Fourth Session, 41st Parliament (2019)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, March 28, 2019
Afternoon Sitting
Issue No. 225
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2019
The House met at 1:33 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources and Rural Development.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Isaacs in the chair.
The committee met at 1:35 p.m.
On Vote 43: ministry operations, $925,616,000 (continued).
Hon. C. Trevena: I think that I did introduce staff earlier. But just because we are starting again, we have…. I believe it’s the same: Grant Main, my deputy; Nancy Bain, assistant deputy minister for finance; Kevin Richter, associate deputy minister overseeing highways; Mike Lorimer, executive director, southern Interior region; Ian Pilkington, executive director, maintenance renewal.
With that, I hand it over to my opposition critic.
J. Sturdy: We had one last question for you with regard to the issue of maintenance contracts and the public concern or the public interest in these contracts. I wondered if there is a telephone number or — actually, I guess maybe even more broadly — suggestions from the minister that we can provide to our constituents when they have concerns about what they see as maintenance shortcomings. How should they report those?
Hon. C. Trevena: There are lots of ways for people to get in touch. And yes, people should get in touch, because otherwise…. While we do have, as I say, very rigorous oversight, it’s good to raise concerns, and then we can also evaluate from that. There are a number of ways. The contractor themselves is supposed to have a 24-hour access point. That is both a phone number that they would have as well as an email address.
I know that, for instance, Main Road has taken over the central and north Island, and they’ve been very quick to put out — and regularly put out through social media and local news sheets and others — how to contact them. I would hope that other maintenance contractors are doing the same, to be able to raise people’s awareness of how to contact them. So that’s one way.
The other way is through the ministry’s own website. If you don’t know your contractor’s number, if you haven’t got it to hand, on Drive B.C. — on the front page, two-thirds of the way down, towards the bottom — there’s “Report a highway problem.” That is another access. That would also give you all of the maintenance contractors.
We also have, in the ministry, 24-hour social media — so the Drive B.C. account on both Twitter and Facebook. Likewise, TranBC, Twitter and Facebook, which are monitored and which will be picked up if there’s a problem.
Finally, I’d say that most people, particularly in rural communities, know where their ministry office is and to be in touch with the ministry office if you can’t get any satisfaction or can’t reach the contractor for any reason. The system is set up that the contractor is point of contact for these and then, say, follow through with the ministry if that isn’t succeeding.
D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, for taking questions today. A couple of questions, certainly, around Peace River North and the riding. I’ve got about four questions but not all necessarily about the Peace River.
A number of years ago, I think somewhere in the ’90s, there was a big program put in place: paving all the resource roads. A number of resource roads were paved. I think it was formerly the NDP government that started that process. A lot of input and work by the former MLA for my riding, Richard Neufeld. Of course now, fast forward, and here we are about 25 years later. These roads are falling apart, nonetheless.
Of course, we still recognize the impact that the resource industry — from oil and gas, agriculture, to forestry, mining — plays in the economy, but these roads are starting to go in dire straits right now. So I guess just looking…. Generally speaking, when we look at the district funding for North Peace, it hasn’t really changed. The annual funding hasn’t really changed much since the ’90s.
My question to you. Can we expect a bump in that funding in the near future so we can start planning for improving the resource roads, as well as a number of other roads? I think I mentioned it when you spoke, the last one, that little blip of estimates a few weeks back. Even just accessing some of our neighbouring communities, like the community of Baldonnel…. As they start getting soft roads right now, buses won’t be able to pick up children. Emergency response vehicles won’t be able go out. I’m just looking for a commitment that there is some sort of a process being reviewed to give a bump in the district funding.
The Chair: Members, the Minister of Citizens’ Services would like to seek leave to make an introduction.
Hon. J. Sims: I would like to seek leave to speak from a seat other than my own and to also introduce some guests.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. J. Sims: It’s a great delight for me today to welcome into this House Jazz Grewal, a constituent of mine, accompanied by Pardeep Dhillon, Mandeep Dhillon, Harkirat Dhillon and Parneet Dhillon.
They have come to our beautiful capital of British Columbia, Victoria, because they have guests with them from India, from Jalandhar. They’re from a place not too far away from where I was born. So they brought a little bit of India into our Legislature today. That is Robin Sangha, Sukhman Sangha, Ramandeep Sangha and Sukhvinder Sangha. Two of the young people are high school students and elementary, from India. Two of them are from here, and of course, it being spring break, they are able to come and see how our Legislature works. They’ve been on a tour. They’re going to be heading over to the museum.
Please help me to welcome them all to our beautiful British Columbia.
Debate Continued
Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question.
There’s no question that the Peace is a unique area — the way that the roads are, the geography, the geology. It has a lot of need, and yes, we do have what’s described as side-road programs. We’ve put together what had been the oil and gas roads and the side-road program, but it’s not diminishing the amount that’s going in, so we’re still committed to that.
I was up in the member’s constituency. It doesn’t feel that long ago, but it was, I think, last spring. So it’s quite some time ago now. I saw for myself what the member lives with and what his constituents live with. It was brought home to me, say, that unique nature.
I also met with the rural road task force earlier. I think it was last month now. Staff continue to work with them just to identify what the needs are and what we can do as a government to ensure that we are investing wisely in the region and making sure that the needs of all the communities are being met. We are investing in the roads, as necessary.
D. Davies: Thank you, Minister. I’m glad you mentioned the rural road task force. That was actually one of my next points.
Of course, I’ve worked with Jackie Kjos quite a bit over time, and I know that the invitation has been sent out to you to come up. We’ll organize a very detailed tour and flights and everything else that I think the committee has already got organized to really give you a scope of what we face up here as challenges.
I just want to make sure I heard it right. There is analysis being done on the roads, and then they’ll be looking at funding. Is that what I got out of it, moving forward, and does that mean, then, there will be a bump in addition to the amount that’s been in place for a long time?
Hon. C. Trevena: What we’re doing is I’ve met with the rural roads task force. Staff have met with the rural roads task force. Staff continue to meet. And yes, I look forward to a visit there. The rural roads task force said that I should come up in June this time to get a better picture of it — I think it was March last time — get a sense. I know that as a visitor, I will not get the full sense anyway.
We are having these discussions with the rural roads task force just to really understand what the priorities are, what is needed. I know that the member feels that it’s been a long time. We’re a new government, so it’s been a long time for other governments too. We do want to make sure that we understand the priorities. The member is also aware that it’s, obviously, very costly to work in the Peace region because of geotechnical issues and everything else.
So really understand what the priorities are and what the capacity is, and this will feed into our decision-making process and our continuing budgeting process.
D. Davies: In June, you might actually be able to get out onto most of the roads. They should mostly be dried out by then. Okay, maybe not all of them.
I certainly appreciate the comment regarding working with the rural roads task force. There’s a lot of knowledge that sits around that committee, and I look forward to hearing some positive things in the relationship, working through them as well. So thank you.
Another question I have…. I probably should have let my college from Peace River South maybe ask this, because it really impacts his area in certain aspects. I understand there is something being reviewed on the commercial vehicle chain-up legislation, or how that’s going to be looking.
Right now South Taylor Hill, throughout the winter, I’m not sure…. I’d have to take my shoes off to count the number of times we have spin-outs with commercial vehicles. The hill is shut down for the better part of a morning or an afternoon, and it literally shuts everything down up in the northeast. At worst-case scenario, the operator of that commercial vehicle might walk away with a $121 fine or thereabouts.
It just seems like there’s something missing in that piece and how those are dealt with. I’m wondering if the ministry has that on their radar, to be looking at some bigger bite.
Hon. C. Trevena: At the end of last year, we announced much stricter chain-up requirements. Previously, commercial vehicles were allowed socks instead of chains. For heavy industrial vehicles, that was removed. Now you are not allowed to use that. You must use chains. There’s a better definition of chains, much more specificity — on the axle so that they are chained effectively and efficiently.
We’re also doing some education on it. Just if the member is interested, I can run through that the previous regulations required vehicles over 27,000 kilos to carry and use traction devices, with only one wheel needing chains during winter conditions and mandatory chain-ups.
The new, more encompassing enhancements clarify requirements for commercial vehicles over 5,000 kilograms. So buses or five-tonne trucks up to…. Those vehicles that weigh less than 11,794 kilograms must use chains on a minimum of two tires and can use steel chains, cable chains, automatic chains, socks or wheel sanders. Those that are heavier than that must use steel chains. The number of tires needing chains ranges from a minimum of two tires for vehicles without a trailer to six tires on some of the larger configurations.
The South Taylor Hill. I’m very aware of what the member says, of being able to count the number of times it has been blocked — and having to take his socks off. That number…. The member doesn’t need to show us. But because of the South Taylor….
We have actually been using our new chain-up regulations this year as a chance for education — to ensure that the trucking industry understands this and that those who are heavy haulers do understand this.
We’re looking at other means, obviously. The member talks about the low level of fine. I’m very aware of that. We are looking at that schedule, as well, and how that’s going to impact it. This first year we wanted to make sure that people knew the changes, were prepared and were doing it. It’s been, really, a focus on education.
Like the Coquihalla, the South Taylor Hill has special oversight, I’d say. There have to be tow trucks positioned in the event of a storm, so that it can be cleared as quickly as possible. There is an enhanced level of service with additional plowing required at certain…. I can find the specifics, what would provoke the extra plowing and that, but it does have a lot of oversight to make sure that it’s kept as free as possible.
D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, for that. I’m not going to ask a question, but I will just kind of end on a statement before I move on to my next question.
I certainly understand that there have been changes in the policy. My question was more around, I think, the enforcement piece and the fines. It seems nothing when someone blocks off an entire highway and cuts off the whole north for the better part of a day — a $121 fine — when they knowingly went past a sign that said to chain up. I’m glad that that is on your radar and that it will be reviewed. It may tie in a little bit with my next piece, which is around the CVSE, the commercial vehicle safety folks.
I travel quite a bit up in the north between Fort St. John and Fort Nelson, the better part of 400-and-some kilometres. When we get up there, there are lots of safety issues oftentimes, whether it be people speeding or not driving to the road conditions. Part of the issue is that there is no enforcement on that piece.
The enforcement I do see, though…. Often when I drive up there, I do see the CVSE folks out on that highway. I’ve had discussions with a number of people in that world, and I’ve asked…. People are driving way beyond what they should be, yet there doesn’t seem to be enforcement. It’s kind of out of the realm of their responsibility. I mean, I think it has to be a blatant safety issue for that time before they can engage.
My question is kind of broader, in the aspect of…. Is the ministry looking at enhancing…? I know the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta have reviewed their commercial vehicle safety people and broadened their terms of reference, I guess, to allow for enforcement of the Motor Vehicle Act across the board, enforcing safety and such for everybody on the highways. I’m thinking that that would be something great, especially when we’re talking rural and more remote areas. Is that on the ministry’s radar for the near future?
Hon. C. Trevena: We’ve had a quick switch of staff, as we’ve moved to CVSE questions. We have Cole Delisle, the acting director of CVSE, here on my far left.
I’d just like to clarify for the member. The member seems to be talking about our commercial vehicle safety and enforcement branch stopping private vehicles, like a Camaro that’s racing down the highway where there’s not much RCMP coverage. Our CVSE is focused on the 110,000 commercial vehicles operating in British Columbia, and those are anything that’s over 5,000 kilos. They are also very busy looking after…. There are 33,000 carriers in B.C.
Unlike Alberta, where you have sheriffs doing some of what for us is RCMP work or police work in speed control, and — as the member mentioned — Saskatchewan having more broad responsibility for the motor vehicle act there, our CVSE is going to be continuing to focus on commercial vehicles. For the maintenance of speed control and safe driving of personal vehicles, of non-commercial vehicles, we will be leaving that to the RCMP.
D. Davies: Thanks, Minister. You did answer the question, then. I was asking if there was a plan, and it doesn’t sound like there is. Maybe it’s something to stick into the back pocket there for the future because, again, I think it might be a viable thing to look at some of these other models when it comes to rural peace officer assistance, I guess, or whatever that looks like. I’ll leave that with you.
One final question. Last year when I spoke during estimates, I had mentioned the got-to-go side porta-potty pullout pieces on the Alaska Highway. I’m happy to say that, since last year’s estimates, there has been a partnership between the province of British Columbia and the federal government, as well as Northern Rockies regional municipality. There is now a nice pullout at mile 200 of the Alaska Highway — beautiful toilets. It’s a wonderful thing.
Of course, this was kind of all put together as a one-time. I’m asking and wondering if the ministry has a plan to continue to put in a little bit of funding — we’re talking not a lot — to help with the maintenance. Of course, it’s in the province of British Columbia on a federal piece of highway within the regional municipality district, so it’s a really bizarre circumstance. I think if we get some commitment from the province and others, we can keep this great thing going for the travellers — which are a lot of British Columbians that use the highway — keep them safe, up on their feet every now and again, and have a place to go to the bathroom.
Hon. C. Trevena: I’m glad the member and his constituents are happy with this. As the member said himself, it’s this very weird structure. It’s the federal jurisdiction for the highway, and it’s in the province, and they’ve got their Rocky Mountain regional district. So we’ll engage the federal government to try to ensure that there is ongoing maintenance, because you don’t want to have a great rest area that is left to neglect.
We will work with the federal government and the regional district to try to ensure that it continues being looked after.
M. Bernier: I’m not sure the minister is…. I know I gave the minister a heads-up on a few things, but we’ll have some questions. You’ll be happy to know I won’t be talking about porta-potties or toilets like the…. Because this is Transportation estimates.
With that aside, just a couple of quick questions. Can the minister give an update, please. I’ve brought it up now for a couple of years. Of course, it’s in the phase…. We’ve talked a little bit about the South Taylor Hill. I know the ministry was working on it. But I’ve also heard, as recently as two weeks ago, from the federal government that they’ve committed to their share for the funding in the South Peace for this project.
Can the minister let me know if she can say if that’s true or not, first of all, and where we’re at in the planning stage? As of a year ago, I thought we were going last fall to procurement or costing after the geotechnical work was done. So can I get an update on where we’re at, please.
Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, I thank him for the question. I know that there is an anticipation for action soon on this. The member is, I think, more aware than I am, as it’s his constituency. He lives and sees it.
We’re dealing with variables of the geotechnology of the Peace Valley. It’s complex. I’ve got to say that this was brought to a head again with the Old Fort slide. We could see the huge complexity of the area.
We are very aware of the need for work on the hill. We want to make sure that whatever we do lasts — really lasts. We are continuing the engineering, because we want to get this right. So it’s a continuing effort to ensure that we get the engineering right with the geotech issues that the Old Fort slide, last year, which shocked everybody, has highlighted again.
M. Bernier: I appreciate the minister’s comments. Obviously, I completely understand how difficult it is in that area when it comes to building road networks, whether it’s on our hard surface or our back roads. Can I at least, at the very minimum, take from that answer…? Probably just a quick yes or no. I just want to make sure I’m right. Is it still within the budget, then, of the ministry that they’re moving forward?
I understand she’s saying it takes a little longer. That’s fine. But is it still, obviously, within the budget that we’re moving forward with the project, that nothing’s been stalled on the project design and trying to get it to completion?
Hon. C. Trevena: There is money in the budget, and we are working on engineering on the hill.
M. Bernier: I appreciate the answer, and I understand how the code works on all of this. I won’t dive in any further and put the minister on the spot, but obviously, she recognizes, especially if there’s federal funding attached, that there can be some timelines that we want to try to achieve in order to make that happen.
Just one other question. I know we have lots of people who want to ask specific to their riding. For me, a concern that I heard is around the funding that we have right now within the ministry — of the Peace River South for the Ministry of Transportation.
Actually, I should have started at the outset by thanking the minister’s staff. I do that every year. As she knows, there’s amazing staff that work — not only the staff that we have here today but the staff I have here in my region and Scott Maxwell up in Prince George, great staff who have always been very open to taking phone calls and emails to share advice where they’re able. That really helps, at the local level, defuse some of the angst from the public. From this ministry’s standpoint, they’ve always been very excellent at that, and I think it goes a long way where possible.
Are the rural roads and just the main roads in our area…? We used to, every single year in my riding, have a new capital project. We’d have one in design, going through geotechnical, and the next year we’d be going to funding, and the next year we’d actually be going to procurement and build. It’s been about two and a half years now since we’ve had any projects of substance on the Alaska Highway or in my region, Peace River North or Peace River South, to the best of my knowledge. When I asked a question, I was told that it appears that our funding has been cut dramatically for capital improvements and projects in the South Peace.
Can the minister maybe look at a bit of an update on a dollar amount for me, if she can get that? If the staff has it, great. If not, she can get back to me.
We used to average anywhere in the vicinity of $45 million to $55 million a year in my riding. I have heard rumours — and I’m qualifying that as rumours — that it could be as low as $25 million, thus there are a lot of projects that might not be considered or are being pushed off. And further four-laning on one of the deadliest highways in the province has come to a standstill.
I’m just wanting to make sure I address the fact that that work needs to continue. We have had, I believe…. I almost have to take my shoes off to count, as well, how many fatalities we’ve had in the last 12 months in my riding on the main highway network, and a lot of that could’ve possibly been avoided. Sometimes it’s driver’s error and sometimes climate. I’m not going to dive into causes of accidents. That’s not fair to anyone. But it does concern me if I hear that the budget might be being reduced for capital projects.
Can the minister maybe today or get back to me on which future projects — at the very least, though, if the budget’s been cut in my area?
Hon. C. Trevena: I’d like to assure the member that there is significant investment in his constituency still. Some is in response to the storm of almost three years ago now, to make sure that the rehabilitation’s gone there and other work that’s going on.
Among the projects that are going to be started or completed this year, the Bowlder Creek Bridge and the Eighth Street Bridge are just two of a number. But we will follow up with the member with more details as we can put together a more comprehensive list for the member, okay?
D. Barnett: First, Minister, I want to reiterate what my colleagues said about the staff in the Ministry of Transportation. They are some of the best, most cooperative. They keep us informed and sincerely appreciate the great work they do.
I have a couple of questions regarding rural British Columbia roads. One is the Cariboo connector. I see in the budget the only thing in there for the Cariboo connector in my riding is the Lexington Highway 97 project at the Williams Lake Indian Band, which has been ongoing for five years, and that will be completed this year. Also the project on the other side of Williams Lake, the Carson Toop project, which was started under the previous government that will also be finished this year.
Are there any other projects throughout my riding for improvements to the Cariboo connector that are in the planning stage? There was one before, when we were government, at the Knife Creek Road. Is that project still being planned and being proposed? I see nothing in the budget for it.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for her question. I think the member is well aware that almost half a billion dollars has been invested in Highway 97, the Cariboo connector, in the last number of years. A significant amount of money has gone into it, and the member is right that the two final phases of phase 2 are in construction and due to be complete this summer, which is Carson Drive to Toop and Williams Lake to Lexington.
That will mean that more than about 50 percent of the highway is three or four lanes, which is significant and will, no question, add to the safety of the highway. As I say repeatedly, safety is an absolute priority for myself and for the ministry. So when we’re saying that, it is important.
We are continuing to invest in the corridor. We are working on planning studies around Quesnel. We are looking at areas north and south of the member’s constituency, I have to say. But we are also looking at leveraging federal dollars. The federal government has a significant amount of money that we are looking at leveraging, and we want to take full advantage of the various infrastructure investment funds that they are offering at the moment and looking at how best to use those.
D. Barnett: Yes, Minister. The past government invested many dollars in the corridor and made it much safer. I would like to see it continue on.
My one question, though, that you didn’t answer, if you could please. Is the Knife Creek road planning process on Highway 97 still in progress, or has that been put aside?
Hon. C. Trevena: As the member is aware, we’re talking about the corridor here, so we take a corridor perspective. I cited projects both north and south of the member’s riding and completing those projects in the member’s riding. But because we’re taking a corridor approach, we have deferred work on that, looking at other priorities in the corridor.
D. Barnett: A couple of more questions. Highway 20 over the last, well, ten years…. Previous to last year, there was approximately $17 million put on Highway 20, a corridor that is very important, from Williams Lake to Bella Coola. It had $17 million, by the last government, put into upgrading. There still is more work needed on the corridor, Highway 20. Is there money in the budget this year to continue upgrading Highway 20?
Hon. C. Trevena: To the member: yes, we hoped that Highway 20 would be much busier this year, and hopefully, there will be a ferry operating that will mean, at least, that the tourist traffic can get from Bella Bella up through the valley and up to the member’s constituency.
There are going to be some safety improvements this year. Every year, throughout the year, the staff do road assessment on what is needed. They go out in the spring, and they’ll go out again later in the year and be looking at what is needed. We haven’t got specific projects. They’re going to be looking at what’s needed when the spring comes. There will be work done on it — rehabilitation as well as safety work.
D. Barnett: We did have an economic development strategy when we were in government. In this economic strategy, there were components of every ministry, and one of them was Transportation. Within that component, we focused on a lot of capital for rural roads.
Could you please tell me what kind of capital is in the budget this year for rural roads within my riding? We need a lot of rural roads repaved — subdivisions, 108, Horse Lake area and places like that. So could the minister please tell me what kind of funding is in there for capital maintenance on rural roads?
Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member is aware that we have the budget for side roads. That includes the oil and gas roads. The side roads budget is $110 million. That’s for the province. Obviously, across the province, we look at priorities for major capital expenditure.
I’ve been in the member’s position of sitting in opposition for many years, asking the Minister of Transportation for dollar figures for my riding, and got incredibly frustrated when the minister did what I’m going to give you. But the real answer is that to break down exactly the dollar figure is almost impossible.
There is capital investment throughout the member’s riding as well as nearby ridings. We’ve already talked about the ones that are finishing this year, the major ones for Carson Drive to Toop and Williams Lake to Lexington. There is also money being invested in bridges, in safety work, some in rehabilitation. So right across the riding, there will be money invested.
The ministry is assessing, all the time, what needs to be invested to keep our highway infrastructure operating. I think the member will be very pleased when she sees the roads improved, including Highway 20. We’re making sure that B.C. Ferries actually gets running on there.
D. Barnett: I have one last question. Yes, it’s very exciting that the ferry that I worked so hard for will finally become a reality this year. I’m very pleased that it’s finally going to be a reality, and I look forward to it, as do my constituents.
The last question I have is regarding fires in 2017. We had major fires throughout the riding, throughout the region. Basically, many roads are now crumbling. They, of course, are rural roads, not major highways.
When my constituents have an issue…. I’ve got two or three of them now where there’s actual flooding. Roads are closed. A year ago they had problems. Letters were sent off. Messages were sent off. Of course, all we hear back is that we’re in the planning stages to fix these.
I have a couple of areas where there are roads that ranchers’ fields, because of the flooding that’s coming down over the highways…. One rancher’s field was destroyed in the spring, and we can’t seem to get any response from anybody for this issue.
My question is: is this the responsibility of FLNRO or the Ministry of Transportation? We would just like a direction, because we get sent from A to B. All we want to do is fix these so that people can get on with their lives.
Hon. C. Trevena: I know the member is very concerned about this, as we all are. What we’ve seen over the last couple of years, with the devastating fires, really has fundamentally changed both the landscape and the way that we have to deal with it. So when the member’s talking about crumbling, I know. It’s just an absolute inability for the earth to absorb the water.
There’s responsibility both for my ministry and for the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. If there’s a fire on Crown land, it’s the Ministry of Forests that has to stabilize the slope.
Our ministry is looking at the infrastructure — the culverts and, obviously, the roads — and making sure that when we are fixing them, either before or, now, after events, we’re building in that resiliency to climate change. So bigger culverts, bigger ditches — making sure there is that ability to both deal with the problem that has arisen and start to try to predict the future, with the mindset that what we’ve seen for the last two years could very well be what we’re going to see for the coming years too.
S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity. I want to thank the critic for allowing us to take the time to focus on our regions. I’m going to start, a little bit, with where the minister left off, with commenting on the fact that it’s really difficult to tell us whether there’s more money or how the money is allocated in particular constituencies. So maybe I’ll make it more broad.
I want to start by recognizing the Ministry of Transportation staff in the northern region — the Prince George office and elsewhere. They do an exceptional job. They are incredibly collaborative to work with, and they care a lot about the work that they do. Since being elected many years ago, I have appreciated the work that the ministry and the team does.
Can the minister tell me whether the investment in the northern region, then, will be increased? When we look at budget investment, will the budget be static, or will there be an increase in the northern region this year?
Hon. C. Trevena: To the member’s question, the reason we are sort of working back there is that the money is usually done by corridor. We have a very stable and consistent commitment to rehab work, side road work. We’re continuing to invest in certain projects, and we are investing about…. Just sort of doing the rough check at the moment, working on various pieces that we’re looking at.
As a quick response, so the member doesn’t sit here all afternoon waiting as we add it all up together, we’re looking at about $150 million.
S. Bond: Respecting the fact that there are a lot of members that want to ask questions, I’m happy to receive an update on the specifics. I’d like to see the year-over-year change, whether it’s up or down. Usually the ministry is very helpful in laying out what their workplan is, and I know that they can’t do that until they get their budget allocations, so I’m happy to not have us spend a lot of time doing math in the back there. If the ministry and the minister could send that information, that would be helpful.
I do want to press upon the minister, though, the fact that northern roads matter. When we are shipping goods and people are using them — and I know the minister is aware of that — we need to make sure that there’s adequate and stable funding. In fact, northern British Columbia drives the economy of British Columbia, and we need to make sure that industrial traffic, in particular, is recognized.
On that note, I’d like to ask a specific question. I know that there will be a detailed workplan provided in the region. I have received, and I’m sure the minister probably has as well, a lot of concern about Highway 16 east, from Prince George moving through to Vanderhoof and beyond.
As the minister can imagine, there is significant heavy truck traffic, and what’s happened is the roads are deeply rutted. There is rutting along those corridors. In the winter, what happens is they fill up with ice and snow, even when you’re clearing the roads. I received, more than ever this year, concerns.
It’s certainly not because of lack of effort by the maintenance contractors or by staff. We need to deal with that rutting situation. I’m just going to ask now whether or not anyone on the minister’s team can tell me whether that’s going to be considered in this year’s workplan.
If we don’t have the answer, I’m happy to hear back. But I want to impress upon the minister that that has been a significant concern expressed mostly by residents with families who are travelling up and down that highway. It’s making it, from my perspective, a safety concern.
Maybe just a relatively quick answer. Do we know if it’s in the workplan? If not, I’m hoping the minister will take that back to the ministry and get some sense of what’s happening there.
Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate the member’s understanding on getting information back to her. I’m very cognizant of the importance of roads in the north and roads around the province — the importance of investing in northern roads.
The question of rutting, again, is a question I have myself, many times, from my own constituency, where the heavy trucks using our highways have created rutting. It creates a safety risk. For the member’s constituency, it’s ice and snow. For my constituency, it’s water and hydroplaning. It’s a serious issue.
The member will be pleased to know that we will be doing some work to address the rutting on Highway 16. We will be able to work with the member to tell her when it’s planned and the extent of the work that’s going to be coming up.
S. Bond: Thank you very much to the minister. I really appreciate that answer. It will be good to know where exactly. There have been extensive investments made in intersections prior to where the rutting now exists. Again, it’s Highway 16, moving to the west from Prince George out toward Vanderhoof. I’m sure my colleague would express the same concern, so thank you for that. I look forward to the specifics.
The next issue we’ll be dealing with is all the people complaining about having to wait while the highway repair work is done. First they want it fixed, and then when you get it fixed, there’s a big problem with that too.
If the minister could just give me an update on Cariboo connector projects within the northern region. Obviously, significantly, again, our government made a commitment to do major improvements on that highway. A lot of work has been done. I just want reassurance from the minister that that project and a number of projects along that corridor are continuing.
Hon. C. Trevena: To the member, the member’s colleague from Cariboo South was asking similar questions a few minutes ago. My response was that the previous government did invest about half a billion dollars in the corridor, bringing it up to three or four lanes for about 50 percent of the corridor, which has been significant for safety.
We are continuing to do engineering work along the corridor. We are looking at a corridor-wide approach from, basically, north to south. I have raised with the member some of her concerns about ones that she felt were going to be there and ones which aren’t. But we are doing a corridor-wide approach, looking for federal funding — how we can best use the various pots that the federal government have to ensure we continue work where it is needed.
There has been — I think the member is well aware, having being part of that government — significant investment over a number of years in the road, making it much safer.
S. Bond: Well, I’m encouraged by that, I think. I am a bit concerned when we suggest we’re going to look for federal money. The investment along that corridor needs to continue.
We, earlier in this discussion, talked about a number of…. So industrial traffic in particular, but also commuters who use that section of the highway. If we’re going to get to the gateway, it’s actually the way you get there, through that corridor, when you’re looking at trade and commerce in British Columbia. Again, I’m sure, when I’m given the opportunity to look at the workplan for the region, I will certainly take a look at ongoing work on the Cariboo connector.
I want to shift slightly to winter maintenance standards. I am wondering. I don’t know if the minister knows or not, but I do have a portion of Highway 5 in my riding. She may well be aware that the TransCanada Yellowhead Highway Association did write to the minister about their concerns. I think the biggest concern they had was ensuring that there are consistent standards along Highway 16 and Highway 5.
I’m sure my colleague from Kamloops may well have been interested, because we share that particular highway in our two ridings. I’m wondering if the minister could just let me know, acknowledge that she has received the letter and that the resolution that was provided to her by the TransCanada Yellowhead Highway Association is being considered by the ministry.
Hon. C. Trevena: Apologies to the member. We’ve just been trying to track down the letter. We’ve been reading it and looking at the import of it. We are responding to it. We were just working on the response to it now. We were, as I say, just trying to track it down.
I think the member is aware that the area, as I understand it…. I don’t want to go too far down this road, because we are still working on the response, but the designation of all the route was to a class A, a number of years ago. We have two service contracts overlapping this, one of which…. We have the new contract, which has higher specifications. The other is still the existing contract with the existing specifications.
Suffice it to say, we have the letter. We will be responding to it. We’re taking it very seriously. We will be participating in the Yellowhead Highway Association meeting. And we’ll ensure that the member gets a copy of the response too.
S. Bond: I appreciate that answer. I know that the association will as well.
That is an issue because, obviously, Highway 16 is a class A highway now. It does have higher maintenance standards, which we are grateful for and thankful that we worked hard to make that happen. I think some consistency there is the concern.
On that note, I wondered if, very quickly, the minister could just give me an update on the renewal of maintenance contracts in the Robson Valley region. There are two contractors. I believe one of the contracts may have been complete. One might be further down in the timeline. It might be a little bit later.
If I could have a quick reassurance that those contracts…. I believe one has been finalized, but I want to be sure that the maintenance standards have been conveyed and are, certainly, part of the procurement process to make sure…That is a class A highway, Highway 16, and we want to be sure that those standards are being met. If the minister could just give me a quick update on the contract renewal process.
Hon. C. Trevena: We’re just finishing the evaluation on the maintenance contract right in the member’s constituency — in Fort George, service area 19. It’s still, as I say, under evaluation. They will start work in late spring, June. They will have all-new specifications. The higher standards that we’ve been bringing in, it would be maintaining, with a class A system.
The other maintenance contractor, or service area, in the member’s riding, Robson, is the outlier. There are two sort of outliers from the general renewals. That won’t be coming up until 2021.
S. Bond: Thank you. I thought that was the case. I appreciate that, Minister, and the assurance about the standards along that particular highway.
I just have two others. I know there’s an anxious lineup behind me. So I just want to…. The minister will not be surprised to have me bring this up again, and I’m going to continue to be persistent. I know that she was very responsive. I believe a sign was put up at the Dunster turnoff to the incredible community of Dunster. Many people will not know where that is, but it’s beautiful.
Again, the issue for the residents there and for people along that highway is that when you are attempting to make a turn, either a left-hand or a right-hand turn, into Dunster, there is a lot of industrial traffic coming behind you, and there is nowhere to go. So I just want to raise that concern once again. I believe a sign was erected along that part of the corridor, but I did want to just raise that with the minister and let her know that that remains a concern for the residents of the Robson Valley region. There’s a fair bit of traffic in and out of Dunster. It’s an incredibly beautiful part of British Columbia.
My last question is related to airports, and I just wanted to be sure that we are on the record. I know that the Prince George Airport Authority is always looking at their opportunity to enhance services there. I do want to recognize — I think it’s now public — that the CEO there is going to be retiring, John Gibson. I did want to recognize him for the great work that he’s done at the Prince George Airport.
I know that in the case of both Prince George and Valemount…. Valemount has, obviously, an airstrip. I know that in both of these communities, the airport is a critical part of an economic strategy, and I know the minister knows that. When we’re thinking about our destination resort in Valemount, it’s really important that there is more access for planes to arrive, bringing visitors to that resort, potentially.
I just wanted to confirm that there are still funding avenues for airport improvements and bring to the minister’s attention, obviously, the interest in continuing expansion at Prince George but also at Valemount. So just, perhaps, a quick update on what funds are available, making sure that those two communities are noted.
With that…. I’ll wait for the response, but I do want to thank the minister and her staff for the hard work that is done. I appreciate the information that’s been provided and that which will come to me at a later date.
[J. Isaacs in the chair.]
Hon. C. Trevena: We were just checking on applications. The application deadline for next year’s funding was this past February, and we’re going to be announcing in early spring.
To give the member confidence, yes, we are continuing with the air access program, and they anticipate a number of projects that have come forward. We know that it’s a very good way of ensuring that small airstrips can have the funding they need. As the member is very well aware, this is the sort of funding they need and can’t achieve any other way. So we’re continuing with the program. The projects — we anticipate that the ones in the member’s riding have applied, and we’ll be announcing in April, May time. Okay? I thank the member for her questions.
P. Milobar: Just a couple of questions for the minister today. A lot of them interconnect with my colleague before, from the Prince George area, in terms of the Highway 5 corridor.
I guess just one question to start things off, though. Could the minister confirm how many federal or municipal dollars are going into the Pattullo Bridge replacement?
Hon. C. Trevena: The bridge is listed on page 48 of the budget and fiscal plan, which I’m sure the member has in front of him. It is $1.377 billion for the bridge. It is a provincial project. It is being funded solely by the province. There is no federal and no municipal funding for it.
P. Milobar: That’s what I was assuming the answer was going to be, but I wanted to confirm it.
The reason I asked that is because it was a little disconcerting to hear that for projects in the northern region of the province — projects along Highway 97 corridor; projects along 16; projects, I’m assuming, along 5; projects along 24; all the interconnecting highway networks, the A-level highway system that we do have in British Columbia — any future work, it sounded like, was going to be reliant on trying to somehow leverage federal dollars for non-federal highways. Yet there was no problem reprioritizing spending to take over a municipal bridge, which was supposed to be replaced with TransLink through the municipalities, and throw that 100 percent on to the provincial government.
I guess that’s the backdrop that I’m asking these next questions on around Highway 5, because I do hope the answer back will not be, “Well, we need to wait for federal dollars,” because that does not seem to be the case anywhere else. My understanding is if it’s the Trans-Canada Highway, it’s much easier to have that conversation with the federal government, and understandably. There’s a whole lot of provincial highways across every province in this country. If the province started to fund every highway project, it would be an insurmountable hill for them.
With that in mind, in the Highway 5 corridor, specifically running…. My riding runs from Kamloops to Albreda. Then the member from Prince George who spoke before me, her riding takes off from there and goes right up to the Alberta border. There has been a lot of concern around safety recently, in this winter. I know the minister is aware of it. I believe the conversation in my community’s folklore, or whatever you may like to call it, was that the minister actually drove the highway shortly after we had those couple of cars and trucks go off the highway down towards the river.
Over the years, there’s been a very methodical and systematic approach to straightening out problem corners, adding passing lanes in. We’re not talking about long, long stretches. We’re talking about two kilometers at a time or one corner at a time. There seemed to be a very methodical progression of targeting the worst areas first and moving through that.
I think everyone in that valley, from Kamloops to the Alberta border, is pragmatic enough to understand that it’s not going to happen all at once. But there seemed to be comfort that the projects were slowly moving forward and that year over year, as one project was being finished, there were other projects already on the books and other projects being engineered and moving forward and being designed.
It’s a critical transportation corridor. It has the CN mainline running down. Obviously, it’s a major connection point for highway traffic and commercial truck traffic from Edmonton down to the Vancouver ports. It’s only getting busier. In summertime, the volume of RVs on that corridor is phenomenal. That’s tourists that aren’t 100 percent sure where they’re going mixing with fast-moving freight, mixing with locals that are also moving at a high rate of speed. It’s a very dangerous combination, let alone in the wintertime when the roads are slick.
The most particular one I can think of is the Darfield passing lanes. As they have been hitting completion, there’s no sense in the valley…. Certainly, I’m unaware of….
Hopefully, the minister can point to in this budget or in the next two years’ worth of planning where the dollars are and what projects are actually being contemplated and the timeline that those projects will see advancement around those things — like very targeted passing lanes being added, very targeted corners being straightened out between Kamloops and the Alberta border but, more particularly, really, from Barriere north, and actually, it’s starting to get from Clearwater north.
There was very good progression starting to happen, but certainly, about the midway point from Barriere and Clearwater north, there does not seem to be a plan moving forward. Is there still a plan to try and address these corners, or is it going to be a wait-and-see three years from now?
Hon. C. Trevena: The member is concerned about us going for federal dollars. We want to maximize the federal government’s generosity in anything capital that we can.
We continue to work with the federal government to use all their funds available and any funds that they are thinking about developing to ensure that our highway infrastructure is working very well across the province.
On the specific corridor in the member’s constituency that he’s concerned about from Tête Jaune to Kamloops — the Highway 16 to Kamloops section, Highway 5 — we are conducting a corridor assessment so that we know what the whole corridor needs, so that we can understand what the next suite of work is going to be. We’re not just doing what we did and leaving it.
We’re looking at, obviously, safety issues and capital spend. We are doing, this year, a number of safety improvements. We are also working on a resurfacing project. And we’re in advanced planning on passing lanes.
P. Milobar: Well, I wonder if I could get an update, then, on where those safety improvements are — and the style of them. I’m not going to hold you to the exact 0.2 kilometre section of the road. But it’s just so the general public and the people in that area have a rough idea where these safety improvements are going to be coming, by some sort of geographic marker point along the way, and what the timeline is for this review — so that people know when the review will not only be done but when they can expect to see the follow-through from that review moving forward.
Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. The corridor review is an engineering review. We should be done by the end of the year. It is, obviously, high-level. It’s looking at the whole corridor — where, literally, the need is across the whole corridor — making priorities from the whole corridor. It will help us identify areas to focus upon.
In the meantime, we are also working on detailed planning for safety improvements in a number of locations. They won’t all be worked upon but so we’ve got options here for short-term safety improvement. These are primarily guardrails, but we’re looking at other safety improvements too. We will be engaging with stakeholders as we move on with this project.
Highway 5 is a concern, as the member well knows. It is a route that links Alberta into B.C. and into Kamloops, which is important. So it is a corridor that we are focusing upon.
P. Milobar: Just one more section I would like to ask some questions of the minister on. I don’t expect her to necessarily know this road. Certainly, her staff should, I would expect. I know I’ve met with the local staff several times on this. It comes up a couple of times every year. They’ve always been great to work with, by the way. They always answer questions and get back to constituents in a timely fashion, in terms of the transportation staff in that region.
It’s the Dunn Lake Road, which is, actually, essentially almost like a back road. It connects Clearwater all the way around to Barriere. Why it’s significant is that, especially in a corridor that from 2003 on has lived very much with the worry around wildfires, it sometimes turns into the only access point in and out of that corridor, to continue on. So there’s that life, safety worry and concern people have, which is very understandable. It does have a connection that comes down to Little Fort, for the Little Fort ferry, which would then open you up to Highway 24 to get into the Cariboo, as well.
There are several sections on it where there is some significant sloughing and problems. The ministry has been looking at this over the last few years. We’re hoping that there’s a fix and a solution. One of the larger sloughs is actually more on the Barriere end of it where the Simpcw First Nation has its main offices. There are children on school buses that drive down into Barriere and who are having to go over this continually eroding and worrisome sloughing that is happening. It’s a fairly long drop down to the river on the other side of this slough.
It is compounded by the fact that the CN main line runs between the toe of the hill and the river, so if this does let go and it has not been remediated properly in the meantime, it will have severe consequences, not just if there’s a train there, obviously. Even without a train, the blockage and the interruption to commodity goods in this province and this country would be severely impacted by that. I recognize that would be the rail concern, however, it is a significant amount of work on the uphill side that needs to be done. This is why I’m assuming and hoping that it is on the minister’s radar.
This is not going to be an inexpensive fix for the two sections of this road that have the biggest problems. I’m wondering what engineering has been done and if there are any dollars set aside this year and in the next two years’ budgets to properly address these sections on this road and to make sure that those sloughing areas are handled before we see the washouts like we’ve seen in other sections, especially heading towards Pemberton and other areas like that.
We all know how expensive it gets to do the repair and then what the first fix would have been. I’m just wondering what type of advanced work has been done and if there’s any timeline to actually, then, carry the work out.
Hon. C. Trevena: Potentially an easy answer to part of the question for the member is that one of the sections the member is talking about…. Staff believe that it’s a municipal road. They’re ready to follow up on that, and we’ll follow up on that.
On the other, it’s much more complicated. We are monitoring the sloughing, seeing how it is moving. It’s very slow-moving at the moment. We are doing engineering work there to see what will be done. We’re also, obviously, working with the Simpcw First Nation. We’ve got very good relations with the Simpcw First Nation, which is, obviously, very important.
This is a priority for us. It is very much on our radar. It, obviously, is expensive. But when we get the engineering work complete, when we’ve finished working through issues with the Simpcw First Nation and work on the next stages, we will be moving ahead with fixing the problem.
P. Milobar: Just one quick clarification. It’s not even a question. It’s just to make sure, and I’ll turn the floor over to my colleague.
There is, on Dunn Lake, the section that is a little more municipal — and a question mark around that — down in the Clearwater end. The section I was talking about with the other sloughing is more, I guess, just north of where the Little Fort ferry comes up and interconnects with Dunn Lake Road. It narrows down to almost a single lane now. There’s a hillside there that’s sloughing coming down. That’s the other provincial section I was talking about, just to clarify.
Yeah. They were nodding their heads. That’s good, as long as they know. I’ll turn it over to my colleague now.
The Chair: We’ll take a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 3:59 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.
[J. Isaacs in the chair.]
N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister and her staff for addressing just a couple of questions. The first one actually has to do with a couple of, if not more, young people that we have in the gallery. I see we have a few young people in the gallery. They’ll really appreciate this one, I hope.
As the minister knows, there are certain rules as to what you can and cannot use on public roadways in British Columbia. I’ve spoken recently with the mayors of Kelowna and the district of lake Country about this. I’ve also spoken to the former Minister of Transportation a couple of years ago. So this might be an opportunity for the minister to do something that I wasn’t able to do before. Hopefully the answer is yes.
What, in particular, I’m looking for is an opportunity to work with Deb Bowman, an ADM of the minister — I believe she’s somewhere listening to this conversation — to look at allowing, in a pilot area, maybe my riding of Kelowna–Lake Country, the use of electric scooters, electric hoverboards and electric Airwheels so we can try to see if they can actually work on perhaps bicycle paths or areas that we would determine together between the district of Lake Country, the city of Kelowna and, of course, the ministry to come up with a system that would be safe, of course — safety is a priority — but that also allows for, as the mayor of Kelowna says, alternative ways to get around.
I believe the technology has way outpaced the policies in this case. Yes, you can use a bicycle on bicycle paths, and yes, you can use an electric bicycle on bicycle paths. But there are opportunities, I believe, if you look around the world, for alternatives such as electric unicycles, Airwheels, hoverboards or electric scooters that I believe, and many people believe, would be able to be used safely on public streets and public roads.
Since the province controls what can be used on public roads in municipalities, the province needs to work on a solution to this. So I’m asking the minister if it would be possible for her to direct her staff basically to work with me and the mayors of Kelowna and the district of Lake Country to work out a pilot for the use of Airwheels, electric hoverboards and electric scooters on a trial basis in our area.
Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question and for taking us away from rural roads and pavements for a little bit into one of my one of my favourite subjects, which is active transportation. I’m sure the member is well aware that we’ve been taking a lead on an active transportation strategy. I think it’s something that you’re seeing in other provinces. It has been very eagerly embraced here in B.C. over these last few months since we’ve been starting up as part of CleanBC.
I think the member is most likely aware that we have had a series of very successful consultations, successful fora. We were in Surrey and Vancouver. The closest to the member’s riding was in Penticton back in the beginning of March. We’ve also been in Courtenay. I was at the Courtenay meeting. It was very interesting to see how many people with very different approaches are looking at active transportation. I think the member most likely heard the piece in the House this morning from the MLA for Vancouver–West End talking about that. He’s been doing a lot of the outreach on active transportation.
As we look at what active transportation means for different communities and as we move on with our active transportation strategy, which will be complete later this spring, the different opportunities, different interpretations…. As the MLA said during his remarks, and I agree with him, whether it is snowshoeing and skiing or bicycling or e-biking or electric scooter or…. As the member himself has said, you look up to the younger audience — the electric hoverboards and other devices. At a certain age, you used to look at the newer devices and think: “That was in Back to the Future, wasn’t it?”
We’re looking at all different sorts and how they can be integrated into our planning and into community planning to ensure that we, as a province, have very literally a healthy approach to active transportation. We’re using the opportunities as well, provided by our CleanBC strategy, to ensure that we are embracing lots of different opportunities to get people out of their cars, both in and out of communities, and travel without having to turn on a combustion engine and give people a greater choice.
N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I agree. This fits perfectly with the CleanBC opportunity. I was very interested in hearing about the active transportation move. Yes, it came to Penticton.
From what I heard this morning, it sounded more like it would be non-motorized transportation — walking, biking, those kinds of things. This is the first time that I’ve heard, so I apologize if I haven’t been paying attention, that the active transportation phenomena would also include these motorized modes of transportation, electric.
Could the minister please just confirm for me, again, that when the government’s looking at the full range of active transportation, that includes electric modes of transportation, such as Airwheels — which, by the way, is an electric unicycle, which I’ve seen people use quite a bit in Europe but haven’t seen here yet — electric hoverboards and electric scooters, which, again, I’ve seen used quite a lot. I think it actually fits into the active, because you have to be in good shape to be using these things, and you’re not always sitting on them.
I want to make sure that that’s pretty clear to our communities, because I know the city of Kelowna is currently reviewing a staff proposal to ask the minister to look at this particular issue. In my discussions with the mayor of Kelowna, they’re keen to look at this as an option, and so is the mayor of Lake Country.
Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you, Member. To continue the member’s question, we were just going back and realized we did get a letter from the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, as well his colleagues for Kelowna-Mission and Kelowna West. I got a letter at the end of last year about this subject — I know that the member is a strong advocate of it — and responded.
Talking about our move towards active transportation, now we are more formalizing a strategy. As I say, we’ve got these fora. We have on-line engagement. I think the MLA for Vancouver–West End mentioned it, but I will repeat it. It is on engage.gov.bc.ca/activetransportation. I would encourage the member and his constituents and others to go on line to participate in that way.
There are a number of questions about what active transportation means. For some people, it means getting on a bike or snowshoeing or whatever. For others, it does mean an Airwheel or other things. It’s trying to get people out of their cars, moving more. Electric scooters, the little ones like the scooter that you used to use as a kid — electric. They, too, are. I know people who have used them. There are certain communities now that, instead of having the bike rental or the electric bike rental, are going with electric scooter rental. There are lots of different approaches.
I do really encourage full participation in the discussion, because we want to make sure that we are being inclusive in this. We want to be really developing a strategy that works for all of B.C. and works at creating that sense of what active transportation is.
As I say, we do have the on-line engagement. That’s going up until the middle of April, so still got about two, three weeks to get ideas on line. Then we’re also going to be talking about it at the local government area associations as well. So for the member and his municipalities, it will be the Southern Interior Local Government Association. Is that the one that the member goes to? His municipality will also have that opportunity. But we’re looking for input from around the province — individuals, organizations, communities — to get that really, I think, very exciting way of collaborating on what we can do to get people out of their cars and moving more.
N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for that invitation to make sure that everyone that has an opportunity to participate in the survey does so over the next few weeks, before it’s over. I will be on Facebook and Twitter and Instagram as soon as possible to make sure that all people of all ages that have an interest in active transportation — that’s not just bicycles — get involved.
The technology is there. It’s safe. It’s proven. We just need to look at how we can apply it to British Columbia. These bike lanes should be available for these kinds of modes of movement. You would get a lot of cars off the roads. You would take a lot of GHGs out of the air, and you actually make people healthier because, while yes, you can get a scooter that’s electrified, probably a lot of the time you’re pushing it or getting on or off it. I think it actually would work well.
The other piece is, yes, there are some places that are looking to a business opportunity, to rent out scooters as a fleet, just like they do for electric bicycles. I would suggest that while that might be, of course, one possible use, we shouldn’t restrict it to fleets. We should allow individuals, private owners, to use their private electric mode of transportation the same way as you would allow a fleet. I don’t believe they should limit it just to fleets. It should be open to anybody.
These pieces of equipment are actually not that expensive. When you look at an electric bicycle, you might be looking at maybe $2,000, $3,000. When you look at an Airwheel, you’re looking at $500. One Airwheel is about $500. You would be allowing people of marginal income to be able to get around a community very quickly and very safely, all within one charge. So I think it would work extremely well.
I actually looked at the Airwheel versus the hoverboard. The Airwheel takes a little more time to learn how to use. But once you learn how to use it, if I can make a plug for it…. The tires are bigger, so you can actually go over bumps a lot easier and, in my case, safer. I don’t want to break any limbs trying to learn how to use these things.
Having said that, I will do my share to make sure that the public is aware of the invitation by the minister and that this is not just for bicycles or other non-motorized modes of transportation. This can be small, motorized transportation, through these electric options.
A more typical question, not to do with active transportation — actually, the opposite of active — is bottlenecks at intersections. The minister is quite aware of the number one priority in my riding right now for intersection improvements. That is the intersection of Glenmore Road, Beaver Lake Road and Highway 97 in the district of Lake Country and in the city of Kelowna. Actually, the city of Kelowna moves right into that space. It’s part of the solution. So is the district of Lake Country part of the solution.
It’s important that we continue with the good work that has been done so far by the ministry. The ministry, I believe, has provided a design award to Urban Systems on that particular intersection, which is critical for our community in the district of Lake Country, because of the long, long bottlenecks that we see in that area.
Of course, what you have when you have a long, long bottleneck, is you have people trying to circumvent that, and those kinds of actions can be very dangerous — when people try to find their way to the front of the line or whatever, if they’ve been waiting a long time. So there is a solution. I’m sure Urban Systems will find some options, and then I’ll go back to the public in terms of an open house, looking for input from the public.
My question to the minister is not going to be how much money does she have in her budget to fund the solution. I think we’ll talk about that at another time. The mayors of Kelowna and the district of Lake Country will probably bring that up at UBCM.
My question is two-part. One is when does the minister anticipate the design work to be complete and available to the public in its final, approved form, and before that, when is the next open house going to be set for our communities so that they can see what the design options are?
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
Hon. C. Trevena: I just wanted to round off the last conversation about active transportation. Apparently, ministry staff are meeting with the city of Kelowna on this issue on the fourth of April.
I’m very glad that I’ve seen now what the electric unicycle looks like, because I had an image of the classic circus unicycle being electrified. I thank the member for raising this, and now I know what I’ve been seeing on the roads. I’ve seen them on the public roads as well. It’s one of the things that we will be addressing, obviously, through the active transportation.
To move on, onto the pavement, the intersection that the member is talking about has been identified as a priority for the corridor. At the moment, there’s a planning study underway, which is assessing the current conditions and looking at what the future conditions might be there and how it would all work out. As a result of that, we’ll be able to set priorities for what to do next. On the intersection, as I say, it’s definitely a priority for the corridor, and we’ll be starting public engagement in late spring.
N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for the information on the active transportation and to the staff for showing you a picture of the Airwheel — and other competitive products, I’m sure.
On the issue of timing, late spring for a public engagement sounds great. Given the expertise that surrounds the ministry, including her own, is there any estimate as to how long the complete project of planning — not shovels in the ground but planning — would take, so that we would have an idea as to when all that process would be over?
Hon. C. Trevena: There is quite an aggressive timeline. They’re looking at a year to a year and a half of planning in getting there, so end of summer 2020. I said that’s a couple years away, but I realize that now we’re in 2019, so about a year and a half.
N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for the answer. My last ask — and then we’ll pass it on to my colleague — is: when they do organize the open house, if it’d be possible to organize it when the MLA is actually in the area, that would be great, as opposed to being stuck here in Victoria.
Hon. C. Trevena: I think we all wish that the rest of the world could be organized against the schedule of our commitment to this place for six months of the year, day in, day out. We will make a note of that. I appreciate the comments from the member. Thank you.
D. Clovechok: To the minister, I always appreciate the opportunity to stand here and talk about her passion and my passion: the Trans-Canada Highway. I want to thank the previous member for speaking. In our caucus, his nickname is George Jetson. We all remember that cartoon.
Okay. Moving on, I do want to talk a little bit about the Trans-Canada Highway and the Kicking Horse development, not so much on the development itself but on some of the unforeseen consequences that are going to present themselves. Before I do that, I just want to recognize and thank Ron Sharp and all of his staff in the Kootenays for the amazing work that they do. They’re truly professionals, and any chance I get to say that out loud, I do so, because they are just that good.
Recently we’ve heard that there are likely going to be significant closures of the Trans-Canada Highway during construction in 2020. That’s understandable. It’s got to happen, but the consequences that come with that and the situations that present because of that are going to be interesting. It’s hard to forecast them, I know, but I do have some questions and some thoughts that I’d like to hear some answers for.
Let’s just start. We know about closures in the area, as well, through avalanches and accidents and the rerouting of that traffic through Highways 93 and 95 through Kootenay Park, which is part of my riding — nobody lives there, but it’s still part of my riding — down through Radium and then through Edgewater, Spillimacheen, Parson, Nicholson and right through to Golden. There are significant impacts that these communities already experience with minor closures that are a day or maybe two days in length, at very best, and the increase of traffic.
Knowing that we have some benchmarks of traffic issues that have resulted because of closures, does the ministry have any plan for doing any sort of a traffic analysis prior to those closures happening, so that those communities can have a better understanding of what is actually coming their way? We don’t know how long, I’m assuming, these closures are going to be, but they could be significantly long, which increases that traffic. I’m wondering if there’s anything going to be done around there to better understand the impacts that that’ll have.
Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for his question. I’d also like to…. I’m hearing so often people acknowledging the staff. The ministry staff right across the province are terrific. I know that the member recognizes it. Every member who stands up recognizes it. I’ll use a couple of minutes of members’ time to say that we are extraordinarily fortunate as a province to have the ministry staff that we do have.
They are extraordinarily dedicated, extraordinarily hard-working. In the member’s riding, where you have real weather, out dealing at all times in all conditions and always acting as professionals. I think we see that right across the province.
To take the member’s question, the traffic analysis is happening right now. It’s something we’re very cognizant of. There is analysis of all the options — what it’s going to look like if it’s closed, if it’s not closed, rerouting. There’s a very thorough traffic analysis going on at the moment.
We’re also working with the community liaison committee about what people living, working, and the communities around feel about the different options. It’s something we are actively engaged upon, looking and saying…. There has been no decision made about any specific approach and any specific way of working. This is something that is being analyzed as we speak.
D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. I know the calls that we’ve been getting from these communities…. They will be pleased to hear that.
I also want to recognize that I’ve spoken to the mayors, and they appreciate the consultations that are ongoing right now. So that’s great to know.
The question I would have, just very quickly, is: what is the timeline on the committee’s data-collecting? When might that be out, so I can share that with my constituents?
Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you for the question. As I say, the traffic analysis is happening right now and looking at all the options. Involved in or included in the discussion, as I mentioned, is the community liaison committee, which the member knows includes the community of Golden as well as emergency services and the chamber and, at times, Radium Hot Springs as well as Parks Canada.
When the analysis is done, there will be a public open house, which will allow for greater discussion. That is anticipated to be in a couple of months. We’re moving on quite well here, so it will be in a couple of months.
D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. I know that the smaller communities between Radium and Golden sincerely appreciate that input, because there is a big concern. We’ve been hearing about it already, and it hasn’t even started yet. So that’s great.
Let’s just go really quickly to Radium Hot Springs. We all know, during the summer months, especially the May long weekend and any long weekends, of the traffic jams that occur coming down the hill out of the park from Radium. I have to say that the ministry staff has done a phenomenal job with flaggers there. It’s helped an enormous amount.
I certainly don’t want to speak for the ministry staff or Mr. Richter over there, but I think we all know that the roundabout is the only real solution for that. We’re excited about that. Lights don’t make sense there.
I guess my question around the roundabout is: given the traffic storm that we know is going to be coming and occurring in a very short period of time, will the building of that roundabout be expedited, using your terms, to prepare for that traffic so that that can be funneled in a different way? I hope, I really hope, that some federal money will be put towards that roundabout, because this is part of their issue, even though it’s not on the Trans-Canada. They should be bearing responsibility for that. So will that be expedited so it could be completed prior to the traffic storm that’s coming our way?
Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, I know the intersection. We do recognize that it is a critical part of a traffic management plan, so we’re working on what we can do, working on a business case for options there.
We have made a commitment to the mayor, approaching the federal government for dollars. As I have been saying to others of your colleagues, we want to maximize the availability of federal dollars on all projects, but on this, obviously, particularly. It’s going to be of great assistance.
We are moving ahead with this. But while it’s part of the bigger whole with what’s happening at Kicking Horse, it’s a stand-alone project. We have to deal with it as a stand-alone project, as well as being well aware that it is going to be impacted by the Kicking Horse work.
D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. I appreciate it. From that answer, I’m going to just assume, which you should never do in this business, that it will be top-notch and top of the shelf when we’re looking at it. Without that, I think we’re going to be in big trouble. No question in my mind, given what we already know. So we’ll just leave that for now.
My next question. As we know, as we’ve seen, when the traffic is rerouted through the park, down through Radium and then through 93 and 95 through to Golden, it’s heavy. There’s a lot of traffic. Many of the concerns of my constituents — this is a technical question that I think we can probably answer very quickly and easily — are that, in many spots on that highway, it’s very narrow, with very, very narrow shoulders. People are riding bikes and all sorts of things in the summertime along those routes.
Is the ministry confident that this highway will have the capacity and the capability to carry that amount of traffic, which will be daily and an onslaught tsunami, almost, in many cases?
Hon. C. Trevena: Obviously, safety is number one. We want to make sure that people using our highways are safe. What the member is asking is part of the work that we’re doing right now in analyzing traffic, trying to estimate volumes and what is going to happen if scenario A is in place, what’s going to happen if scenario B is in place. But safety has to come first, and we’re working with that in mind.
D. Clovechok: I look forward to seeing that report once it’s available, because safety is paramount, needless to say.
Let’s talk a little bit about safety then. We know that the rerouting of that traffic off the Trans-Canada Highway between the Castle Mountain junction, either way, and the Alberta-B.C. border is patrolled not only by the RCMP but also by the sheriff’s department in Alberta until they get to the border in British Columbia. With that traffic being rerouted through the national park, which is in British Columbia and which is the territory of the local detachment in the Columbia Valley and the East Kootenay traffic service out of Cranbrook, there will be increased demand on their services, and also on the CVSE’s as well.
My question would be, then…. From the turn-off at the Castle junction, down through Radium and through to Golden, we’re going to see those increases of traffic, with traffic issues. Are we going to be seeing any extra support for the CVSE and any extra support for the detachments in Invermere and Golden for additional members during these closures to patrol and make sure that it’s safe?
Hon. C. Trevena: This goes back to some of the original question. We need to get the analysis done. We need to know what the traffic is going to be. Some of this has also come out at the community liaison meetings. As I say, emergency services are part of the community liaison groups, so they’re well aware of it.
RCMP will be, necessarily, deciding whether to look at staffing. I think that they…. We are engaging with them about whether there would need to be more. But I think, in the end, it’s going to be an RCMP judgment. They’re going to see. They’re already engaged in that community discussion. They can see what’s happening and will decide. We have the ability to increase the number of CVSE along the corridor and in the area. Again, we’ll be doing so as needed.
D. Clovechok: Thank you for that. That’s reassuring, because I’ve seen the stress that it puts on our local detachments when that happens through other closures. I know that the impact is there, and it takes away from their policing services that are needed in other places within the valley. That’s really good to hear, and I’m glad that’s happening.
Just really quickly. I know that I’ve only got a couple more left.
Interjection.
D. Clovechok: That’s right. Just a couple more left.
I know that this project crosses, with the Kicking Horse and the closures, interministry. This potentially has a huge tourism impact on our valley, and we are a tourism valley. On one sense, you’re going to have more traffic coming through Radium and then down through that corridor, which is a good thing for tourism, but it’s also a bad thing in many ways. Because of the traffic, people may not even come.
The question is easy: is your ministry working with the Tourism Ministry to look at any tourism strategy or any tourism impact ideas within your overall plan that you’re looking at right now?
Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, we’re talking, actually, with the tourism and economic development bodies of the region — so Columbia-Shuswap, East Kootenay regional development and, obviously, in Golden. We’re looking at that focus. When we’re talking about closure, we are looking at doing the closures, when the closures will be necessary, during the shoulder season so it will have less of an impact on tourism.
It’s a big driver. We’re talking about Highway 1. We’re working on Highway 1. We want to make sure people come through. I understand it’s obviously going to be important to get tourists off the main highway. But tourists have that, “We’ll pick up our RV in Calgary, and we’re going to end up in Vancouver or on Vancouver Island or wherever else it is,” and they’re going to have their route in mind. That’s why we’re looking at when there are as few tourists around as possible.
D. Clovechok: Again, this is good news. The only problem is people might be rerouting down through the Crows Nest and then up the other way. That’s the biggest concern around that traffic. So it’s an issue for that. But thank you very much. Again, that’s part of your plan.
Last question that I have, and then there’ll be a final comment. We all know about the Golden bridge in Golden. It’s 1954, I think, or something like that. It’s been there for a long time. The access, either north or south — it’s the only bridge across the Kicking Horse River.
With that extreme amount of traffic that’s going on there, you run the risk of accidents, you run the risk of environmental spills with the big tankers and everything else. Big issue. I’m assuming that part of your overall plan and strategy is how you can the traffic, because it’s a hard right turn over that bridge going west, and it’s a hard left turn going over that bridge going north and south. So I’m assuming that that’s part of your strategy, and those are the conversations that you’re having around this and that there will be a strategy around that bridge, because it poses a real potential problem.
I’m done.
Hon. C. Trevena: The critic will like this. The answer is yes.
D. Clovechok: If we could expedite the replacement of that bridge — Mr. Richter, by the time that that happens — we would really be so appreciative of that. I know you’re going to be on that tomorrow. In any event, I just want to thank the minister for the time here.
One last point that I want to make. It’s an interministerial thing. There is a 24-hour zebra mussel checking station in the Kicking Horse that will be shut down when the closures occur. You don’t need to answer this. We’re just hoping that that 24-hour station, when the road is closed, can be rerouted back into the Kootenays — i.e., Radium — to have a 24-hour station. We’ll need to have…. Those vehicles that are coming through will need to be checked. That’s my hope.
With that, I’ll take my chair. Thank you very much.
Hon. C. Trevena: I’d just like to give the member assurances. We will obviously work with the Ministry of Environment on that. It’s very important that we keep zebra mussels out.
I thank the member for his questions.
G. Kyllo: It’s always an honour to stand in this House and ask a few questions on behalf of the hard-working constituents of Shuswap. I’d like to give thanks to the Transportation critic, my colleague, the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.
I just have a series of questions, first around Highway 1, then a few questions on some minor routes and then also on some side-road projects.
First off, I’m just wondering if the minister can provide us a bit of an update on the timing of the Salmon Arm west project. I am aware and familiar that the tender closed for the preloading October 26, I believe, of last year, and that work, I believe, is now underway. But if she could just provide me with a timeline on the other construction components of that Salmon Arm west project — for phases 1, 2 and 3 — and how that lines up with the original timeline for the project when it was initially announced back in 2016.
Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for the question. As the member indicates, there are three segments on the project: from IR 3 to First Avenue, First Avenue to 10 Avenue and then 10 Avenue to 10 Street. As the member is aware, part of the IR 3 to First Avenue is largely in First Nations’ territory, Neskonlith territory. The second section, 10 Avenue to 10 Street, overlaps quite substantially some of Adams Lake Band.
Instead of west to east or east to west, we are working on this from the middle out. We will be starting this year on the First Avenue to 10 Avenue section. As the member mentioned, we’ve got preload there. It has taken quite a long time to settle, and as the member is most likely aware, getting the preload settled is important for the long-term stability of the highway. You can see problems when the preload hasn’t settled in certain highways in our province, so we want to make sure that is right.
The member asked when it was originally going to be tendered. It was going to be back in 2016. Now we’re obviously three years on. The reason for that is that we have been working on all these sections, looking as a whole — working with the Indigenous communities, with the Neskonlith and Adams Lake Bands, to make sure that all their needs and their concerns are dealt with. We’re obviously dealing as well with the community of Salmon Arm.
There is always — as the member is very aware, living in and representing the area — the need to ensure that we have full consultation and full engagement with the First Nations. That has led to this…. I’m not going say it’s not a significant delay. We do need to get it right, so we are still working on engineering work on the other two sections, but this middle section is what we are going to be moving on first.
G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for that. What I was looking for specifically is…. The existing contract has now been let for just the preloading. Obviously, there are a lot of additional contracts that will be let out for phases 1, 2 and 3. I’m just wondering if the minister could provide a timeline for the commencement of the further construction on phase 1 and completion of phase 1, and then the commencement of construction and completion for phases 2 and 3.
Hon. C. Trevena: I’d just like to correct the record. I was talking about preload before. We’re doing preload this spring. I did, actually…. Maybe the member misheard. We’re preloading this spring. As I mentioned before, we’re aiming to go to tender this fall. The other two phases — we’re still doing the engineering, and there are ongoing negotiations with the First Nations. We want to make sure, as I say, that they are comfortable with what we’re doing, clearly, going through territory that is traditionally theirs.
We want to make sure that we get this right. That is what has caused some delay for the other two sections.
G. Kyllo: What I’m hearing is that there are no commencement dates anticipated at this point in time for phases 2 or 3.
Hon. C. Trevena: As I say, we are working diligently with the First Nations. We’re doing engineering work at the moment. We are looking for spring 2021 to be working on phases 2 and 3. If we’re looking at segments, it’s segments 1 and 3, but it will be the next stages. We’re starting on the second segment, the middle section, this fall — aiming for this fall.
G. Kyllo: I’m a little confused, and I just wonder if the minister might be able to just provide a bit more clarification.
We know that the preloading contract has been let for phase 1, which is a centre section. That preload is happening now, this spring. The minister, if I heard correctly, indicated that the construction for phase 1 will be tendered this coming fall. My understanding, I guess, if it’s going to be tendered this fall, is that the works would happen over the next couple of years on that particular section.
With respect to phases 2 and 3, is there any date anticipated at this point in time for a commencement of construction?
Hon. C. Trevena: Yes. To repeat my previous answer, spring 2021 for the second two phases.
G. Kyllo: Okay, well, that’s great. When I hear the minister indicate the spring of 2021, would that be for the commencement of construction on phases 2 and 3 or just for tendering documents to go out?
Hon. C. Trevena: This is for tender, but we have ambitious end dates, so I’ll confirm with my staff that we’re okay on the end dates. But yes, it’s for tender for spring 2021.
G. Kyllo: We’re now in 2019. We’re anticipating tender documents. This is a project that was announced and fully funded in the spring of 2016. We’re indicating, or I’m hearing from the minister today, that tendering for phases 2 and 3 will not commence or even go out for the tendering process until two years forward from now.
I’m just wondering if the minister can share with me how that squares with her mandate letter and previous commitments that the minister has made to myself and to elected officials in this community of Salmon Arm for expediting the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway. We have heard today that tendering documents for phases 2 and 3 of the Salmon Arm west project will not happen now until the spring of 2021, five years after the actual announcement date for the project.
I just wonder if the minister could maybe, I guess, share a bit of information on her beliefs on how that fits expediting.
Hon. C. Trevena: Absolutely. I think the member is incorrect in one of his dates. The first section, from IR3 to First Avenue, was going to be tendered in 2020. That’s the date that I have. It was already not going to be tendered till next year, the original schedule.
As I have mentioned before, we are absolutely committed to making sure that we have good relations with the Indigenous communities whose land we are working within. We have to make sure that the negotiations with the Indigenous communities are complete. We have, obviously, all of the archeological issues and everything else to deal with, so we need to make sure that we are not running roughshod over other communities, making sure that everyone is on board, and frankly, Member, that takes time. It’s not something that we can set a clock on.
My mandate letter is, yes, to accelerate the Trans-Canada Highway. This is not all of the Trans-Canada Highway. It’s a project that we are working on, and we are working as hard as we can, given the fact that we have a framework here already.
We are also working at the same time on other sections of the Trans-Canada Highway. We’re working on four-laning other sections at the same time as working through the very important issues that we have — to ensure that we can build this in the traditional territory of the Neskonlith and the traditional territory of the Adams Lake band. For us, this is a priority.
Safety is also a priority, and that’s why, while we face delays in certain sections, we are not neglecting other sections of the Trans-Canada Highway.
G. Kyllo: Is the minister able to provide any determination on when she believes that the completion of phases 2 and 3 would actually occur?
Hon. C. Trevena: We are anticipating that they would be complete by 2023.
G. Kyllo: Great. Thank you very much. With the anticipated delay in construction, if I could ask, are there sufficient funds and latitude in the existing construction budget to accommodate the increased costs that will be associated with the delay in the initial construction timing?
Hon. C. Trevena: At the moment, we are obviously working with the existing budget until engineering work is complete and work with First Nations is complete. It would be unwise to change that.
[J. Isaacs in the chair.]
I would just like to clarify for the member. I’ve been talking about engagement and talking about First Nations and the importance of working well with them, but the member well knows that we’re actually talking about going through reserves here on the second two phases: on segment 1, IR#3 to 1st Avenue, and then segment 3, 10th Avenue to 10th Street. So the west of the project and the east of the project — it is going through reserve.
I talk about engagement. It isn’t engagement; it’s negotiation. This is their land. It is very significant to be working through that, and if you’re negotiating, you’ve got to definitely get it right. If you’re engaging, you’ve got to get it right. But if you’re negotiating…. It is land issues. It takes a very long while. I’m sure the member, if he talked to his colleague, the former minister, who is well aware of this too…. It is something that is ongoing. You do need to get it right.
He was asking about acceleration. I’ve got to say I’m very pleased. He can check on the government website, on the Ministry of Transportation website, that we have actually announced today, jointly with the federal government, upgrading 4.4 kilometres of the Trans-Canada near the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke’s constituency, working all around the Quartz Creek Bridge. We’re working on 4.4 kilometres of highway there. This will include $49.9 million of federal funding for the project.
The part in the member’s constituency is going slower than anybody would really hope, but we do need to get it right. We are working, negotiating with the Neskonlith and with the Adams Lake band. We do need to get this right.
There is work happening on other parts of the Trans-Canada. We are making sure that we are pushing ahead with this. It is important that we do it. But it’s also very important, as I’m sure the member is aware, that we get it right with the people whose land it was long before we punched in a highway.
G. Kyllo: Thank you for the response. With respect to First Nations, I fully appreciate the need and the requirement for adequate consultation with First Nations. I have been in contact with the First Nations, primarily the Neskonlith that are largely going to be impacted with phase 1 and phase 3. Chief Judy Wilson has indicated that she certainly would appreciate and welcome a direct meeting with the minister and some direct engagement around that consultation piece.
If I can just clarify, what I’m hearing is that there has been no increase in the original budget that was initially anticipated and set out in 2016. So it is fully hoped, I guess, within the ministry, that they’ll be able to meet all of the design requirements and be able to deliver phases 1, 2 and 3 of Salmon Arm west within the existing budget, without any changes in the scope of works.
A further question to that would be: is the minister able to share with us the impacts of the CBA requirement? Through the minister’s own admission, it was indicated that the CBA requirement will escalate or increase the cost of delivering these projects to British Columbians.
If the minister is able to provide any indication of whether the anticipated budget that was set out in 2016…. Is that going to increase to offset the additional costs associated with her government’s decision to move forward on CBAs?
Hon. C. Trevena: Yes, as the member quite rightly notes, this is going to be a community benefits agreement project. I think it’s very exciting that we are looking at the whole Trans-Canada Highway four-laning to be a part of a community benefits agreement.
I think that the member is aware, or should be aware, of the real skills shortage we have in B.C. We’re looking at using some of our major infrastructure projects to deal with the skills shortage to ensure that we get people trained in a variety of trades.
Many heavy equipment operators can be trained and can work on this project. It’s great apprenticeships and apprenticeship opportunities for women, for Indigenous people — we’re talking about Indigenous communities — for people who don’t usually get the opportunity to work on these projects.
It’s also a great opportunity to have local hires. It’s one of the parts of community benefit agreements — that we are hiring locally as much as possible. So all the benefits…. It’s not just that the area through Salmon Arm and beyond will get improved highway and safer highway and improved connections, but you get that benefit ongoing to the community with the training, with the local procurement, and so on. This is a great opportunity. I’m really pleased that we are moving ahead with CBA.
The member asked about the budget. The budget is the budget. We are doing the engineering work. We do have the negotiations, not consultation. We do have negotiations with Indigenous communities. I’ve talked to Chief Wilson about this, and I’ve talked about meeting with her. So we do have negotiations ongoing, and CBA is one of the considerations in our analysis as we go forward.
G. Kyllo: Thank you for that response. I understand that the budget has not increased. We know that the construction timelines have extended past what was initially anticipated when the project was announced in 2016. We all know that prices go up, that this project will incur additional costs on account of the changes in construction timelines.
We also know — again, by the ministry’s own admission — that the CBA requirement will add additional costs to projects. So I just want to have a confirmation, if I could, that the budget that was established in 2016 is sufficient to take into consideration the escalated costs due to the delay in construction timing and the additional costs associated with the CBA and that we are not going to see an erosion or scaling back of the project in order to fit the project that was announced in 2016 in order to meet the budget that was established three years ago.
Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member, and I do repeat my previous answer. The budget is the budget. We are still doing engineering work, and we are still in negotiations with the Indigenous communities. Until the negotiations are complete and the engineering is complete, it would be foolish to speculate what may or may not happen.
We are still committed to making sure we move on with this. As I say, we are still looking at engineering, and we’re still in negotiations.
G. Kyllo: I think what I will do is…. I’d like to ask a few questions and provide the minister an opportunity, if she wanted, to provide me a response back in writing.
I had some questions similar to the questions I posed around the Salmon Arm west project. The Bruhn Bridge replacement project in Sicamous — just asking if the ministry could provide us with an estimated timeline both for commencement of construction and completion on that project.
As well, there’s some determination currently being undertaken for the Balmoral intersection that’s adjacent to the community of Blind Bay. A couple of options were put on the table. The local residents are very concerned about the impact on access, egress, into their community. The more expensive option is certainly the one that the local community is pushing for. Again, would the minister be able to provide a bit of an update on where that is at?
As well, the community of Sorrento has had some significant challenges in and around some debris flows on Newsome Creek, which is having a significant impact on a number of residential subdivisions. The current Newsome Creek exits underneath Trans-Canada Highway 1. It actually exits all the way down into Shuswap Lake. The current culvert, it’s my understanding, is inadequate to deal with the actual water flows, and the velocity of the water exiting underneath the highway is causing some pretty significant and severe erosion in and around the subdivision area.
There was a plan in place, my understanding is, for the replacement of that culvert under Highway 1. My other question would be if the ministry could provide an update on if and when that culvert would be replaced, as well as some of the additional culverts that are required to be upgraded in sizing in some of the side roads up and above the Newsome Creek area. There’s a significant amount of water flow that’s coming down, and residents are very concerned about the potential impact on further erosion and threatening the residential community.
On minor routes, there has been a lot of discussion in past years about upgrading on Mabel Lake Road. Just wondering, again, if the minister could provide an update on where Mabel Lake is, as far as a priority with respect to side-road paving in the Shuswap area.
I also have concerns from folks living in Seymour Arm. Seymour Arm is a very small community — one access road in and out. It’s currently a forest service road. Residents have been asking for a number of years for consideration that the ministry look at taking over that road. Again, if the ministry could provide a bit of an update on that.
Obviously, lots of concerns around side-road paving, specifically in the Blind Bay area. Again, if the ministry can provide a bit of an update on what the side-road paving plan is for this current fiscal.
I do have one question, actually, to ask on behalf of the member for Kelowna West, and this has to do with Westside Road. The last phase of Westside Road, my understanding, has been fully designed. It is ready to go. The member for Kelowna West is actually asking if he could be provided an update on when the construction would be undertaken for that last and final phase. Just for the minister’s note, Westside Road was identified as one of the worst roads in B.C. a number of years ago. So it’s just for the last and final phase of that project.
With that, I’ll take my seat and turn it back over to our critic.
Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for his questions, and I thank him for his indulgence. We will get back to him in writing. Thank you for doing that. We’ll wait until we get Hansard so we can go through and make sure we get it all right. Appreciate that.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:47 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., April 1.
The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,
LANDS, NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Routley in the chair.
The committee met at 1:36 p.m.
On Vote 29: ministry operations, $508,192,000 (continued).
Hon. D. Donaldson: I just want to thank the staff associated with this softwood lumber file that are here to support the questions that we’re going to be receiving on this particular topic.
J. Rustad: I look forward to our afternoon going through stuff. There’s actually one question — it was one that I missed on caribou — that I’m just going to put out. If the minister has an answer, great. If not, if he could get back to me at the end of estimates, that would be great as well.
When we were talking about caribou, I asked a question with regard to the impact on trappers, guides, forestry, mining, oil and gas — these types of tenures. I believe that the minister had mentioned that he felt there wasn’t. I think the word was there wasn’t. Some of the categories there weren’t impacts on. I wasn’t sure if it was guides and trappers that there wouldn’t be an impact on, but I think the minister had said that. The minister can maybe clarify.
The reason I ask is…. Sometime ago a trapper up in the area received a letter which discussed the potential loss of a trapline due to a transfer to a First Nation. He felt that it was associated with the caribou and with the agreement that’s coming forward.
I realize those staff probably aren’t here or available at the moment. If the minister could perhaps just commit to looking into this: whether any letters have gone out to stakeholders, trappers in particular, with regard to any potential agreements in the northeast around caribou, notifying that there may be a change to their tenure.
Hon. D. Donaldson: I commit to providing a response to that once we get the appropriate staff back from the outer rooms to this room. Once that staff member comes back, I’ll provide an answer.
J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that. Like I say, it’s not a rush. It’s something if we get to…. We’ll be in estimates here for a little while longer yet, so we don’t have to worry about running people back and forth.
Back to softwood lumber. Just before the break, the minister had talked about a $1.5 million budget being spent this year. I’m assuming that ministerial staff are part of that $1.5 million budget. The minister can correct that if it’s not the case. The minister mentioned that they’re waiting on the appeal. They’re waiting on the various legal or litigation processes that are unwinding.
Has the minister been engaged at all recently with Ottawa, with regard to B.C.’s position and any engagement that may have followed from that through to the United States?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I haven’t engaged directly with Ottawa recently, although we have Jennifer Burleigh here, who’s our director of trade and export policy. She’s, in a general way, been in coordination with Ottawa around our litigation strategy and our litigation initiatives. We’re taking a lead within our ministry on the litigation file.
I would also suggest that the member address the kind of question he posed to the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology when those estimates arise.
J. Rustad: I do understand that the trade file is under a different ministry. However, softwood is…. British Columbia represents about half of all exports to the United States. It’s obviously a very critical component to this policy and approaches within the ministry that I’m sure the ministry must be leading, with regards to engagement.
Recently I saw an article in the BNN. I believe it was Minister Freeland who went down to Washington to discuss issues of the replacement for NAFTA as well as the tariffs on steel and aluminum and softwood lumber.
My question to the minister is: was the minister or ministry staff engaged with Minister Freeland about what position she was talking about and engaging at those levels in Washington? What positioning did British Columbia play with regards to how the federal government presented that issue in Washington?
Hon. D. Donaldson: The Premier has engaged with the Prime Minister on this file. In fact, I believe they have recently spoken. Our role, through staff, is that we supply information through JTT to the Premier’s office for those kinds of discussions, so we’re having direct input to the federal Prime Minister through our Premier.
J. Rustad: Could the minister provide to this House or this committee any briefing notes or positions that FLNRO would have instructed to the Ministry of Jobs and to the Premier with regards to communications on softwood lumber for this recent trip to Washington?
Hon. D. Donaldson: There was no recent trip to Washington. I said that the Premier, as I understand it, had a conversation recently with the Prime Minister.
The member might be referring to the May 7 trip that our staff will be taking to attend the NAFTA appeal of the ITC finding of injury. It would not be wise to release briefing notes, considering we’re in the midst of litigation procedures. I know that the member is sensitive to that, and we don’t want to divulge any kind of information that would alert the people who don’t want us to succeed to our legal strategies.
J. Rustad: I completely agree that we want to be able to be successful, obviously, in our negotiations and our litigation on softwood lumber.
Could the minister confirm that, with the recent trip by federal minister Freeland to Washington, there was briefing material created for, I’m assuming, the Premier or others to have made contact with the federal government to make sure they reinforce B.C.’s position with regards to any sorts of discussions that would have gone on between the federal government and Washington?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, there are no discussions going on with negotiations, because neither party has the incentive to return to the negotiating table. We need to get a negotiated settlement from achieving success in the appeals.
As far as Minister Freeland is concerned, there’s no question that she knows the B.C. position, through information and contact we’ve had previously, and that she knows our input into the federal litigation strategy. It’s the federal government that’s undertaking litigation, but we supply our information to them on that, and our perspective.
If the member is talking about other trade matters that Minister Freeland might have been going on a recent trip to Washington about, then I suggest the best person, the best place, to ask that question to is the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology.
S. Thomson: I just want to ask a question following up on the engagement theme. I know that it’s not negotiations going on, as the minister noted, and it’s in litigation, but one of the key ongoing strategies in terms of continuing to build support for Canada’s position and, ultimately, a deal at some point, or one that may come out of litigation, is to continue to build support in the U.S. for Canada’s position — engagement with homebuilders associations, with key influencers and decision-makers in the U.S.
Can the minister advise of what actions, what steps, he has taken or the ministry may have taken in that regard, in continuing to keep those lines of communication and engagement going? Has he engaged directly with industry in those efforts? Have there been any specific initiatives the minister has undertaken to continue to build those relationships and continue to make that argument on behalf of B.C. producers and Canada?
Hon. D. Donaldson: We have been working on a couple of fronts. As I mentioned earlier, the May 7 trip to Washington that staff will be taking is an opportunity. As we speak now, we’re working with the embassy. We’re in the process of setting up meetings through the embassy with people who can support our case, our litigation and also communicate the impacts of the tariffs to the consumers in the United States.
We will also be meeting with the National Association of Home Builders during that May 7 trip. We’ve been working with them in creating a communications strategy on Capitol Hill. We began that back in 2017, especially from the aspect of…. The tariffs were opening the door to offshore imports of lumber into the United States. So it was being characterized as: why aren’t you buying wood from Canada instead of buying wood from Russia?
We’re going to re-engage with the National Association of Home Builders, who’ve also made the case that the tariffs have increased the cost of a house in the United States in bringing it right to the consumer level.
We’ve also been supportive of the National Association of Home Builders’ efforts to be a friend of the court in the ITC appeal that will be heard in May. And we found out that they have now been accepted by the appeal panel to be seen as a friend of the court, so they’ll be able to present information and support. Essentially, they’ll be supporting our position that injury has not occurred, and they’ll be supportive of our overall position.
S. Thomson: Thanks for that information. I think the question, maybe just a little bit more directly…. That talked about some forward initiatives that are coming — referenced May and the meetings coming up.
I was asking a little bit more specifically…. We’ve had a year, essentially, since the last estimates — so whether the minister can advise that there are any direct initiatives that have been taken in that time period by the minister or the ministry over that time frame. The minister had mentioned earlier that there really hasn’t been any direct engagement at the federal level, and the focus has been on the litigation rather than the negotiation.
In continuing to build the case, just seeking information around whether any specific initiatives that he can point to, any direct engagements, particularly with the interests in the U.S. that are critical to helping make the overall argument that these tariffs are unjustified, not based on the realities in the market and all of those kinds of things. There was lots of work underway in that area, and I’m just wondering if the minister, over the last year, can point to any specific steps that have been taken.
Hon. D. Donaldson: A couple of things I can point to in response to the question. In June of 2018, we, as in the government, hosted state legislators from both the Republican and Democratic parties that were handpicked by Canada’s embassy in Washington as rising leaders. For part of their two days in B.C., they toured mills, and our staff discussed the negative impacts of various trade disputes on both sides of the border. That was an initiative to ensure that the rising leaders, as identified by the Canadian embassy in the United States, from both parties are better informed on our position and our concerns.
As well, the efforts, through our expertise, as provided through the Jobs, Trade and Technology Ministry, and the efforts to resolve the unjust tariffs that were applied in the uncoated groundwood case, were successful in this past year and resulted in those tariffs being removed from the Catalyst mills on the coast, which drastically improved their ability to continue producing and continue to provide jobs for local people and stimulating the economy.
S. Thomson: One other initiative that was in place…. I just wonder if the minister could provide an update on where things might stand with that initiative. Coming out of the initial application of the duties and things was a national working group led by the Minister of Natural Resources Canada bringing together ministers from all of the provinces that were impacted and looking at initiatives that could be taken around mitigating the impacts, having a collective approach to things.
Can the minister advise the status of that group? Is it still operating? Has the minister had meetings through that process with the federal minister and his colleagues, either directly or by conference call processes? What’s the status of that work?
Hon. D. Donaldson: The member is correct that the program he refers to was under the auspices of Natural Resources Canada. Since the member was the minister, I’m sure he’s well aware that the federal minister in charge of Natural Resources Canada has changed. It’s now Minister Sohi.
A couple of things on that front. About two months ago, my deputy minister met with Minister Sohi’s deputy to request a review of that national working group program. I’ll be meeting with…. That meeting is expected by the end of June.
I will be part of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers’ annual gathering in August this year in Saskatchewan where I will be able to review the report out from that. I’ll be able to speak to Minister Sohi about the results of the deputy minister meetings that will take place at the end of June, so prior to that.
As well, I met with Minister Sohi in Prince George at the Natural Resources Forum in January. We spoke on a number of topics and touched on the fact of our interests around litigation in regards to the various appeals coming up, and Minister Sohi and I touched base on those as well.
S. Thomson: Is it a fair characterization, then, to say that that initiative and program is being reviewed? Has it really been active for sort of specific initiatives that are coming through that process over the last…. I don’t know what time frame would be best to say — six to eight months or that sort of thing. They have kind of stepped back and are reviewing its focus or its mandate or its programming.
We now need to wait for the next steps from it. Or has there been any specific programming or initiatives taken under that initiative, or is it in kind of a holding pattern?
Hon. D. Donaldson: That program, as the member typified it, began in June, July 2017. It’s coming up to a couple of years now, so it’s time to review it. The program is active. There are various pots of money associated with it. We’re making sure that those pots of money aren’t used to directly address the tariff situation — by paying the tariffs, for instance, which would obviously compromise any of our litigation efforts and would make the situation worse. However, some of the pots of money had to do with diversification within the ministry and markets.
The uptake from B.C. industry and companies has not been very significant. That’s part of the reason that we’re interested in doing a joint review with the other deputy ministers from across B.C. and with the federal deputy by the end of June — so that we can see if there are changes or tweaks that can be made that might make the program more attractive to industry in B.C.
S. Thomson: We’ll look forward to that review process and what may come out of that review process.
Just one more question for me, and then I’ll turn it back over to my colleague and maybe a couple of others that have questions.
Recently the Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology and the parliamentary secretary for international trade undertook a mission over to Korea and Japan. Given the U.S. market — important, the work that’s going there — and the ongoing importance of continuing to keep a focus and development on export markets…. It’s a critical part of the work. We’ll be exploring it at length with those other two ministers, around the market development program and aspects of that.
We looked through the agenda for that particular trade mission — for Korea, South Korea and Japan — and it didn’t appear that there was much, as part of that program, directly related to the forestry interests in those markets.
Can the minister advise what engagement there was between his ministry and Jobs and Tourism in terms of the development of that itinerary? Were there specific forestry interests, as part of that, that didn’t necessarily appear in the itinerary? Was Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and the minister engaged in information elements of that particular trade mission? It didn’t appear on the surface that that was the case.
Hon. D. Donaldson: Of course, the member will be fully able to canvass the topic of the trade initiatives undertaken by the Jobs, Trade and Technology Ministry when the minister has his estimates. What I can say is that in December, in cooperation with the FII, Forestry Innovation Investment, I made a trip, along with the associate deputy minister and ministry staff, to Korea and Japan, visiting Seoul and Tokyo and areas outside of both of those centres; visited housing projects where Canada wood is being directly used in the creation, in Korea, of housing outside of Seoul that’s accessible by train.
They consider an hour and a half train trip into Seoul to be well worth the effort to live in a beautiful house, more in the countryside, built with Canadian wood. While I was there, we discussed a number of matters, and I observed pictures on the wall from the former minister’s trip, too, at that facility.
Continuing efforts to try to build the market and expand the market in Korea. Very enthusiastic reception there. As well, we’re sharing our expertise in the use of dimensional lumber in construction. Also, on the second trip I’ve made to Japan. I saw Canadian wood being used in cross-laminated panels, seismic-resistant panels, that we’ve put a lot of effort into in the Japanese housing market.
We did a specific trip, specifically focused on wood, timber and exports from B.C. to these countries in December. I know that in previous trips that the Trade Minister has made, he’s also visited these facilities, because, once again, I saw his picture on the wall in these places as well.
We’re not only happy to work as a team. After these trips, I engage with the minister and the parliamentary secretary on items that may have come up around wood. We also make sure that it’s a very focused effort from our ministry to expand these markets and other markets so that we’re not so dependent on the U.S. market, recognizing that the U.S. market is always going to be a significant market for our B.C. wood.
J. Rustad: Specifically with looking at trade and with the risks we have in the States with softwood lumber…. Japan, of course, is an important market, as is China. I have had recent conversations with a number of producers in B.C. that have been stopped from…. Not stopped, but Japan has stopped actually taking their wood, the J-grade wood, which is the bread and butter for some of these mills.
Could the minister provide any information as to whether or not he has been hearing of any issues with access to the Japanese market for British Columbia softwood?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Western Forest Products has recently made public their concerns about Japanese subsidies, which are leading to what they say is lost market share. Part of the subsidies that I’m aware of include a creditable tax break, for lack of a better word, on capital costs, which is provided by the Japanese government to industry. These kinds of things result in a subsidized competitive advantage, from our perspective.
I brought this issue up in a meeting with the Japanese ambassador within the last couple of months. He seemed to be surprised by this information. He said he would go back to his officials to discuss it further and committed to setting up a technical session with staff on our concerns around these subsidies. That’s one front that we’re moving on.
Also, we were enthusiastic to hear from our ambassador to Japan during our trip in December — and, subsequently, his visits here to B.C. and western Canada in February — regarding the opportunities under the new CPTPP trade agreement and our support for him to promote that with our businesses in B.C. It provides opportunities to access markets in Japan and elsewhere at a reduced tax basis. At this point, the United States isn’t part of that agreement, so it’s important for our industry to get onto that opportunity quickly. That has the potential to still improve our market efforts in Japan.
I incorrectly…. I’m sure that this member isn’t sensitive about this, but I want to make sure I get it on the record correctly. The minister that I referred to earlier as a parliamentary secretary is not a parliamentary secretary; he’s the Minister of State in connection to the Jobs, Trade and Technology Ministry. Indeed, he visited at least one facility I know of on a recent trip that they made to Japan, in Tokyo, where the use of Canadian wood was on display at the construction of a seniors centre.
J. Rustad: In recent meetings with some Interior mills, they also had expressed a concern with their inability to get wood into Japan. Has the minister been made aware of this issue and of any sorts of circumstances that are around it?
Hon. D. Donaldson: We haven’t heard anything specifically on that. What I would say is that I would encourage companies that are potentially facing that to reach out to us. Our director of trade, Jennifer Burleigh, sits on a federal committee on technical barriers to trade. That would be a very good resource if Interior mills, as the member posed, are running into a situation.
I’ll also be at the annual COFI conference next week, and I’ll be canvassing that topic, in case it doesn’t come directly to me there.
B. Stewart: I guess, really, when we’re talking about the complexity and the challenges of the forest sector, with a declining fibre supply, forest fires and all of these things — and the threat, not just imminent, of the softwood lumber agreement where the Americans have forced us into a duty situation…. I’d just like to confirm with the minister that the other markets that were diversified into are important for the ministry and the activities of their support for the industry in trade.
Hon. D. Donaldson: Oh, absolutely. These markets are important to us. We know that they’ve been growing. And I know that we are growing them even more. But I recognize that those efforts began long ago. This is, from my perspective, a non-partisan issue. We want to work together to ensure that market diversification is something that, from a government perspective, we can do what’s within government means to support that. We know that it means much to the workers on the coast, in the Interior, in communities and also to the provincial revenue stream.
B. Stewart: The most recent trip that was interrupted by the arrest of Meng Wanzhou from Shenzhen and the Huawei company…. With the speculation that this particular irritant between Canada and China may not be resolved any time soon, how does the minister foresee continuing to support activities in one of our largest export markets outside of the United States and continue to grow that?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for bringing this topic up. It’s obviously a delicate subject matter.
I did meet with the consul general from China for B.C. in January. We had a long meeting. We discussed this topic thoroughly. Both of us agreed that the market is important for China and B.C., as far as the export of B.C. wood products to China.
We talked a lot about the long relationships that have been established between China and B.C., when it comes to the forest sector. We talked at length about how we’ll have to depend on that relationship and that relationship to go through the ups and downs that are beyond our control. We both agreed the recent events were beyond control of either of us in the room.
We wanted to emphasize that the deep relationships are what’s going to get us through these events that take place now and then. The consul general of China agreed that these kinds of events are not conducive to the historic relationships that we’ve had around B.C. wood being used in Chinese markets and us exporting those products to China.
As well, my deputy minister is vice-chair of FII, and FII keeps a close eye on the Chinese markets and the influences that may be on those markets. We’re very aggressive in that, and we know that there is a demand for our wood products in China.
B. Stewart: What I just heard, Minister, is that it is an important market. FII, which has been investing considerably there and continues to, I see is proposing to spend over $2 million in operations there this coming fiscal year. I’m just kind of wondering: is there a plan or do you have any thoughts as to how we’re going to maintain our position?
This is our…. Currently they represent about 25 percent of our exports that are outside in the world — China. We had the Minister of MOHURD make a declaration in March of 2016 that was an increase — an expectation that Chinese building companies were going to increase pre-assembly, similar to the group that you visited, or the Premier visited, just a couple of weeks ago in Okanagan Falls, Structurlam. They’re intrigued by high buildings, which, of course, we’ve embraced here.
I think forest-dependent communities are counting on your ministry, as well as the Ministry of Trade, to give them some sense of certainty. Do you have a plan?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I just want to reiterate that I personally raised this topic with the Chinese consul general to B.C. in January, and it was…. I would characterize it as a productive conversation.
As far as maintaining our position in China, we see no diminishment of the lumber exports at this point, but we’re keeping a very close eye on the situation. We have market staff, through FII, in that market in China. We are constantly in touch with FII through the deputy minister, and he apprises me of the situation.
Recently I received a brief, some information as it relates to the China market. When we see things arising on the canola front, for instance…. I want to make sure that we’re making sure that we have ears and eyes on the ground through FII to see if there’s any indication from the Chinese government, which is beyond our control, but any indication — and at this point, we’re not getting any indication — of the types of tactics it seems that the Chinese government has used around canola. But as I say, we’re keeping a close eye on the situation.
J. Rustad: At this point, we’ll move past trade. There are many other questions and things to do in that, but given the time constraints, there are many other topics we want to be able to canvass as well.
As we head into more general, in terms of forestry and forest management, issues in British Columbia, I’d like to be able to set some baselines. If the minister could perhaps give a definition of a sawmill, how many sawmills we have in British Columbia and how many current direct employees we have in the forest sector in British Columbia.
Hon. D. Donaldson: What I can tell the member is, as of 2018 and our latest analysis, there were 50,500 forest sector direct jobs. However, that doesn’t get to the specific of the member’s question. That’s direct jobs in sawmills, in pulp mills, in the forest-harvesting sector. We’ll attempt to break that down.
J. Rustad: That’s good enough.
Hon. D. Donaldson: All right. That’ll make staff very happy.
As far as the definition of a sawmill, I suppose it’s a pretty general description, but it’s a manufacturing of logs into another product. We can get you the information on the specifics of how many mills there are in B.C. that manufacture logs into lumber. That could be available by the end of today, but if not, we’ll have it for him on Monday.
There are biannual mill reports. They come out in midseason. It won’t be as current as if these estimates were done later on, but we’ll be able to check in on the last annual report on that.
J. Rustad: The reason for asking the question is, according to Ministry of Forests information, they typically don’t track every single facility that turns a log into something other than a log in process. But they have a threshold in terms of the size of sawmills, which is usually producing about 40 million board feet per year, which is equivalent to maybe one truckload every two days of wood that might come in for processing.
The reason for asking the question around the sawmills…. It’s obvious the information is posted. As of 2017 in the posting, there were 69 such sawmill facilities across the province. According to those same statistics, a decade earlier it was around 72, two decades earlier it was around 113, and three decades earlier it was around 131.
The minister has, on a number of occasions, used a number of 100 sawmills lost over the previous 15 years or so. I’m curious if the minister could provide some information with regards to how that number was derived.
Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll just give a little flyover of what happened in many communities. For instance, in the major mill shutdowns that began under the government when the member was a cabinet minister, the Canfor Quesnel mill shut down in 2013. The West Fraser Houston sawmill shut down in 2013. That was a direct result of a ten-year swap that the previous government authorized and didn’t seem to have any answer for.
The Canfor Canal Flats mill shut in 2015. The Tolko Merritt mill shut down in 2017, before the May election.
On the coast, we saw the Western Forest Products Nanaimo mill shutting in 2014. The Western Forest Products Somass sawmill shut down in 2017 in Port Alberni. That was more recent.
Much of this has been due to, under the watch of the previous government, the consolidation of forest licences and the swapping of forest licences. We know on the coast, especially, that the consolidation of forest licences, which was a direct result of the changes in 2003 under the previous government, has resulted in less domestic production, fewer jobs in communities, fewer mills in communities and a very large export of logs. Those are trends that we’re determined to counter.
We’ve just completed a coast forest sector revitalization initiative, announced in January, to address these trends that we don’t find acceptable. It’s accurate that the member, former minister of Indigenous relations, brought up the threshold for a large mill being 40 million board feet per year — large and medium.
We also have smaller operations. We have 55 smaller sawmills on our list as well, but many of those have had to shut down — before the 55 — as a result of the consolidation of ten years that, I would be fair to say, was an unintended outcome of 2003. The intended outcome, from what I’ve been able to read of the government’s actions that the member was a member of and a minister in, was to increase diversification as a result of the 2003 legislative changes. What happened is that exact opposite.
Those changes were supposed to be reviewed within five years. They never were, so we’re intent on addressing those negative impacts and addressing the negative consequences the legislation introduced that has resulted in fewer jobs.
J. Rustad: I thank the minister for the politics of that. There’s some obvious politics to play on this side, too. However, the minister did not answer the main question, so I’ll put it to the minister again in very straightforward terms.
The minister has used the term of 100 mills closed under the previous government. Can the minister provide — and it doesn’t have to necessarily be at the moment; you can provide it in writing if you like — some details outlining the 100 mills claimed to have been closed.
Hon. D. Donaldson: We’ll provide that to the member. I’ll take up his offer to provide it to him beyond this discussion.
I would also add to this fact that when the previous government left office at the will of the people of the province, in 2017, there were fewer jobs in rural areas than there were in 2008. So that’s a trend that we’re intent on reversing. We think the rural areas need the attention that they deserve as contributors to the provincial economy and also the communities and the workers that work hard to do that.
J. Rustad: Just so that we have some numbers straight. In 2017, there was about 52,500 forestry jobs. There are now, currently, according to 2018, 50,500, which means a loss of 2,000 jobs in the forest sector under the current government, not to mention some mill closures.
Perhaps we won’t get into tit and tat, because there are many things to deal with in forestry, but I just need to be clear with regards to this. The minister’s mandate letter talks about protecting jobs and expanding jobs, and currently we have seen the opposite happening. I look forward to seeing that information from the minister, in terms of the number of mill closures and the components associated with that.
Just so the minister knows, in 1990, there were 131 mills under that category. In 2000-2001, there was about 110, for about a 20 to 25 percent reduction in the number of mills during the 1990s.
There has been a reduction in mills continuously, decade after decade, that we have seen. Some you might want to attribute to policy, but much of that is attributed to continuous consolidation. There were hundreds upon hundreds of mills back in the ’50s and ’60s. We have seen the continual change in our forest industry associated with that.
I also remember that technology plays a huge role in terms of jobs. Back in the late ’70s and early 1980s, you would have a logging camp of 125 people. Today that logging camp can produce the same amount of volume with about 15 to 25 people. Technology has played a big role in some of those changes.
Moving on from that, some baseline information, I think it was important to have that information in place with regard to forestry and that side of things. Perhaps the minister could discuss the competitiveness of our current forest industry and how we rank in comparison to other jurisdictions in North America.
Hon. D. Donaldson: The topic of competitiveness is of major interest to us as a government. However, comparing what other jurisdictions are doing in their forest sector, there are really too many variables as far as how other jurisdictions are delivering their wood or the nature of the business, whether it’s outside of Canada or in other provinces.
What we’re most interested in is how we’re doing in B.C. We’ve sent out terms of reference for a survey for members of COFI and the B.C. Lumber Trade Council to address return on capital employed. That will give us a really strong indication of how we’re doing here in B.C. Also, we’ll get feedback from industry on how B.C. is doing, in their opinion.
J. Rustad: I do agree. We want to know how our mills in British Columbia are performing, in terms of the rate on capital. But at the rate that we are seeing capital leaving this province for other jurisdictions — investing south of the border or even outside of North America — it is troubling. When I’m hearing from mills…. When I talk to producers around the province, they’re continually suggesting that we have become uncompetitive, that we have some of the highest log costs anywhere in North America.
Of course, when lumber prices slump and when you have things like softwood lumber and other uncertainties that are created, that creates some incredible pressures on mills. In particular, it makes it difficult for boards to invest, whether it’s in upgrades or whether it’s in replacements or other types of investments in British Columbia.
To that end, does the minister have any information with regard to current or pending investments of a significant nature in sawmills, whether that is investing in new equipment or in replacing of sawmills?
Hon. D. Donaldson: It’s no secret that especially in the Interior, there are fewer logs as a result of the decline of the mountain pine beetle wood. There was an uplift starting back about 2005. That wood has largely been exploited in an ecologically sound manner. As I say, there’s no secret that there are declining annual allowable cuts.
I’ll get to that in a minute, but we do have some examples just recently of companies that find the investment climate in B.C. attractive when it comes to the forest sector. Recently Kalesnikoff Lumber has announced a $35 million investment in a new secondary manufacturing facility in the Kootenays. We had the San Group announcing in the area of $25 million, I believe it was, in a new production facility in Port Alberni. Forest sector–related, in an important part of the forest sector, Paper Excellence has finalized its acquisition of the Catalyst mills in three communities on the coast. That’s just the start of millions of dollars of investment that we’ve seen in the last 20 months.
I was also recently at the Canfor offices in Prince George. They, in great detail, went over the tens of millions of dollars that they’ve invested in upgrading their facilities. That’s the story throughout B.C. I think it’s a story that needs to be told more — that existing companies, many of them, are reinvesting to upgrade and make more efficient their mills.
As I said, regarding the Interior forest and the decreasing log supply — I’ve referenced this before publicly — similar to what we did on the coast, we’re going to be launching an Interior forest sector strategy soon, in this spring, to undertake a consultative process to address some of the challenges in the Interior sector as well.
J. Rustad: Well, it is good to hear of some of those investments, although it is somewhat below what I think has happened historically.
Beyond that, previous to the minister having this file, there was a competitiveness committee that was struck to look at competitiveness issues across our forest sector and the various components of our forest sector, to make sure that we were competitive with other jurisdictions, in terms of providing some feedback to the ministry for any potential policy or other steps that could be taken to try to make sure that we could maintain as competitive a nature as possible.
This committee seems to have disappeared. I wonder if the minister could explain what happened to that committee and if there are any plans in this current year to look at this competitiveness issue, given the challenges that mills are facing — taking downtime, reducing their supply and all the other sorts of issues that the industry is facing.
Hon. D. Donaldson: I just want to add a little bit to the previous answer, because examples just keep coming, coming, coming around investment in B.C. and the forest sector that we see. One of them…. I shouldn’t have overlooked the Pinnacle plant investment in Smithers, right in my own constituency, as another form of recognition that B.C. is a great place to invest when it comes to the forest sector.
I misstated the San investment in Port Alberni. It’s $70 million, not $25 million — again, a demonstration of confidence in the investment climate in B.C. under our government.
As far as the competitiveness topic goes and the competitiveness committee that the member mentioned, our focus is on a broader perspective. Especially, our focus is on communities. I’ll give examples of that.
As far as the coast sector revitalization initiative that we announced at the annual Truck Loggers Convention in January, the results of an extensive engagement process, collaboration and consultation process with industry and First Nations and labour, where we decided to focus on the policy and the regulations and the legislation that came out of that was in efforts to reduce log exports and increase domestic production, to reduce the high-grading of wood — primarily cedar on the coast — to reduce the amount of debris left on landings and in logging sites and to increase First Nation participation.
Those are the kinds of topics that we’re focused on, because those topics mean a lot to communities as far as jobs and as far as ensuring that the resources surrounding communities, when it comes to forests, are first and foremost put to the best public use to support those communities and provincial objectives. So that’s where we’re headed.
We will be launching, as I said, the Interior forest sector strategy in the spring here soon, very soon. Again, there’ll be multiple stakeholders involved in that process. On the coast, we challenged those who were part of the participation to try to set aside their self-interest. I know that a lot of motivation is borne out of self-interest, but what we also said is, given that, try to set aside solely self-interest and come up with solutions that are good for the sector as a whole. That’s the same approach that we’ll be taking to the Interior forest sector strategy.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
We expect, of course, that industry will be bringing up competitiveness. We are going to lay out our desire to…. Fair enough for that to be brought up, but to be brought up in the context of solutions that work for everyone and work for the overall goal of ensuring that the use of the public resource, the forest sector, benefits the people first and foremost.
D. Barnett: After this question, we will be going into rural development. Just so the minister has time to change his staff, if you so need.
My last question will just follow up, because my colleague had to disappear for a while, on competitiveness. I know you have a new plan for Vancouver Island, a new strategy. You’re looking at new strategies throughout the province for the forest sector.
My question is: how is this going to keep us competitive with our products, to sell them to other countries, to other provinces? Where is the competitiveness going to be? It’s my understanding that we have lost our competitive edge in the private sector in many, many forest industry products.
Hon. D. Donaldson: Perhaps the member missed the previous answer I gave.
I will first start by saying that we haven’t really heard from the official opposition a word of celebration around the investment that we’ve seen recently in B.C., whether it’s Tolko reinvesting in the mill in the member’s riding to rebuild the facility that was burned down, whether it was the very large investment by Kalesnikoff Lumber — $33 million — in the Kootenays, whether it was the decision by the San Group to invest over $70 million in Port Alberni, whether it was the decision by Paper Excellence to acquire Catalyst’s operations, another multi-million-dollar investment.
These all speak to the attractiveness of B.C. and the attractiveness for investment. That, to me, speaks to the fact that there is a competitive edge here for those people who’ve decided to put their money into new facilities. We look forward to more of that.
When the member asks how we will keep this kind of atmosphere going, well, we have a number of tools as government. Of course, direct investment decisions are part of the private sector. That’s something that the private sector decides — on the return for investment, on a number of factors, on the skill of the tradespeople we have in B.C., which is top-notch.
We’ve invested more in training and in seats for tradespeople. It’s very difficult right now, because of a lack of investment under the previous government, for industry to access qualified tradespeople as we see people retiring. So that’s part of our plan to support competitiveness. We can’t do it directly, of course, but what we can do is set the conditions.
Another area that we are vigorously involved in is expanding markets. As I explained, under FII, we’re involved in that and trying to do what we can to help lay the groundwork. Oftentimes it means setting up pilot projects in various countries that aren’t used to using dimensional lumber from B.C. Sometimes it’s doing exchanges of knowledge with those countries in order to build higher structures and what that involves from enforcement and building code changes. Sometimes it involves doing seismic work and tests. These are efforts the government can make to improve the investment climate, improve competitiveness.
We’ve also made changes…. We know that in the Interior, there is a decrease in the log supply, in the fibre supply. One of the policy initiatives and regulatory initiatives that we’re going to apply and that came up from the coast forest sector revitalization was better utilization of fibre, less fibre left on the logging sites.
We know this is a topic of interest. We know that there is use for that fibre as long as it’s feasible, economically, to bring it out. Some of that involves logging techniques at the time — how that fibre is stacked and how it’s left behind. So we have increased utilization standards that will be coming to fibre recovery zones. That will make a difference for value-added facilities in the Interior as well.
We have a whole slew of initiatives, including building code initiatives domestically here in B.C. around the ability to build higher with wood products. That involves engineered wood products, mass wood products. That’s another important aspect. There’s a whole slew, but I think the proof is in the pudding. People are putting their money into B.C., in new facilities. That shows that we’re competitive.
D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. I could argue with you on a few of those points, but I won’t.
Now, if we could, we could change over to rural development. Maybe we should have a small recess. I don’t know. It’s up to the minister.
The Chair: All right. We will take a two-minute recess. Let’s say it’s a five-minute recess, a biology break, whatever you want to call it.
The committee recessed from 3:09 p.m. to 3:17 p.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
D. Barnett: Thank you to the minister for continuing with the rural development program. I know he’s made major changes in it, but it still is a rural development program, which of course is very…. Rural B.C. is very near to me.
When we were in the House the other day — I have to mention this, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister — you talked about the rural development program and that when we were in government, First Nations were not included.
Well, I can tell you, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Speaker; I’ve got to forget the “you” — when we were in government, our projects were all evaluated by staff, and they were who had the best projects. I can honestly say I’m very proud of the fact that our First Nations were more than 50 percent of our intake every time we had an intake. So First Nations were as inclusive and included as anybody else was in the project. I would like that on the record.
Now we’ll go into the rural development fund itself. I see you have it in the budget for the year ’19-20. What is projected for rural development after the ’19-20 budget?
The Chair: If I might, Member, instead of saying, “I see you have it in your budget,” another appropriate form would be: “I see the minister has it in his budget.” It’s a different form of speech. Thank you, Member.
Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the question. To the member, there’s nothing I like better than discussing rural development.
I just wanted to address the comments that the member started off with. I’m not sure which comments she was referring to. I certainly didn’t express in the Legislature that First Nations weren’t included in the rural dividend program.
In fact, nearly 70 percent of Indigenous communities’ application requests through the rural dividend fund have been approved. There are some smaller First Nations communities that, due to lack of capacity in that they just don’t have a lot of people to undertake the application process, have not applied or have been unsuccessful. We’d like to address that in the coming years. We’re actually considering how that can be done. But I accept the points from the member that First Nations, Indigenous communities have been successful in the past with the rural dividend program.
I’m happy to report that in the coming budget year, 2019-2020, the rural dividend program will be funded at the same level, $25 million, and that in our three-year budget, when we first became government, that was a three-year commitment. So that still stands. In 2020-2021 — $25 million. New in this budget is to extend that to a third year, 2021-2022, of $25 million.
D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, for that response. Much appreciated.
Could you tell me what has changed in how the money is distributed or the applications come forth? Can small communities with non-profit organizations who are the generators of economic development in those small rural communities still apply for the rural development fund?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I was negligent in introducing some of the staff that are responsible for and related to the rural development aspect of this ministry.
We have two deputy ministers here, Chris Stagg and the executive director of the rural development work within our ministry, Sarah Fraser. And that’s Associate Deputy Minister Rick Manwaring. He holds the overall operational job.
As far as non-profits go, there haven’t been any changes in that.
In fact, of the approved applications over time, 39 percent have been approved for not-for-profit organizations, 34 percent were local government applicants, and 27 percent were Indigenous applicants.
The not-for-profit — I agree with the member that they’re critical groups, critical organizations within rural communities. They are still eligible to apply to the rural dividend fund.
The member asked for other changes that might have occurred. In response to feedback from communities, we’ve consolidated the application period that started in this current fiscal year to a two-month application period. This past fiscal year it was June 1 to July 31. Previously, we had a short application period in the spring and a short one in the fall.
The feedback we got from communities — and I got a lot of feedback from communities about the worth of the program, at the Union of B.C. Municipalities annual convention in 2017 and in 2018 — was that a set longer period for application would be preferential for them. We’ve responded to that, and it’ll be a two-months-long intake period for applications.
D. Barnett: Minister, do we still have four intakes a year? And what is your actual turnaround period for applications to be approved?
Hon. D. Donaldson: There were never four intake periods with the rural dividend program. In the one-year period, there were two intakes.
As I explained, based on feedback from communities…. They requested a longer and set intake period. We responded to that this past year by creating a much longer intake period of two months, June 1 to July 31, and one intake period a year. That longer intake period allows a back-and-forth with staff to try to refine applications as they come in and, therefore, hopefully leads to greater success for organizations, especially those that didn’t have the capacity to put in an application in that shorter time span that we had before with two intakes.
As far as the turnaround goes, there’s a lot of due diligence that’s involved in spending and granting public money of $25 million. Some of these grants are $500,000, so it’s incumbent upon us to ensure that the projects that are funded will be successful. That takes sometimes conferring with other ministries, sometimes going back and forth within our own ministry.
We’re working to ensure that those who have an application in get a response in the most expedited manner possible. I’m cognizant of that from the north in knowing that some of the projects involve working on the land and with structures where there are trails or otherwise. There’s definitely a short season in the north for those kinds of projects due to weather conditions. So the turnaround time is something that we always strive to make as short as possible. But given the fact that it’s public money, then we have to do the due diligence.
D. Barnett: Minister, could you give me a more definite time frame?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Of course, the definitive deadline is that the expenditures each year have to be approved by March 31, by the end of the fiscal year. We strive to do a better job of that. We’ve had an independent review both of external responses to the program and internal focus on how we deal with applications, so we’re going to be looking at implementing some of the recommendations from that independent review and are confident that it’ll lead to a better turnaround timeline.
D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. I have some concerns. I have a constituent, an organization that applied last July. They were told they would get an answer in November, then December, then January, then February, then March, and they’re still waiting. That is one, two, three, four, five, six months. So, Minister, can you…?
I really need a more definite answer as to time frame because this particular project is of great importance for rural economic development. And when it takes this long to get an answer, this puts this project in jeopardy. So could you give me an actual time frame? I know it’s liability. Been there, done it. But I would really appreciate a definite time frame for an answer.
Hon. D. Donaldson: What I can tell the member is that all applicants who have been successful have been notified just recently. They’ve been asked to keep the information confidential until next week. The last few of the special circumstances applications have yet to be finalized. But what I will say is if the member, after we’re done here today, off line, wants to provide the name of the applicant, I will commit to doing a follow-up and getting her the information about exactly when they’ll be notified.
D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister. I was negligent in not saying that you have a great staff that works on this particular component of your ministry. They were there when we were there, and they do great jobs. I know they have a lot of restrictions, a lot of issues, but they do a great job, and I’d just like to thank them for that.
Mr. Chair, I would like to turn this over to my colleague, MLA Davies.
The Chair: Member for Cariboo…. No, not Cariboo at all. Peace River North.
D. Davies: Thank you, Chair. Like I say, I could go back to the caribou, but I think we’ve already finished up with that one already. I guess this actually does tie a little bit into caribou, as we did hear this morning and with the announcement last week around it.
We are expecting negative impacts on the forest industry. We don’t know what that’s going to look like. This seems to be a theme. I don’t just want to focus this on the government. This seems to be a theme coming from different organizations, where there seems to be an attack on resource industries across this province.
I live in the heart of the oil and gas industry. We have a robust forest industry, agriculture, mining and others. Again, very proud to be where I’m from and very happy that we have these great resources, but there seems to be this attack on our resource industry, from all angles, on many different resources, especially the oil and gas industry as of late.
Then, of course, when we hear the admitted impacts that are expected on forestry up in the Peace region…. I’ll kind of ask this on behalf of my colleague from Peace River South, who’s isn’t able to be here right now. He’s getting phone calls from people that are quite alarmed — and some uncertainty.
Around rural development, what is the plan for government to help support in the event that there are going to be job losses?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m going to talk about four different aspects that relate to the member’s question.
First of all, we will work to ensure — and our expectation is there’ll be — adequate compensation provided by the federal government under the draft agreements for the impacts of the Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas strategy. So that’s one thing: adequate compensation from the federal government for the impacts, under the draft agreement of the Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas.
Secondly, we have commissioned an independent socioeconomic study that will detail and analyze the specific impacts on communities of the draft agreements. That’s going to guide us, and that input will be received from communities, as we canvassed extensively yesterday. That will help guide the response to any social or economic impacts arising from the draft agreements.
Thirdly, if there are impacts, once they’re detailed from the socioeconomic studies…. We do have the community transition program through our ministry. It’s triggered depending on the impact of potential job losses. This community response team goes into communities, and it also works in conjunction with the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, depending on the level of impact, disruption, from job loss. That’s the community transition response protocol, so that’s the third area that could be triggered and used if there are impacts to rural communities that the member is talking about.
The fourth area is the investment that our government is making and can make to stimulate local economies. One, of course, the member’s very familiar with, is the completion of the site C dam project, which is creating major economic stimulus in the region that he represents.
Then there are other projects that government has control of that aren’t as large but definitely are significant in providing services. For instance, a new 505-seat elementary school for students in Fort St. John has been announced. I’m sure the member is happy to hear that. That not only creates local economic opportunities and jobs, but it also makes communities more attractive and more liveable for people wanting to continue residing or attracting new people.
There’s a whole suite of activities that relate to rural development. There’s also…. We announced, at the Union of B.C. Municipalities in September, the $95 million federal-provincial rural and northern communities fund that addresses unique infrastructure needs of communities under 25,000. It was very well received by communities at UBCM.
In fact, smaller communities can be 100 percent eligible for project costs. I believe that the cutoff is 10,000 for the 100 percent cost covered. The 90 percent is for communities between 10,000 and 25,000. Very advanced and new way of funding.
We heard back from rural communities. I was a municipal councillor on a very small rural community for ten years and struggling, always, to come up with our one third in those kinds of projects. That’s a stimulus to local economy: that small communities can undertake infrastructure work that they weren’t contemplating before and are able to now. Again, that creates jobs.
As well, this applies to communities a little bit to the west of the member’s constituency, but nonetheless, McBride and Prince George benefited from the new $100 million northern capital and planning grant that was recently announced by the Premier, as well.
Those are four areas that we, as government, can use to address the topic of the local economy in rural communities.
D. Davies: Certainly, coming from the area that I am, Site C is an incredible project, as well with the school, but those projects will be coming to an end. The school should be done in two years. Site C’s got about six or so years.
Again, going back to my original opening statement, as we seem to be moving toward supporting some of our resources, it’s inevitable that we’re going to be looking at more and more people shifting out of the traditional resource sector work into something else. I mean, the community of Fort St. John, let’s be honest, is a resource community. So if those resources aren’t there, we need to have something long term for the community. You had mentioned the community transition program and such. I’m not sure if that’s going to be enough.
This kind of segues nicely into my next question. Another community in my riding is Fort Nelson. Fort Nelson is a community that’s been struggling for a number of years. I know there’s no easy answer. I realize that, but looking at the area around where I live in Fort St. John to what’s happening in Fort Nelson…. Certainly, in Fort Nelson, people are looking for something — some good news.
To switch up the question: do you have anything that I can take back and share with the residents of Fort Nelson?
The Chair: Member, I don’t personally have anything to share, although I enjoy the community very much. The minister might, but we’ll wait for that.
D. Davies: What did I say, Chair?
The Chair: You said you, and that’s me.
D. Davies: Oh yes, sorry. Language. Through the Chair. It’s hard talking in the third person.
Hon. D. Donaldson: I think the picture that I hold of the future of resource-based communities is still positive. I think the member probably does too. However, I do recognize — and I’m sure he does too — that in some areas of the province, the timber supply is more limited than it was in previous years.
However, Fort Nelson isn’t one of those areas. I’ve been really hopeful and pleased with the kind of progress that I’ve been able to see between the Fort Nelson First Nation and the Northern Rockies regional municipality. I’ve visited Fort Nelson before. Not as the minister, but I’ve been in that community a couple of times.
I’ve had lots of discussions with I believe it is now former mayor Streeper and have been impressed with the Northern Rockies regional municipality advancement of various economic initiatives and the representation that they provide for the community. Now this progressing relationship they’ve had with the Fort Nelson First Nation is really extremely positive and hopeful.
We are working with the Fort Nelson First Nation on the largest proposed community forest agreement in the province. We did provide rural dividend funding to the Fort Nelson First Nation for developing that proposal. I can’t say to the member today that that one’s approved. But we’re working on that in conjunction with….
The district is working with the Fort Nelson First Nation to complete a 125,000-cubic-metre First Nation woodland licence. We expect that to be completed in late fiscal 2019-2020, in the upcoming fiscal year. So that would be a good sign. The Prophet River First Nation also has a mandate for 25,000 cubic metres in a First Nation woodland licence.
All these are coming together. That’s been a focus of myself and my ministry. We’re interested in seeing the First Nations–industry partnership to get a successful restart of the oriented strand board facility in Fort Nelson. We know that’s going to have huge economic implications for the region.
What I can say to the member today is that this hasn’t dropped off the desk. It’s prominent, it’s front and centre, and we’re devoting a lot of staff resources to get this over the finish line with the Fort Nelson First Nation, the Northern Rockies regional district and any industry partners that they’re bringing to the table.
D. Davies: Thank you to the minister. I was going to bring up a bunch of the points that you did later on when we go back into forestry, but I might as well jump into them now. It kind of ties in, anyway.
Yes, I completely agree. There has been a really good relationship between the Northern Rockies and Fort Nelson First Nation. I’ve been up there a few times in the last little while and had the opportunity to talk to both. The communities come together. I mentioned today, actually, during my statement in the House, the Northern Lights Festival. People are trying to be resilient and to do as much as they can.
I’m glad you mentioned the OSB mill there and that that is still being forefront. There are still discussions, obviously. I don’t know if the minister can give any more update on that specific project or not. That is one of my questions. Actually, let’s just go with that one for now.
Hon. D. Donaldson: This has been an exciting potential project for me. There’s a lot that’s positive that underpins the project. First of all, First Nations support for it is there and enthusiastic. That’s something that’s essential for a new project and the new investment that’s going to be needed for any resource development project in B.C.
As Robert Gallagher, who was then head of New Gold and who opened up the New Afton gold mine near Kamloops, once said at one of the mining events…. He typified it as if you don’t have a First Nations partner, then you don’t have a project. The First Nations support on this is critical, and as we’ve already discussed, it’s there.
The second part that’s extremely positive with this project and that helps underpin it is the fibre supply looks good. That’s something we don’t see in a lot of areas of the province. In the interior, oftentimes the fibre supply is becoming more constricted. That’s for obvious reasons, around the falling annual allowable cut from the pine beetle epidemic coming to an end.
We’ve got First Nations support. The fibre supply looks good. What now is left is for the ongoing negotiations between the company that’s interested in this project, CN, and Canfor. I am hopeful that those negotiations will turn out positive, but I can’t give the member a timeline on it, other than that this has been elevated to the highest priorities within the government and for good reason.
The people of Fort Nelson have seen…. I remember Mayor Streeper saying: “Look, property values have decreased 40 percent.” Can you imagine that? People invest in a property and for it to decline by that much…. I know the efforts. As I said, I’ve been there. They’ve got some great infrastructure in Fort Nelson. The Northern Lights Festival sounds like a pretty interesting new initiative. I don’t get to see the northern lights probably as clearly as Fort Nelson. They show up at my house every now and then when I manage to get home. But I know up in Fort Nelson, they must be spectacular.
The community is making efforts to expand their economic base, but this would be a real significant part of it. As I said, it’s been elevated to the highest levels in our government to do what we can to make sure it happens.
D. Barnett: This is still on rural development, Minister, not on forestry. I just have a couple more questions, and then we can move on to the next topic.
My question is…. Particularly in rural and remote areas — because of the pine beetles, because of forests, because of agreements with First Nations for protected land, etc. — guide-outfitters, trappers, people in the tourism industry, the ecotourism industry are all losing land mass. They’re all losing income.
Can you please tell me what….? Every time there’s another one of these negotiated deals, and the people who are out there working on the land — such as guide-outfitters, trappers, ranchers, recreation, tourism — are not included in the negotiations, they have to sit on the sidelines. At the end of the day, there’s a lot of angst, there’s concern, and they are losing part of their livelihood.
What is the minister’s plan for rural economic development where these massive losses are taking place and people are being displaced, yet they still have their homes and the same mortgages and bills to pay as before this happened?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I would ask for a little more clarification on the negotiated deals the member refers to. Because of the general nature of her question, I could go on for a long time with the answer, about the positive aspects that we’re investing in rural B.C., but I want to be more specific to her question. When she talks about negotiated deals, guide-outfitters, trappers, tourism, if she can be a bit more specific, then I can give a better answer for her.
D. Barnett: I think the minister is aware — I hope he is — of the Deni accord. I understand there have been some new agreements with the federal and provincial government and the First Nations, and there has been no consultation, inclusion, bridging agreement or anything made with the other land users.
Hon. D. Donaldson: The member is referring to the Nenqay Deni accord that came about as the result of the historic, landmark Supreme Court ruling that recognized that the Tsilhqot’in had Aboriginal title over specific areas of their traditional territories. As a result of that….
From what I understand, there was a reaction to that within government because the success of the Tsilhqot’in at the Supreme Court wasn’t anticipated. Under the government that the member was part of, in 2016, the Nenqay Deni accord was signed bilaterally between the Tsilhqot’in and B.C. That agreement laid out a process to deal with the Supreme Court decision, not only on title lands but of Tsilhqot’in interests in other lands that they have asserted under their traditional territories.
No new agreements have taken place. The member said “new agreements.” No new agreements have taken place. The Nenqay Deni accord has been built, and that’s what’s moving forward. What has changed is that the agreement originally was bilaterally, and it was always foreseen, under the terms that were set by the previous government, that it would evolve into an agreement involving Canada as well. There are no new land takings involved or changes to the original terms of the accord, but now Canada is part of the process, and that’s good, because they’re part of the process to provide funding as required.
D. Barnett: Has there been a new tripartite agreement signed between the province, the federal government and the Tŝideldel or the Xeni Gwet’in — either one?
Hon. D. Donaldson: No new agreement has been signed between the parties that the member referenced. What is happening is there’s a government-to-government-to-government process underway between the Tŝideldel, the Xeni Gwet’in, the federal government and the provincial government.
D. Barnett: To the minister: I would just like to say that your staff member, Mr. Peterson, who joined you here a few minutes ago, is a jewel of the Cariboo. We respect him. Hopefully, when he’s done here, you’ll give him a raise.
Thank you, Minister. I will turn this back over to my colleague.
J. Rustad: We’ll go back into some forestry-related questions, but I’d like to start off, since we’re on the First Nations topics with the last couple of questions, with maybe one quick question. Maybe it won’t be so quick. We’ll see how the question goes.
Many, many years ago now, I think in the mid-2000s, government decided to share revenue with First Nations through various agreements, various arrangements. I think it was the forest and range agreement at once point, and then it was the forest consultation revenue-sharing agreements that were signed.
I’ve been meeting with some First Nations over the last number of weeks, and they have expressed some concern that the government will no longer be continuing with the forest consultation revenue-sharing agreement, I think, at the end of this coming fiscal year and are looking to replace that with a new type of agreement. That’s what the First Nations told me. I’m just wondering if the minister could confirm that they are looking to transition to something different.
Hon. D. Donaldson: The short answer is that FCRSAs — it’s what the member was referring to — will continue. We have no plans around the elimination of FCRSAs. The member might want to explore that with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, which actually administers that revenue-sharing avenue. From what we understand, letters have been sent out talking to an extension of the FCRSA program.
I know the member was the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation when he was in government, and he understands this. For others, FCRSAs, of course, are based on production — in other words, volumes of timber harvested.
That can be advantageous for First Nations that see a lot of timber-harvesting activities on their traditional territories. Then there are First Nations that, for various reasons, don’t see as great a level of that, whether it’s from habitat impacts or that they just don’t have the timber production growing area. That’s by way of saying that we’re always looking at ways for supporting First Nations in their efforts to diversify and create economies.
I will point to a very recent announcement, just in December at the First Nations Leadership gathering, where the Premier announced the sharing of gaming revenue with First Nations across B.C. It’s an incredible announcement, and it has been a long time coming. I know First Nations have been working on this for over 20 years. Other jurisdictions have been sharing it previously, but we as a government thought it was important to institute that.
What that does is it gives a set amount of money for each First Nation across B.C., which they’re able to use to reinvest to acquire additional funding. It’s not based on the harvesting or exploitation of a natural resource on their territories. It’s a percentage of the gaming revenue that comes into the province each year. It was very, very well received by First Nations.
J. Rustad: The FCRSA, or the forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreement program. My understanding of that program is that FLNRO was responsible for doing the negotiations — going through and completing those parts. Indigenous Relations, which was formerly known as Aboriginal Relations, was a party to that. Of course, the agreements were then signed within that ministry. However, the bulk of the work is through the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources. At least it was. Maybe the minister could confirm that that work is still being done within the ministry or has been transferred over to the other ministry.
Further to the original question on those agreements, there is concern that has been raised. There’s some noise that’s been raised within First Nations that there are changes to that program, whether that’s cancelled, transitioned or enhanced — that there are some sorts of adjustments that could be coming to that program.
In Budget 2019-20, is the ministry anticipating any changes through its negotiations, to its process and the money allocation for those negotiations throughout this next fiscal year?
Hon. D. Donaldson: The member is correct in that we do the legwork on the FCRSA agreements. That’s why I said that the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation administers the FCRSA agreements and signs them, as the member said. But this ministry does the legwork on that.
There’s no contemplation of cancelling the FCRSA program. Of course, we receive constant feedback from First Nations on it and are always discussing that feedback and looking at incorporating that feedback if it can happen, but FCRSAs will not be cancelled. We don’t see any impact in the 2019-2020 budget beyond what we’re seeing right now with the FCRSAs.
J. Rustad: Staying with some First Nations and forestry issues, there was an amount of volume that was allocated for potential First Nation woodland tenures. There has been a rather slow process in those tenures being allocated. Is the forest woodland tenure process still on track, proceeding? Will we see additional First Nation woodland tenures being allocated in 2019-2020?
Hon. D. Donaldson: As of February 2019, there have been a total of 13 First Nation woodland licences awarded in B.C. comprising 228,000 hectares and representing an annual allowable cut of 483,000 cubic metres.
Often the issue is that…. The concentration of tenure that has developed and that began developing since 2003 means that there is not a lot of unallocated volume to be directed towards First Nation woodland licences. Complicating this, as well, are the recent impacts of wildfires and the pine beetle situation. What I can say is that when it comes to unallocated volume, this government puts First Nation requests as a top priority. So the First Nation woodland licence then becomes one of the major tools for allocation.
S. Bond: Good afternoon to the minister. I have a number of local issues that I’d like to raise with the minister and his staff. They’re, in essence…. A couple of them are short snapper kinds of questions, I hope.
I’d like to start with the first one, which is actually one of significance for me and for my community. This issue has been raised with local staff. Again, I want to thank them for the hard work that they do in our region.
We are seeing a reduction in the staffing numbers in the McBride office. There have been concerns expressed by both the mayor of Valemount and the mayor of McBride, the Community Forest in Valemount. There was a meeting held, and the concerns were laid out. The letter that we got back basically indicated that, from the staff’s perspective, McBride is not remote. Or isolated, I guess, was the word that was used.
The fact of the matter is…. I think we’re down to, perhaps, one forester. I certainly understand that…. We’re not asking for a gigantic staff in McBride. As a government, we made reductions in that area as well. But there does, in my view and certainly my constituents’ view, need to be a presence in the Robson Valley. It is critical.
While telephone and those kinds of responses are important, and we have seen response from local Prince George staff, the residents of the Robson Valley feel like they are being written off. I have letters that actually use that phrase, which makes me feel incredibly sad and very discouraged. Small rural communities still require basic levels of service and support, especially when the forest sector…. It’s been a struggle in those regions.
I’d like, first of all, to know if the minister is aware of those concerns and if he’s prepared to have a conversation about the distribution of staffing and resources. Part of the rationale provided to us in the letter was that there are new and inexperienced staff being brought on in Prince George or to work in these offices, and they need to be centrally located so they can have mentoring. Well, I can assure you that the Robson Valley has a significant number of experienced foresters. So having experienced staff in that office would not be a significant issue.
Perhaps the minister can…. I’m happy to hear back from him at a later time if there’s more time needed. Small rural communities deserve to have a physical presence. Two hours and winter roads…. Also, they serve the Valemount Community Forest, which is thriving and doing an exceptional job. If the minister could provide me with an update, I would be most appreciative.
Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll try to do the snapper kind of answer.
S. Bond: This one wasn’t it. I have a few others.
Hon. D. Donaldson: Yeah, okay.
I’m definitely willing to have the conversation. That was, I think, the most pertinent part of the question, as far as what could happen into the future. Obviously, we’re always constantly re-evaluating staffing. In certain areas, it can go up. For instance, in Fort Nelson, it has.
The member is right. In 2002 and ’03, the McBride office was reduced from a district office to a field office. I fully understand the importance of these types of jobs, which are stable jobs for small communities. Again, we’re willing to have the conversation.
The Robson Valley has not been written off. I want to assure people in the Robson Valley who feel that way that that’s not the case. We are, as a government, concerned about service levels for small rural communities. Services was one of the legs on the three-leg stool of our platform — whether it’s schools or levels or transportation services — but I take the member’s point. Our staff are more than willing to have a conversation about maintaining and, perhaps, even expanding the presence in McBride.
S. Bond: That’s actually a really encouraging response. I think the feeling is that they’re being written off, and I think that is very, very discouraging. They’re working extremely hard, an incredibly resilient community, and I want to make sure that they have the support on the ground that reflects that. If the minister is willing to go back and at least look at that from the perspective of the priority that his government has laid out, I think that would be very much appreciated, and I’ll just wait to hear back. I know that Mayor Runtz and Mayor Torgerson, I think, would also be very pleased to hear that.
I wanted to just quickly move on to the deactivation of forestry roads. I received a very compelling couple of letters about the Castle Creek Forest Service Road. I’m sure the minister doesn’t have the answer at his fingertips about that particular road, but I did want at some point to have clarity about whether or not a deactivation is going to take place there. People describe it as literally a historical treasure.
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
As he knows — I know the minister knows this — those roads are used by trappers and hunters and, in this case, used for fishing, picking berries, snowmobiling, tourism. It is a significant concern. I’ll perhaps just leave that with the minister. I’m not certain he’d have the answer right there.
I think generally, the issue of deactivating roads that local people have gotten used to using continues to be a major issue, with significant concerns that BCTS has plans to deactivate this year, in particular, Castle Creek Forest Service Road. I wanted to express concerns about that.
I wanted to raise an issue with the minister. I know he’s aware of this. Certainly, a number of things have happened on this file, for which I’m appreciative, but I’m going to ask for an update on a situation that, ironically, rests with the Ministry of Forests. It’s related to the Prince George branch of the Canadian Mental Health Association. It’s related to a piece of property. The minister went ahead and did some good work.
We were very excited about that, only then to discover that the Lheidli T’enneh, within their right, had requested accommodation. Subsequent to that, tragically, the house that is used for the community connection program actually was destroyed by fire. So while we’re waiting to get permission to add and to renovate, the organization has now got some very difficult decisions.
The big challenge is that there is an insurance plan that would allow for that particular facility to be rebuilt, but it has to be built on that site. As the minister can imagine, there are not enough funds to move it somewhere else.
I’m wondering if the ministry, the minister, or anybody has continued to have or has sought a conversation with the Lheidli T’enneh to sort this out. This is a desperately needed facility from the perspective of mental health services in our community. We all know how difficult that has been.
I just wondered if there is an update on the community connections program lot. Again, if a later answer is required, I just want to be on the record. The organization wants to rebuild, but unless they have certainty about the piece of property, they’re not going to be able to do that.
These are the kinds of things that cause enormous upset in communities. This organization has been enormously patient. So I’ll just see if the minister has a response to that.
Hon. D. Donaldson: What I can tell the member today is that I thank her for keeping this topic front and centre. I received her letter lately, and therefore was apprised of the tragedy of the building burning down just when we thought we were getting somewhere. I know those kinds of services are really needed in communities across the north and in Prince George.
I don’t have a definitive answer for her today. We will certainly get back to her. The ministry operations is aware of the file, and we’re directly working on it. We will engage and continue efforts to engage with the Lheidli T’enneh on the issue.
I know recently I signed a letter in response to the member’s letter, and we don’t have it in front of us at this point. I can’t tell you exactly what’s in it. But the commitment is there to do what we can to ensure that they can provide the services and rebuild on the property, and we’ll work with the Lheidli T’enneh if that’s what is required.
S. Bond: Once again, thank you. I look forward to an update on the deactivation of that particular road and, obviously, encourage the minister to think about that — also, the staffing issues in McBride, which are a significant issue in our community, and also this piece of property. I do thank him for being very sincere and working to try to solve that problem for the mental health association.
The last one, again, is prefaced with a thank-you but, hopefully, an encouragement to continue on. That is related to the Spruce City Wildlife Association’s concerns. They are very interested in looking at a rainbow trout pond. They are an incredibly successful organization. I’d certainly encourage the minister to come on the day that they do their release in the community. There are literally lineups of families to come and to learn from the Spruce City Wildlife Association.
I had asked the minister to work to ensure that there were staff that were engaged in that discussion, because I certainly understand that there are regulatory issues related to that. A meeting was held, as I understand it. I wanted to say thank you for helping to ensure that that happened.
I just want to encourage the minister to ask staff to stay engaged and to work constructively on this project. It would really be another educational and incredible opportunity for the Spruce City Wildlife Association in our community. So I did want to say thank you, just bring it back to the radar screen, and congratulate an excellent organization who really want to do the right thing, to get the process and work through it. But they would like to see that move forward.
With that, I thank the minister for his time. I look forward to an update on those issues that matter to the constituents in my part, and I thank the critic for the time this afternoon.
Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll ensure that the Spruce City Wildlife rainbow trout pond and project continues to be on the radar screen, and we will get back to the member on the Castle Creek Forest Service Road. I fully understand the passion with which people use forest service roads in the north for all sorts of other activities, so we’ll get back to her on that.
L. Throness: As the minister may know, I have, in the Chilliwack River Valley, a land claim negotiation going on, carried on by the SXTA treaty table. There is also a large forestry company that operates in that area. They have asked me some questions. So I have formulated them in a generic way that may apply to any forestry company across B.C.
I just have a few questions related to the process. Does the province have a written protocol or policy for dealing with forestry companies in the light of UNDRIP? If so, is this policy public?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I appreciate the member bringing forward general questions, but it would help us if he could provide the specific company that he’s referring to in reference to the Chilliwack River Valley. Then I will formulate the answer and also address the general nature of the question.
L. Throness: It is Western Canadian Timber Products. I’m sure the minister is familiar with that company.
Hon. D. Donaldson: This particular topic — I would characterize it as a one-off with this company versus the general nature of the question that the member posed.
We’ve had numerous meetings with the company, from the deputy minister through senior officials in my ministry. I would characterize it that we have now…. I’ll call it a letter of understanding about how operations will be undertaken and an action plan we have with them. We’re committed to ongoing engagement with this company in their operating area.
L. Throness: I do want to inquire on a provincial basis, though. Presumably, there will be future negotiations with different companies. There will be different treaty negotiations. Is the government planning to do this on a piecemeal basis? How does it plan to deal fairly with all First Nations and also all forest companies moving into the future? Does it have a policy by which it will treat everybody the same, everybody fairly?
Hon. D. Donaldson: The example we’re discussing is a specific example where, to be forthright, relations between the company and the district office weren’t productive. We’re working on that to be more productive so the outcomes for the company and for the province are more positive than they’ve been in the past.
As far as the overall question, we’re working to increase the participation of First Nations in the forest sector. We had a previous question about First Nations woodland licences. As the unallocated volume becomes available, a high priority of our government is to ensure First Nations have the ability to acquire those unallocated volumes so that they can become more robust participants in the forest sector, especially the forest sector as it pertains to traditional territories.
Having said that, we are also conducting that work under the understanding of the legal obligation we have to current tenure holders in the province under forest licences and tree farm licences. So that’s the way we see as the route forward — maintaining our legal obligations when it comes to current forest tenure holders and using opportunities, as they arise, to increase the participation of First Nations in the forest sector.
L. Throness: Following on that question, is government then prepared to compensate companies for lost investments made on the land base in regard to cutting permits and access infrastructure like bridges and so on when those lands are redistributed to Indigenous communities?
Hon. D. Donaldson: In reply to the member, there has to be a taking to award, to give compensation. Forest companies are giving up tenure right now, are doing it voluntarily. Some are actually doing it in partnership with First Nations. So no, there’s no compensation unless there’s a taking, and then if forest companies are giving up tenure and doing it voluntarily, there’s no compensation factor.
L. Throness: Just a couple more questions. Certainly, under UNDRIP, meaningful consultations are mandated with First Nations. I think that others, such as companies, deserve meaningful consultations as well. Will the minister engage with industry, both different companies and industry in general, with relation to the delineation of chart lines and proposed treaty lines that overlap with those chart lines?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Meaningful consultation occurs in all sorts of venues with industry. I’ll be at the COFI convention next week, for instance. And staff are regularly in touch directly with industry and major licensees and tenure holders.
Then there is the treaty process, which is a government-to-government process. I would say the process with industry is with stakeholders who have tenure that is awarded to public land by the province. Treaty is a government-to-government process with First Nations and, ideally, government to government to government. That’s what treaty is about: with the federal government as well. Through our work, we keep apprised of industry concerns or industry contributions when it comes to working on treaties.
Of course, the lead agency, the lead ministry, in working on treaties is the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. However, obviously, we supply a lot of support and staff expertise when it comes to the forestry file.
L. Throness: For my final question, I’d like to go back to my first question, which was: has the government established a written protocol or policy by which it is dealing with this issue across the province? The minister didn’t answer that question, and perhaps I’m given to think that there is not one. Could the minister confirm, yes or no, whether there is a policy that applies — that the government has decided how to move forward on this in a way that applies equally to all First Nations and all forest companies?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I’d like to point out that each of the ministers’ mandate letters under this government directs us to review policies, regulations and legislation that are within our ministries’ mandates in the light of the UN declaration, the truth and reconciliation calls to action and the Tsilhqot’in decision. As far as written guiding principles, the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation has developed and publicly relayed the ten principles of reconciliation that guide that kind of work as well.
J. Rustad: We talked a while ago — seems like a day ago now — about competitiveness and competitiveness issues. One of the big challenges, of course, is the cost of logs and log delivery. A big piece of that is access, transportation, the ability to be able to haul larger loads or off-highway loads around the province.
The ability to be able to go out and access this fibre and bring it in is going to be critical, whether it’s dealing with waste that’s left behind or whether it’s reducing the cycle time and the amount of volume that can come in at one time. Sort yards are part of this as well.
Is the ministry undertaking any review or study to look at how to try to make the flow of fibre more efficient in the woods and to look at a strategy around potentially improving the transportation network to help drive down some of those costs and make us more competitive?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Part of the solutions to some of the transportation issues and concerns, as they relate to competitiveness and costs, that the member brings up is having the data to enable government policy- and decision-makers to create options around efficiencies. What we understand and what I understand is since 2006….
PricewaterhouseCoopers used to do an annual report on industry costs — the specifics from the industry regarding a number of factors, but the factors that the member brings up regarding transportation. We need the specifics of those costs from industry. Industry has not shared the data that we want. That data hasn’t been available since 2006. If industry is willing to fund that kind of work again, like they did up until 2006, then, yes, that’s the kind of data that we would be very much interested in getting — to pinpoint the issues that the member brings up, whether it’s issues around routing or whether it’s issues around other factors.
We encourage industry to do what they did before and acquire that kind of data and provide it to us in an overall way so that we can consider it in policy decisions.
J. Rustad: Thanks to the minister for that response. When we’re looking at the reason for the transportation question, the issue is, of course, declining fibre supply — the challenges that mills have. Can the minister give a breakdown of what the fibre allocation — or the annual allowable cut, I should say — will be for the Interior and the coast for 2019-2020?
Hon. D. Donaldson: We can do that. While we’re working on that, could I request a short recess? That would be great.
The Chair: Certainly. We’ll recess for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 4:57 p.m. to 5:04 p.m.
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
Hon. D. Donaldson: The question from the member was annual allowable cut in B.C. The current year’s annual allowable cut for the coast is just under 15 million cubic metres and for the Interior is just over 49 million cubic metres.
J. Rustad: Obviously, those numbers are projected to drop somewhat over the coming years as AACs continue to decline. Does the ministry have a strategy in place to manage that annual allowable cut decline — the impacts on communities and the impacts on forest workers?
Hon. D. Donaldson: There are a number of initiatives and strategies that we have in regard to the annual allowable cut decline that is happening and will be happening throughout the Interior. Just to be explicit, the coast annual allowable cut of just under 15 million cubic metres is stable in our projections. It’s the 49 million cubic metres, as the member described, that will be experiencing a drop in the Interior.
I’m going to list at least four to five areas that we’re working on. First of all, as referenced in earlier answers, we will be initiating an Interior forest sector strategy this spring, imminently, to gather solutions from stakeholders and those who are currently active in the forest sector and anticipate that that process will unfold throughout the remainder of the year. As I said, in the coast forest sector process that we undertook, we challenged those at the table to recognize that they come up with solutions that are motivated in self-interest but that also will be applicable to others and to the Interior forest sector as a whole. We look forward to that strategy being developed.
Secondly, we have the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. funding. That’s been very successful. We allocated $150 million into that society and helped them leverage $140 million from the federal government. That money is being used to address forest health issues in the Interior forests especially — not only cleaning up the uneconomic forests from a forest health perspective and from a wildfire safety perspective but replanting as well.
On the replanting, that’s a third area through our seed and genome work. In our seed work, we’re producing seedlings that have tremendously increased growth and yield potential. I visited the Tree Seed Centre in Surrey — by the way, we have members of the chief forester’s team here to help us with this discussion — and I was quite amazed at some of the bags of seeds and the value in those seeds. You wouldn’t have thought, with the value of a bag of the seeds, that it was actually seeds in there; you would have thought it was some other substance. There’s a lot of value in these seeds. The value is the increased growth and yield. That’s another area that’s addressing the forests in the Interior.
Then, finally, the rural development initiatives that I listed in a previous answer, all the various ways we’re addressing the viability of rural communities…. Whether it’s through the rural dividend fund, through increased infrastructure spending in those communities in health and in education capital costs, and also increased Internet access, all those are another way of addressing the viability of rural communities that the member spoke to.
Finally, I’ll just say that I have delivered instructions to the chief forester, who does an absolutely independent arm’s-length determination of the annual allowable cuts for timber under the timber supply reviews that are ongoing. The instructions were to include social and economic impacts, or at least to consider them, in the determination of the new annual allowable cuts.
J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that. I’m glad to hear about including the social and economic considerations for the chief forester. That’s certainly something we looked at around pine beetle stuff, so I’m glad that is carrying forward.
One of the things…. The minister touched on a bunch of things there, and I want to get to some of them. I also want to ask, in particular, about tenure.
The minister is looking at a revitalization program in the Interior, which will launch imminently. Obviously, with the declining AACs — for people listening at home, we like to use acronyms, annual allowable cut — there’s a tremendous amount of pressure on the tenure, a shrinking amount of tenure that’s available and some concentration of that tenure. Is the minister looking at issues of tenure or tenure reform as part of the look at the revitalization that he’s launching in the Interior?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I want to clarify that what we’re embarking on in the Interior is a forest sector strategy. Tenure reform, as is normally thought of, is not under consideration by this government.
I want to say that we have no preconceived notions of how the discussion on the Interior forest sector strategy will evolve and which direction it’ll go in. Engaging with the sector, as broadly defined, is our first priority in this strategy that we’re undertaking — to get a better sense of the issues and to listen to some perspective on solutions.
Tenure reform, as we normally think of it, is not part of our decisions at this point.
J. Rustad: Associated, of course, with annual allowable cut determinations is allocation, and there are obviously pending allocations that are out there. Is the minister planning to make those determinations in the near future? I’m just wondering if he’s holding off and waiting to do the discussion on the revitalization of the Interior plan before he makes those or whether those will be forthcoming prior to, or during, the engagement on the other discussions?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m going to talk about determination and apportionment. For the one person that the member referenced who might be listening or watching, I think if they’re watching at this point, they might understand this already.
I’ll just say that the chief forester does the determination of an annual allowable cut after a timber supply review. That’s an arm’s-length, science-based decision. As I referenced, social and economic factors can be considered. Then, once that annual allowable cut determination, based on a sustainable harvest level, is made, the apportionment of that decision comes to the minister, to me, around how that annual allowable cut is allocated to various tenure holders.
The length of time between a determination by the chief forester of an annual allowable cut and the apportionment decision by the minister, by me, is important. If the chief forester has made a determination around an annual allowable cut that’s actually decreased from the last determination, which is now the case in many timber supply areas in the Interior, then the longer the apportionment decision is delayed, the increased risk around unsustainable harvest levels arises.
There are abilities, after the determination, to consider the apportionment decisions when First Nations interests are at play, but the determination and the apportionment timing and decision will be separate from the Interior forest sector strategy, which was the question posed.
J. Rustad: In that earlier answer, the minister talked about the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. as one of the tools in terms of some of the work that’s going on. My understanding of the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. is that 100 percent of their budget is now allocated. Obviously, those programs will carry on over the next couple of years, two or three years, but without additional funding, FESBC would basically be out of money.
My question: is the minister concerned that there is no additional new allocation coming to FESBC? Is the minister intending to carry on with FESBC’s program?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I just want to say that the work that has been undertaken by FESBC has been very productive. I was at a site southeast of Kelowna, just on the border with the municipality. It was a partnership between FESBC, Gorman Bros. and the city of Kelowna. They were thinning out a forest and cleaning up debris down to 75 stems per hectare. The volume that the contractor working for Gorman was accumulating would likely have been inaccessible for Gorman Bros. because the area was so close to residential areas, but this special kind of treatment made it available.
The chips that were from the wood that wasn’t able to be used for sawlogs were going to be sent to one of two local biomass energy–producing facilities. There was training going on for B.C. Wildfire Service staff in that. Some of the areas were being treated in hand-falling. It gave the opportunity for experience in falling.
Importantly, a local First Nation was involved in the management of the entire project. That increased the capacity of the local First Nation. Of course, the ultimate goal was to reduce wildfire risk, which was happening. Lots of things were happening on a whole bunch of levels there — improved ecosystem habitat, as well, for ungulates. That project, for instance, is going on. It’s going to take three years to complete.
The FESBC is not out of money. The money, as the member accurately said, has been allocated, but it’s not spent. It’ll be going on in many areas for the next three years, which gives us time to look at the various land-based investment pots of money that we have and come up with a strategic approach to actually make sure that we can multiply those dollars and continue the kinds of treatments that we see the FESBC has been so successful at.
J. Rustad: I agree that the work that the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. is doing…. We always like to use these acronyms. The FESBC, of course, as the minister mentioned, is responsible for some reforestation work that is going on as well, and all of that work is great. I’ve seen the pictures. I’ve had many engagements to find out the details of things they’re working on.
It is a shame, though, that they’re not able to do any planning beyond the money that is 100 percent allocated. That is a concern, especially considering that they’ve only been able to get to about 10 percent of the area that has been impacted by wildfires. There’s a tremendous amount of additional work that needs to be done, to the best of my understanding.
Given that this is a significant component…. I won’t get into wildfire recovery at this point, because that’s something we’ll get into next week, when we come back, if we’re called back to doing estimates next week. You never know what the House Leader may call. It is certainly a significant concern, for me as well as for the folks that are depending upon additional projects coming through FESBC.
The minister has mentioned that they’re going to be looking at an overall strategy and a way to be able to try to leverage some of those dollars. That’s great, but the future of FESBC, of course, is now hanging, in terms of whether they’re winding down as they go through these three years of projects, whether it’ll be replaced by something different or whether or not there will be new cash infused into this. I know that in the current budget of 2019-2020 that we are currently debating, there’s no new money going towards the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C.
I guess the question I want to ask around that is: given the amount of reforestation work, given the amount of work that needs to be done, whether it’s habitat or whether it is cleaning up in the forest and helping to fireproof communities, the great work that they’re doing, why hasn’t there been any additional allocation to FESBC in this current fiscal year?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll just start off by saying that as of February 2019, the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. has allocated approximately $180 million to projects to reduce wildfire risk, improve damaged forests, improve wildlife habitat, enhance fibre recovery, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sequester carbon. Many of the projects are multi-year projects, with work going on until 2022, so at least another three years.
I want to say that, as I said before, the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. has been very successful. What is incumbent upon us as a provincial government is to look at what is the best vehicle to get the best results. At this point, FESBC has been the best vehicle because it’s a vehicle that we’ve been able to use in order to acquire federal government funding under their climate action programs.
Now, we have a federal election in the fall. I anticipate we’ll see some more initiatives after that election that will allow us to ensure that we have the right vehicles in place to acquire the funding that’s necessary to do the kind of work that is being completed under FESBC right now.
I just want to say that it’s the vehicle that works right now. If it’s the vehicle that works best into the future to get the goals accomplished that we have as a government around forest health, then that’s the kind of vehicle that we’ll be willing to pursue. But we have some time to work on that.
The federal government programs have now been subscribed. We’ll be waiting to see what’s coming up within the next year, and we’ll be looking at FESBC as a tool, if it’s the right tool to be used in acquiring additional funding. We know it was created in order to multiply provincial government dollars into these important areas. If it remains the tool after the next federal government initiatives, then that’s the tool that we’ll explore using.
J. Rustad: For the little bit of time remaining that we have in some questions today, I actually want to talk a little bit about some of the coastal issues, just from a staff perspective. The first question to the minister associated with coastal issues is: is the minister considering a moratorium on old-growth logging?
Hon. D. Donaldson: We’re not considering a moratorium on old-growth logging.
J. Rustad: Boy, if only questions could be that quick and answered on both sides, we’d be through this in a day or two.
Obviously, there’s a significant amount of old growth that has already been protected within the coast, particularly on the Island, but there still is old growth that is a significant part of the fibre basket that feeds the 15 million or thereabouts cubic metres per year that is harvested on the coast.
Does the minister anticipate or see within this upcoming budget any changes to the amount of old-growth fibre that would be continually contributing towards the annual allowable cut?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Currently second growth on the coast comprises about 46 percent of the harvest. So second growth is a significant contributor to the annual allowable cut. I’ve met with environmental organizations that are interested in our approach to old-growth management. It was addressed, to some degree, in a coast process that we had about increased fibre utilization of what we’re actually harvesting that will actually contribute more fibre to mills and to pulp mills as well.
The old-growth component of forests on the coast obviously contributes significantly to the annual allowable cut. We are engaging with those who are interested in protecting old-growth forests to a larger extent. We’re drilling down to come up with the kinds of values that they attach to old-growth forests. If it’s a tourism value, then there could be options around retention of certain trees. If it has to do with other factors, then that’s what we want to know. But as far as this government is concerned, there will be sustainable harvesting in old-growth forests on the coast.
J. Rustad: I was going to go into another series of questions on that, but I do think it would be better if we had that as a group of questions. Noting that, I think I have time for one more question. Probably it’s best at this stage if we….
Just before I say the words, I’ll say that on Monday when we come back, assuming we’re back into forestry estimates on Monday, we’ll carry on with forestry engagement. We’ll go into the coastal revitalization plan. We will certainly still be back touching on, potentially, some of the issues in the Interior — waste. We’ll deal with some forest health issues, get into B.C. Timber Sales and move on from there.
With that, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Or am I not allowed to say that?
The Chair: Noting the hour.
Hon. D. Donaldson: Noting the hour, Chair — and thank you for the support of the member and the critic on the other side — I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:40 p.m.
Copyright © 2019: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada