will they be renewed under the existing process?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll be as clear as possible for the member and his question. The statutory obligations about moving forward with the process around tenure renewal will take place as is obligated under the legislation.

[2:55 p.m.]

At the same time, we’re undergoing significant government-to-government discussions and negotiations with First Nations whose territory includes the Broughton Archipelago. So all I can tell the member at this point is that we’re going to be proceeding as our statutory obligations require, and we’re negotiating with First Nations to create certainty in the longer term.

J. Rustad: The minister — for, I think, the third time now — still hasn’t quite answered the question. Would there be changes to the process which has been long established for the renewal of tenures?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, the member can keep asking the question, and I’m going to give him the answer that I’ve been giving — that we are committed to the statutory obligations that are in existence now and that I will not predetermine the outcomes of significant negotiations on a government-to-government basis with First Nations.

We are in touch constantly with industry. We are in touch with the First Nations organizations that are in representation of the Broughton Archipelago. We’re in touch with First Nations out of that geographic area that have fish farms in support and not in support.

The tenure obligations that were required to fulfil our statutory duty are being fulfilled. At the same time, I’m not going to be predetermining or talking about what’s going on in significant government-to-government negotiations with First Nations.

J. Rustad: Perhaps the minister didn’t understand the nature of the question. I’m not specifically asking for what the outcome will be. I understand the need for negotiations. I understand the engagement from government to government.

What I’m trying to talk about, or I’m trying to ask about, are the rules by which a company may operate and have expectations to be able to go through in terms of a process of tenuring. I guess I’ll rephrase the question in respect of the rules. Does the minister anticipate the rules changing between now and the time when those tenures are up for a renewal decision by a statutory decision–maker?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, for the issuance of licences and tenures under the Land Act, the process remains the same. And we have, at the same time, negotiations on a government-to-government basis being undertaken with First Nations. The purpose is to resolve the conflicts that are occurring within the Broughton around open-net salmon fish farms. The purpose is that the outcomes will resolve those conflicts. It’ll be good for the future of aquaculture, and it’ll be good for First Nations.

On the one hand, we have a process that remains unchanged. It’s the statutory obligation. On the other hand, I can’t predetermine the outcomes. But we’re in a negotiating process to try to reduce conflict, because the situation as it stands now is not conducive to industry and not conducive to First Nations who have concerns.

[3:00 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I suppose that might be as close as I get to an answer on that question. But I do want to put on record that one of the recommendations for immediate recommendation actions was to establish policy requiring industry to have agreements with a First Nation or Nations “affected by a net-pen aquaculture site as a condition of any new or replacement site tenures and provide guidelines to industry for developing these agreements.”

That, to me, would signal very clearly that if government were to be doing that, it requires there to be an agreement before those tenures would be renewed. That would be a significant departure from the current tenuring renewal or issuing process, which is why I’m asking the minister whether or not a recommendation like that is going to be considered to be mandatory prior to the renewal process for those 20 licences in the north end of Vancouver Island.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll go back to where we started with the first question. I want to thank the MAACFA council members for their hard work over 18 months, and the 29 recommendations are all being considered, in discussions with First Nations and industry.

I just want to quote from…. It’s over 200 pages long, but I’ll quote from one paragraph and the conclusion of the report on page 19. It says: “All council members recognized there is a desire among many for a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to the core questions in the terms of reference about the continuance of marine-based salmon aquaculture in B.C. Simple answers are rarely available to complex questions, and this is the case for aquaculture.”

J. Rustad: I recognize that quote and that component from the report on page 19. That wasn’t the question, of course. I’m not asking about whether it’s a simple process or complex. I’m asking about whether there is a change to process and expectations.

Under the United Nations declaration of the rights of Indigenous people, UNDRIP, there is a clause in there that speaks about free, prior and informed consent. This particular recommendation that would be brought in could be viewed as a requirement for consent before any sort of licence or process would be renewed or issued, which is why I’m asking this question.

We have canvassed this many times in this Legislature, and that particular clause, even as referred to by Grand Chief Ed John, does not mean a veto. Yet this particular recommendation coming forward would be a veto, because obviously if an agreement cannot be reached, it would be a requirement. So this is why I’m asking the minister.

I’ll ask once again if that particular recommendation would be something that would need to be in place or considered before renewal would be in place, which would be a departure from the current process and, quite frankly, would send a very interesting message right across this province with regards to the interpretation of free, prior and informed consent.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll say again that there are 29 recommendations. We’re considering all of them. We’re consulting with First Nations and with industry about the recommendations. It’s a large and complex report. We’re not endorsing any one of them at this point, to date.

As far as what…. The member raises a very good question around free, prior and informed consent. We believe that the process we’ve embarked on with the First Nations in the Broughton is a demonstration of the principles of the United Nations declaration. It’s a direct result of the fact that this kind of work wasn’t done in the past. We’re doing it now, and it’s creating a pathway to more certainty and a pathway to a better future for both industry and First Nations.

J. Rustad: In the interest of time, I think we’ll move on from this particular topic. I’m sure we’ll get a chance to canvass this further down the road. Who knows? Maybe we won’t even end estimates today, and there might be a chance down the road as well.

[3:05 p.m.]

However, at this time, I’m going to move on from the fish tenuring process. I’d like to offer my colleague from Delta South an opportunity to ask, specifically, around some of the foreshore issues and other issues associated with his issues on the Fraser River.

I. Paton: I’d like to speak for a moment about water lot leases. I think you’ve heard this from me before. In my riding of Delta South, we have a great number of water lot leases that are held in the southern part or the western part of the Fraser River, right at the mouth — Steveston, Richmond and Ladner, in particular.

Mr. Minister, uncertainty over the future of 360 provincially owned water lot leases in the Lower Fraser River has reached a crisis point. The lack of long-term leases is taking its toll. Most evident is the devaluation of businesses and homes, but unseen costs include higher insurance premiums, failed sales agreements and untold infrastructure investments being put on hold. The businesses and property interests impacted include fish processing, marine parts and service, tugboats, tows and barges, shipbuilding repairs, restaurants, marinas, yacht clubs, condominiums and float home owners, and municipal interests, such as the city of Delta’s waterfront plans.

Although we appreciate that FLNRO has had to staff up and that the First Nation consultations took time, prompt action is required on long-term leases with fair rents. In my area of Ladner — I’ve brought this up before — we have a very frustrating long-term situation. For instance, in downtown Ladner, we have a street called Chisholm Street. It’s basically bare. It’s vacant. It’s on the water. We can’t get any businesses, any restaurants, any gift shops or any developers to come in and take hold of this Chisholm Street.

We would like to make it a beautiful re-enactment of Steveston, where people can come and sit and have coffee out on the water. But no one will come to invest in Chisholm Street in the downtown, historic part of Ladner to build anything — to build a Cactus Club, a Milestone’s, a gift shop or even a fish and chips shop — when they know of the uncertainty of leases. They’re not long enough. Right now they’re being offered, I believe, one- and two-year leases. No bank is going to lend money to a developer to come along and borrow money to make investments on the water with these short-term leases.

The other thing is that I’m getting letter after letter from people that live on the river. We have fish processing plants in Ladner. We have recreational marinas. We have a lot of float homes, and we have different businesses, such as restaurants. I’ll give you an example, Hon. Minister, of a restaurant in Ladner called Sharkey’s Seafood. Part of his business is on the upland portion of the dike, but part of his business is also part of the water lot, which is basically some land with a little old dock at the bottom, in the river, that nobody ever uses.

He traditionally paid $2,500 a year as his water lot lease. About a year and a half ago, he was told that it was being increased to about $12,500 a year, which he thought he could live with. In 2018, he got a letter from FLNRO saying, “Your estimated cost for your water lot lease portion of your Sharkey’s restaurant is going to be $59,000 for the year,” which is absolutely outrageous.

We need to get through this consultation period. Hopefully, it’s finally over. I would really like to get some answers on the length of these water lot leases in my Ladner area and the cost of the water lot leases.

Hon. Chair, can the minister update me on the status of the timeline for the renewal of long-term water lot leases for residents and businesses of Ladner?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I just want to thank the member for not only his question and the background but his advocacy on this file. It’s a file that I, of course, being from the northwest, wasn’t absolutely up to speed on until I became minister. Not only through the efforts of my ministry staff but through his efforts in bringing representatives from the Ladner local government to the Legislature here for me to meet with and from his questions previously, I’ve come to a greater understanding of — and our ministry understands — the situation that’s faced by the members in his constituency, by Ladner.

We’ve put a priority on it, and we’re progressing. Eighty-three percent of the files that we’ve received from the federal government have been completed. Those are, beyond those two-year leases, multiple-year leases, depending on the purpose. We did institute the two-year-lease renewal just to have some continuity while we had time to do consultation. We’re consulting with the Musqueam and others.

I’ve got to say that each circumstance is a little bit different, because the purpose of the lease is a little bit different. I believe that we’re making good progress, but I do understand the frustrations on those other 17 percent of the files that haven’t come to a long-term completion yet.

If the member would like to supply me with some specific information on the circumstance with the restaurant that he describes here, I’d be happy to have a look at it. As far as the other ones go, overall, it’s a priority of ours, and we’re working hard to get them resolved quickly.

I. Paton: One final question on this. I won’t spend too much time. I’d love to spend a couple of hours. Would you have any sort of a hard deadline from the ministry to finalize all the leases and lease offerings in my area of Ladner?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: It took a little bit of time, and I just want to express to the member that that time is reflective of the seriousness of the topic. I want to make sure that we can try to give as much certainty as possible to those who are holding those leases.

We got the head lease provided to us from the federal government in 2015. Our goal was to have things wrapped up within three years. That would put us to the end of this calendar year, of 2018. Having said that, some of the files are quite complicated, but that’s what we’re shooting for. We also have to rely on some of the evaluations and assessments that are done in the 2018 assessment year.

I just want to make sure that the member knows that this is a priority, and we’re hoping to wrap them up by the end of the calendar year.

I. Paton: I’d like to move on, just briefly, to dredging in the secondary channels in my community of Ladner. As the minister likely knows from the last time we were here in estimates, back in 2015 there was a problem of sediment buildup in the secondary channels of the Fraser River that move into my little town of Ladner and the different fingers of the Fraser River.

Back then, we finally got together a coalition of stakeholders such as the province of B.C., the city of Delta and Port Metro Vancouver to come up with quite a large figure of roughly $10 million to get in the dredging companies to dredge the secondary channels of my small community of Ladner.

The Fraser River, as we know, is one large river, but as it gets towards Metro Vancouver, it splits into many little secondary channels — in which, in Ladner, we have recreational marinas. We have many, many float homes. We have upland dikes, as I’ve just spoken of. We also have two commercial fish processing plants, right on a secondary channel coming in from Sand Heads and Steveston into Ladner.

Back in 2015, we were able to get this dredging taken care of, but even since 2015, the silt is starting to come back into these secondary channels around Ladner. This also includes 500 direct and indirect jobs along the channels in my community of Ladner.

What we are looking for is roughly $750,000 a year to upkeep the dredging in this area, rather than having to chase down $10 million every ten or 12 years for a major dredging project. What we’re looking for is a program and funding of roughly $750,000 a year, which could be a joint venture with the province, once again.

My question. Can the minister update me on the status of the ongoing funding request for the dredging of Ladner’s secondary channels? Secondary to that question, has the minister approached the federal government to discuss potential joint funding options for Ladner’s secondary channels?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Again, thank you to the member. I remember getting the maps out with the representatives he brought in from Ladner and looking at the back channels. Not only were there good maps but aerial photographs, as well, about the concern around the sedimentation and the secondary channels.

Our staff, as soon as next week, will be out to tour site-specific areas to look at the siltation issues. We will approach the federal government, but it’s a complex file. We want to have all the information in our hands, the most current, and all our ducks in a row. There are multiple stakeholders — First Nations, local governments. Of course, the overall issue is that dredging for navigation is a federal responsibility.

It’s not that we’re trying to shirk any responsibilities that we have. We just want to make sure that we have a really solid file before bringing it to the federal government, and we want time to do it properly. So we’ll be starting that by having the site-specific visits next week.

I. Paton: One final question. I guess a statement to begin. We would certainly be honoured if the province could look into funding not only through the province but in dealing with the federal government to come together with stakeholders such as the city of Delta, the port of Vancouver, to come up with…. It’s still a big figure, but $750,000 a year would likely get us the dredging done so that we don’t have to chase down a huge amount of money every ten years to solve a bigger problem.

My question, then. Maybe not next week but two weeks from now…. We have a group in Ladner called the Ladner Sediment Group. They’re very adamant about dike heights. They’re adamant about dredging. They’re adamant about water lot leases. They’re a very vocal group. I know that we met with the minister last fall.

My question is…. I believe there’s a setup for a river tour of the secondary channels around Ladner for April 17, and the group is wondering if we can confirm whether the minister will be attending on that riverboat cruise. If not, will there be any deputy ministers attending to have a good look at the situations we have in Ladner with sediment and water lot leases?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’d like to confirm that the deputy minister will be on that…. The member characterized it as a riverboat cruise? Anyway, I’m not sure…. That doesn’t sound like work, but he’ll be there on that trip.

J. Rustad: Thanks for that version, too, to the issues for my colleague. There may be some other issues associated with water and dredging. There will certainly be some issues around docks, but that will be a little bit later this afternoon.

[3:25 p.m.]

At the moment, I’d actually like to move now to talk a little bit about wildfires, followed by flooding, and then, hopefully, at that point, some forest health issues and then into wildlife and wildlife management. We’ll see how far we get through the process.

Starting off on the wildfires and the terms of reference for the committee that is chaired by George Abbott and Maureen Chapman. We made a number of recommendations with regards to the terms of reference. Last fall the minister provided an opportunity for the opposition to be able to provide those suggestions.

I’m just wondering if the minister could start, perhaps, by explaining or going through some of those recommendations that we had made and whether or not they were included and, if not, why they were excluded.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, I distinctly recall offering the opportunity, especially for those MLAs from the areas impacted by the last wildfire season to have the ability for input into the terms of reference for the work that that independent, arms-length Chapman-Abbott team has undertaken. They finished the public input section of their work at the end of March.

As far as the recommendations, the input, that were provided by the official opposition MLAs, there were quite a few recommendations — and interest in input. The bulk of them were incorporated into the terms of reference. I can get the member a document showing the recommendations that were provided and how they were incorporated into the terms of reference. I can provide that to him as a request through this estimates process.

J. Rustad: I know that report is due soon, coming up here in April, I think it is. I’m sure all members of the House are looking forward to the report. I guess we’ll leave estimates open until the end of May so we can ask some…. No, I’m just joking.

It would be nice to be able to ask questions with regards to the report, but I recognize that’s not possible. Of course, questions associated with this may or may not be covered by the report.

However, it does bode…. Given the fire season that we had last year and, of course, the potential for other fires this year, which I’m sure there will be, the severity, hopefully, will not be in the category of last year. But it’s important to ask some questions with regards to some of the lessons learned from last year and what changes may be considered or implemented, regardless of what the report may be making in recommendations.

I’d like to provide the minister with an opportunity to perhaps elaborate on some of those lessons learned, some things that may be considered for doing differently this season, in advance of, obviously, the recommendations that may come from the report.

[3:30 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I welcome the question. This is critical for the public, especially, to understand — that it’s not just waiting till the end of a season, although people are obviously extremely busy when a fire season and fires are occurring, wildfires. But it’s a matter of.... During the actual episode and event, there’s detection and correction continuously going on. It’s a continuous improvement model. It wasn’t just: “Oh, let’s make note of that, and we’ll address it at the end of the fire season.” When it’s been able to address during the actual crisis, during the actual event, then we do that.

I would say that — and I know that Abbott and Chapman are hearing this as well — communication seems to be something that has been universally raised. As the member will know, we have a four-tier review system within our ministry in connection with emergency management B.C. The fourth tier is the level where we get to an independent review that I commissioned back in the fall, but the other three levels are internal. So we do have the system in place to address what we see as gaps.

Of course, this was one of the biggest fire seasons — was the biggest wildfire season — ever. It obviously gave us the opportunity to see some of the areas that need more work in communication, bringing people into the decision-making process earlier in preparation and in response — people like ranchers and cattlemen and the forest industry — especially building on the local knowledge. That was pointed out, oftentimes, around how do we better incorporate local knowledge into the preparation and response during events of the magnitude we witnessed — First Nations as well.

Those meetings about how to create the communication avenues better already began in November and December — and protocols around how to engage and interact and develop the relationships that are so important when a crisis occurs. Those relationships are really what creates the fabric of a better communication system. Just on Friday we held a stakeholder seasonal outlook with an eye to the upcoming wildfire season.

[3:35 p.m.]

J. Rustad: As we start on this discussion on wildfires, I was remiss in not making an initial opening comment, which is to thank the members within the ministry and across government in many ministries that were involved in last year.

I know everybody worked extremely hard, long hours, was very dedicated in what was an extremely trying time — both when we were in government and, of course, when you were in government through that time. I just want to thank them for all of their efforts in making sure they protected life and doing the best they could to protect property and, of course, other values that we have out on the land base.

I guess I want to canvass a number of things around this. They may or may not be included in what the report may or may not include, but there are things that I think are important to canvass. In particular, I was at a presentation on Saturday night by the fire chief that was responsible for the Fort McMurray response when they had that devastating fire back a couple of years ago. Miraculously, they moved 90,000 people — or 88,000 people evacuated — with no loss of life through that whole process. That, by itself, was an absolute miracle through that.

One of the things that was striking to me, and a comment that was made to me, was the value of our structural protection units that we have in British Columbia. It didn’t appear that they had those. Maybe they did in Alberta. I’m not sure, but it didn’t appear to me that those were in place or used as a tool at that time.

Structural protection units were invaluable in many areas. I had a chance, as I’m sure the minister did, to go out and tour areas that were impacted by the fires and see the difference that a structural protection unit made in saving homes and other values.

I know we have a significant inventory of these, but I often wonder, particularly, about the private sector individuals that have homes that are in potentially high-risk areas — that are out in the woods or in interface areas. Has there been any thought by this ministry to look at setting up a program to encourage or perhaps provide a tax incentive to individuals to be able to purchase and maintain structural protection units in case their property is in the line of fire of a future wildfire?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: As far as the protection of communities, we have a budget uplift of $50 million over the next three years for wildfire resiliency initiatives. We’re building a plan about how to best utilize that budget lift, in order to assist communities in becoming more fire safe. The recommendations from Chapman and Abbott — I definitely anticipate they’ll have something to say about this.

As far as incentives to purchase and maintain these kinds of products for individuals, again, I would anticipate that Chapman and Abbott will have something to say about that. I have had, for instance, in my office, one manufacturer of a product around sprinkler kits, which they were advocating for wide distribution, as far as prevention of burning embers landing on a property or on a roof. These sprinkler kits could reattach to gutters. That falls, perhaps, within the category that the member is talking about, around structural protection units.

We have to make sure, in taking into account the recommendations from Abbott and Chapman and from our own reviews, that whatever ideas are coming forward have been well tested and well thought out. There are often lots of ideas, and you’ve got to make sure they’re ground truth before we get behind them fully.

As far as SPUs, structural protection units, go, they can be effective in minimizing structure ignition. But what it really depends on, and their effectiveness, is around the amount of combustible fuels in and around structures. In major urban areas such as the example that the member cited, in Fort McMurray, internally, that’s a pretty significant urban centre. However, having said that, I too witnessed areas where the SPUs were deployed that helped in more rural areas as well.

These are all considerations that we’ve turned our minds to and are turning them to even more, now that we have the budget uplift and as we get the recommendations from Chapman and Abbott.

J. Rustad: The reason, particularly…. I’ve got a number of questions to ask around the structural protection units inside. It was a few of the recommendations that we had suggested, the opposition had suggested, for the review, which didn’t make it into the review directly. It may have been covered by other components of the review. But that’s what begs the question with regards to the structural protection units.

There were a number of cases during the 2017 fire season where structural protection units were deployed. As you saw and as I saw when out touring, in some places, they were successful. In most places, actually, that they were deployed, they were successful. Many places they were deployed, they weren’t required, because the fire went off in different directions, thankfully. So they weren’t tested.

The reason for asking is I often wonder whether or not there should be some broad provincial code with regards to whether, if people are going to be building homes in interface areas, that should be a requirement for homes in those areas, to help in terms of protection against potential interface fires down the road, similar as to other types of standards that we apply for construction. It’s a piece that the province could potentially play a role in.

Obviously, if it was a requirement and/or if there was a program in place, that could be able to help save many homes. It may not always be successful, but it would be…. More often than not, where I’ve seen those things applied, they have been successful in fires.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’m concerned that that wasn’t directly a question that was put to the committee or to the report, to the chairs of the report. It may be in their report. It may not be. I don’t know, but it’s one that I need to ask here, in terms of the ability of the ministry to be able to help working with landowners, property owners, that have these interface homes.

The question, I guess, is: if recommendations like that are not in the report…? I’m not going to speculate as to what is or what isn’t in the report. But is this a direction that the ministry sees that may be of value — to work with regional districts and perhaps put in some significant changes to what sorts of standards are required for those homes that are in areas of interface?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Some good points. The collective goal — it doesn’t matter to me if it’s on the official opposition benches or the government benches — is to ensure that we address the potential risks coming out of what we saw during the flood and the fire season. We’re talking primarily right now about the fire season, knowing that by all modelling, this could be not just an aberration of one year but a more regular event — the size and the behaviour that we witnessed in the wildfires this past season.

I’ll talk about a few points. We have the B.C. FireSmart committee, which has all agencies that are involved in wildfire protection, including the B.C. Wildfire Service, the office of the fire commissioner, First Nations emergency planning, Emergency Management B.C. and others.

That’s the forum that can address things like building codes and the ability to look at the kinds of structural protection unit issues that the member brings up. They are actively engaged in that conversation at that committee level. Like I say, it’s an all-agency committee, so it’s a very worthwhile place for those topics to be discussed.

When it comes to specifics, there’s the individual, the community and the role of the provincial government. We’re definitely interested in partnerships, with local government and within our government, around building codes and standards for homes in the interface area. There’s a role to play for the individual in the communities as well.

[3:50 p.m.]

We have the FireSmart program when it comes to individual houses and education and how people can fire-smart their properties. I’m one of them that needs to be doing a lot more of that, for sure.

We’re committed to undertaking this, whether it’s subdivision approval that’s required or other good ideas. We’re going to be working on that — and, again, with input and ideas from members from both sides of this Legislature.

As far as the recommendations for terms of reference for the review that were put forward by opposition MLAs, I already discussed that in a previous answer. Now we’ve gotten to a specific that the member knew hadn’t been addressed or says it wasn’t addressed. Definitely, I’ll take a look into which input was provided into what areas that didn’t make it into the review and determine if they were covered by the review once it comes out.

J. Rustad: Staying on the structural protection unit, how many structural protection units are available in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Donaldson: There are six type 1 units and approximately 25-plus private or local government type 2 units located throughout the province.

J. Rustad: So about 31 structural protection units — I think that’s the number I heard — plus private and local government units that would be available potentially around the province.

The reason why I ask is that during last year’s fire season, there were a number of incidents where individuals and families were told by people working on those fires that there would be these units applied to the residents. In some cases, unfortunately, they weren’t deployed.

Now, I get that in the chaos that was that season and with everybody’s best efforts, these things can happen. But it concerns me when there’s a sense of security or a sense of hope that some of these units may have been applied. One of the questions that we were hoping that the committee would look into was a review of how and why these commitments were made, of the decision-making around deploying the structural protection units out and why, in some cases, of course, there were those commitments and, apparently, they were not deployed.

I was wondering. The structural protection units. Given the number that we have available and given the number that were utilized and the widespreadness of that potential fire, why wasn’t there, I guess, maybe some more consistent messaging with regards to the potential or the challenge in terms of the lack of those kinds of resources to be able to protect homes that were potentially in the line of the fire?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just for a little more clarification, the six type 1 units that I described that contain about 350 sprinklers and can protect between 30 and 50 homes, each one of those units…. Those are owned provincially. Then, we are able to draw on over 25 private or local government type 2 units throughout the province. Local governments continue to build that capacity.

We also — and we have, last season, as well — import those structural protection units from outside the province. There’s a national sharing program that is well established that each province depends on. So that’s there, and that’s part of what we’ve been able to depend on. For sure, we’re open to more discussion around this, especially as far as what we hear from the Chapman and Abbott report.

The actual deployment of these units is another topic altogether. It’s an operational decision based on a number of factors. It’s dynamic, as the member alluded to. It’s a very dynamic decision-making environment. Sometimes, in order to maintain first-responder safety, which is our priority, the units are not deployed or are pulled out.

J. Rustad: The reason, of course, for asking for that to have been put in the review in question is because…. The tragedy of somebody losing a home or other assets…. They want answers. They want to know why decisions were made and why it wasn’t. I understand that, but in saying that, I also recognize that I know everybody did the best they could through the season. It’s these lessons that, potentially, we can learn from that might be able to help in the future, which is why I asked that question around it. Maybe there will be something in the Abbott and Chapman report.

In any case, with regards to the structural protection units, are there plans in place within the ministry to be able to purchase any additional of these units, and/or is the ministry considering engaging with local governments to be able to provide some financial support to build the inventory of these structural protection units in the province, hopefully never to be used, but in case we end up having another nasty fire season as we did in 2017?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I know that the member understands this, but I should state it anyway. SPUs are just one tool in an array of tools to keep communities safe and people safe and, as the member pointed out, to reduce the risk of damage to property — which, after life, is something that’s very tragic for people and difficult for them to overcome, both financially and emotionally.

Do we have plans to purchase — or engage with local governments with, perhaps, financial support — to increase the number of SPUs? Well, we want to make sure that that’s a possibility, and we’re going to definitely wait for the independent review. That report is due at the end of this month, the end of April. We have to put it in the context of availability. For sure, having said that, we depend on other provinces to fill gaps. We have to put it in the context of: are fire seasons getting worse across B.C. and across Canada, where that availability might not be there when we need it because other provinces are using the resources in their own jurisdictions?

We may acquire more. The possibility is there to provide incentives. We do have the $50 million wildfire resilience fund over the next three years, and we do have the ability to partner with the office of the fire commissioner, who has a major role to play in the acquisition and creation of these type 1 and type 2 units. That’s all something that we’re contemplating. A lot of the guidance, of course — it’s the reason I commissioned an independent review — is that that independent review has gathered much information from around the province about lessons learned in this past season.

J. Rustad: I want to canvass the $50 million, or the $72 million associated with that, perhaps in a short bit, but there are a few other questions I’d like to ask around the review and the process that’s in place.

[4:05 p.m.]

One of the challenges many individuals had — farmers, in particular, ranchers…. Some of them chose to stay behind — they had equipment or other expertise — to try to protect their property and to be able to help out their neighbours in terms of protecting their properties. I understand fully the first priority — and it should always be the first priority — is life, life and limb obviously, for the fire service in terms of its attempts to protect from wildfires.

In cases where individuals were left behind, there was virtually no support for those individuals. Communications were sporadic, if any. I know that there’s always the challenge for government, in terms of if people are left behind, whether it was people in a First Nation community that decided not to leave or people on a ranch that decided not to leave. There’s the risk that if government intervenes and tries to find ways to support, that government may be found liable in enabling an activity if there was a loss of life. But the end result is that these people are left in isolation, in some cases.

I’m wondering whether the report is going to look at that situation, where people made the choice to stay behind and take risk — whether it’s looking at that or, if the report is not looking at that particular issue, whether that’s something that the ministry is doing a review around how they work through that situation to be able to support those people in a way that could be beneficial in terms of their efforts.

Now, I recognize, when you have such a complex situation with so many people involved and everybody is busy with their jobs, that it’s tough to be able to look at individual needs or even a community, in terms of First Nations. But at the same time, whether it’s even the basics of making sure there’s food or making sure they have accurate information, understanding the risks, understanding the fire behaviour, whether or not there should be some sort of protocols put in place that would better enable those people to be supported in one fashion or another….

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: This is an area that concerned me greatly during this past wildfire season — when you heard people were staying behind in some situations. At some level, you can understand it, but the worry that that creates, as far as their safety, is really something that kept me awake at night, over the past wildfire season — and, I’m sure, many of our staff as well.

Definitely, communication is a large part of that, and we’re working to improve that. I’m sure that the Chapman and Abbott independent report will have something to say about that.

I guess what I want to say is that the toughest situation is where you don’t want one or two individuals who choose to stay behind compromising the overall efforts of the firefighting. I know that the member reflected on that by talking about how complex it is. We have only a finite capacity within the B.C. Wildfire Service and those that we engage with, and the number one priority is for public safety and the safety of our first responders.

However, I think, we can work to improve the communications. Part of that is building up the relationship in advance. We’re undertaking that already, and we’ll be doing more of that in a preventative manner, in that. We’ve done a lot of work already with First Nations. The member specifically mentioned the farmers and ranchers community. Establishing that relationship early — so that there’s a bit of trust and there’s a bit of understanding of roles — I think will go a long way to alleviating some of the specific issues we faced this past summer.

For me, it’s a matter of balance. We live in a democratic society. In some instances, people exert their right to stay on their property. We’ve got to be able to balance that right with the overall public safety goal and the overall goal of ensuring that our first responders are safe, as well, and not having to deal with risk presented by individuals who decided to stay behind.

J. Rustad: It’s something that I just needed to raise. I recognize the challenges there, but this is an issue that is not going to go away. There is going to be another fire. There will be people that will decide not to obey evacuation orders. It’s about trying to do our best to encourage them to follow an evacuation but — in a worst-case scenario, when somebody decides to stay behind — trying to make sure that there is some way they have accurate information and whatever support could be applied.

I’m hopeful, whether or not there are recommendations in the report, that the minister will consider that in terms of a strategy going forward, in terms of what can be expected, so that people understand, fully, the risks and challenges.

To that end, in particular, last fire season there were some decisions by individuals to stay behind — quite frankly, to protect their home, not just to fight the fire but to protect the structural protection units that were put in place, to make sure that they weren’t vandalized or stolen, as had been the case. There were several cases, I believe, that were reported where that happened in the last fire season.

One of the things that I think needs to be considered, quite frankly…. As you can imagine, if you’re an individual who had — whether it was private or was provided through various ministries and local government — a structural protection unit put in place, you know it’s got 72 hours of gas or whatever the case may be, right? It’s got bladders that were set up in place. It may or may not work.

We do know that for the most part, they’re very helpful in preventing the loss of a structure. But if the pump goes missing or somebody slashes the bladder, then obviously that unit is no longer valid and would no longer be able to provide the protection that a person would anticipate. Like I say, some people stayed behind because they were worried about that. It did happen during the season.

I guess, when you look at it from a criminal perspective, it’s theft under a certain value or over a certain value or whatever it is, or vandalism. But the reality is, if a home were lost and somebody did that, the consequences are far, far worse than what a crime like that would be.

[4:15 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the minister would consider looking at some much more severe penalties for anybody that might undertake that kind of an activity during a fire season. It’s something that I don’t know whether the Abbott and Chapman report would look at, but it’s certainly something that I think needs to be considered as a strong deterrent, so that when these structural protection units are put in place, there is the expectation that they won’t be targets for vandalism.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Again, there is a natural instinct to want to stay behind and protect your home when it’s in danger, and I fully recognize that. Being from a rural area, I understand it as well. Part of it is also building up trust between individuals who have that overpowering natural instinct and the B.C. Wildfire Service and the relationships there.

I think, overall, I just learned — especially and even more so, this past summer — about leaving it to the professionals. There were a number of people that I ran into — you could see it, as well, on media almost daily — who were able to come to the resolution that material items can be replaced and that in the end, it’s the value of life that is most important.

I think that’s the message that we want to get out there, as well as the fact that, yes, people who are interfering in protection of structures, who are interfering in wildfire-fighting activities, should be prosecuted. Along those lines, we’ve already, since the wildfire season ended, modified fines. In other words, we’ve increased fines for infractions under the Wildfire Act. For instance, if people are disobeying area restrictions, we’ve already increased the fines for that kind of activity.

[4:20 p.m.]

What the member discusses is a Criminal Code violation. That’s something that needs to be addressed at the Attorney General’s level, but I don’t disagree with him that those kinds of actions, by people taking advantage or just straight-out vandalism, cannot be acceptable and cannot be accepted.

Some of it has to do, again, with…. The enforcement of law and order is made more difficult when people are accessing their properties when there’s been an evacuation order or decide to stay behind. When people don’t leave, it’s more difficult for law enforcement officers like the RCMP to determine who is validly in the area or not.

Those are things to consider, but I don’t disagree. If the Criminal Code changes are part of what needs to be looked at, we’ll look at them, especially in light of the independent review from Abbott and Chapman.

J. Rustad: I’ll leave that for the minister to have a conversation with his colleague from the Ministry of Justice.

Quick question. Maybe it’s not a quick question, but it will be a quick question. Back in the early 1980s, I was fighting fires, and we had a water delivery system back then that really hasn’t changed a lot to today in terms of how we put water on a fire. Obviously, technology has improved in terms of pumps and other such things.

Is the Abbott and Chapman review — as we’re calling it, I suppose, through this process — looking at and taking any lessons that can be learned from the potential of using a mass water delivery system?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll go to the actual question around the Abbott-Chapman review. You can call it Chapman-Abbott or Abbott-Chapman. I think we can interchange the personnel there. They’re both really well-respected and reflective individuals that are heading the independent review.

[4:25 p.m.]

We didn’t get prescriptive and specific in the terms of reference, but we did have in the terms of reference about the tools — a review of the tools that are used to fight wildfires. Of course, they’re going to respond in their independent report to what they hear from communities, and so if the variety of tools are a topic that communities bring up, then they’ll be responding in their independent review. That’s the short answer.

J. Rustad: Thanks. Another quick question, just to make sure we have it on record. The Chapman and Abbott review, obviously, is coming out soon here — this month, in April. At what point will that report be made public, and will the public see that report in its full extent?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member is correct. The timeline is for the independent review to be submitted to the Premier’s office at the end of April. That’s the timeline that was outlined when the panel of Abbott and Chapman was commissioned back in November, I believe it was.

Depending on the number and style of recommendations, it might take a little bit of time for a detailed analysis. The recommendations will be made public. We want to make sure, as far as the timeline goes, that the recommendations are made public and the ones that are actionable in a critical manner before the coming fire season are actionable before the coming fire season.

J. Rustad: I understand there will be…. Obviously, it takes time to review and respond in that component. I fully expect that that response would come at some point. You know, it takes some time afterwards. But the question is, I guess, whether the report itself would be released in advance of a response or with a response.

I can wait and find out. It was just one of those things that I just wanted to know and wanted to make sure we get on record. It’s good to hear that there’ll be an expectation that the report will be released and people will get an opportunity to be able to review that.

Contractors over the last season…. There were challenges in terms of the process of being paid. I know a lot of that is the form in which it was put through. If people were more familiar, then that could get it through the process quicker. Then in many cases, there was information that might have been missing and caused delays. And of course, just the overall overwhelming number of contractors that were involved with the fires last year made it challenging for the ministry to be able to make payments in a timely manner.

I would ask the minister whether or not, with that particular component of firefighting and that particular component of the government activities, there are proposed changes in terms of the future and how that will be handled in terms of the ability to be able to submit invoices, the format in which those should be submitted and the timeliness from which those will be processed and payment made.

[4:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member points to a couple of very valid reasons why there began to be a backlog in some of the invoice payments around the volume that was received: an unprecedented fire situation; more than 800 contractors, at one point or another, working on and providing services to the government; and, of course, the number of invoices received — 38,495 provincewide, and 99 percent were paid, to date. We’ve got a few more we’re working on, as of February 2. That’s still just 1 percent.

A lot of those delays have to do with not just the volume but also with verifying. Though it’s a crisis situation, we are expending taxpayers’ dollars, so it’s incumbent on our staff to verify the invoices and make sure they’re accurate. Errors were found, so those had to be sent back and asked for clarification.

What we have learned is that the capacity during the fire season to do that verification, when it is such a large fire season, creates some delay, and it’s difficult. We’ve already discussed with businesses how to make the invoicing process tighter — improvements on their end and our end as well.

One of the parts about adjusting on the fly is that we did recognize, after the fire situation became more severe, that we needed more personnel in the financial and processing, and we did increase the number of personnel there, as an example of adjusting on the fly. The lesson learned there is that if we have that kind of situation where we see the scope and breadth to the same extent that we witnessed last year, then we know the kind of personnel numbers that are required right off the bat, rather than adjusting on the fly.

J. Rustad: Is the ministry considering going paperless in terms of a process to help speed up that type of work that needs to be done?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: We want to be as efficient as possible. We’ve already…. Electronic processing was available at the Cariboo Fire Centre. In this world, not everybody has the ability to go paperless. So we did encounter some suppliers and some First Nations who weren’t able to submit electronically or do the process electronically.

But absolutely, we want to make sure that we’re as efficient as possible. We have electronic processing available, and we’ll be working on that to ensure that it’s even better into the future. We want to be efficient, especially for people who are working for us in crisis situations.

J. Rustad: Just a couple more quick questions on fires, and then we’ll move to discussions with stuff on floods, on the flooding situations.

From time to time — and it’s obviously hopeful that these things don’t happen — when contractors are out on the land base helping out in situations like the wildfires, equipment could get lost, whether that’s hoses or other types of things, because of the unpredictable nature of fires. Sometimes that equipment can be compensated or is compensated by the ministry. Sometimes it’s not.

I guess the question for contractors, the question to the ministry associated with contractors that bring equipment to a fire, is: is the ministry considering setting up some sort of insurance program that would be able to better define how companies could potentially be compensated for a loss, if there was a loss, and also provide the companies with some sort of assurance that if there is a loss, these would be the rules that would be in place for compensation for that loss — as opposed to having to go through a process, and unknown whether it would be covered or not?

I hope I’m describing this well enough for the minister. Companies that bring equipment to the table…. If there’s loss of equipment, can there be an insurance program set up in place that would clearly define the rules around how compensation would be applied for any of that type of equipment loss?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I appreciate the member’s question in that, obviously, contractors who are offering up their services want to see a clearly defined process if their equipment gets damaged.

A couple of things. We definitely, obviously, last summer and fall depended on 800 contractors to provide services. Not all of them are directly related at the front lines to firefighting, but a number of them were.

The first point is that it’s important for contractors to have their own insurance. It’s available, should they want it, through private insurance sources. I would suspect that most of them do. When you have a piece of equipment that is worth several hundred thousand dollars, whether it’s a skidder or something else, and you take it to a jobsite, you want to protect your assets. In that case, that’s our first step: personal accountability about the contractor having their own insurance.

If there’s an unforeseen circumstance where there’s an emergency situation, where damage was caused by fire, then we’re always willing to have a look at that situation. That’s the second point I wanted to make.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister. Maybe he can just have a look and a review. Safeguard lost about $15,000 worth of hose — which, of course, can’t be insured through private — and was denied compensation with regard to it. There are other stories I’ve heard. That’s why I looked for the question around how those rules could be set out for the future with regard to companies that may have suffered losses.

Regardless of that, one last question associated with the wildfires that I had, for now, is around the workforce. Obviously, the number of contractors that came in was significant, and the process of being able to mobilize contractors was significant. Yet there are others that could have been deployed, but to do training or other certification made it much more challenging for them to be able to get in and to be able to support.

I can imagine that the review that is being done by Abbott and Chapman will no doubt look at and make some recommendations around that. But is there work in place already within the ministry to look at our contractor workforce and to look at ways of being able to strengthen — or, potentially, mobilize quicker — the contractors where a situation might arise again in the future, where they might be needed?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: This is an area that I’m quite interested in as well, so it took a little while to look at the different areas. It’s not just one type of…. When the member asks of workforce and contractor workforce…. Yes, we are working on that topic from a number of different aspects.

First of all, for type 2 contract crews when it comes to fighting wildfires, the type 2 requests for proposals will be out quite soon — to have a list of those types of interested businesses who can supply those kinds of qualified people. We do have agreements with the national agency to bring in fully trained firefighters from other jurisdictions when we need them.

We also want to make sure that we have people locally who can be employed as well, so we are reaching out to organizations and local people to make sure that we find those people who are qualified and know about them in advance of the fire season. First Nations are undertaking emergency response training through FNESC. These are a number of levels.

Now, as far as industry goes, we’ve got engagement with industry to develop and to have availability of crews that are properly trained and equipment that’s available, as well as working with all stakeholders — for instance, ranchers and farmers. We’ve begun the process of identifying who has the knowledge and capabilities and the equipment that could be used and how we can track those resources.

[4:50 p.m.]

There are multiple levels. It’s not just simply the crews. When the words “workforce” and “contractor workforce….” There are a lot of different types of workforce requirements that are needed in an emergency situation like this, and this past year, we were able to fulfil the need that was there. But we just want to get better at it as far as knowing what’s on the ground locally. That’s important for not only knowing what’s on the ground locally but for incorporating the local knowledge that comes along with that into the firefighting strategy.

J. Rustad: I do have some questions around the $72 million. I understand that we might have an hour tomorrow morning, so I want to move on. We’ve got a number of other things that have to get asked. We may or may not be able to come back to that.

I want to move on to talk about water and flooding, starting off with, perhaps, just a very basic question. Then I want to move to a couple of my colleagues to be able to ask some questions, particularly around that situation in the Okanagan.

Given that so far, it’s still accumulating snow…. It has been a cool spring so far. There hasn’t been a lot of melt. I’m curious as to the latest assessment on snowpacks and the risk of potential flooding in areas like the Okanagan or, potentially, other areas — but the Okanagan, in particular, because of the floods from last year.

Hon. D. Donaldson: We just had the latest information come out on our website as far as water supply and snow survey data. So that’s available publicly on the ministry website.

The member specifically asked about the Okanagan. We do have 152 percent of normal snow basin indices. So the snowpack is 152 percent of what’s been an average. In response to that, our water managers have ensured that the lake level can handle some of the spring freshet that’s anticipated. The lake level is 25 percent lower than it was last year at this point. Of course, that means there’s an ability for the lake to absorb spring freshet.

The member pointed out that it’s always a matter of how the snow melts over the spring. I know that if you get warm temperatures with a lot of rain, the freshet tends to be pretty fast and furious. That’s why we have the lake lowered to the level it is.

Anecdotally, I know, in the northwest, even though the snowpack is 72 percent of normal, we had an awful lot in the valley bottoms. In my yard, it’s evaporating without the rain. I was worried about getting flooding basements and things like that. So those kinds of things happen naturally as well.

[4:55 p.m.]

L. Larson: I’m going to ask a selfish question, of course. I represent Boundary-Similkameen and, therefore, the flooding that is already underway.

We did, as you know, last year experience extremely high water through the area. Testalinden Creek, of course, overflowed, as did many others on their way to the river. The water table, despite a very long hot spell during the summer, did not drop. We started this winter with a water table higher than average.

One of the areas, the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen, has already declared a state of emergency for the area called Willowbrook. It’s kind of on the west bench above the river channel to the west of Oliver. Already, roads have been washed out, and houses are being flooded. They’ve also got an evacuation alert for what they call the Sportsman Bowl area, which is, again, at the bottom of a ravine — again, down at the bottom of the valley.

I did meet with the local FLNRO staff in Penticton last week. I’m thrilled that the water level in the lake and river is down 25 percent. But before it gets there, it has to go through all of these areas where people are living and residences, and it is causing a lot of damage.

Last year when we had a state of emergency declared for some of the areas with regard to the flooding, people were able to access funding in order to put back irrigation systems that had been ripped out, etc., and repair damage to the roads, their driveways, their homes, etc.

The regional district does have a state of emergency for the Willowbrook area. Will the people in Willowbrook have access to funding to help them to repair the damage that’s being done?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I welcome the question from the member for Boundary-Similkameen. There’s no such thing as a selfish question when you’re representing the interests of your constituents. So thank you for that.

I’ve been following the situation around the regional district’s issuing of a state of emergency. The process there for people to seek compensation is through their local government, which makes representations to emergency management B.C. I understand the estimates for the minister responsible for that have already gone through, so I’d recommend making a direct representation to the minister responsible for emergency management B.C. to make sure that the same provisions would be in place as are available to people throughout the province.

[5:00 p.m.]

Within our ministry…. I’m sure the member knows, if she’s met with our ministry — as she says, she’s met with our ministry staff — there was a situation where water was being pumped from a lake into this watershed system, adding to the high flows. We’ve issued an order to stop that pumping of that water in order to reduce the flow volumes that people are experiencing.

L. Larson: Thank you, Minister. The water we’re experiencing so far is rain. We haven’t even begun on the snowpack. This has been excessive rain in the last weeks, so I am anticipating that it’s going to get much worse.

Another area that was hit again, as a result of rain in the last week and a half, was the Fairview Mountain Golf Course. The slope above the golf course decided to slide down and cover three fairways with about three to four feet of mud. The slope that the mud came off of was burned with a back burn in 2015 in order to clean up the last of the fires that ran down the Okanagan, and that slope has never been replanted or reseeded, etc.

The Fairview Mountain Golf Course is very well known and, certainly, one of the best courses in North America. It now has three fairways that are buried. Where is it possible for them as a business, not being residential but as a business…? Where do they go to get help? The cleanup will probably be over $100,000, and they will lose a tremendous amount of revenue as well, as a business. I’m at a loss as how to advise them as to where to go for help.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for alerting me to this event. I have been to Fairview Cellars, so I’ve seen the golf course from that perspective. I’ve never played golf on the golf course. It looks beautiful, though. And, of course, I’m not putting in any plugs, but the wine at that facility is beautiful too.

What I’ll advise the member is that if you can get more information to me, we’ll look into it, and I’ll also take it up with my colleague responsible for emergency management B.C. I just need more information on the situation generally, as well as the back burning information. If you can provide some details, I can look into it in our ministry. If it’s relatable back to wildfire suppression techniques and strategies, then that’s something that we need to look at and determine. So if you want to supply some more information to me, I’d be happy to look into it further.

D. Ashton: Minister, thank you. I did get a notation today about the levels of the snowpack remaining, and it is a concern. I had spoken to yourself, sir, last year about what had transpired in Okanagan Lake. Just quickly, you had said that the Okanagan Lake level is down 25 percent from last year to this…. No?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Sorry. This might help frame your question. Just to clarify, it was 25 centimetres down compared to last year’s level.

D. Ashton: Last year was an exemplary year, but unfortunately, this year it appears that it’s the same. Various ministerial offices and agencies had been working together, and I hope they do the same this year.

[5:05 p.m.]

Through FrontCounter B.C., I have heard of some concerns about the length of time for permitting for the rebuilding of some of the infrastructure that was destroyed because of the flooding, both personal and municipal. Again, I want to be very clear. I know staff have been doing an exemplary job, I’ll say, but with the amount of damage that has taken place and through this repermitting….

I would just ask the minister, and to the ministries that are represented underneath that, that every consideration be given. It’s not a sense of being prepared for this. There are some substantial losses that have taken place. To be able to allow these folks to be able to replace the damage that has happened not only to their lake structures but to their personal property structures and also to personal property will help to facilitate it in getting prepared for what may again transpire this year. So I would just ask the minister if he could pass that along.

I do want to thank the minister and his particular ministry for helping out with what had transpired last year. Getting to a point of a question is…. Over several days during this period of time when we were allowed to be back in our constituencies, there has been flooding that is taking place in a place that normally doesn’t get it, which is Naramata.

Naramata has been experiencing groundflow situations. One house was substantially damaged, and the property around it was substantially damaged. Through the Ministry of Transportation and, if I remember correctly, the minister’s own ministry, there was some cooperation that took place that allowed a very quick change in the direction of that water. They were able to channel that water away from the House and put it down through another property where there wouldn’t be as much damage. However, it has caused substantial damage on the KVR Trail.

It’s my understanding that that also resides underneath your ministry. What I’m hoping is that we can address the issue that has taken place, because it has literally stopped traffic, which is tourism traffic — people that utilize that trail on a continual basis because of the danger. But what has to be addressed is the drainage now that is not taking place on the east side of the Trans Canada Trail.

With some groundwork that had been taking place up there, there’s substantially more water collecting on the east side of the Trans Canada Trail, which is the old KVR railbed, which is causing great concern to those below it. Minister, is there anything that you, through you or your staff, can say — that this will be taking place as soon as possible?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: A of couple things. On the first part of the question around the difficult potential situation your constituents are facing when it comes to the snowpack and the flooding this year and then also the ability for people to recover from last year’s flood situation, I just want to make sure the member knows that we’ve had the recovery team from last year. That recovery team — their term has been extended, and they’ll remain in place until at least September 30 of this year. We’ll have the extra staff that team represents available for this season as well.

Hopefully, that will go some way to addressing people who are still dealing with their situation from last year and potentially see if they have any damage from this year as well. That team includes a temporary staff uplift, as an auxiliary term, for a dedicated natural resource officer, which I know is important for people to make sure that what they want to do is being done properly. So it’s a team approach.

As far as the second question goes, that’s a concern. I mean, like you’ve pointed out, as a person who knows the area well, this kind of flooding around Naramata is something new. That’s a concern, obviously. If we’re thinking about these things in terms of climate change, this is something that we could anticipate happening more in the future, in areas that are normally dry. We’re seeing more extreme weather conditions that create this kind of erosion.

I’m aware of how important the KVR Trail is. I know government supplied — I believe it was — $500,000 on the rural dividend fund to the Thompson-Okanagan Tourism Association to make a plan around that, including that trail. I know how important it is from a diversity of economy and tourism perspective.

We’ve just found out about the situation that you describe, and we’re having our team look at the actual impact, including geotechnical work that might be required. There have been some new developments I think you’re probably aware of, above the actual infrastructure that we’re responsible for, which has caused the issue around drainage.

We’re looking at what can be done. We’re very aware that this is a situation that’s important from a tourism point of view. I commit to keeping you updated as far as how staff are finding the conditions and what can be done to address the blockage — I guess is the best term — and the erosion problems.

D. Ashton: Again, I just want to reiterate, staff in the various agencies have done a very good job. I’m not trying to do a full-court press on them. They’ve been working very well with the residents and working very well with the regional district.

However, it seems to be multiplying now, and I really hope that we’re able to get interagency cooperation, because it’s not only the minister’s ministry; it’s also Transportation that’s involved in this. The issue is spanning multiple agencies, and I would just hope that we can all work together. This early in the year to have this type of damage taking place and this amount of water coming off of the hillsides is exemplary.

Minister, if at all possible, if you could — and you’ve just, again, mentioned that you are aware of this — and if staff can just keep an eye on this. This is on the east side of Okanagan Lake. However, I had a phone call today from the man whose property was affected over this past week or so. He told me again today that the water has increased in its volume coming down. It’s unfortunately now…. Because the flooding had taken the ground soils down to bedrock, now the water is distributing itself in other paths, and it is now coming back towards his property, which is going to be more difficult to deal with than just channelling.

Also, on the west side of Okanagan Lake, in talking to a gentleman yesterday, he has never seen the saturation levels this high. He’s an orchardist that has pine trees around his property that are actually leaning now because the surface soils are so saturated they cannot take the wind because of the leverage of the trees. It’s causing a real concern.

[5:15 p.m.]

I would just ask if everything possible can be done, one, to ensure that people who’ve sustained damage last year are being addressed, which the minister has brought up. Two is that the damage that took place last year in the high water levels is being increased, because now they are draining the lake down substantially, so you’re getting this undulation in the land. Being a person that has lived on the delta of Trout Creek for most of my life, I haven’t actually seen this type of occurrence take place before where house structures are shifting.

Third, I would just, again, come back to that interagency cooperation between Environment, your ministry, sir, and Transportation to keep an eye on this — and emergency prepared B.C. We are probably going to need…. As my peer from the South Okanagan has said, people are just exhausted down there already for the sand-bagging that they’re having to take place, so we just need to look at this.

Again, more of a statement, but if the minister’s ministry would really keep an eye on what is transpiring in the Okanagan at this point in time.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thanks for that, and thanks for highlighting it in the chamber here. It gives it that added spotlight, so I just want to thank the member for doing that for his constituents. I will definitely make sure that the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Transportation are aware of the situation.

D. Ashton: Thank you, Minister. I greatly appreciate it and the attention that your staff has given it to this point. So thank you.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. I don’t think my colleague’s thank-you required an answer from the minister, so I’ll jump up now.

First, I’ll apologize to the minister. Typically, when I have a question of this nature, I usually like to give a heads-up for him and his staff to try to get an actual factual best answer possible, so my apologies. As was mentioned, with the constituency weeks we’ve had, certain things come up that sometimes we take the opportunity, as the minister knows. After being on the seat on that side, I appreciate the stamina that’s required for what he’s going through and thank him and his staff.

Since we’re talking about floods, I want to bring something to the attention of the minister that might not have come across his desk yet and which I feel is quite important. In 2016, we had a big flood up in the Peace region. It hit mostly in the South Peace. The majority of it was around the Chetwynd area and in Dawson Creek. We had 280 roads and bridges washed out — a huge impact in the area to a lot of families that were evacuated out of their homes. Properties were lost, devastated.

I know the minister, being from the north, can appreciate that sometimes we feel that we don’t get the attention that’s due when we have large events like this — that if they’d happened in other parts of the province with media, etc., it would get more recognition.

I have one particular family that I really wanted to bring to your attention and that I’m hoping you can follow up. I know that I can’t necessarily get a full commitment on the details today. Again, in 2016, when we had the flood, we had one area west of Chetwynd where the highway was completely washed out. It also took out the CN tracks as well over a couple of creeks. Typically, this time of year, they’re dry. Middle of summer, they’re typically dry. It’s usually just springtime that they run, but this was an extraordinary event where they all flooded and actually washed out the highway.

Where I wanted to go with this was…. Your ministry at the time, when we were in government, put $2 million forward, approximately, and helped out in that devastated area to fix the creek beds to try to make sure that if there was ever a runoff or a flood again that the water would hopefully stay within the corridors rather than breaking the banks. There was a lot of work done within the Ministry of Transportation’s right-of-way using the money from FLNRO to repair those affected areas. What we didn’t do, though, was the private areas, and this is where I’m going with this one.

We have one family that was devastated with this, where the highway, the culverts, CN track wing, their railroad ties, ended up in this person’s yard, about five feet deep.

[5:20 p.m.]

Interestingly, the only thing that survived was their house. Even though it was full of water to the basement, they were able to pump that out. Their yard was completely devastated.

They were told at the time that all of the money was actually going to be going towards fixing within the government’s rights-of-way of the highway, and nothing at that time was going to the family to clean up or to at least help with the devastation in some way.

I know this is a bit of a long lead-up to the question, but you can appreciate, for this family, the devastation now, where they’re dealing with all of this. Infrastructure that was provincial or CN’s infrastructure is now on their property. What I didn’t add to that was that this property behind them was actually an oxbow. It was a lake and part of a river in some areas. It is now filled in, and we have an environmental issue because we have all of these railroad ties, etc., now in what used to be a lake.

What I’m asking, through your ministry, is: where is our role as a government to actually step in and help people? At one time, we were told: “No, this is private property.” But at the same time, we’re telling this family, “Well, you can’t touch that area, because it’s actually oxbow and river,” even though it’s within the parameters of their property. We’ve left an environmental disaster looking out their back window.

I’ll share pictures and more information with the minister later, but maybe he can explain to me what he feels the provincial role is, in a situation like this — not just, necessarily, to help this family out, but to deal with the environmental issue that’s now their backyard.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I appreciate the context — that you get home to a constituency for a number of weeks and you’re able to hear about issues and get updated on issues and that you didn’t necessarily have the ability to get this topic in front of me. I know that the member has brought these topics up with me on an individual basis, which I appreciate.

I am going to say that there are rules for emergency management B.C. in situations where there are impacts from natural disasters, natural causes. There are also roles for our ministry and the Ministry of Environment, where private property owners are faced with environmentally sensitive conditions.

I’m talking at a very general level because I don’t have the details yet. Then there are situations where families and private land owners…. If they had insurance, were they rejected by EMBC during the process for compensation because it, perhaps, was an insurable loss?

[5:25 p.m.]

I don’t want to paint any of the situation that the member describes as perhaps falling within these parameters. But what I will say is: please get the details to me, and I’ll look into it, as far as forwarding the pertinent stuff to the minister responsible for EMBC and looking at the pertinent parts that my ministry could have a role to play in.

M. Bernier: I will take the minister up on that offer. I know you can’t give a lot of details right now. In this situation, the family was evicted from their home, basically, because of the flood, for 30 days. EMBC did help them in that aspect.

What I’ll be bringing to you is the fact that the issues and the devastation they have right now is not covered by insurance. It’s not covered by EMBC, and it’s been a year and a half, two years now. This is actually a government issue, because they are told that they can’t actually go in to what used to be the oxbow and the creek to do any of the cleanup themselves, yet it’s within the parameters of their property, and they’re having to look at and not only deal with that environmental issue.

I thank the minister. I will put together a more robust document explaining that and look forward to an answer and follow-up to that, then.

J. Rustad: We’ll move away from floods and start to have a little conversation here about wildlife and wildlife management.

There’s so much more that we could cover, but I know we’re going to be limited in terms of time, so I want to try to make sure that we get a few conversations on the record, starting with the $14 million spending envelope that the ministry has — $1 million this year, $3 million next year and $10 million in the following year, I think it is. Can the minister describe what the goals of that money are over the next year or two?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I really appreciate that we’re moving into this topic area. It’s something that is of high interest to myself and, of course, many other people in rural and urban areas around wildlife management.

I’ll start with a real general answer because I know we’re going to spend a bit of time on this. The $14 million over three years is to support engagement, development and implementation of a new wildlife management strategy for British Columbia.

J. Rustad: Specifically, I want to ask around…. I know it’s $1 million this year and $3 million next year. It’s three years out, and there are a lot of information gaps. There are challenges around wildlife, particularly declining moose populations and other ungulate populations.

How much money is going into inventory work around ungulates in particular, in those areas where we have significant declines?

[5:30 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member is right; it’s quite exciting. It’s an uplift in the budget for wildlife improvement and habitat conservation of $1 million this year — year 2, $3 million; and year 3, $10 million.

The question was inventory. There’s ongoing inventory work happening within the ministry, just as part of the regular work of the ministry under the current budget. We’ve got species-at-risk inventories undertaken this year and in the next couple of years. We have regular wildlife and fish inventory work over the next three years and moose inventory work, as well, over the next couple of years. That work is ongoing.

What we’re talking about here is an uplift. In the first year, we’re going to look at a broad engagement and a planning process with numerous stakeholders. Now, that might result in some additional inventory and habitat work. But we want to get the plan in place and do a good, broad engagement first. And then years two and three will especially see more investment in the inventory end.

J. Rustad: One of the reasons I asked about inventory to start with is, of course, there’s been some concern about levels of inventory. In particular, up in the northwest, the Tahltan undertook an additional review in partnership with a number of others. They produced quite a lengthy report, about a 103-page report, on this stuff. The review was then provided to the ministry staff that then went through the report and ended up producing a 40-page report that came from that.

I guess the question is: why the difference between the report that the Tahltan produced and the ultimate report that was released from that from the ministry? And this is a direct question that came from guide-outfitters. How does that discrepancy between the two reports build confidence in the information and inventory work that has been collected on moose, particularly up in the Tahltan territory?

Hon. D. Donaldson: We are actively involved, as we speak, with the chief negotiator on behalf of the Tahltan on a wildlife management plan in cooperation between the Tahltan and ourselves, as the province, on a government-to-government basis.

[5:35 p.m.]

As far as the whole intent of the engagement, development and implementation of a new wildlife management strategy, it’s to prevent the kind of situation that the member describes in data sharing, so that both First Nations and the government have trust in each other’s data if, in fact, that was the cause for the discrepancy in the reports.

Now, as far as the discrepancy in the reports, I can speak to that. We have another staff member who might be able to be a little bit more informed on that. But what we’re working towards through the new wildlife management strategy is to actually have a collaborative, shared decision-making based on a shared information approach that will alleviate the discrepancies that the member described.

J. Rustad: So the process that you are going through in terms of this new model, the collaborative model…. I’m wondering if the minister can confirm that there will be several opportunities for input; that this input, of course, will be shared; and that it’ll be accessible by people to be able to review and see this information and what other people are putting in as it ultimately builds towards this new model. Can the minister just confirm that will be the case?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The short answer is yes. There are going to be multiple opportunities for engagement between First Nations and other people who have a great interest in wildlife management in the province.

J. Rustad: It’s good to hear the level of openness and transparency that will be throughout the process of, ultimately, determining what direction that will go.

I find it interesting in that there was a very political decision that was made, obviously, in terms of the cancellation of the grizzly bear hunt. There was a significant impact on, particularly, the guide-outfitters, but to some resident hunters as well, with regards to that.

There was a review process that that went under, to my understanding, where there was a significant number of input that was provided on line prior to the minister making that decision. In some reports, I had heard that there were as many as 4,200 inputs that were done prior to the decision on the grizzly. Yet when asked, none of that input was made available or made public for people to be able to review.

Can the minister explain why there wasn’t that same level of transparency when the review was there for the decision that led up to the ban on the grizzly bear hunt?

Hon. D. Donaldson: A few things there. Yes, it was a very successful, from a participation point of view, engagement process in the fall. A high-level summary was made public of the comments.

[5:40 p.m.]

There are concerns about privacy and information issues. That’s why every submission wasn’t made public. We’re working on cleansing those submissions of that kind of information — the private and sensitive, even perhaps proprietary, information. Then we will be releasing a document that has more than what was in the summary but protects people’s privacy and information issues. That’s been something we’re doing proactively.

Just so the member knows and the public knows, the process we’re embarking upon now with the new wildlife management strategy, through our engage B.C. site…. When people make submissions…. We’re modernizing that site, so there’ll be the ability to provide a disclaimer so that information submitted can be released publicly in that process.

J. Rustad: Does the minister’s philosophy or direction with regards to wildlife management…? Does he believe that wildlife management should be based on the best science available?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Absolutely. Decisions about wildlife management should be science-informed, and I would hope that the members in this chamber would also acknowledge that traditional ecological knowledge is a form of science that needs to be considered in decision-making. Social values also have to be accounted for when making decisions on a science-informed basis.

J. Rustad: Because we don’t have enough time, I won’t bite at that. That could be a lot of fun to go down the path in discussion, but perhaps that’ll be for an estimates coming again soon.

Regardless of that, there was a very political decision made. It wasn’t based on science. It wasn’t based on the realities out on the ground. It was based on other values. Governments can make those decisions. That’s fine. But there are people that have been impacted by that decision around grizzly bears and the decision to stop the harvest opportunity or the management of the grizzly species through hunting.

Those that were impacted by that…. Of course, predominantly, the ones that will have the financial hit are the guide-outfitters. At the guide-outfitters AGM, I know the ministry staff did their best to be able to answer questions, and I respect that they were there. But they didn’t have the answers that were needed for many, many questions and one question in particular, which is: will the ministry be providing compensation to guide-outfitters that have been impacted by a political decision to stop the harvest and stop using hunting for the management of grizzly bears?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ve met with the guide-outfitters. It was even maybe a month and a half ago on an informal basis, but I’ve heard their concerns. We’re still engaging with this process around transition, and we’re gathering all the information. So I think it’s premature at this point to talk about the specifics of how the government can provide assistance in transitioning as a result of the loss of the grizzly bear hunt for guide-outfitters.

It definitely has impacts, and we’re in touch, in this process, with many of the guide-outfitters, if not all, who have been impacted to determine those impacts. In my discussions with guide-outfitters, I wanted to make sure that they have a broad understanding of transition and that they convey their transitioning needs to us. All that’s in the works now, and we’re engaged with the guide-outfitters in a major way on this.

J. Rustad: Managing species based on the best science available is an important component to wildlife management across the province. An important component is being able to manage all species, not just those that are desired for harvest by resident hunters, by First Nations and others, such as ungulates, but also predators.

To the minister, is the ministry planning to continue or expand management of predators and the challenges that predators have, particularly, on not just species at risk but on other species that are in decline in terms of populations?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I agree that we’re part of the ecosystems in which we live. We have an impact, and we need to manage for all species.

[5:50 p.m.]

There are many elements to that. Whether it’s habitat, whether it’s different other uses of the land base where we have to consider other species when we’re endorsing and permitting other activities — extractive activities, for instance — managing predators is also a part of managing wildlife. We can’t ignore that we’re part of that system and that when we manage one species, we might have to manage another.

Now, the parameters are something else. Especially when there’s an Indigenous hunt that’s at risk, then we might use predator control techniques, such as hunting and trapping, to control predators. But it’s based on inventory work, and it’s based on really specific situations that we gather data on to have the predator management aspect.

J. Rustad: Hon. Chair, at this time, I want to turn the floor over to my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin to ask a couple of other questions along these lines.

D. Barnett: The predator management control program has been going on for some time. It has partially been funded by the Ministry of Agriculture and partially funded by Forests, Lands and Natural Resources in the past. This year the Ministry of Agriculture has put $300,000 into it. Will the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources be topping up the necessary $150,000 to make this program a success?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I believe the member is referring to the livestock protection program. I can confirm that it’s been run on $250,000 a year for the last three years. The ranchers and, specifically, the Cattlemen’s Association have asked for an increase in that budget. I’m just happy to confirm to the member that that will occur. We are contributing $180,000 out of this ministry — more than the $150,000 that the member referenced — and the Ministry of Agriculture will be contributing $120,000. So it’ll be $300,000 a year. That’s an uplift from the previous budgets, which was $250,000 a year.

D. Barnett: If I hear correctly, the Minister of Agriculture told us in estimates that she was putting $250,000 to $300,000 into the program. Are you adding an extra $180,000, or is the whole program going to be $300,000 with you contributing $120,000 and she $180,000?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I can’t comment on what the Minister of Agriculture said during her budget estimates. What I can confirm to the member is that the total budget is $300,000. The ministry I represent will be contributing $180,000, and the Ministry of Agriculture will be contributing $120,000.

D. Barnett: So the program will be…. Is that over one year, the $300,000?

[5:55 p.m.]

I have been engaged in this program for many years, and extra funding, I know, has been asked for. If the whole program is only $300,000, this program will not be a success. Will the minister take another look at it — if it’s necessary to add more funding to make this program the success it has been in the past?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I want to point out to the member that we listened to the Cattlemen’s Association and have increased the budget from $250,000 to $300,000 a year.

I’m happy to hear that the member thinks that the budget should have increased in previous years, and I hope she’s happy that it’s increasing now under this government. And it’s a three-year time frame. Just to help clarify, it’s three years at $300,000 a year.

D. Barnett: Thank you. I never indicated the past budget was not sufficient. The past budget worked, but as time goes on and the program needs to be expanded due to wildfires, with more predators…. We all know that the wildfires created many problems we didn’t think would be there.

I have one more question for the minister. Back to hunting regulations. After the wildfires last year, of course, there was a lot of damage done to the landscape, to the animals. Most of your hunting of moose in region 5 was cancelled. There was a lot of hunting that was not allowed. Of course the guide-outfitters throughout the whole region 5, 1 to 14, have been totally desecrated not just by the wildfires but by the hunting being restricted, by the grizzly bear hunting being stopped.

As my colleague asked, for a lot of these people are in my region who are devastated financially both from wildfires and from the decision of the ministry to stop the grizzly hunt…. Is there going to be specific compensation for more than just the grizzly bear hunt being cancelled and for these guide-outfitters who have lost every single thing there is over the past year — not anything to do with issues that they have created but by Mother Nature and by cancellation of the grizzly bear hunt that was not done with science?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I just want to acknowledge the importance of guide-outfitters in the member’s region as well as the area I represent and around the province. They provide valuable contributions to the economy and also are stewards of the land. They are often eyes and ears on the ground for keeping most up to date on the health of species. I just want to acknowledge that, first off.

As far as the impacts of wildfires on guide-outfitters in the region the member represents, we are engaging with those guide-outfitters. We’re asking for specific impacts that occurred, and we’re awaiting information back from the guides on how they were impacted.

There is relief for small business and businesses impacted by wildfires. That initiative is being led through the ministry I represent from two aspects. One is through the rural development branch that we have, which is leading the conversation on relief for small businesses that guide-outfitters could be part of.

Of course, on the economy side, we have responsibilities both in the land-based recovery and the economy-based recovery, and the Red Cross has some ability to provide relief for small businesses on that side from those impacted. So there’s lots happening as far as the approach taken with guide-outfitters.

I’ll just reference the answer I gave previously to the member. We’re engaging with all guide-outfitters in the province around impacts, not only those around the wildfire but decisions made on the grizzly bear hunt, and discussing with them transition programs and other forms of assistance.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister.

Minister, those programs that you’re talking about that you’re engaged with, with the guide-outfitters…. Is there any public documentation on this, or is there information that I could possibly get a hold of to see what, actually, the program is and what it is going to provide them as compensation at the end of the day?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: There are many aspects to the question that the member posed, so I’m going to go through a few areas. I want to reiterate: we’ve asked for documentation from the guide-outfitters impacted by wildfires, on their losses. We’re awaiting that information so that we can have further discussions with them, but we’ve got to get that information first.

As far as the public documentation, well, I think the member knows about many of the avenues that business owners — a guide-outfitter is a business owner — can access, as far as those impacted by wildfires, one of them being through the Red Cross program. If a guide-outfitter needs information about that, obviously, if they have website access, there is that access, but they can also contact our rural development representative in their area, and they can be helped to walk through the process, as well as through FrontCounter B.C. So there are many avenues for that access.

There’s a number of other land-based programs underway. The member will be aware that we had a $22 million uplift in recovery from wildfire, for land-based recovery. So we’re very interested in hearing from the guides around their input on that, because we want the land base to recover in a manner that enables them to have future opportunities for hunting, for conducting their business.

There’s a lot going on at once. That’s just an example of a few areas that we’re engaged with, on the guide-outfitters.

D. Barnett: Just one more question, Minister. Region 5 hunting, in this hunting season coming up — is it going to be allowed or not?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the question. These are important questions regarding an activity that’s definitely part of the DNA of people who live in rural areas and is for all sorts of purposes — for food, for recreation and just for enjoyment of the landscape.

The decision about hunting in region 5 is coming up. We did conduct inventory surveys this winter. It’s an area the member knows well — and knows well that it was impacted heavily by wildfires. So we’re taking those inventory surveys and the assessments that were done, discussing with First Nations and stakeholders in the area, and shortly, the limited-entry hunt decisions will be announced, and then the general regulations will be published at the end of May.

[6:10 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I want to touch on species at risk and a little bit of discussion with regards to that. I understand that the Minister of Environment is leading an initiative to look at a made-in-B.C. response or initiative. Having said that, obviously there are many steps and many things involved with Forest, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

Specifically around caribou, caribou management and caribou recovery in the various regions of the province, is the ministry still engaged in developing and promoting the work that they were doing associated with recovery and management to the federal government as a response to try to prevent the federal government from its application of SARA, the species-at-risk legislation?

Hon. D. Donaldson: This is an important topic not only for biodiversity but for all the other impacts that ensuring that we have sustainable caribou populations into the future have on other values on the land base. I know that the member was at the Council of Forest Industries annual convention in Prince George, as I was, last week, and it was an important topic.

Yes, we are working and remain fully engaged with the federal government on this issue. We don’t want a section 80 order — I believe it’s section 80 — under the Species at Risk Act, the federal act, to be implemented by the federal government, which means we lose much control of the management activities. They are only able under the Species at Risk Act to consider habitat considerations. We are able, in our process, to consider more than habitat, but social and economic implications of managing a population for sustainability.

We are continuing to be fully engaged with the federal government. We have recovery actions that we’ve been implementing with caribou — a wide range of them. I can get into it a bit more later if the member likes. We’re stepping up our actions. We have allocated $9 million to work on that.

We’re also working with the federal government on a section 11 agreement under the federal species-at-risk legislation, which would apply to the central mountain group of caribou. Essentially, it would allow the federal government to devolve the management of that listed species to the provincial government on the understanding that they have endorsed our management techniques.

Those are the kind of things that we want to get done, because we understand the implications of not getting it done.

[6:15 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Yes, this was a topic much discussed, both for the minister’s panel as well as throughout the Council of Forest Industries conference AGM in Prince George this past week. I’m encouraged to hear that the work that we had initiated is carrying on and the work is being done to show the federal government that we’re doing our best to be able to manage the species.

The question that comes to mind in doing this work — it was extensive work, and I understand the money, the finances that are being allocated towards it — is: why, then, the need for a legislative approach to species at risk rather than the continuum management approach that the Ministry of Forest, Lands, Natural Resources Operations and Rural Development has been undertaking?

Hon. D. Donaldson: That’s a question that should actually be posed, as well, to the Minister of Environment, since the provincial species-at-risk legislation is part of his jurisdiction and mandate letter. But what I can add to that, because we’re linked on this in many ways, is that we want to be proactive.

We don’t want to have the uncertainty of always being at the vulnerability of having the federal government make decisions that might impact our multiple values in negative ways. So we want to get out ahead of this. We want to be able to have the ability to control the process in B.C. Rather than sort of take an ad hoc approach and wait all the time for the federal government and then perhaps have to try to make arrangements under a section 11 agreement, for instance, that may or may not be successful, we want to be the primary managers of wildlife and species at risk in this province. That’s why that legislation is being contemplated.

Before I note the hour, because I’m getting an indication from the Chair about that, there are a couple of points I want to make in clarification. Perhaps what I’ll do is I’ll make those points of clarification tomorrow. We’re continuing tomorrow. That will give me a better chance to have a synopsis on that. I’ll defer to the Chair, to possibly address another question.

J. Rustad: Because we’re in the big House, of course, we can extend a little bit longer than if our estimates were in the little House. We would have had to wrap up by now.

I’ve just got a couple more quick questions I want to try to get in on species at risk, if I may. Then tomorrow we’ll go into a bit of a mixed bag. I apologize. It’s going to be a number of things on forestry and natural resource operations that we’ll need to get into. We may get wrapped up by noon tomorrow. We’ll see how that process goes.

In particular, my concern is this. As I’m sure that minister probably knows, there are obviously very significant differences between how you manage a species like caribou in the northeast versus the southeast of the province, how you manage for these various components. So the strategies that are implemented may be different. The strategies that you work on to try to convince the federal government, on their legislation, not to take that punitive action…. Or not to say “punitive” but, I guess, engagement. Their action could be different and very serious.

My concern is a legislative approach…. I’ll potentially get an opportunity to ask the Minister of Environment this, because their estimates look like they might go longer than our estimates. Regardless of that, I’m worried about a legislative process being a one-size-fits-all, as is what often happens with legislation, which then would create some flexibility problems in various areas of the province.

[6:20 p.m.]

To that extent, does the minister share that concern about the flexibility that’s needed for the specific examples of challenges that we have in various regions of the province?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Of course, I legitimately would like to encourage the member — if he can’t be there in person, then through one of his colleagues — to ask specific questions, about the species-at-risk legislation that’s being contemplated, to the Minister of Environment.

What I would say at a general level is that we are in, and the minister is in, a consultative process to determine what the legislation will entail. If flexibility is an issue, those are the kinds of comments that I would anticipate would come up at the engagement sessions.

Putting that aside, managing species at a geographic level…. Yes, I agree that sometimes, depending on the location of the species, different management approaches are required. Sometimes a species will be managed differently depending on the numbers and depending on the location and the health of the population. I agree with the member on that aspect.

J. Rustad: A quick request and then a question, hence the reason for two more.

The request is pretty straightforward. That is that there’s a current stakeholder engagement for caribou recovery and species-at-risk wildlife and habitat management that’s going on, starting tomorrow and for the next couple of days, at the Wosk Centre. There are various groups that have been invited. The ministry plays a prominent role through this engagement that is at the Wosk Centre starting tomorrow. I’m curious as to if the ministry….

I don’t need this, but if you can provide to me in writing who is invited, the various representatives of the groups that have been engaged with regard to this dialogue that’ll be going on — I’m assuming that’s leading in towards the potential for legislation — and whether or not there will be a summary of that dialogue that’ll be made publicly available. I’m not looking at that as a question, but if you can provide that back to me either tomorrow or in writing, that would be good.

I’ll end my last question on a little more of a political note, because I think it’s a question that was posed at COFI, but I don’t think it ever got an opportunity to be asked directly to the minister. That is specifically around SARA and the response.

Both Quebec and Alberta have announced that they can’t afford to protect the herds because of the socioeconomic impact, and creating the cost of that to communities and to them as a province is untenable. Because of that, of course…. They’ve announced that to the federal government, and they’re obviously working on strategies as well. They’ve put the federal government on notice that they can’t go where they want to go because of socioeconomic values.

The impact, potentially, to British Columbia of section 80 of the SARA legislation could be much more significant than what it is to Alberta and to Quebec. I guess the question is: will the minister look at a similar position for British Columbia to be able to protect the values in the rural communities and the people that are dependent upon those industries?

[6:25 p.m.]

It’s not, of course, to ignore the issue — obviously, there needs to be the work and engagement — but to join Quebec and Alberta in terms of a statement of those values that are going to be important for British Columbia in terms of managing the caribou.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll provide a very short answer because I know everybody’s anticipating the end of this debate. Well, it’s not the end of the debate but prolonging this debate till tomorrow.

I believe Quebec and Alberta are risking a lot. They’ll be subject to a section 80, and they’ll lose control. I think they’ll lose control, and it could have severe consequences to them. We’re working a collaborative effort with the federal government in order to avoid that. That’s the approach that we’ve been talking.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.