Committee of Supply

Proceedings in Section A

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED
EDUCATION, SKILLS AND TRAINING

(continued)

On Vote 12: ministry operations, $2,366,498,000 (continued).

The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone.

I would like to recognize that I am participating today from the homeland of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples, known today as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. We extend our appreciation to them for the opportunity to undertake the work before us on this land.

We are meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training.

[1:35 p.m.]

S. Sullivan: I thought that we should start the afternoon session by having the minister respond to two questions earlier: one on Williams Lake and one on veterinarians. Since the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin is here, it would be an opportune time to do that.

Hon. M. Mark: Member, would it be possible to clarify your question related to the TRU Indigenous Williams Lake First Nations question? Just because there was a bit there…. Staff are trying to pull it together, but it may, if possible, have to come in writing. So if you could clarify or would prefer it in writing.

The second question, to veterinarians, I’ll respond to once I hear your first response.

S. Sullivan: Why don’t we just go to the next speaker. I’ll just get some clarification. I know that the member for Vancouver-Langara is wanting to ask a couple of questions.

Hon. M. Mark: Sorry. We’ll get to you in a moment, member for Vancouver-Langara.

To the veterinary question. Veterinarians are valued professionals who protect the health and welfare of British Columbians’ domestic animals and play a critical role in British Columbians’ agricultural industry. Over the past 50 years, British Columbia has been a key partner in maintaining the Western College of Veterinarian Medicine as a world-class veterinary college. The college has in turn provided the domestic veterinary graduates British Columbia needs.

Two points that the member would be interested to know. This year British Columbia is providing the Western College of Veterinarian Medicine with $8.4 million to support 80 B.C. graduates — that’s 20 per year — a graduate program and operation of its teaching hospital. In line with increases in previous years, the funding provided to the Western College of Veterinary Medicine is set to increase by at least 1 percent a year for the next five years.

[1:40 p.m.]

M. Lee: As the minister well knows, I represent the riding of Vancouver-Langara. That includes Langara College, the largest college in the province. A year ago we were standing alongside each other celebrating 49 on 49, the 49th anniversary. The member for Vancouver–False Creek was also being recognized as an alumnus of Langara College. So we all have good connections to this particular institution in the heart of Vancouver.

As the minister and I discussed in last year’s estimates, we had an opportunity to review the current plan for Langara College, which is to replace building A, the original building of Langara College, which opened 50 years ago in 1970. We talked, as well, about the financial management of Langara College, which has been particularly strong under president Lane Trotter’s leadership as well as the board, led by Ian Mass.

In terms of the actual buildings on Langara College’s campus, we know that Langara College self-funded its Science and Technology Building. There is a plan to expand to [audio interrupted] on the campus.

The Chair: Member, to let you know, we’re having a little bit of trouble hearing you.

M. Lee: Is that better? Okay.

So 85 percent of the students come on public transit to this campus. It serves, certainly, as that gateway, pathway, for many students going on to SFU, UBC and Queen’s University.

My question to the minister. As I understand it, Langara College is now near the completion of its redevelopment permitting plans with the city of Vancouver. The expectation from the leadership team is that that may complete as early as this coming September-to-December period. I understand from the leadership team that the Ministry of Advanced Education has indicated that that is an important next step in order to move on to further discussions with the ministry about…. The province may well collaborate with Langara College to fund this project.

Could I ask the minister to confirm what the next steps will be? I recognize the timing and that Langara College is pretty much delivering on a shovel-ready project to move forward with both the province and the federal government.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you to the member for the question. We are aware of the project. It’s a $258 million capital project. Langara is committed to $60 million of the $258 million. The next steps….

Just to put it on Hansard for the record, this project is currently not on our capital plan. Langara must add it into their next capital plan submission. We’ll need to review it and prioritize it with other capital projects across the province to be put forward as our fall budget update capital plan.

Thank you for your advocacy, from the anniversary at Langara last year. The process is just to get the project over to our ministry to consider in our ten-year capital plan.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver-Langara, do you have a follow-up question?

M. Lee: I do have a few questions.

Thank you very much to the minister for that response. Just to say that with the planning in place for Langara College, there’s every expectation that they’ll be moving forward, of course, with further discussions with the ministry, and I look forward for that to progress.

I wanted to just turn to, obviously, Langara College — it’s known as snəw̓eyəɬ leləm̓ — in terms of the tremendous partnership it has with the Musqueam First Nation, as well as the supports for Indigenous education and programming. The ministry has provided some initial funding to some of the education programs that Langara College has had in partnership with the Musqueam Nation.

I wanted to ask the minister…. Looking at Langara College and its important placement in Metro Vancouver and that partnership, recognizing that there are other initiatives that this college continues to lead on in the area of Indigenous education, what areas of support could Langara College expect to receive from the ministry in supporting its efforts?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the question from the member opposite, and I especially thank Langara. Langara made a submission to the Select Standing Committee on Finance. This was part of the process that institutions put forward for asks.

We are aware that there are discrepancies across the Aboriginal service plans. It’s something that will take some work. We’ve been working…. We recognize that Langara currently isn’t receiving the Aboriginal service plan funding, but we have been trying to offset it through year-end funding, through the Indigenous student support funding envelope.

I guess I would just add, as well, that the mandate letters to the institutions indicate that for TRC, truth and reconciliation, and the declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples…. A part of addressing equity is for it to be seen throughout the campus, not isolated to just Indigenous people but a part of their overall vision and goal at the institutions.

We recognize that there’s a systemic gap. I hope this partially answers your question. I’m going to be continuing to advocate, for the 25 institutions, that we address the equity of the Aboriginal service plans. What I inherited as the minister was that only 11 of the institutions had received Aboriginal service plans, which is why Langara raised it. I appreciate your advocacy.

M. Lee: I just want to now switch to some questions relating to compulsory trades. Can the minister share what analysis has been done on compulsory trades or mandatory certification?

Hon. M. Mark: Happily. Thank you to the member for the question.

For compulsory trades, we have indicated this in the mandate letter to the Industry Training Authority. There has been some data and analysis, no conclusions, on the review of what compulsory trades to initiate or implement in the province. We’re still in the middle of the process of gaining the data, and we haven’t made any decisions on any policy reviews. Maybe if the member has a more precise question that he’s asking.

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for that response.

I do have a few more detailed questions here that might get some further clarification. What is the expected timing and cost of any new compulsory certification measures? Has the government completed a business case?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: I really appreciate hearing the question from the member opposite. I wasn’t sure he was passionate about the trades. I’m deeply passionate about the trades and deeply committed to having a skilled workforce.

For the record, for the Hansard, people might not understand compulsory trades. Every province in the country has compulsory trades. B.C. is the only pro­vince…. We’re an anomaly. B.C. used to have compulsory trades. That changed under the former government. Most importantly, to me, is to see red seals working across our workforce, building up our province.

It’s really important to me as minister to see people…. Again, I’m not sure how many people watching from home understand the apprenticeship program and the levels that it takes to get a red seal. But most people understand the investment that it takes to get an undergrad, which is normally four years. To get a red seal is normally four years.

We are deeply committed to trying to move the dial for a skilled workforce in a range of trades, because many are in demand. Our vision is to ensure that everybody currently working or considering a career in the trades has access to the highest standards of skills training, credentialing and professional recognition that leads to good jobs and long careers. I can tell you I’ve never met a red seal that regrets being a red seal. They’re deeply proud to tell me that they’re red seals.

To the question, I’m looking to get information on timing in the fall. I’d like to know what the outcome of the review is as well. The business case is underway. The costs are undetermined, because the business case is still underway. I’m happy to keep you informed in the fall, but for the time being, the purpose of this policy discussion is to look at training up red seals, like everyone is doing across the country.

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for that response.

Recognizing that there is that review underway and that there’s more consideration to come with the government at this juncture, can the minister share with us whether she’s aware of which trades, specifically, would be first up for a mandatory certification? Would the government be considering legislation?

Hon. M. Mark: The answer to that is no. I can pull up the list right now of what the former compulsory trades are. That isn’t the discussion. The discussion is seeking advice from industry experts on what, if any, trades to bring forward as compulsory in British Columbia. We don’t have the information at this time. I don’t want to just throw out a trade for the sake of throwing out a trade, because it would be premature to do so.

M. Lee: I’d just ask the next question but also invite the minister to respond to the second part of my question, as to whether the government is considering legislation.

My next question. In terms of collective agreements, how will the imposition of compulsory trades work within the context of the current collective agreement arrangements?

Hon. M. Mark: Legislation, collective agreements — all of those things would help inform the business case, which is what we’re waiting for. I recognize that the member is looking for some answers. I’m looking for answers on what is going to come out of this review. But we don’t have any information on legislative changes or what impact it would have on collective agreements at that time. That would come in the business case.

[2:00 p.m.]

M. Lee: Again, I appreciate the response from the minister. Just a few other questions here.

In terms of just approach-wise, and recognizing that other jurisdictions have compulsory trades frameworks in place, does the minister have a sense as to how much longer training would take if a trade is made mandatory or compulsory compared to the existing system?

Hon. M. Mark: It won’t change how long. That is not the purpose of this. The compulsory trades component is whether you can work in the trade or not, and that’s the compulsory element. You can’t work in certain disciplines unless you have that ticket.

Just to give some context to the member, in 2003, government replaced the industry training and apprenticeship authority with the Industry Training Authority Act. The new legislation eliminated compulsory trades, now referred to as mandatory certification, prescribed journeypersons-to-apprenticeship ratios and prescribed apprenticeship salaries. Prior to 2003, 11 trades were designated mandatory.

There has been no case review since, but what we do know…. We often hear about the skilled shortages. We always hear: “We can’t find skilled labour.” The intent of this policy is across something that is very important to me, as minister. I want to see people entering the trades, but I also want to see them cross the finish line with their red seals. I hear way too often throughout industry that people are stuck at their level 2, at their level 3. It’s the people that reach the finish line and get their red seals that are always telling me that was their best personal investment.

We know that people have confidence, industry has confidence, knowing they’ve got people working on their homes or their bridges or their hospitals that are qualified professionals. At this point, it won’t have an impact on the timing. The red seal framework is the red seal framework. Each of these red seals could differ in timing — pipefitter from a plumber, etc. They all require different hours, if that makes sense.

M. Lee: I appreciate that response from the minister.

Just in terms of looking at this potential change that the province, the government is looking at, who is asking for mandatory certification other than the Building Trades and the B.C. Federation of Labour?

Hon. M. Mark: I am.

I’d like to maybe indulge the member opposite to understand that the former government was also inquiring, through the Macdonald report, on compulsory trades. This wasn’t new to our government, in 2017. But it did come to my attention, over the course of being a minister, that people are asking: why are we the only province in the country…? When I learned that we’re the only province in the country that doesn’t have compulsory trades…. I’ve been looking for a good answer.

M. Lee: Partly to address the minister’s statement there, certainly, we recognize that 82 percent of apprentices are sponsored by the non-union segment of the construction industry. As I understand it, they don’t support this potential change to compulsory trades. They train more apprentices and have comparable outcomes.

Even heading before COVID-19, businesses were struggling to move forward in a very competitive environment. COVID-19 has demonstrated that. Certainly, those in industry recognize that now is not the time to add additional costs, that businesses are struggling to recover.

[2:05 p.m.]

Will the minister reconsider the timing of this potential change and the effort that she’s looking at with the ministry, in light of this current challenge, where many businesses across this province do not need and they cannot compete with this additional cost that’s being imposed on them, potentially?

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you to the member. There are some assumptions in your statement.

We’re talking about a process and a business case. We don’t know about the timing. We don’t know implementation and impacts. We don’t know whether legislation will be required or impacts on collective agreements. All of those things would be shaped into the business plan. There has been no determination on implementing something that doesn’t exist.

I appreciate the question — that the government is moving forward, in the middle of COVID, on something. This policy work started over two years ago. There has been no rush, at this moment in time, to implement, in the middle of COVID, in July of 2020, but the policy work is going to continue, and we are going to be prudent in our decision and understand the needs of the sector across the province. The intention is not to set people up to fail. The intention is to have a skilled workforce.

I’m not sure, Member, where you’re getting your information and your intel from.

I think there’s always a push-and-pull around letting people leave the jobsite to go back to school, but we need those people to go back to school to get the skills. That’s the only way you become a red seal. The 20 percent of in-class instruction is essential to crossing the finish line.

The ultimate goal and objective here is about the skilled workforce that is going to be absolutely essential for economic recovery. If we’re going to build things, they can’t be by people that don’t have their red seals. If the member is suggesting that we should have people building our bridges that aren’t red seals or building our hospitals that aren’t red seals or building our schools that aren’t red seals…. That’s how we get into problems, down the road, around people’s safety.

I’m very, very passionate about this. I also believe strongly…. When I got my education, it helped me get out of poverty. I’ve met a lot of people that have their red seals, and they have a good job.

I’m speaking with passion on this. The fundamental focus here is about people having a credential. I think this province should give more respect to red seals. The way you do so is motivate them. We’re doing lots of things to motivate students to become red seals. We’re recruiting them in high school, getting women, getting Indigenous. You name it.

I appreciate the questions, but we just don’t have the answers yet. Maybe you can tell me why we’re the only province in the country that doesn’t have compulsory trades. I haven’t found that answer yet.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Cowichan Valley.

S. Furstenau: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for the opportunity to ask the minister some questions.

I, actually, really appreciate the minister’s passion on this and think that it’s well placed, just looking at the success of the model in Cowichan, at Cowichan high school, of the trades program being integrated into the high school and seamlessly brought into post-secondary. It has been a real model for success. I know the minister is well familiar with it, and I share her passion on the importance of these opportunities for young people. So I just wanted to thank her for that passion before we get underway with our questions.

I don’t have a lot of time, but I want to start with the youth community partnership program. I canvassed some of this in question period. I’m just wondering if the minister can give a little bit of an overview of this program. It’s $5 million towards the youth community partnership to create environmental remediation jobs for youth. Our understanding is it was 500 jobs for young people.

Could the minister provide an overview of what this program is exactly and a breakdown of the funding from the provincial and the federal funding bodies on this?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I got cut off in question period answering this question. So I’m happy to address it here.

The workforce development agreement was brand-new to me when I became the minister. It’s negotiated with the federal government. The key part of the negotiation is to be able to be responsive and flexible.

The way it’s broken down is that out of the $5 million, $2 million is to the workforce development agreement, which is held under my ministry, and $3 million is held under the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, under the labour market development agreement. We co-own the WDA and work with the federal government on the overall portfolio.

I don’t know if the member is interested to hear examples, but we’ve got a program in Lillooet. It’s an outreach in field invasives training program. We’ve got a program in Penticton to train youth and assist them with parks and facilities. There is a range of programs that we’ve funded, and there is more to come.

The whole intent was to be responsive because of COVID. We know that young people have been hit hard. Young people also wanted programs that were outdoors. So we were looking for the triple word score, where we’ve got visible projects and we’ve got young people working. They’re building skills. They’re building transferable skills. We didn’t want any gaps with any of the federal subsidies that they might be receiving. That’s why it’s like a stipend.

Does that help address the member’s question?

S. Furstenau: That helps. I just have a few more questions about this, just to get a sense of how it’s working.

It’s the $5 million. So $2 million from your ministry and $3 million from Social Development and Poverty Reduction. The net result is 500 jobs. I’m just wondering: was there a way to leverage these funds in any other way, maybe get matching funds from the feds to create more jobs?

As the minister pointed out, we have a very significant youth unemployment crisis on our hands. Is this meant to be a foundation for future employment? Is this something that is the start of something? I’m just trying to understand the math and also the kind of medium- and longer-term vision on this program.

Hon. M. Mark: I guess, just to flag for the member opposite…. Your constituents, my constituents, all of our constituents have been deeply impacted by COVID. So we’re trying to be as responsive as possible with all of the things that are going on. The best way for me to describe it is what my deputy said every day in the beginning of the pandemic. “We’re building the plane as we go.”

Thankfully, we had this agreement negotiated through the feds to be responsive, to give, through our mechanisms, grants to go out the door as quickly as possible. It might only be, in some cases…. I’m fully transparent that it might only be four youth in one community, but that’s four youth that have skills training or are getting an opportunity. Or it might be three youth, or it might be ten youth. The maximum threshold was ten for each project. The idea was team-building, etc.

We are going to monitor the uptake. I think the long term…. I think there’s a real value in these types of projects, but it’s so premature right now, because we’re in the middle of COVID, to talk about something of a permanent nature. I’m always negotiating with the feds for more money. Every chance we get, Minister Simpson and I share FLMM callouts federally, where ministers call. And we are going to monitor the uptake.

I’m just going to give you an example. Again, Mill Bay, a 16-week program to provide youth with skills, knowledge and training to respond to an emergency situation with their peers and family members. They’ll receive emergency first-aid training and psychological first aid.

[2:15 p.m.]

Another program is to train 12 unemployed youth to become certified lifeguards and bridge them to employment opportunities at aquatic facilities in the Central Okanagan. We really also want to give young people résumé skills. I’m always thinking about transferable skills, things you can put quickly on your résumé.

Again, I think a win-win approach, but happy to negotiate more funding from the feds. They know that we need more because of COVID, but this agreement that I’ve mentioned was signed two years ago, and it’s a six-year agreement. But they’re aware that we’re looking for the emergency gap because of COVID.

S. Furstenau: That’s quite helpful, and I really appreciate the clarity and explanation on that. I’m delighted that there are youth in Mill Bay getting training for emergencies, because it’s awfully close to where we are.

I expect the minister has already addressed this in other questions, but I guess I want to give an opportunity to the minister to be able to speak about what role she sees her ministry playing in COVID recovery, where skills training, reskilling, is going to be part of that, noting that, as we know, this COVID is hitting young people. It’s hitting women the hardest. There’s a lot of impacts to vulnerable populations.

I’m just very keen to hear a little bit of the minister’s vision for what role she sees her ministry — and I think it would be a very important role — playing in the COVID recovery.

Hon. M. Mark: I’m trying to rush through. I know the opposition want to get their questions.

Huge question, keeping us all up at night. Maybe I’ll just share for a moment the breadth of my ministry. I’ve got all of the 25 public post-secondary institutions, and I’ve got the workforce development agreement, which is non-profit organizations and all of our non-profits that are helping people — persons with disabilities, women fleeing violence, youth at risk, older workers.

All of these programs are sprinkled across the province. They’re doing amazing work, and thankfully, we have those non-profits doing that front-line work. Then I’ve got the Industry Training Authority, which is all about red seals and getting people into the trades.

I see all of the above with our recovery. Getting more women in the trades is a motivation, and we see those dual-credit programs — young people being exposed to the trades in grade 11 and 12. None of those things are going to change.

Cabinet has the big discussion in the weeks ahead about our $1.5 billion recovery envelope, and there is no question that skilling people is going to be essential to our recovery. But again, when we think of skilling people, the people that you’re thinking about and that I think about in my constituency that fall behind are the ones that don’t have their grade 12. They’re the ones that don’t have the certificates and diplomas.

The B.C. access grant is intended to help people get their certificates and diplomas. That is the focus for us — the entry point, helping people get into institutions and empowering those that are quite vulnerable.

There are many of us that take for granted what it means to get a driver’s licence, get your first date, write a résumé. We need people to help those individuals be empowered as well. I think we are well positioned.

[2:20 p.m.]

The other thing I would add quickly…. It’s not just about my ministry. It’s lining up my ministry with CleanBC. It’s the way we build things, thinking about Indigenous values and the land stewardship. That is all about TRC and our commitment to DRIPA.

We know that there are populations impacted to train up because the long-term forecast…. I’m not sure if you are familiar with the Good Jobs Guide. The labour market outlook has been produced by government for years. It indicates: what does the future need? What does our workforce need? So 80 percent of our province needs some form of post-secondary training, and we know that many of those positions are in the certificate and diploma fields. We knew this well before COVID.

So a lot I can say. I think all of our constituencies are eager to see what will come out of government on the economic recovery, but I can tell you for certain it’s about skilling people up.

S. Furstenau: Thanks to the minister for that. I’m going to just segue over to post-secondary and the cost situation.

A lot of students are looking at online learning at university this fall but also looking at paying the same rates of tuition for that experience. I think, generally, the consensus has been that while there is learning happening, it is not the same as learning in person. It isn’t the same experience and, one would expect, not quite the same burden on universities. But many universities are not reducing tuition costs in any way to reflect the difference in the delivery of curriculum and learning as we navigate COVID-19.

I’m just wondering what the ministry is doing to assist B.C. students with the tuition costs, in particular in light of other impacts that they’re feeling economically. A lot of them would not have had summer employment this year that they may have been counting on, particularly in the service sector or the tourism sector. Does the minister intend to work with universities to lower tuition costs during the pandemic response, reflecting the adoption of the virtual teaching practices?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the question from the member.

I guess I want to start by acknowledging that the system had to move very, very quickly in the middle of a pandemic for 500,000 students across disciplines. If you think about the range of disciplines — engineering, health, you name it — some require labs, some are studying with books, some with mannequins — but the range, right. So you’ve got all of this range. We’re in the middle of a pandemic. The focus was getting students across the finish line. This happened in the middle of a semester, so that was really key.

There are some assumptions that online is less effective or less quality. Some would argue that students had more access to instructors. Some might not know that the cost of having all of those bills and then adding on top additional costs to go online actually became more expensive to the provider. So there are a lot of dimensions that you’re raising.

Tuition is still capped from government policy. It can’t be increased. There’s a cap of 2 percent, so that isn’t being increased.

I most certainly understand the challenges for students around affordability. We invested $3.5 million in emergency funding assistance, $1.5 million to Indigenous students for emergency funding assistance. We launched the mental health line to help them cope with this pandemic.

There’s a lot to say, but I guess I want to just conclude by: this is 2020; this will not be forever. Once we get our vaccine, we’re going to go back to…. Hopefully, not to business as usual. Hopefully, we learned some things. There have been some benefits. I won’t say what they are for me personally. It’s kind of no one else’s business. But there have been some lessons learned from COVID as well.

Thank you for the question. Sorry I can’t give all the answers to what you’re asking, because it’s quite compli­cated.

S. Furstenau: I can absolutely appreciate the complication. I think it’s great to get on the record 500,000 students and the efforts it would have taken for all the post-secondary institutions, as you say, to get them over the finish line.

I think our capacity to adapt and pivot as a species has been one of the things that we can recognize from this crisis that we’re all in. Here we are, right here, zooming along in the B.C. Legislature, as an example of that.

This will be my last question. The minister mentioned the B.C. access grant, and I’m joyed that she did. My understanding is it’s funded using a combination of $24 million investment over three years and $37 million from government reinvesting from grants.

Two questions. Can the minister confirm that that budget is correct? Also, does she intend or expect that there will be an increase to the B.C. access grant as a result of COVID-19?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the member asking this question. I’m deeply passionate about the B.C. access grant. So are students. I imagine students lobbied all members of the Legislative Assembly about having upfront grants.

This is the first investment in provincial grants in 15 years, and I want to thank my team. A lot of policy work was done.

The best way for me to describe the policy change…. We really wanted to get it right. We wanted to do the research. We wanted to get the evidence straight — but to focus on people and the people that need it most. I think there was a big call to action to have completion grants and things at the end. We wanted to have the investment up front and at the beginning. To your technical question, yes, the budget amounts are correct.

The second piece. We’re monitoring. We just launched. We opened up applications July 15. Hopefully, the students will sign up. Those that are paying attention to Hansard today know now about the B.C. access grant and that they’re eligible for up to $4,000 or $1,000, depending on what they’re studying. We’ll monitor the uptake, and I will advocate. If there is huge demand and we need more, I will do that advocacy, but for right now, it’s too soon to tell. We need to see what the enrolments look like for the end of September.

S. Furstenau: I want to thank the minister for her responses and thank her staff for their work. I really appreciate the passion for post-secondary and trades training that the minister displays in all she does. Thank you very much.

S. Bond: Good afternoon to the minister and her team. Also, I want to recognize our critic and thank him for the opportunity to ask a few questions today.

I appreciate the fact that the minister has shown a lot of interest in our region of the province, has visited here and has often been very inclusive. That is most appreciated. I also want to thank her, on a personal note, for reaching out to my office during a very difficult personal time. It meant a great deal to me, and I want to thank her for that.

I’m hoping that she could just provide me with a bit of an update. I know that she’s well aware of the need for additional health care professionals being trained in the north, and I know we are very grateful that we now have the opportunity to train physiotherapists, and there is a plan in place for occupational therapy as well. I’m hoping the minister can just give me a bit of an update on those programs and confirm the timelines for me, just to get a sense of where we’re at.

We have a lot of very passionate physiotherapists here in our community, who have lobbied very hard from the time we were in government. I wanted to be sure they have a sense of assurance about where the program is at and what the timelines might be for the occupational therapy program.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you to the member opposite. I have met her passionate constituents. I think they met me at the airport when I landed. I think they heard the minister was in town. “We need some OT and physiotherapy up in the north.” I couldn’t agree more, and I welcome and appreciate your advocacy.

The update for the master of physical therapy program partnership with UNBC and UBC. The planned first intake is of 20 students in September 2020.

The establishment of a UBC master of occupational therapy, a northern clinical cohort leading to a northern distribution of the program, in partnership with UNBC. The planned first intake of 16 students will be in September 2022.

Hopefully, that helps. Thank you for your advocacy.

S. Bond: Thank you for that. That continues to be very good news. I’m very appreciative of the interest the minister has had. I do think she did get several greetings from groups of physiotherapists every time she has visited. So I appreciate that.

I wanted to just double-check…. I know that universities and colleges will look very different this fall as a result of COVID. Will there be any impacts to those programs? Obviously, there’s lab work and all of those kinds of things. Will there be any impact?

I’m thankful for the start-up date. I’m not as worried, obviously, at this point, about OT. We have a bit of time to work on that. Do we anticipate any challenges with getting the physiotherapy program underway as a result of the different models and approaches that institutions are taking as a result of COVID?

Hon. M. Mark: To follow up on the question the member asked about earlier, I just wanted to add another detail. We were talking about the start-up for the OTs in September 2022. In September 2020, eight new OT students, starting in Vancouver, will undertake clinical placements in the north.

The work is underway. The start isn’t going to be in 2022. The work is this year. So very happy about that.

We’re not hearing anything around concerns for service delivery. It’s on track. But the member does point out…. I mean, depending on the region…. When we’re thinking of health seats, we always have to think of the clinical placements, the capacity of the institution, COVID and all of the limitations of space, etc. Each region is looking at health seats differently, but for the OTs, we’re on track.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that answer and for that reassurance.

I also want to put on the record…. She knows that we’ve had this conversation. UNBC is perfectly situated to continue training health care professionals closer to home. We know how absolutely critical that is. So I wanted to make sure that I bring forward, again, that place marker that says: “We’ve got physio. We’re working on OT.”

I know the minister is doing that work with the Minister of Health. But we need to keep in mind, especially…. I’m always concerned about speech therapy and speech pathology, especially for children. When there are wait-lists or shortages of professionals, we know that that can have a significant impact on their future efforts.

[2:40 p.m.]

I guess I just want some reassurance from the minister that there is a broader look at those health care professionals and that, while there is good news, as we move forward, we continue to work on that list of additional professionals that we require here in the north.

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you for the question. Member, you and I share a deep passion for the 250 communities. My family in Haida Gwaii. I think about what it takes for them to get health care. My family in the Nass Valley, family in Gitxsan territory. Many people have to drive hours upon hours to get access. So I’m a big fan. I’m a big advocate.

I think the transparent piece of all of this is…. There’s an ecosystem. We have a big province. Trying to spread the access is somewhat challenging while we’re being prudent fiscal managers of the budget.

I think the value that you’re talking about — of having access to training, to raise your family, to have your dream career close to home — is very in line with my value. I’m a Vancouver MLA. I love East Vancouver. There are a lot of people that I don’t want to encourage to move to 250 communities, but we know that we need trained professionals in all regions of the province.

Thank you for the advocacy.

S. Bond: Thank you very much to the minister. I know that when she is in the north, her connections are an important part of how she presents to our residents.

I wanted to also check on something that I am quite worried about. That worry has been enhanced by COVID, and that is the need for additional care aides, especially those who look after our seniors. We were facing a significant shortage of them prior to COVID. I worry about the need for…. As we look at what the long-term care system looks like, and as we have an aging demographic, we have big challenges in how we care for our seniors. We need to make sure that we have properly trained people and that we have enough of them.

I’m wondering if the minister is thinking about that, addressing that shortage of care aides, which has been an issue. Certainly, I’ve had lots of visits from people in long-term care homes who just can’t find the people they need. I’m worried that’s going to be worse now as a result of COVID and the challenges.

Has the minister given some thought, with her team, to what that looks like, what training looks like? How do we get more people, and how do we get the right people supporting seniors in long-term care?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: Member, I really appreciate the acknowledgment. COVID exposed the importance of caring for our elders, the essential service that they provide. We recently announced a $4.4 million one-time funding investment into health care across the province.

I guess I would line up, with the health care aides…. The credentials for those spots are, in some cases, diploma or certificate programs. That is precisely what the B.C. access grant was designed for — the capacity to train people up and have those doors open. We designed that before COVID, knowing that we need more of these workers. That’s what the Good Jobs Guide showed us. We’ll continue working with Health on getting more trained seats.

I don’t have the numbers right in front of me around what’s at CNC and UNBC, but we do try to distribute across the province. I believe some of the HCA seats…. There are 18 out of the 340 that we funded this year.

The B.C. access grant, I think, is more to the crux of your question — encouraging people to go through the door, to cross the finish line. We need them to be skilled.

S. Bond: I think all of us are going to need to work together to care for the seniors and elderly in our province in a way that’s respectful and dignified and that we take care of their health needs. I think that talking about the profession that serves them is something we all need to do in a very significant way. It’s a job that we should honour and respect — a very important one. So I thank the minister.

I have two other questions. I really thank the critic for his latitude in letting me ask my last two questions. I know there are lots of others.

I know that universities are required to have sexual assault and violence policies. The minister and I have talked about this before, and I know that it matters to both of us.

In the past, there have been concerns expressed that smaller institutions may not have the resources that they require to be as effective or as broad-based in the way that they respond to issues of sexual assault and violence on campus. I know that work has been done. I’m certainly not suggesting it hasn’t been. But I want to be sure that it’s equitable. If you’re at a small campus in northern B.C. and there is some sort of horrible issue that you need to deal with related to sexual assault or violence, you’re going to get the support that you need. I know there are phone lines and things like that.

I just wanted to raise it again and to bring it to the minister’s attention. If they’re a large institution like UBC or other institutions, they can fold this kind of policy expectation into their budgeting process. It’s harder for smaller institutions.

I’m wondering if the minister is monitoring the effectiveness of policies that are in place across the province and if she is keeping an eye on making sure that students are cared for equitably wherever they attend a post-secondary institution in the province.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: Again, I really appreciate the question from the member opposite. I was an opposition MLA when your former government changed the law.

I think it’s extremely important to recognize that assault is a real thing in our communities and that people should have resources. No one really wants to talk about black clouds in our community. So I think taking that step to make it law was one thing.

I will say that when I became minister, I wasn’t impressed that some of the policies were buried on websites. That wasn’t good enough for me. These policies are for people, all people on campuses to be safe, so we’ve been really aggressive in trying to make sure they’re accessible.

One thing I can add, to the member…. In June 2019, last year, our government announced $760,000 in funding to help build capacity at smaller institutions to implement sexual violence and misconduct awareness, prevention and response initiatives. We held a forum with Ending Violence B.C. to really get at the understanding. I was a summer student with the RCMP in Hazelton. The 250 communities’ needs are very different from the urban, and we wanted people to feel safe. That safety is going to be different depending on what type of campus you’re talking about.

We are monitoring the effectiveness. Year 3 is coming up shortly, at the end of December. The policies need to be reviewed. There may be delays because of COVID, but the expectation is that those policies will be reviewed, taking into account what students have said to us very clearly. They want it to be accessible. And the balance of accountability. It’s one thing to come forward that you’re a victim. It’s the other parts, what happens next….

A very serious issue. Thank you for raising it.

S. Bond: That is a very helpful point, and I should have remembered that there is a review period. I think that’s critical, and I hope that we’ll have a chance to feed in information.

I certainly do not want to imply that here in Prince George, at least…. I know my colleagues can speak to other campuses, but here in Prince George, at UNBC and at CNC, they have obviously embraced those policies and are working very hard to make sure that campuses are safe for all of our students. I just want to make sure they have the appropriate resources. I do thank the minister, and I will go back and take a look at that announcement and how that works.

My last question is something the minister has spent time on already, so hopefully this won’t be too repetitive. I did raise the issue with the Minister of Education, but I thought it was worthy of raising again here with the Minister of Advanced Education.

We had a program, which is about to end. I know that the Minister of Education…. He said in his answer that government was looking at “a comprehensive career strategy.” I’m assuming that works across both ministries, because obviously, if you’re going to transition to post-secondary, you want to make sure that K to 12 and post-secondary are working hand in hand.

I wanted to raise, specifically, the issue of a program called shoulder tappers, which was funded, I believe, for three years. The funding was provided through the Northern Development Initiative Trust. It really was an excellent program. It provided one-on-one opportunities for young people to learn more about the skilled trades and how that might be a valuable and important career — to try to help them. It looks at things like how you get credited in high school and dual credit. That program funding is ending, and I know that there is other work being done.

I guess if the minister could just, for my last question, give me a sense of her priorities when it comes to transition from K to 12 — the importance of skilled trades. We certainly know and feel it here in northern B.C. We know that they are well-paying, family-supporting lifelong jobs if you are trained with a skilled trade.

[2:55 p.m.]

Again, I just wanted to put on the record the shoulder tappers program. Likely, their funding will run out, but I know it has been valuable. I just wanted to raise that as my last question, and I will thank the minister in advance of her answer so I don’t take up more time. Thank you for the time this afternoon, and again, thank you to our Advanced Ed critic for his helpfulness in making sure we have a chance to raise these issues.

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you for the question. If the member doesn’t mind, I don’t have the details about the shoulder tappers program. It is the first I’m hearing about it. Staff are saying that it’s funded in a grant through Education.

I share your passion, when you sat at cabinet, around the importance of investing in the trades. We can follow up with more details from the ITA. Shelley Gray, the CEO, is happy to give some more concrete updates on just our investments in youth.

I can assure you that my daughter, for example…. I knew nothing about the trades. My daughter is registered in one of the dual-credit programs, with the professional chef program. She’s going into grade 12. We know these programs work. It’s really up to the passion of the school districts. We hear a lot of calls to action to have more of these dual credits across the province. But we’ll follow up in more detail, if you don’t mind.

What we do know unequivocally is that the number of youth going into the trades is going up. Thank you for your passion on that. I’m glad that we are able to kind of carry on the work.

S. Sullivan: Thank you, Minister. In respect of the next estimates coming up, I will just ask one final question. Perhaps the minister could answer in writing. The minister could also present her answer to the previous question in writing, to the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, on what new programs and funding are in process for the First Nations at TRU Williams Lake.

My final question is regarding a situation where a group of academics concerned about academic standards purposely submitted bad research to academic journals. Several of these were accepted for publication, and one received an award. This has raised serious concerns about value for taxpayer money. I wanted to know if the minister has conducted any reviews to ensure these kinds of academic standards are not being practised in taxpayer-funded institutions in British Columbia.

It looks like 2:59. I am very proud to say we are going to be ending on time. Perhaps the minister could respond in writing to those final questions.

Thank you, Minister.

[3:00 p.m.]

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if they would like to make any closing remarks before I call the vote.

Hon. M. Mark: First of all, I would just say, with gratitude, in Nisg̱a’a, t’ooyaḵsiy̓ n̓isim̓ to all of the members for their questions and their advocacy.

This may be my last estimates. My emotion comes out of my passion. I love my job. I think that to have the power to open doors for people — to see their faces and what I’ve seen — is something that I can’t describe. What I appreciate is that we all value this passion in our constituents, and investing in people is a non-partisan issue. I just want to leave it with that. I just really appreciate everyone’s advocacy.

We’ll get you those answers in writing. I don’t know how long it will take, Member, but thank you for your leadership and thank you for the variation of questions.

T’ooyaḵsiy̓ n̓isim̓.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and thank you to all the members.

Vote 12: ministry operations, $2,366,498,000 — approved.

The Chair: We will now take a ten-minute recess while we prepare for the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

The committee recessed from 3:01 p.m. to 3:11 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

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

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $489,126,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I do, Chair. I will keep them brief, acknowledging that we have a vast, vast ministry with many topic areas, and I respect the official opposition’s critic and the Third Party critics to have as much time as possible to fulfil their role in asking budget estimates questions for the ministry.

I will just say that…. Oftentimes I don’t have introductory comments, because I respect the time. However, in these times, I think it’s worthwhile…. I know it’s worthwhile just to acknowledge the incredible work that ministry staff has undertaken during these COVID-19 pandemic times.

We have approximately 4,000 people working for the ministry when we’re not in the midst of wildfire season. Approximately 75 percent of them moved their activities off premises that they usually conduct their work at in ministry buildings around the province, yet they were able to fulfil the business obligations of the ministry in an incredible fashion. So I just want to start off by saying thank you to all the staff, in every corner of the province, that undertook such an amazing effort and continue to do so.

In the room today, I have Deputy Minister John Allan and Associate Deputy Minister Rick Manwaring. Usually people can see them when I make introductions. I just want to say we’ll do our best. I know that there has been a lot of practice already. We’ll do our best in this modified manner in which we’re doing estimates today.

Thank you very much. Those are my opening remarks.

[3:15 p.m.]

The Chair: Member for Nechako Lakes, do you have any opening remarks?

J. Rustad: I want to also just make a few very brief opening remarks.

We’ll try our best to have this as fluid as possible. I know with the size of the ministry, there are a tremendous number of staff and resources that the minister may require to draw on, so I will try to group the questions and the themes as best I can and follow a logical pattern through this. As much of a logical pattern…. However, given answers, given the process, it may wander a little bit from time to time. I know the minister appreciates that.

I also want to recognize the staff across the province. This has been a very challenging time, and I want to thank them for the work they have been doing on behalf of the people in the province.

I also just want to mention that, through this period of time, the minister reached out. We were able to talk about a number of issues and try to work through a few things. Even though we tend to throw barbs back and forth, more than anything, as we go through this period of time, it’s important to note that from time to time there can be some cooperation, which is appreciated, on the issues that we’re able to do that on.

With that, what I’d like to do is perhaps suggest that we’re going to start off on the estimates process. We’re going to talk a little bit about the budget itself and some of the impacts of COVID-19.

Then we’re going to need to take a brief detour. One of my colleagues, from Kootenay East, would like to ask a couple of questions of the minister specific to his riding that he’d like to be able to get in. I thought it might be a logical place to put them in before we, then, move on to talking about wildlife management.

With that, maybe I’ll start asking the minister. Obviously, COVID-19 had quite an impact on the ministry, on the province, on many, many people. Through the various uplifts of funding that were allocated by government, were any additional funds allocated to his ministry? And how has COVID-19 impacted the ministry’s expenses?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: The costs associated with the COVID response out of this ministry, which we’re tracking, to date are $6.7 million. We’ve been undertaking the work above and beyond what normally would happen in the ministry.

The biggest area that has accrued costs, of that $6.7 million, is in our efforts to ensure that the largest tree-planting season ever in the province was successful. It was, I’m happy to report. Thanks to staff on that. There was about $4 million associated with COVID-related measures and ensuring that the planting season was successful.

We also supported, through our natural resource officers, other aspects of the government’s response to COVID. For instance, many of our natural resource officers were deployed…. In fact, all land border crossings had our NROs, as well as supporting the efforts at Vancouver Airport to ensure that incoming people had isolation plans in place. Once again, a very successful operation. That was about $1.5 million out of that $6.7 million. The remainder, approximately $1 million, was incremental costs associated with safety, cleaning supplies, those kinds of items, associated with our response.

As far as the member’s question around costs and cost recovery, we’re working with the Ministry of Finance and emergency management B.C. to access COVID-19 funding sources, including recovery arrangements with the federal government.

J. Rustad: Approximately how much are you looking to, hopefully, recover from the federal government, through the money coming forward and through other sources in the ministry? I’m trying to get an idea of the size of the challenge that the ministry has faced due to COVID-19.

Hon. D. Donaldson: As the member may be aware, there was a very recent announcement from the federal government of $30 million, across Canada, made available to assist with additional costs associated with silviculture due to COVID-19 impacts.

I had a discussion with my counterpart federally, the Natural Resources Minister, Seamus O’Regan, around that. Details are yet to be negotiated, but we are in discussion with the federal government about how that $30 million will be apportioned out. That, obviously, would make an impact on the $4 million, of the $6.7 million, that we spent regarding silviculture additional costs.

As far as the natural resource officers go, the $1.5 million can be recovered in an arrangement with emergency management B.C.

J. Rustad: A number of things come to mind in terms of the impacts, but one thing…. Every ministry, of course, does a service plan each year going into budget season. Has the service plan been impacted, in terms of the targets, due to changes and due to the impacts of COVID-19?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: As I stated in my opening remarks, the ministry staff have been absolutely delivering above and beyond as we worked our way through the COVID-19 impacts. We functioned all the way through the business targets, the business operations of the ministry. We’ll be reporting out on the service plan, at year-end, around how targets were met.

I would say, though, that it hasn’t impacted our work towards the targets. Where we might see some impacts in the service plan generally is when it comes to our ability to engage thoroughly under performance measures around Indigenous engagement.

Obviously, many of the First Nations communities that we need to deal with on a consistent basis…. Some of them closed down their operations completely, out of their administrative offices. Others were working remotely but weren’t functioning at 100 percent. That may impact some of the timelines but, overall, not the targets in service plan. We’re on track with that.

J. Rustad: I know a great number of the good folks that are doing the work in government. We’re working from home through a lot of this, and FrontCounter was closed for periods of time.

I’m curious. How has the ministry functioned with so many people working from a distance in terms of the various activities, issues like permitting, issues that come in, requests that would normally come in through FrontCounter and these types of things? How has that functioned, as a ministry with people trying to work from home? Has it slowed down the process? Has the ministry found ways to make it work? As we are all experiencing this reality of Zoom, I’m just curious as to how things work within the ministry.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yeah. It has been, sometimes, a challenge working from home. I see my official opposition critic might be doing that today.

I know that he’s alerted me to some issues that were creeping up around FrontCounter services not being open to the public. We’ve discussed that in what he referenced — our regular communication that we had during the time that we weren’t able to be open. Many of the FrontCounter…. In fact, most offices are open to the public once again. But in the meantime, what we did is….

We immediately noticed a downturn in permitting applications across the board once the pandemic and the provincial health officer orders came into full effect mid-March. We had an immediate response, which was to ramp up our online system, which was in place — online applications for permitting.

We also increased our call centre services by increasing staffing. I do remember that there were some concerns about wait times in our call centre services. We responded to that by increasing staffing. In fact, we did find that sometimes the calls were taking longer to get to, because the call centre services were more complex and involved because they were talking through permitting issues.

We’re able to keep track with the demand now. The experience we have today is that our online activities are still being well used. They dropped a little bit, and then they’ve come back. Together with FrontCounters reopening, we’re actively promoting our online services, because as with many things that have taken place in COVID-19 times, people are becoming more used to using the online services.

[3:35 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I don’t know if the minister would have this information available, but I’m just thinking about his overall budget and the overall provincial budget. Obviously, there’s a significant amount of revenue that comes in from forestry activities through stumpage — and other activities, of course, not just stumpage.

I didn’t get a chance to see this in the snapshot that was provided or the update that was provided, the scenario that was talked about from the Finance Minister. But I’m just curious as to whether or not the ministry was on track for collecting the $900-plus billion — I think it was around $960 billion — to the end of March, and it’s projected to bring in about $1 billion, a little over $1 billion, I believe, this fiscal year through stumpage and through the forestry activities.

I’m wondering if the minister has a sense of whether or not the volume is being moved, whether or not logging has happened and whether those budget targets are, hopefully, going to be achieved.

Hon. D. Donaldson: These are good questions. Obviously, the situation is pretty dynamic, as far as predicting.

Definitely volume came off due to COVID-19 impacts, but largely, it’s recovering quickly, especially because of the massive increase in lumber prices and, therefore, the revenue generation to the province in stumpage. The lumber prices, I think, today are at over $600 U.S. for 1,000 board feet. Those are near record. It harkens back to the only times they were higher, back in 2018.

To date, the volume harvested is down a bit, but we’ll see a pickup because of those lumber prices. And there’s still very competitive bidding for BCTS wood, for instance, which we use to track for our market pricing system.

[3:40 p.m.]

Specifically, the member asked about some of the quarterly reports. In quarter 1, we had predicted for forest revenue $143 million, and it has come in now at $111 million, but it’s still being finalized, and that number is ticking upwards. So I guess the short answer is it’s pretty dynamic, but companies have come back, curtailments have been lifted, and the market is good. So we’re expecting, and experts are predicting, a good revenue generation for the remainder of the year.

J. Rustad: The second part of that question was year-end. Like I said, I didn’t see whether or not there is any indication as to whether the year-end target was met. I don’t know if the minister can add any comment about that.

In addition to that, obviously the government is projecting a pretty significant deficit situation for the current fiscal year. COVID-19 has obviously had a pretty big impact on a lot of revenues. Forestry might be one of the bright spots if the prices of lumber carry forward through the balance of the year.

I guess the question to the minister is: is the ministry looking at budget constraints, budget changes, through this year to help with the overall management to the provincial budget challenge that the current government is facing?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The year-end target was the last part of the previous question, the first part of this question. Again, we’ve provided the most current information on the quarterly report. It’s really, as I said in my answer, too dynamic a situation to predict if the forecast will be achieved or not. As I said, things are improving rapidly — a phenomenal run-up on lumber prices. That can make a big difference.

[3:45 p.m.]

As far as our budget, we have seen a budget uplift of 3.5 percent for this fiscal year’s budget, and that’s what we’re working with.

The member was asking about budget constraints to help the overall management of the money that was spent to protect citizens on COVID-19 and to improve recovery. At this point, we’re set with our budget that we have from 2021.

I want to also point out that forestry, as the member alluded to, has been a contributing sector despite COVID. The turnaround after a slowdown in March became quite apparent. Mills were able to put measures in place to follow the public health officer’s orders, and we designated forestry an essential service. So as he mentioned, it has been a bright spot.

J. Rustad: I find it a little curious, I guess you could say, that the situation is still being fluid, given that the year-end was four months ago and the amount of revenue coming in should have been fairly predictable at this point.

Moving on, the ministry put in place a proposal, a plan, to help the forest sector throughout the time it was being significantly impacted by COVID-19 to be able to delay stumpage for a period of time. I think it was three months. I think that was designed…. There were several other jurisdictions in North America that put that in place to try and help their sector through that.

Was there any takeup by industry to the program that the ministry put in place?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Before I deal with the current question, I apologize if I wasn’t thoroughly understanding the member’s previous question. I thought he was asking whether our forecast for 2021 revenue generation was going to be revised or was accurate.

I can give him the numbers for the ’19-20 budgeted revenue generation from Forests versus the actual. The revenue budget for Forests for 2019-20 was $1.084 billion, and the actual was $944 million.

[3:50 p.m.]

As far as the response measures that we put in place for industry, one of them was deferral of stumpage, as the member alluded to. This was one of the major asks by one of the sector associations, the Council of Forest Industries. We put that in place, and we believe about two companies took up that offer.

That’s mainly because…. There wasn’t a greater uptake, perhaps, because of the situation changing so quickly. As I alluded to before, companies were looking for response measures. We put that major ask in place, and then companies discovered that they were still able to operate, and the markets bounced back quickly.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that answer. I do find it curious that the government was projecting a $12½ billion deficit. About $5 billion of that is the additional spending measures. So clearly, over $7 billion in revenue. That’s to be understood, given the COVID-19 issue that we’re facing and government choices.

I do find it curious that it appears the ministry is not part of any discussions in terms of how to manage that additional revenue shortfall, certainly not at this stage. Maybe it’s just something the minister can’t talk about at the moment, but clearly, there is a revenue problem. There’s also a spending issue in terms of the deficit and the challenges that are going forward.

With that, perhaps just one last question around the budgetary measures that are in place. There are a number of topics that I think we’ll get into in more detail as we go through, but I just want to touch on permitting as one particular issue. I know there’s a backlog and challenges in the current budget, 2020-2021. Does the ministry have any additional funding allocated to helping to speed up or to alleviate some of the backlog challenges that are associated with permits and permit applications?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just to start off with, the member mentioned that he was curious about not being part of any discussions to address revenue shortfall by looking at spending in our ministry.

I’ll just remind him that we have many functions that relate to revenue generation and service provisions. As the time continues in these budget estimates and he has his colleagues come and ask me about services in their constituencies, I’ll remind him that we are continuing with those services because we are able to maintain our budget in our ministry and have the staff, therefore, to provide those much-needed services in all constituencies across the province.

As far as permitting is concerned, we have provided an uplift in certain permitting areas, which has included hiring additional staff and reallocating staff. In addition to those kinds of human resource activities, we have entered a multi-year streamlining management process, particularly in lands, in water allocation and in fish and wildlife. So it’s not just human resources, but it’s looking at improvement in how permitting is handled.

I would note that in the forestry part of the permitting area that we’re responsible for, under important functions such as cutting permits, our average turnaround is 40 days, which has been achieved. That’s the target, and it’s been achieved.

J. Rustad: We’ll get into a little bit more on the permitting, and I know there will be some more budget-related questions. I’m sure that the minister is pleased to have actually had some budget questions. But as we go through much of the policy questions that will be coming out through the next 14 hours of estimates, there will be some additional budget-related components that will be part of that.

Just before I move on now through to the next topic I’d like to start with, which is wildlife management, I’d like to give the member for Kootenay East an opportunity to ask a couple of questions that are important for his riding.

T. Shypitka: To the minister, I’ll just…. Something that’s really volatile in my area is going to come to a head here pretty quick. I’ll give the minister a little bit of a backgrounder on it. He’s probably not totally familiar with it.

Last April, when phase 1 of the pandemic was in full force, a serious issue threatened the safety and the spread of the virus due to two large gatherings on Crown land. They’re known as the mud-bogs, and they bring in thousands of people from outside of our area to recreate and camp and party and drive their vehicles in the mud. These two events are on Easter long weekend and May long weekend on the Crown land surrounding the Koocanusa reservoir. This is known as the Koocanusa recreation strategy area.

There were many options that were discussed, but government came back with an enactment of section 58 of the Forest and Range Practices Act, otherwise known as FRPA. This section allowed for the closure of Crown land to overnight camping within the recreation area, which is the Koocanusa recreation strategy area. It was my understanding at that time that section 58 would only be enforced until the end of May, or at the end of the May long weekend when both the mud-bog events would be over.

[4:00 p.m.]

The first question to the minister is…. Section 58 is still in force. When will this area be open once again to overnight camping on Crown land, and what is the rationale to have had it kept closed for this long?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the member for bringing up this topic. I do recall very well the issue when it came to the mud-bogging event and appreciated the member’s support at that time in our efforts to keep people safe, basically. That is still the focus.

I don’t want to split hairs, but I believe the member does know that section 58 applies to Crown land. People can still camp in designated camping spots and rec sites and parks within the area. This section 58 is still in place because we are still in a volatile situation.

We know that despite the provincial health officer orders and constant warnings by the Minister of Health, we do see, as we open up into phase 3, an uptick in COVID cases in the province. Out of an abundance of caution, we want to make sure that we have the ability to control, during these summer busy months, the kinds of activities that are going to occur on Crown lands. That’s the reason that section 58 is still in place.

T. Shypitka: Thanks to the minister for that. As the minister knows, he says it doesn’t include all areas inside the recreation area. Designated areas such as rec sites and provincial parks are still open. So it really doesn’t explain the rationale of closing this due to COVID, because we still do have camping in that area, just not on the Crown land.

The biggest concern — and this is one of the concerns I brought up with the minister at the time of putting this into force — was the displacement that it was going to cause. This area isn’t just a small recreational park area. This is thousands and thousands, tens of thousands, of hectares surrounding the Koocanusa reservoir. This includes the villages of Wardner, Jaffray, Baynes Lake, Grasmere and Newgate. This area is huge, and it plays host to thousands of recreators every summer. The displacement alone was a big concern of mine. These recreators are not going to just come and go back home. They’re going to go elsewhere, and that’s exactly what’s happening right now.

Can the minister tell me if this displacement was ever considered when the section 58 was put into use? We are now seeing recreators going back into the back country, cutting down trees, plowing through roads, setting up their fires, setting up their camps at a time when we need our COs to be enforced. Now, instead of being in an area that was contained to a certain degree, and was well known by the COs, now it’s literally impossible for these officers to do their job.

They’re pulling their hair out. As a matter of fact, they’re even going as far as sending recreators that are from out of province to our provincial campgrounds, which were identified as going to be B.C. residents only for those provincial parks. Now you’re getting our locals that can’t go camp in their own backyard, in their Crown land. They can’t go to B.C. Parks or rec sites because they’re overrun with the displacement that this has caused, and they’re upset.

Now there is an actual blockade and a protest that’s being set for this Saturday long weekend on the bridge, a major bridge, that connects two areas of the recreation area. This has a major potential for violence, unrest and safety concerns.

[4:05 p.m.]

I guess the question is: did the minister consider, when they put in the section 58, this displacement that it would cause?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the question, to the member. We are aware that some residents and visitors who don’t support closure are mobilizing the action that the member discussed at the key access point. RCMP are aware of that as well.

For sure, we considered the displacement topic that the member well articulated. What we balance that against is the extent of the concentration of on-the-land activities in the Koocanusa area versus disbursing those activities to designated camping sites throughout the region. Of course, when you have designated camping areas, people have camping pads and camping spots. It avoids the situation of large numbers of people camping together in an unstructured manner, and that’s what we wanted to avoid.

We haven’t had widespread reports of the kinds of activities that the member described, about people going off and chopping down trees and plowing roads. The member, for those who can’t see, seems to be disagreeing with me on that, but we’ll definitely be monitoring the situation.

Again, it’s about public safety. We depend on people being responsible for their actions. That’s the message that the provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry has emphasized and what the Minister of Health has emphasized. The message has also been emphasized, if you are coming from out of province, to enjoy your own backyard first. If you are coming from far away to an area like Koocanusa, the message has been, again, enjoy your own backyard first.

T. Shypitka: Well, a couple things there. First, the minister might need some better intel on what’s actually happening in the back country of Kootenay East. I can assure you that it’s a real problem right now, and there are people that are doing things their own way.

The other part to it is that these people aren’t going to rec sites. There’s only a limited number of rec sites and parks in this area, and they’re full during the summer anyways. You have taken, literally, thousands of campers and pushed them all over the place outside this area, and it’s creating havoc.

[4:10 p.m.]

It is a safety issue. The minister is absolutely right. It is a safety issue. Because of this section 58 being in place, it is going to cause some major safety concerns, one of them being a protest on a bridge during a long weekend. We’ll see. God help us all that nothing terrible happens there.

I’m relying on the COs and the RCMP. Once again, we’re pulling our resources for something that could have been mitigated by simply enforcing for COVID-19 — to have our COs in a designated area they know very well and to tell people: “Try to keep to groups of less than six in your own little campsite, and no large gatherings.” All that kind of stuff. Everything would have been fine. This displacement has caused a lot of unrest. I don’t think it was well-thought-out.

I guess the final question…. We’ll see how the minister responds. When can we expect this lifted? Surely this isn’t until a vaccine is implemented. We have camping all over the province right now. We have camping on Crown land all over the province right now, just not at Koocanusa. The argument that this is COVID-related just doesn’t just hold a lot of water for me right now.

I think there’s something else at play. That’s my own theory, in my own mind, right now. The COVID theory doesn’t fly, because we have camping all over the province of British Columbia. We don’t see any of these section 58s enacted anywhere else other than here. I guess maybe another question is: why is it just the Koocanusa area that has had this section 58 imposed on it?

Hon. D. Donaldson: To the member, I would remind him…. I appreciated — I mentioned it right off the bat — that the member was in support of the shutting down over the mud-bog event because of the large, unpredictable concentration of people. Koocanusa is unlike other areas where people in the province are accessing camping on Crown land, in that we see repeated instances of large numbers of people using this area.

I’ll just go back to this as a public safety issue. It’s temporary. We can’t predict when it will be lifted because we’re just entering phase 3. We’ll have to monitor and see how the reopening of many of the recreation sites and park sites is dispersing people and enabling people to find other places to camp, which wasn’t the situation earlier. We will monitor it, and I can assure the member that the implementing of section 58 was for public safety concerns around COVID-19 impacts.

[4:15 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Thanks to the minister. Absolutely, I was in support of section 58. It was the only option that was available, but I saw the logic in it. At the same time, it was my understanding that it would be over by the end of the May long weekend.

The two mud-bog events, which were the primary reason for this, have long gone, and we’re actually two phases since that support that I gave. Now we’re into our phase 3 and phase 4, I guess, hopefully, eventually. But that’s a vaccine, in my opinion — phase 4. I could be wrong. But surely, this area isn’t the only area in British Columbia that has heavy Crown-use recreation. I could be wrong on that, but it absolutely boggles my mind to think that this is the only place in B.C. that has a safety issue on recreation use because of high volume.

I guess my last question is on the displacement this has caused. People in the back country bring another threat, and that’s the threat of forest fire. People are outside quadding in other areas that, perhaps, aren’t treed well. There are tight confines with vegetation that is now dry. It lends itself to forest fire. I know in the south country, where Koocanusa is, it’s a very dry area, very dry, like most of the parts of Kootenay East and the Kootenays as well.

Can the minister help me out a little bit here and talk to the Southeast fire centre and put a request in that…? Due to the increased traffic outside the Koocanusa recreation strategy area into the back country, we’re seeing an additional threat to forest fire this year that we have never seen before — thousands of people recreating in different areas that they’ve never recreated. Can the minister help me out and put a request in to the Southeast fire centre to push for a fire ban in that area? Thank you.

Hon. D. Donaldson: We are seeing, and we do see, a concentration of camping in this particular area, the Koocanusa, on Crown land that we don’t see in other areas of the province. I just want to make sure that the member is aware of that. He was asking about that. We want people to camp responsibly and conduct their activities in the forest responsibly when it comes to potential wildfire risk.

The member is right. We’re seeing an increase in drying conditions, in temperatures in the southern part of the province especially. We already have category 2 and 3 fire prohibitions in the southeast and in many other parts of the province. I think what we’re discussing here is category 1 and other activities that might lead to the causing of forest fires. The member mentioned quadding. I know well how that could potentially create risk.

[4:20 p.m.]

The fire centre experts and managers are who I depend on. They do assessments based on indices and risks. The local fire centre manager, of course, the Southeast region fire centre, is very aware of the building risk when it comes to the potential for wildfires. If the member is so inclined, we’re pleased to set up a discussion between him and the Southeast fire centre managers. He can get a full briefing on how the indices are playing out at this point and the decision-making process for that fire centre manager to look at other activities that might be high risk and creating prohibitions to those activities.

The Chair: Members, we’ll take a five-minute recess now as we change Chairs and do our safety protocols to make sure that we’re in good order here.

The committee recessed from 4:21 p.m. to 4:27 p.m.

[M. Dean in the chair.]

J. Rustad: I appreciate the minister taking the questions from my colleague from Kootenay East. It’s obviously an important issue, coming up on the weekend. So it was important to get those questions out there.

We’re going to now move on to a discussion of wildlife management. I’m curious. Just to start off, let’s get some of the budgetary issues associated with wildlife management out of the way. Perhaps the minister could detail what has been allocated within his ministry for wildlife management and, as well, include a breakdown of what will be spent on inventory research and monitoring.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I can provide the member some of the figures that we have here in this budget for this fiscal year, 2020-2021. We’ll spend approximately $43 million on wildlife management and habitat conservation. That includes a $10 million annual budget uplift for wildlife and habitat stewardship committed to support the implementation of our Together for Wildlife strategy.

That’s not the only money that’s spent on wildlife management. There are other ministries. For instance, in the Ministry of Environment, approximately $2.5 million is allocated for staffing that relates to functions like mapping and for staffing like ecologists and wildlife biologists. In the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, approximately $6.7 million is spent for staffing associated with wildlife and environmental issues, specialists and staff, as well as wildlife monitoring.

We also dedicate $2.6 million to the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation, whose mandate is to improve habitat — obviously, it’s in their name — beyond the government program requirements.

I do have some specific investments in the three areas that the member inquired about under our land-based investment strategy. For big game, for instance, under inventory and monitoring, there is a spend this year of $1.1 million, and for habitat enhancement, $600,000 under the big game category under our land-based investment strategy.

As far as the remainder of the budget and what’s specific to population monitoring, for instance, we don’t have that figure at hand right now. We can get that, and I’ll read it into the record when it’s provided.

J. Rustad: The minister has mentioned $43 million, which included habitat conservation. Can the minister break out how much of that $43 million is on habitat conservation and what constitutes the work that will actually be done under habitat conservation?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I can provide some detail for the member. Again, that $43 million overall budget for wildlife management and habitat conservation….

As I already indicated, $10 million of that is allocated to a budget uplift to support implementation of the Together for Wildlife strategy. Forty percent of that $10 million…. I did go beyond high school math, but by my calculation, that would be $4 million for on-the-ground stewardship activities, including habitat restoration.

The remainder of that $33 million is for basic programs for wildlife and habitat. I mentioned this before, but I don’t know if it was clear. Specifically, out of that $33 million, $2.6 million is dedicated to the Habitat Conservation Trust, whose primary focus, of course, is to improve wildlife and their habitats beyond what our program and government requirements are. Out of that $33 million, there is $2.6 million specifically for that kind of habitat enhancement.

As far as the remainder of the spend, dividing between wildlife management and habitat conservation…. We can try to get further numbers on that for the member. I would say, though, that it does become complex. Staffing associated with habitat…. They might work on a number of things. The staff might work on inventory. They might work on monitoring, and they might work on habitat issues as well.

That’s why I don’t have that answer as forthcoming as the member might wish, but he has some other numbers there that we’ve provided specifically on habitat.

J. Rustad: I think, in general, I wasn’t looking for a breakdown of staffing costs for each of the various categories. What I was really trying to get a sense of I think you provided, in terms of the conservation side, but also the amount that is being spent, in particular, on the inventory work. It’s so important, when trying to make science-based decisions on wildlife management, that we have good inventory information.

I’m curious as to the amount of resources that are going to be allocated towards the inventory and monitoring components and how that compares to previous years.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I agree with the member that inventory work is important. If you don’t have that, then it’s hard to manage effectively. Again, it’s a bit complex, but what I can say is the extra uplift of $10 million to this $33 million base budget to make it $43 million is a considerable uplift and shows our commitment to the Together for Wildlife strategy.

I did indicate in the member’s earlier question about habitat that 40 percent of that $10 million uplift, approximately, was for objectives around setting habitat restoration. But that leaves 60 percent. A large portion of that is to improve the collection and sharing of biological information, for instance, which is exactly in the wheelhouse of inventory and monitoring. I would say that a good $3 million of that $10 million is for that collection and sharing of biological information.

That’s an increase over and above the basic $33 million program that’s in place. The $33 million program that’s in place as the base budget is similar to previous years. It’s just that we’ve also created a $10 million uplift, and at least $3 million of that is towards inventory and monitoring.

J. Rustad: I wonder if the minister could break out of the $43 million, if he has the numbers available, including the $10 million for the Together for Wildlife, how much of that money is allocated towards caribou management, the science associated with caribou issues and, of course, the other components that would potentially fall under caribou.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I think he’ll be aware that we have a $47 million commitment over five years to our caribou recovery program. This year we have $10 million allocated towards caribou management. That is above and beyond the $43 million that we’ve already been discussing.

J. Rustad: I guess the question is: out of the $43 million…? I appreciate the $10 million or, I should say, the $47 million commitment over five years.

The question, I guess, still remains. How much of the base budget, the $43 million base budget plus the $10 million of Together for Wildlife, is also allocated towards caribou and caribou management issues? Perhaps, while he’s at it, maybe he could give a breakdown of the amount being spent on predator management, both for caribou and outside, or for other species, if he has that ability to break those numbers out.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member had a few questions there. Each question was around…. In addition to the $10 million that I discussed earlier that’s specifically targeted to caribou management, he was wondering about what, out of the $33 million base budget and the $10 million in Together for Wildlife uplift that we’ve provided this year, was specific to caribou.

The answer to that is that there is nothing in that budget dedicated specifically to caribou. There might be some side benefits to work that’s done under that base budget and uplift budget around monitoring other ungulate populations that could be used to help us manage caribou better, but that’s not the primary or dedicated focus of that spending in that category.

When it comes to predator management and, specifically, that $10 million that’s focused on caribou management in the province, approximately $2 million of that $10 million is allocated to predator management.

J. Rustad: Out of the $33 million and $10 million, the $43 million, how much of those resources are being allocated towards predator management?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: In answer to the member’s question, out of that $33 million base budget and $10 million uplift, constituting $43 million, a very small amount is allocated to predator management, in the range of $150,000, in this budget year. As I said before, the bulk of the predator management budget comes out of the $10 million allocated for caribou management, and that would be $2 million.

J. Rustad: I guess a simple or a straightforward question to the minister. In terms of the science being used for caribou decisions and the work that’s being done up in the Peace country, in particular, for the areas that fall under protection….

Maybe this is just a little softball to the minister for a quick answer. I’m assuming that all these decisions are based on the best science available, whether that’s the amount of funding put together for it or the protection measures that have been taken, in terms of wildlife management, predator management, etc. I’m assuming all these decisions are based on the best science available. Is that accurate to say?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes. Our biologists make decisions based on science. There’s continual monitoring and improvement. They base it on science and actual results, as they accumulate data from implementing science in the field, more so than on modelling and forecasting, where there’s more of a variety of perspectives and interpretations. We especially use the science that’s based on actual results in the field.

J. Rustad: For confirmation, I think he mentioned…. The biologists and the wildlife specialists come forward with the information. Obviously, their recommendations are based on the best science available, knowing that modelling predictions can vary, depending on some other things.

I just want to confirm that the decisions, therefore, that are coming from the ministry, in terms of, for example, the $2 million out of the $10 million that is being spent on caribou for predator management…. That these decisions that the minister is making and that his government is making are being driven by the science that is being provided by the biologists.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, the recommendations that come forward to me are based on science and peer-reviewed science. Of course, the biologists keep up to date on science, and as more discoveries — I suppose you’d say — are made and more data collected, they are able to further refine the recommendations they make, based on those findings.

J. Rustad: Once again, I just want to try to be clear with the question here. Then the minister’s decisions are based on science, based on the science provided by the staff. Is that true?

Hon. D. Donaldson: When recommendations come to me — and the former minister likely knows this from when he was in government — there are often a series of options for the minister to choose from. Those decisions, when they come from biologists, are based on scientific data, and those are the options that are presented to me. So I would say these are science-based decisions.

J. Rustad: Going along the same lines, I’m thinking about the decision associated with the area protected for caribou up in the Peace country. We’ve seen a situation, for example, in Tweedsmuir Park, where we’ve got one million hectares protected, and caribou herds are in decline. In other parks where there are significant areas are protected, various species are in decline, including species like caribou.

I’m wondering if the minister can provide the science to show that the protection measures that have been taken up in the Peace River area for caribou will have better results than the protection measures that have been taken in other areas around the province, in terms of being able to help restore caribou populations.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I think the example that he brings up is a good one. It demonstrates that not every situation is the same in the province when it comes to our caribou herds and habitat.

For instance, he mentioned Tweedsmuir area. I believe his premise was that even though habitat is protected there, the population is in decline. It’s true. Eighty percent of the habitat in the Tweedsmuir area for caribou is protected. But the important part here is that of that area protected for caribou habitat, 75 percent has been disturbed through mountain pine beetle infestations and wildfires. That disturbance has led to an increase in wolf population and, therefore, a decrease in the caribou population.

I think the short answer is that you have to dig deeper than just the percentage of habitat protected but also to the condition that habitat is in. That is why out of the $10 million this year that I had previously said is allocated to caribou management, $2 million is dedicated to habitat restoration.

J. Rustad: It’s interesting. The minister mentioned the pine beetle issue associated with Tweedsmuir Park and some of the damage that has done, obviously, and changed some of the dynamics in the Tweedsmuir area. But I won’t go to the obvious point of the politics; rather, I go up to the area that has now been decimated up in the Peace country for caribou protection.

There is a significant spruce beetle outbreak that is devastating a significant amount of the forested land and values that have been protected. Without control measures of that spruce beetle epidemic in that area, it will likely destroy a significant portion of the habitat which is to be protected.

I’m just curious with regards to what the science may say about the future value of that habitat and the decision that has been made to protect that habitat for caribou, when there is such an obvious forest health pest issue that is running uncontrolled throughout that area.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member brings up a very interesting topic.

As far as we can determine, in the 700,000 hectares that has been set aside under the partnership agreement around caribou management in the Peace area, the spruce beetle outbreak is not as prominent as in some areas outside of the 700,000 hectares. So in those timber-harvesting land bases outside of the 700,000 hectares where spruce beetle infestation has arisen, we are focusing our mitigation measures around those areas.

Sometimes the mitigation measures also occur within caribou habitat protection zones. That includes, as the member is probably aware, traps and removal and factors.

[5:10 p.m.]

There have been cutblocks approved before the partnership agreement was signed, prior to that, that lie within the protected area that have, as part of the activities, to remove spruce beetle for harvesting purposes.

We’re aware of the circumstances that the member has raised, and we’ll be monitoring it closely.

J. Rustad: It does beg the question. Obviously, the ministry is aware of the problem and is aware of how to manage spruce beetle, which is through baiting and removal of the area that has been impacted through harvesting. Other methods are, of course, to have a rather large-scale burn through the area to try to eradicate the pest problem, all of which, of course, impacts on the potential habitat values and the values in the regions and the rationale for why the area was added in the first place.

I think we could go on at length about that, back and forth on that topic. I’m not sure if we would get anywhere, in terms of the decision. But I am curious, though, in terms of the spruce beetle and knowing how spruce beetle advances…. I know the ministry is well aware of how the spruce beetle advances.

Was any modelling done on the habitat values and the impact of the habitat values for forest health issues? Were there any consultants engaged, associated with that? Is that modelling information available, especially in terms of the value of the habitat and the potential impact to those values from forest health issues?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll just ask for clarification. Is the member referencing specifically the 700,000 hectares that were set aside for caribou protection, habitat protection?

J. Rustad: Yes. Specifically the area that has been set aside for caribou management, whether or not there was modelling done in advance, given the information that the ministry is well aware of in terms of the spruce beetle epidemic and the potential for the spruce beetle epidemic to grow and, as the minister has referenced, the impact of other forest health issues in habitat in other areas of the province.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: A couple of things. The 700,000 hectares was identified by the federal government through the federal recovery strategy and by the West Moberly and Saulteau, based on their Indigenous knowledge that supported the 700,000 hectares set aside. So based on that advice from both the federal government and the First Nations, we looked at that area.

I wouldn’t say there was…. The type of work that was done regarding spruce would’ve been inventory work looking at the stands and the seral stages of the stands when it came to spruce.

I think it’s important…. Perhaps I didn’t explain myself thoroughly in the answer to the Tweedsmuir issue, but in that situation, the mountain pine beetle epidemic created a massive amount of fuel for wildfire, and the wildfires that have swept through have had the impact on the caribou habitat. So that was the main factor — the wildfires.

In this instance, we know that the spruce beetle spreads a lot more slowly than the mountain pine beetle. In addition, part of the settling on the area being set aside, the 700,000 hectares, is a recognition that wildfire behaviour in this area does not mean that wildfire would consume the entire 700,000 hectares and, therefore, all the potential habitat for caribou would be lost in the instance of a natural wildfire.

As I said, we’re monitoring. We’ll be managing for long-term results and keeping our eye on the natural processes that are evolving in that 700,000 hectares.

J. Rustad: I think that the minister is well aware, probably, that all of Tweedsmuir Park didn’t burn, in terms of the habitat for caribou, through the fires, although there certainly have been devastating impacts.

The spruce beetle problem, given the history of spruce beetle in other areas of the province as it grows…. It does grow slower, because it doesn’t have as much jumping capabilities as the pine beetle did. It still builds significant fuel loads, and there have been significant fires that have happened because of spruce beetle impacts in other areas.

It’s curious, but I think that the minister did answer the question, not directly but indirectly, which was that there wasn’t modelling done associated with the forest health outbreak. But that’s okay.

I do want to move on to another aspect of it that the minister talked about, which was the recommendations from the First Nations based on the local knowledge and their interest within the area. The ministry, as well as other ministries, I’m sure, had a lot of engagement with the First Nations on that land base management decision, as well as on the wildlife management decisions.

[5:20 p.m.]

I guess I’m asking the minister — it may be a rhetorical question — if he could confirm that level of engagement before making that decision around the wildlife management in the Peace country and whether that similar type of engagement is being considered or is being undertaken in the other caribou habitat areas that the ministry is currently looking at for potential future actions.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m just wondering…. A little bit of clarification, please. Are you talking about the engagement process with interested parties around our other caribou herd planning initiatives under the section 11 agreement with the federal government? Is that the topic you wanted to explore?

J. Rustad: For clarity, obviously in the world of UNDRIP…. The minister mentioned how the recommendations that came forward from the First Nations were obviously a significant component in guiding the decision around the land base component, and there are many, many other First Nations around the province which impact over caribou areas.

[5:25 p.m.]

I’m curious, with regards to the level of engagement the ministry has with those other nations, if it’s at a comparable level to the engagement with the First Nations in the Peace country and how much influence, I guess you could say, those nations have on the science-based decision-making that the ministry is making around the caribou management.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m happy to get into the answer to this question. I just didn’t want to let a statement by the member pass previously about modelling when it came to the spruce beetle and the potential infestation in the 700,000 hectares that were set aside under the partnership agreement.

We understand, as a ministry, the dynamics and the likely impact of the spruce beetle infestation. The impacts in that area were considered and discussed, and we do impact-modelling every year for spruce beetle. That helped us inform our considerations and discussions when it went into that decision.

As far as the question at hand, the requirement and our desire to engage First Nations in herd planning under the section 11 agreement for other herds around the province is clearly enshrined in the section 11 agreement that we have with the federal government. It’s explicitly laid out there. And we appreciate and take seriously Indigenous traditional knowledge in the decision-making that goes into the herd planning, along with engagement with other interested parties. In fact, we are acknowledging the importance of Indigenous traditional knowledge in all of our wildlife decision-making areas.

[5:30 p.m.]

That’s typified by the discussion paper that’s publicly available around changes to the Wildlife Act that will require our scientists, our biologists, to incorporate that knowledge into decision-making, which is something they do already.

The partnership agreement that applies with the West Moberly, Saulteau and Canada and B.C. is unique, in that the requirements Canada had as a prior condition to entering into that agreement around the participation of the Saulteau and West Moberly…. Nonetheless, as I said, we value the input we get from First Nations on their traditional territories under the section 11 agreement, when it comes to other herds in the province.

J. Rustad: I want to move from caribou to talk a little bit about other species — in particular, one of the things that is being spent, with the $2 million on predator management, for the caribou, to protect the caribou herds. Does the ministry have good scientific data on the size and the number of predators — wolves, in particular, but other predators as well — across the province?

My understanding from talking to those in the field science, as well as the hunters, is that those predator numbers have been increasing significantly over the years. I’m just wondering whether the ministry has reliable data, reliable science, on the number of predators across the province. And along with that, out of the $2 million being spent on predator management for caribou, how many predators the ministry believes that they’ll take out for that amount of money?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: We have an approximate number for wolf population overall in the province of about 8,500. He asked for sort of an overall number and how reliable that was. I need to emphasize that that’s an approximation.

Where we have more detailed population numbers is in areas where caribou populations are at risk. Whenever we embark on a predator control program such as has been done with wolves, we do a detailed population estimate in those areas first, not just that but an analysis of the causes of mortality of caribou in those particular areas.

We do this by radio-collaring caribou. When the collar stops moving, our biologists move in and find out why the caribou is no longer alive. We have more detailed population numbers for specific wolf populations as they relate to caribou management.

The budget that the member quoted is $2 million for predator management. That was approximately the same for last year, and 474 wolves were removed with that type of budget last year. Some of that work is done in collaboration with First Nations where they desire to undertake the work on the land.

We also have embarked on a limited amount of cougar population management as it relates to caribou, especially in the central Selkirk herd.

J. Rustad: Does the ministry have a current moose population estimate around the province, sort of a total amount? I’m going to give the minister an opportunity to talk about 16 years, I suppose, by asking this question.

Moose populations over the last couple decades, and even longer, have declined dramatically across the province, for a variety of reasons. In some areas, they may have stabilized and gone up a little bit over the last five years. In many other areas, they are down significantly, 80 percent or more by some accounts.

I’m just wondering what the ministry has in terms of data associated with the moose inventories and the totals that we might have across the province.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I want it noted on the record that the first time 16 years came up was not off the lips of myself but of my official opposition critic. Thank you for that.

Yes, the overall populations…. Again, we have much better data at, I guess, a more specific region or manage­ment unit, but the overall number of moose in the prov­ince is approximately 160,000.

J. Rustad: I want to get into some of the issues that I’m sure the minister is aware of and that we’ve talked about. I just want to ask one question straight up.

There are many people around the province who like to hunt for a living. Obviously, moose is a very important species, as well, for First Nations in terms of food, and the population levels of moose are a concern for many areas. The hunting opportunities are limited. Some First Nations have held back from hunting moose because they’re so concerned that the numbers in their particular supply units are too low — their recruitment is one of the most important factors, and all of the studies, obviously, have shown that — whether it’s loss to predators or other factors.

Given that recruitment of moose means the survival of the babies, does the minister believe it is a good practice for us to be killing baby moose?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m happy to discuss this topic. I would pose to the member whether he had ever posed the same question to his cabinet colleagues when he was in cabinet, who were in charge of this exact same program, which was more widespread and more abundantly used when he was in government.

For instance, going back to 2011, there were 584 cows or calves harvested under the previous government. Last year, under our government, there were 79. I think that’s a pretty clear answer about the trend that we see as being important. I’d also want to point out that, in 2011, out of the 584 cows or calves that were harvested, only 28 were harvested in caribou recovery areas.

[5:45 p.m.]

In other words, 95 percent were harvested in regions around the province — where, as the member pointed out, there are significant areas for First Nations and other people to harvest moose for sustenance purposes — whereas last year, under our government, out of the 79 cows or calves that were harvested, 74 were harvested from caribou recovery areas. In other words, only five were harvested from areas outside of caribou recovery areas.

We not only decreased this practice, compared to when the member was in government — and, I might add, never raised this issue — but we’ve also focused the harvest of cow-calf moose into specific areas around caribou recovery and areas where the moose population can be stabilized at a sustainable level. The two areas, specifically, have been in the Parsnip and Revelstoke areas.

Those are the management techniques that we’re focused on. I think it’s clear that we’re managing. Caribou recovery has been important, and we want to take control of caribou recovery.

J. Rustad: I don’t want to put words in the minister’s mouth. He didn’t answer the question, but his answer did indicate that he is okay with the killing of baby moose.

That being the case, I just want to make sure, on the record…. It’s worth noting that, in 2019, there were 357 tags for cows or calves. In 2020, this has increased now to, I think, 400 or more. It’s also the third time in a row, under this government, where these tags have been implemented — and an increase.

The minister talked about how this has been focused on the caribou areas. Yet on the ministry’s own two-pager on moose, found on the government’s website, it clearly states: “Reducing moose numbers may help to keep wolf numbers low, which relieves predation on caribou. In the Parsnip, this strategy did not appear to benefit caribou.”

When I look at this, I look at the results — in particular, the lack of conclusive evidence within the province. The province is a leader in terms of this practice of alternate prey management. It seems to be not very scientifically based. In terms of the results, the desired results, as stated by the minister and this government, are to improve caribou herds.

I think, more importantly, the minister has said clearly, in terms of the caribou management and the caribou management issues, that the input from First Nations is critical. The input from the nations he relies on was a big piece of the decision around the caribou management area.

Obviously, this government, with the introduction of UNDRIP, wants to be significantly consulting with First Nations on those decisions. Yet here we are, with a First Nation that is up in the Parsnip area, which is the McLeod Lake Indian Band, that has sent a letter, dated July 20, to the minister, who is very opposed. “To that end, it is disheartening to read that the B.C. limited entry hunting, published by the ministry, states that the cow-calf moose tags will be increased to 400 in 2020.”

Here we have a case where the minister’s own website suggests that up in the Parsnip area it is ineffective and that it does not appear to benefit caribou. We have a local First Nation that is opposed to this and that relied very heavily on moose for sustenance and for moose hunting.

[5:50 p.m.]

Yet the ministry seems to ignore the input of this nation and, by the minister’s own information, the lack of science that conclusively points that the practice would have a benefit for caribou.

Why is the ministry proceeding with the LEH on cow calves when they don’t have approval from the First Nations, and clearly, the science isn’t supportive of the operation? As part 2 of that question…. Maybe this is a bit much. I might have to go back to this as a different question. Did the ministry consult with the local First Nations up in that area or in other areas of the province before making the decision to increase the LEH opportunities for cow-calf moose?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Let’s get serious here. There were 584 cow-calf moose harvested in 2011 and over 2,000 authorizations under the previous government. The member never raised this publicly.

[5:55 p.m.]

That continued with 399 harvested in 2012; 206 in 2013. These numbers were absolutely so much higher than what we see today. We have 79 harvested last year under our government. So for the member to talk about being okay killing baby moose…. If he was so concerned about the culling of moose cows and calves, why didn’t he raise this when he was a member of government? It was just silence — crickets. Now, all of a sudden, there’s some kind of epiphany.

I would say that we have to take these measures — and they are very considered measures — because of a lack of action on caribou management by the previous government. We are taking these measures in order to manage the caribou populations to sustainable and healthy levels. We need to do this because it’s apparent that the lack of action by the previous government resulted in a threat, under the Species at Risk Act, by the federal government that they would impose a unilateral action on habitat conservation.

That would have been bad for B.C. It would have been bad for communities. It would have been bad for workers who depend on the forest industry. So let’s really get realistic here around this tool that we’re using to manage caribou populations in a sustainable manner.

Now, as far as the specific situation that the member raises around the McLeod Lake concerns in the Parsnip area regarding cow-calf harvest, I want to make sure that the member knows that the McLeod Lake Indian Band was consulted deeply four years ago about the development of the regulations at the time, and four years ago was when the member asking the questions was in government.

These consultations over the change in regulations that have resulted in the cow-calf harvest were done under the previous government. I think the member, if he’s concerned about that, has to look to his colleagues and look to the time he was in cabinet.

As far as the management tool that we’re using here, we’ve decreased wolf populations in a predator management approach. Those populations can spring back quickly when there are large numbers of moose, so we’re using this tool in a very specialized, expeditious manner, very concentrated, in order to stabilize moose populations at a level that will not result in a boom in the wolf population and, therefore, the side impacts that has on the caribou population.

Overall, I think and I believe that our management approach is sound. It is also much more specific and targeted than what was done in the past under the previous government.

J. Rustad: Well, the minister seems to want to ask me some questions. If you’d like to exchange roles, just let me know. We can arrange for that to happen, and then you would have an opportunity to ask those questions if you so desire.

In all seriousness, the minister’s own website, on this, clearly states: “In the Parsnip, this strategy does not appear to benefit caribou.” So what we have here is no consultation by the current government on a strategy that, quite frankly, needs to change. That was then; this is now. We’re talking about going forward.

There was no consultation with those First Nations, and not just with that First Nation. As a matter of fact, across the province…. I think there are about 24 or more letters that have gone in now to the minister. There are least 41 different nations that have expressed concern and want to see this practice stopped.

[6:00 p.m.]

We’re looking at a situation where clearly, the desire and the interest, the local knowledge, the needs of these First Nations are not being considered, their concern, in particular, for the health of moose populations — ungulates in general but moose as a primary source of food for many of their people. They’re very concerned about those levels. They want to see a strategy to see an increase in those populations.

When you’ve got dubious results that the minister’s own website itself claims to not clearly have a benefit…. I get what the minister is trying to do, but is the minister really saying that they’re prepared to sacrifice one species for another, all in a desire to have less predator control in these areas? Clearly, it’s the predator control that is the difference for caribou.

I can read more letters — for example, from Ulkatcho, the Chief of Ulkatcho, who wrote to the minister on June 17. “We are asked to participate in processes, but the outcomes do not appear to take our input into consideration. We spend hours working on initiatives to preserve the ungulate populations we rely on for sustenance as Indigenous people, yet our suggestions are not taken seriously.”

Letter after letter talks about the fact that the cow-calf hunt is a real challenge, a real problem. There is a time and a place where a cow-calf hunt may be useful in the province. But where you have significant declines in the populations and where you have no clear evidence that it is beneficial to the caribou herds, why is this government insisting on continuing with the cow-calf hunt?

Will this minister listen to the First Nations, listen to the thousands of people that have signed petitions, and look and listen, quite frankly, to the science and reverse the decision? This doesn’t have to be political. This is about wildlife and wildlife management and what is best in terms of meeting those needs across the province.

Minister, there’s an opportunity here. Can we reverse this decision? Can we find a way to work together to end the cow-calf hunt, or the antlerless hunt, as it’s sometimes called, until we’re at a place where we have recovered, significantly recovered, the ungulate populations?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: You know, his premise that we’re — and these were his words — sacrificing one species for another is just misinformed. I think if that’s an indication of the level of understanding of wildlife management, then no wonder we were left such a mess by the previous government, under the previous cabinet.

Let’s talk about accurate information. The misinformation that has been spread by this member and his colleagues around the cow-calf moose harvest has led to people being concerned. For instance, in Ulkatcho, a letter he quotes from — I haven’t seen the letter, so I don’t know how accurate that quote is — there is no cow-calf moose harvest authorized. In fact, in 90 percent of the province, there’s no cow-calf moose harvest authorized.

We only are using this tool in specific areas around caribou recovery where the populations of moose are able to sustain it. To say that we’re sacrificing one species for another is not accurate. It’s misinformed, and it’s putting out misinformation to the public.

We are looking at this tool in two specific areas: Parsnip and Revelstoke. Moose populations in the Parsnip herd are stable, and the populations of moose in the Revelstoke area are increasing. Again, this is a tool we’re using only in specific circumstances and only where the populations of moose are able to sustain it.

As far as the quote that the member keeps pulling from, what we’re looking at is that because we’ve used the tool of removal of wolves in the Parsnip, it means that the caribou populations there are recovering. That’s what we’re intent on doing. There has been no change in the number of cow-calf moose authorizations in the area which McLeod Lake is concerned about. We’ve been meeting weekly with the McLeod Lake representatives since June on the caribou herds in their area.

J. Rustad: I just want to read another quote on another letter that was sent to the minister on June 17, 2020, from the Secwépemc First Nation, from Chief Ron Ignace.

[6:10 p.m.]

He says: “In a collaborative effort, the Thompson district of the ministry, FLNRO, provided the cow moose signs for us to put up all over our territories to help protect the moose populations.” These are signs that have been out now for many years, that have been going out. This is an initiative to stop the antlerless hunt.

To carry on with the quote: “Secwépemc Nation has raised the awareness of the loss of ungulate populations. Thus, we fully endorse the Cow Moose Sign Project. However, the province continues to issue cow moose LEH permits in our region and throughout the province. This unequivocally goes directly against all of the hard work of educating the public and our people on how important it is to conserve this precious resource.”

There are many other quotes, as I said, and many other First Nations that have raised this concern to end the hunt because the ungulate populations have declined so significantly. The purpose of reducing the moose populations — the mother and baby moose, or the calf moose — in areas seems to be, the minister has said, to help the caribou herds. Clearly, as the minister said, the benefit — to help recover the herds — means reducing the predators. The moose and the caribou don’t share the same food, same habitat, for the most part.

It seems to me that, once again, the science is not there to support this initiative. So I will ask once again. With all of these letters that have come in to the minister, with the initiative that is happening to end the antlerless hunt, the initiative, which has gone on for years now, to put up the signs, the cow moose signs, across the province, to raise that level of awareness, to bring this to an end…. Quite frankly, the reason for the concern is because of the significant decline in ungulate populations, in particular in the moose populations.

Will this minister heed those concerns from the First Nations population, from thousands upon thousands of the resident hunters and, quite frankly, from the population in general? The science is not there to support this practice, and it needs to come to an end until we see the ungulate populations recover. Will the minister consider doing this as a non-partisan effort, across the lines, and bring this hunt to an end?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

There’s no cow-calf harvest authorized in the Secwépemc territory. That’s an example of concerns that are raised due to the misinformation that has been spread by my official opposition critic and other members of the official opposition.

I would ask…. I’m not asking. I’m supposing that the member asking the question could have called for a moratorium on cow-calf moose harvests while he was many years in government. Maybe he did. We don’t know because he never expressed concern publicly during his continuous years in government. Or maybe he did within the cabinet table and was told by the former Forests Minister, who was responsible for this file, that this strategy was based on sound science. Because it is. Perhaps he was told that what he’s proposing now is not in the best interests of caribou recovery.

I want to emphasize, again, that under the regime that he represented, cow-calf harvesting was widespread across the entire province. Under our government, it has been reduced to two areas where the caribou recovery is threatened. We use it as a tool in monitoring and tracking multiple species — moose, caribou, wolves — in an overall holistic effort to ensure that the caribou populations recover, something that his government didn’t do.

J. Rustad: I’ll go back to what I’ve quoted a number of times now, on the ministry’s own website. “This strategy did not appear to benefit caribou.” The minister just stated that the science is sound, that the science is there. The minister’s own website contradicts the minister’s words.

I want to read into the record another quote. This is a quote from the Westbank First Nation.

“The concept of harvesting cow-calf moose to starve out wolves, which would then support caribou to more sustainable levels, makes no sense and is not supported by the Westbank First Nation. Recently the Westbank First Nation members confirmed that moose populations in the Syilx area of their territory, the broader territory of all of the Okanagan alliance of nations, is at an all-time low, which is affecting the community’s sustenance. Therefore, the WFN does not support the cow-calf moose harvest in any form, anywhere.”

This was a letter dated July 8 to the minister.

There are more letters from other nations around the province. I’ve spoken with many of them. Everyone is concerned about the populations in their areas — the moose populations in their areas, that is. They’re concerned about all ungulates. They have recognized that the practice of the antlerless hunt needs to come to an end until we have a sustained recovery in ungulate populations.

If the goal is, as quoted by the Westbank First Nation, to starve out wolves or to keep wolves from coming into an area, as the minister has talked about, the science is not there. Wolves range hundreds upon hundreds of miles across this province. An adult wolf can consume the equivalent of meat of four adult moose in a year. We’re talking about numbers of 8,500 wolves, and that is, I know, just an estimate. It could be higher, or it could be lower. We’re talking about those wolves eating the equivalent of almost a quarter of the entire moose population around the province in a year.

Now, I understand they go after elk, they go after deer, and they go after other things. It’s not just moose. Clearly, there is a problem.

[6:20 p.m.]

The science that has been collected on moose populations in the Cariboo area and south of Prince George and through those areas has shown that the loss of those populations to predators is significant.

In other areas where…. For example, in the Revelstoke area that the minister talks about, moose populations have been in significant decline for decades. And in the last number of years, we have actually seen a little bit of a recovery in those moose populations. But they’re still down significantly over the last 20-plus years. Managing a species based on the fact that they’ve got a slight increase over a period of time, rather than managing the species to try to recover them to levels that were there in the ’90s, for example, or even in the ’80s, doesn’t make sense.

I recognize that there is a philosophical difference here between the minister and his party in terms of the desire for the hunt and the management tools. I recognize that the minister is in a box and can’t back down on this policy. It’s very unfortunate because, clearly, he’s on the wrong side on this particular issue.

Whether previous governments of the ’70s or ’80s or ’90s or 2000s…. Whatever their policy approach was, this is now. This is going forward, and we need a sound strategy for recovering ungulates. The policy that is being utilized here makes no sense whatsoever.

With that, I think the minister, I’m sure, will want to make a response in terms of that statement on this particular issue. I do want to move to one or two other issues, time permitting here, before we finish out the day. I will turn it over to the minister if he would like to make a response. If he doesn’t, I will move on to another question.

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: This is the third example, the Westbank First Nation, where there is no authorization of a cow-calf moose harvest. He’s brought up three examples: Westbank, Ulkatcho and Secwépemc. In all three instances, there is no authorization of a cow-calf moose harvest in relation to those three territories.

I just want to address the point of backing down. I’m not the kind of minister that has to set in stone any kind of decisions. I rely on the sound science that our biologists provide me with. We constantly update and monitor each year, depending on the results we see in the field. Science can be complex, and it is multifaceted. The member is trying to dumb down this science by the way he typifies the situation.

The Parsnip herd benefited from our wolf management. Now that that wolf population has been reduced, we see the results. What we do not want to see is that wolf population coming back and causing impacts on the caribou herds. By instituting a very precise cow-calf moose harvest in that area, we are able to keep the wolf population suppressed. But we draw the direct line between wolves and caribou, and the moose population has an impact on that. That’s what the science tells us.

We’re going to keep monitoring this. We know that under previous years…. I point out 2011. It just happens to be that that was under the previous government. There were 556 cow calves harvested in the province. That was outside of caribou protection areas. Last year under our government, the same number is five.

We’re using sound science to make these decisions. We’ll continue monitoring and updating based on the results we get from the science and the monitoring. That’s a trustworthy, valid way of approaching wildlife management in this province.

J. Rustad: Madam Chair, I recognize we’re almost out of time. If I could add one last little quick…. The minister can decide to answer it tomorrow or not. It’s up to him.

The Chair: Well, it’s time to note the hour now, Member.

J. Rustad: It would take me one minute. I just didn’t want to have to carry it into tomorrow, in terms of the topic, but it’s your call, Minister and Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I will take the Chair’s advice. We can always continue this discussion. I would look forward to continuing it, actually, Member, tomorrow.

Honouring the time, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training and report progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 6:29 p.m.