Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading of Bill 23.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

Hon. H. Bains: I move third reading of Bill 23.

Mr. Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 23, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2020.

Division has been called. Pursuant to the sessional order adopted on June 22, 2020, this division will be deferred until 30 minutes prior to the end of this sitting day.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations.

[2:30 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

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

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

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

J. Rustad: This afternoon we’re going to go through a number of MLAs that are going to be asking questions. We’re hopeful that we’ll keep things fairly tight with short questions and, hopefully, short answers. We’d like to be able to get through as many of my colleagues’ questions as possible.

With that, I will turn it over to the member for Cariboo North to continue the estimates debate.

C. Oakes: Thank you for the opportunity to raise some concerns from constituents from Cariboo North.

This past year, since spring freshet, has been a significantly challenged one for much of our region. So my first question is around flooding. We certainly appreciate the significant efforts of the B.C. Wildfire Service. From 2017, the work that they’ve done on the ground has been significant, with FireSmart and such, in our communities. It’s been wonderful.

I’m wondering why the policy has changed where B.C. Wildfire Service no longer will protect people’s private properties when a flood occurs.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thanks for the question from the member for Cariboo North.

The B.C. Wildfire Service personnel have been deployed as usual this year. There’s been no change in policy. I believe the member will probably come up with an example that she wants to bring to my attention. The deployment of the Wildfire Service personnel has always been based, and most recently based, on recommendations in consultation with emergency management B.C. and the local governments.

C. Oakes: We did receive a policy change during this flooding season. But I will go to a specific example to demonstrate the change that has happened.

Spring freshet began very early in the Cariboo. Nazko specifically is an area that has been ground zero — in 2017 with the wildfires, 2018 with the wildfires. Since the wildfires, we’ve experienced significant flooding year after year.

At the end of March, Chief Alec, the Chief of Nazko, came to my office to request specific assistance with the flooding that they were very much concerned with and, specifically around COVID-19, ensuring that we were very much prepared for the inevitable flooding that would occur during the freshet. We received several challenges.

First, it took a significant amount of time to get back from the province to the Chief. First, it appeared that there didn’t appear to be concerns about freshet this year. Then we found out, actually, that the flights to look at the snowpacks actually didn’t occur because of COVID-19. But the people on the ground certainly knew freshet would happen and certainly knew that there would be challenges.

[2:40 p.m.]

We put in a request to get a sandbagging machine, and again, one of the challenges we received was that we couldn’t receive a sandbagging machine until flooding actually occurred.

The challenge is that we knew we needed to prepare. We don’t have, in some of our remote areas, the amount of people necessary. We appreciate that when the weekend hit and the flooding did occur, as people on the ground predicted, living in Nazko, that we were able to get the B.C. wildfire crews out there.

The challenge in our remote areas is that it often takes many hours for these crews to get out into these areas. The difference was that…. The change now is that when flooding occurs in our communities — and B.C. Wildfire Service is now the agency responsible for doing the flood protection — no longer are private properties protected.

You know, I look at Grand Forks, or I look at any place across British Columbia that has experienced flooding. One would imagine that when flooding occurs, the province and public safety would step up and actually help community members resolve that. At that point, we were advised that B.C. Wildfire Service…. The policy has shifted to where it doesn’t protect private property. The private property owners were on their own for flood protection.

We were certainly able to access, eventually, sandbagging machines and sandbags, and we appreciate that. This was prior to the EOC being set up through the Cariboo regional district, because, again, Nazko is ground zero and usually occurs before some of these programs are put in place. But it still leaves Nazko in a very precarious situation.

The question is why…? Does the province protect private property from flooding and wildfires? That’s the first. Well, I’ll leave it there, and I’ll see what the minister says.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: There’s been no change to policy in how we deploy B.C. Wildfire Service personnel when it comes to floods and wildfires. We respond based on recommendations from EMBC and from local governments in specific situations. The river forecast centre was able to operate smoothly this spring on modelling around the spring freshet, despite COVID-19. We’ve added crews in the Cariboo this year.

As I said, the protection of private property through flooding and wildfires…. Those priorities are set by EMBC. Our stance hasn’t changed. In fact, on wildfires, the member might be aware that just last week we had a tactical evacuation due to wildfire in the Interior, specifically in order to protect lives and private property.

C. Oakes: I’m still trying to get a clear answer from this minister. When it comes to flooding, does the B.C. Wildfire Service have the ability to go and protect private homes? What I think I heard the minister say is that it’s up to EMBC whether private homes are protected. If that is the case, my question is….

When we heard that private homes were not going to be protected this spring freshet, we did put in a request, because we have both Team Rubicon in the Cariboo region and the Canadian Rangers. Both came to my office to offer their assistance. They’re very well equipped. They are well trained. They are here in our communities. They are here, ready and willing to protect the citizens and to protect our property.

If the province isn’t willing to step up and provide the necessary protection that the people in the Cariboo deserve…. If that decision was, in fact, made, then, through EMBC not to protect private properties, why did the government not sign off then on the ability to have volunteer agencies within our community that were waiting for the government to sign off — to say that they could actually go in and help private properties with the flooding?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Once again, the priorities about deployment of the B.C. Wildfire individuals, depending on floods and wildfires and around private properties, is set through EMBC, so those questions are best addressed to the Minister of Public Safety. Of course, EMBC and local governments set those priorities, so if there’s private property that is needed to be protected during a flood — I think that was the specific question from the member — then the deployment of our personnel would be dependent on EMBC and local government priorities.

As far as the signing off — I think that’s the way the member described the involvement of rangers, and I’m not familiar with the other organization, Rubicon — we haven’t heard of that request. If there was that kind of request, that sign-off would be through EMBC, so questions are best directed to that ministry on that question.

C. Oakes: I’m deeply disappointed with the minister’s response and the fact that there appears to be tiers of priority in the province of British Columbia. I think it’s disgusting that government would suggest that whether you are…. Everyone should have equal access to public safety in the province of British Columbia. It shouldn’t be determined that one person gets one access to certain priorities. “Oh, you might get some protection for flooding; but you live somewhere else, and you don’t.”

The fact that there are services and agencies on the ground in our communities willing to step up and help and the only way that they can do that is if this minister signs off on it is, I think, tragic. I think every constituent…. You know, I would encourage the MLAs who are watching this to ask yourselves: how would you feel if some of your constituents might have access to public safety protection in your communities and others won’t, depending on who’s prioritizing and who is making those recommendations?

I did ask EMBC, and, yes, we get guided to you, Minister, because, as I mentioned before, before states of emergency get put in place and before emergency centres are put up through the regional district, we rely on your ministry to put those things in action. Nazko was prior to the local emergency office being put in place, through the regional district.

It’s deeply disturbing, and quite frankly, it’s not good enough that you point fingers and provide lip service for people who pay taxes and who should have access to the exact same services as anywhere else in the province.

I will go, because my time is limited. The other challenge that we’ve had with over 200 areas that have been impacted this past year by spring freshet…. Many of our main highways have experienced landslides because we did not have proper preparation prior to the spring freshet. So we had significant road damage.

[2:55 p.m.]

Now we’re in a situation where so many of our communities are relying on poor service roads as their main roads in and out of their communities. Most of our communities are ranching communities, and on our core service roads, the cattle liners will not bring the cattle in. So now we have whole communities that are impacted by the fact that we can’t get cattle from ranch back to communities or we can’t get cattle out to range and we can’t get food in to these communities. What we get…. Well, it’s a forest service road. Then it gets turned over to the Ministry of Transportation, but it still has forest service road standards.

The two organizations…. We need some leadership, and we need some of these organizations working in coordination to make sure that these communities aiding the economy is able to continue. It’s a significant impact on not just the agricultural sector. The mining sector, the forest sector, all of these folks, and the people, quite frankly, who live in these communities are now competing on forest service roads as their main highway, all because the government didn’t put resources in prior to spring freshet. Now we’re in the challenges that we are.

What type of coordination is being done on the ground between, obviously, the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources and the Ministry of Agriculture to make sure that the significant challenges that we’ve experienced in the Cariboo from 2017 right through to now gets resolved? Quite frankly, it keeps getting worse under this minister and under this government. Our citizens are tired of, year after year, being second-rate citizens and not getting the necessary resources put on the ground. Now their lives are significantly altered.

What kind of cross-coordination is happening, instead of everyone pointing the finger, like the minister did earlier, and saying that it’s somebody else’s minister’s responsibility?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the member. She asked a number of questions; I’ll start with the coordination. Yes, we coordinate under the auspices of emergency management B.C.

When we anticipate a freshet challenge, we coordinate with the Ministry of Agriculture staff, Environment staff, Transportation staff, local government, First Nations. We have a $3 million capital budget for forest service road projects in the Cariboo in the coming fiscal. We’re spending $784,000 on operations or maintenance on forest service roads in the Cariboo. We prioritize and support connections to communities, as part of protecting from road failures, with the Ministry of Transportation and with forest service roads.

As far as the member’s statements about being disappointed in the response — she used some terminology I’d call tiers of priority — I want to remind her that the policy hasn’t changed with the deployment. It’s the same as when she was a member of cabinet. If the member had a problem, she could have raised it then. Obviously, she didn’t. The policy remains the same, because it’s working.

C. Oakes: Just maybe in closing, there has been a change in the policy on how it is working on the ground. I do strongly encourage him — I know that the minister is from the north — and would just ask that he refresh and talk to the folks on the ground on how things are working, that there have been some changes. Ultimately, at the end of the day, I just want public safety for all of our citizens. When we have other agencies like Team Rubicon and the Canadian Rangers willing to step up and help, I think we should be seeking them.

My final comment — it’s not a question, just maybe a comment: I continue to have significant challenges and concerns about the approach that the government has taken around the spruce beetle. I think we’re going to be in significant challenges. I understand the speaking points that the minister raised earlier, but I think it’s far more pressing. I would ask the minister to double down and look at what’s really happening on the ground, the same as with the Douglas fir.

Just on permitting, going from FrontCounter in our community, a lot of the permitting has been moved to Williams Lake. To go from 60 days to 180 and up to 200-plus days under this government is significantly challenging for our region and for our economic development.

Finally, we’re getting calls from folks who are getting bills for water licences in the agricultural sector. They get their bills for the water licence year after year and don’t even have their permit yet. It’s great that the government wants your money, but we’re just not getting the permitting done.

With that, I’ll pass my time over to my next colleague.

T. Wat: Thank you to the minister for giving me this opportunity to ask a question that the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture refused to answer. She referred me to the minister here.

[3:05 p.m.]

Two years ago on February 1, 2018, this minister, together with the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture, signed an OIC to include 21 Chinese-Canadian heritage sites in the Chinese Canadian Heritage Properties Regulation. These 21 sites were chosen from a list of 77 places nominated by British Columbians in 2015.

I would like to ask the minister: will he tell the House why he made the decision to include the 21 places in the Provincial Heritage Register back in 2018?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The 21 heritage sites were selected after a public engagement process with affected communities — in this case, going back to the Chinese Historical Wrongs Consultation Final Report that recommended legacy initiatives. The evaluation process followed a values-based model, ensuring that the evaluators reviewed the nominated places based on how they represent the overarching heritage values of the Chinese-Canadian community in British Columbia. The evaluation was guided by a contact statement that provided a summary of history of the role of Chinese Canadians in the development of British Columbia. That was in answer to the question of why those 21 heritage sites were chosen.

[3:10 p.m.]

To finish off on this answer, I want to make sure the member understands that our staff is fully aware that the heritage registry didn’t reflect the full scope of B.C.’s history, so the program has made an effort to rectify that. This is one of the measures being taken.

T. Wat: Thank you, Minister, for your very detailed explanation of why you made that decision. I certainly applaud you for continuing the work of the former government. It happened I was the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism. You already cited why you did so. It’s because formal recognition of these historic places builds awareness of our shared heritage.

As I said, I really applaud the minister for doing that. But unfortunately, two years later, on February 2 of this year, after I was so pleased that this minister continued the legacy initiative started by the former government, the minister, who is responsible for the heritage act, decided to repeal the Chinese Canadian Heritage Properties Regulation, overturning his own initiative to include these 21 Chinese heritage sites.

I’d really appreciate if the minister could enlighten this House as to why he overturned his own initiative.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Sorry. I apologize for the delay. We just wanted to make sure that we had an accurate answer to the member’s question.

Specific to the question about the OIC, what we did is we repealed the requirement to seek an OIC every time we sought to recognize the cultural heritage of a cultural community. It was an administrative change that removed the specific OIC for the Chinese-Canadian recognitions and instated a new power that allows government to record all provincially recognized historic places on the registry, including Chinese-Canadian ones, without having to seek an OIC each time.

What this did was make it easier to recognize the heritage value of places and delegated that ability to staff rather than having to come with an OIC every time.

T. Wat: Given the time limitation, actually, I’m not happy with the minister’s response, because I have one final question. But I would like to put it on record that I will send all my questions in written form to the minister. Hopefully, the minister can respond to me as soon as possible, because I’m supposed to ask this question. But given the limitation of time, my colleagues also have a lot of questions that they want to address to this minister.

If, according to what the minister said, this is only an administrative kind of arrangement…. I did look at the website, and I see the provincial historic places of British Columbia. I see that there are 59 B.C. heritage sites there. I wonder how many Chinese heritage sites are in this 59. Are the 51 that we recognized two years ago there or not?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll see if I can get an answer to that quickly, and if not, I will respond in writing. I can commit to doing that, to the member. But let’s see if we can get an answer quickly on it first.

J. Sturdy: I have three questions for the minister — quite different ones.

The first one is around Mount Meager and the Meager massif. The minister should be aware that in 2010, there was the largest rock avalanche in Canadian history, dropping 50 million cubic metres of material into the Lillooet River. This has resulted in tremendous amounts of sediments making their way down the river. We have what they’re calling a sediment slug that is making its way down into the more populated areas of the valley.

[3:20 p.m.]

It’s depositing, the estimates are, something in the neighbourhood of 400,000 cubic metres a year of material into areas that are protected by dike-protective structures. The area 4 piece, which is a particular concern, run from Miller Creek, down the Lillooet River and then to Pemberton Creek and protects the bulk of the improvements in the Pemberton Valley.

This was upgraded in 2003 to a one-in-200-year protective structure. Well, because of the sedimentation in the river, the aggradation, we are finding…. The estimates now, based on cross-sections done recently, are that this one-in-200-year protective structure is now a one-in-50-​year protective structure.

There are obviously significant concerns that this adds tremendously to the flood risk in the Pemberton Valley. What I was wondering…. Two things to the minister.

One would be: would the minister commit to a monitoring program for the Meager Massif? We do understand that there is significant potential for additional debris flows, which could exacerbate the situation. So the monitoring is an important component.

The second part of this question is: would the minister commit to supporting and funding a sediment removal program for certain sections of the river to try and bring back that same one-in-200-year protective structure?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, I’m quite familiar — as much as a minister can be — with the topic the member raises in his own constituency, because he has oftentimes talked to me about it.

[3:25 p.m.]

I’m going to provide some answer and also further clarification. When the member talks about the monitoring program and “commit to a monitoring program,” I just want to make sure that he’s asking about the monitoring program around further potential slides on Mount Meager.

On sediment removal, EMBC has been leading that public engagement process around that and leading that process. I know there have been public meetings in the member’s constituency. Much of it has to deal with the amount of sediment that is continually coming down and our ability to manage natural elements and natural processes.

The understanding I have is that at public meetings, it’s been presented, through EMBC or scientific data, that we don’t have the ability to remove enough sediment to make a difference because the sediment buildup is so frequent and so robust. EMBC, as I said, is leading this, because it has to do with public safety around where buildings are being located, and working with local government on that.

As far as the monitoring, now that the member has indicated to me through nodding that it is the monitoring program on the actual mountain to determine the risk of potential slides coming, I’ll just get back to him on that part of the question.

J. Sturdy: While I recognize EMBC has some part to play in this, some of this is very much a maintenance program. Yes, there is a tremendous amount of material that needs to come out of the river, but there are areas that are acute and can make a difference in terms of overtopping existing structures. So I think it’s important that we continue.

What I could take from what the minister said is that we are just going to abandon any strategy to mitigate some of these challenges. That would be alarming to the people of the Pemberton Valley. I think the minister would well understand that. I’ll look forward to getting additional information in the future — perhaps a briefing from staff.

The second issue I’d like to raise is the one of Crown land lease rates for residential properties. Specifically, in the Paradise Valley and the Squamish Valley, we have received numerous complaints about the exorbitant rent increases or lease rate increases for these properties over the last number of years.

The government, as the minister well is aware, has limited private property owners to CPI as a maximum increase to rents, essentially, but it doesn’t hold itself to the same standard. What we’re seeing are situations where leasehold properties are seeing — it’s very, very significant in some cases — massive increases in lease rates. I wondered if the minister would consider limiting any increases to CPI as they do to other private property owners.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

[3:30 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the chair.

Going back, first off, to the previous question around sediment control, I commit to discussing with staff the topic raised about acute areas that could potentially receive attention. I’m not saying that the situation is being “abandoned,” using the member’s word. I’ll commit to that and ensuring that the member is involved in those discussions around acute areas needing attention on the sediment load.

As far as Crown land lease rates, our staff are aware of the situation the member has described. Of course, impacted tenure holders have the ability — as all impacted tenure holders have — to appeal their property assessment with the B.C. Assessment Authority to reduce the size of the tenure area or dispute the rent by following the process outlined in the Crown land disposition price resolution procedure, which I think the member is focusing his question on.

Our lands branch is reviewing our pricing and looking at the pricing methods and how we calculate rents for tenure holders on Crown land used for residential purposes, to better reflect affordability. That work will be done in the next six to 12 months.

It will also include the impacts I believe the member was alluding to under the consumer price index, under the Residential Tenancy Act, which is an act not under our ministry. We believe it’s under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. That review will also bring into account the changes under that act and how that could make a difference on it to better reflect the pricing.

[3:35 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for that answer. An interesting twist to this is that when the tenant appeals to the assessment board, the only circumstance where the tenant is actually appealing the assessment versus the owner or the landlord appealing the assessment…. Just recently in one of these situations, the appeal was not successful. When they went to appeal that application, it’s only the landlord or only the owner that can appeal, and the FLNR has declined to appeal on behalf of the tenant. It is a complex circumstance and difficult for the tenants. I’m sure that they, as a philosophy, would like to see government hold itself to the same standard that they hold other landlords to.

The last item is one…. I apologize if we’ve covered some of this last week. It’s with regard to First Nations licensees in the Sea to Sky forest district. I’ve spoken to numerous licensees — the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh forestry, Tsetspa7, the Líl̓wat — and they’re all having the same problem. They point out that the large licensees in the province don’t invest a nickel in this region because this region is one of the highest cost producers in the world.

They have numerous concerns about fibre recovery zones, about the remote locations which do not get additional costs. Tsetspa7 actually has a camp that costs them $5 a metre, give or take, and none of that is considered in stumpage fees.

Then, of course, generally, the stumpage fees — the complaint here I have is that the recent coast appraisal manual changes have intensified the distortion of the system.

Again, I recognize we may well have covered much of this for the coast, but one question or suggestion that I was asked to forward…. There is a tremendous amount of uncertainty, and there may be delays around getting fibre to market. It may be a function of fires. It may be a function of water, low water, to be able to remove, especially down the Harrison side, or get the logs from the sort to market. There are potential delays, and there’s a high level of uncertainty. So it may be some time between when the budgets were created and the cutting permit was submitted, between that time and the time that the product actually gets to market.

The question, on behalf of these First Nations licensees, is: will the government or will the minister consider aligning the stumpage fees with the cutting permits? For as long as that cutting permit is in place, can the stumpage rate be maintained at the level it was when the cutting permit was issued?

We have situations where we might see a cutting permit issued, yet the logs don’t get to market for six or eight months for a variety of different reasons, after which point the stumpage rates could have changed significantly and made the block uneconomic. They do recognize, of course, that this can go both ways. But they would very much like to have this one piece of uncertainty removed from the equation.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I’m happy to report that lumber prices are at a near-record high right now. I think the spot price was $648 today. That, combined with the lowering of stumpage rates July 1 — 18 percent on the coast year to year and 35 percent in the Interior year to year — has definitely made it more attractive for harvesting activities, because the mills have a demand for their product. That’s making a difference around the province.

As far as the specifics on the suggestion that the member relayed on behalf of his constituents, I think he described it well when saying it cuts both ways. Yes, there’s a three-month time between how stumpage is calculated. In some cases, that benefits those who are harvesting, and in other cases, it doesn’t benefit them. So for some, the stumpage is too high. For some people, the stumpage we charge in the province they see as being too low.

We’re not going to be changing the process at this time, especially in light of the litigation that’s underway under the softwood lumber dispute. The risk that changing in the manner that the member presents would create in investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce could be very detrimental to the industry.

The Chair: Member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, there is another member who would like to ask some questions, but please proceed.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister. I think they just would like to be able to budget with certainty — and the variability of the problem.

The Chair: You may return to other queries later.

M. Morris: In the last 18 months, nearly 600 people in Mackenzie have lost their jobs due to mill closures and shutdowns that we have up there — that, while nearly a million cubic metres of wood is leaving annually for communities outside of Mackenzie. So it’s pretty frustrating for the folks in the town to have a log yard right there, and all the logs are leaving town.

In a letter I got back from the minister or from the minister’s office about a month ago, it stated that the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development is well aware of the situation in Mackenzie — and I’m glad to hear that — and is working to find solutions to support the forest economy there.

I’m wondering if the minister can go over anything that he’s done recently. This is a train that’s been coming down the tracks now for a couple of years. I’m just wondering if he can relate to us and the people in Mackenzie that are watching this as to what he has done and what he is doing to help the folks in Mackenzie maintain the forest sector there.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. Yes, we were both at that Mackenzie Matters rally a year ago. We know the frustration of workers who are losing their jobs and, at the same time, seeing logs leaving their area. Of course, the accurate number is 750,000 cubic metres over five years, leaving the area. Nonetheless, that’s a difficult pill to swallow when you see a mill being shut and the logs going elsewhere — in this case, benefiting jobs in other communities, like Prince George.

The member well knows that this isn’t, as he described it, “a train coming down the tracks in the last couple of years.” Tying fibre to local mills was something that was in legislation before the B.C. Liberals changed that legislation back in 2003, which has a direct impact on the logs leaving Mackenzie to other mills in other communities. That was a change made under the previous government.

As far as what’s been done lately, there’s a long list, but I’ll just focus on a couple of items that have assisted in the Conifex mill restarting — 160 direct jobs there. That restart was July 6, I believe. The ability to restart was due to great work done by ministry staff for that area — for instance, a chart area reallocation process that enabled more fibre to be accessible at an economic level for Conifex.

The continuing log-cost-driver initiative that’s been ongoing for the last number of months will be making an impact as well, but our staff are working. That’s an example of something that’s happened recently that’s made a difference for Mackenzie and a difference for 160 people directly going back to work.

M. Morris: I’m happy to see the minister acknowledge that he’s had a lengthy amount of time since he’s been minister to do something about this, as this is a train that has been coming down the tracks for several years, according to him, and we haven’t seen much take place here. I also dispute the numbers: 750,000 or whatever that was, over five years.

Anyway, apart from that, there has been a significant amount of overharvesting in the southern reaches of the TSA, to the point that it’s had a significant impact on the green standing timber. A lot of the licensees have refused to adhere to the partitions and take the dead spruce, of which we have well over a million hectares up in that area because of the spruce beetle.

What agreement has he made with Conifex? Is that impacting on the southern part of the TSA, and in an area that has already been significantly overharvested on the green side of the harvest level?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll get to the member’s question, but his comment needs responding to. I would say that the displeasure of his constituents at seeing logs leave their community falls directly at the feet of the member when he was in government and the government of the B.C. Liberals chose to not attach volume into local mills. That’s very unfortunate. People in Mackenzie are suffering because of that decision by his government when they were in power.

As far as the management of harvesting in the southern part of the TSA, I know that’s of high concern to the people of Mackenzie. They want to make sure that harvesting is balanced across all the TSA. We are managing that with BCTS blocks and Canfor blocks over a five-year period. Conifex, in their blocks in the southwest part of the TSA, will not exceed the partition over a five-year cut period, which is the routine cutting period around the province.

These are not specific deals. This is under the chart reallocation process.

The Chair: Do you have any further questions, Member?

M. Morris: No, thank you, Chair. I’ll keep my comments to myself and turn it over to the next speaker.

[3:55 p.m.]

I. Paton: To the minister: thank you for your time. I’ll try and make this quick. One subject is land use in the very north part of B.C. The other is land use in the very southern part of B.C.

My first topic would be an area a little bit north and west of Dawson Creek called the Sunset Prairie Community Pasture. Hopefully, the minister is familiar with this area. It is supervised and run by the Sunset Prairie Livestock Association.

In 1959, over 30,000 acres of grazing land up in this area were designated as grazing land for the farmers and ranchers in that area. Since then, as you can see on satellite imagery, there are hundreds and hundreds of cutblocks and dugouts and well sites and gravel roads and whatnot that have gone into this same area of grazing for cattle.

Every year over 4,000 head of cattle get taken from their home farms to this community pasture. Everybody cooperates and comes and gathers up their cattle in the fall of the year. It’s a great place for cattle to put on weight during the summer, and the farmers are able to grow their crops on a better use of land on their home farms. Two young people from Dawson Creek Secondary School have done a fantastic synopsis on the future of this.

To get to the point, Minister, the petroleum and forestry industries were told back in 1959 — and there’s an agreement — that they would compensate the livestock association and the community pastures for the loss of grazing lands by the cattle industry from the forestry industry and the well and petroleum industry. This is not happening.

What I’m asking you today…. Is the minister familiar with the historic agreements with the lease from the forestry district and with the FLNRORD guidelines for compensation and mitigation? Will the minister commit his staff to meeting with the Sunset Prairie Livestock Association to ensure a commitment and funding by forestry and petroleum to regenerate grass for grazing and for the replacement of aging fences, roads and corrals? Thank you.

Hopefully, I could get an answer that I could relay back to the people at the Sunset Prairie Livestock Association.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: To the member for Delta South, always good to hear from him about agriculture issues, an important part of the ministry I represent. I always enjoy hearing what he’s hearing on the ground.

What I can say is we are committing that the northern ADM will meet with the Sunset Prairie Livestock Association — I believe that’s the full name that the member used — soon — in fact, I believe it’s going to be in early September — to discuss these issues.

I know it can be a complex issue around the compensation piece when cattlemen in the northeast have arrived at individual agreements with other users of the land base around compensation. Over time, this has happened. As part of the work, I’ll try to bring some consistency to that. I definitely want the member to know that he can relay to the association that the assistant deputy minister for the north, the most senior manager for the lands file in the north, will be meeting with them soon.

I. Paton: I’ll move on now because we are short on time. Of course, I bring this up every year. It’s regarding Brunswick Point lands in Delta. To remind the minister, Brunswick Point was part of 4,000 acres of expropriated farmland in Delta back in the late 1960s. Now, most of that land was sold back to the original farming families from whom that land was expropriated, totalling just over 3,000 acres. It went back to the original farm families.

However, Brunswick Point, which is an incredibly fertile piece of farmland, which not only has the original five farming families still living there, but it is owned by the Crown. It was never sold back to those five farming families. It is also a very, very important migrating route for snow geese, ducks and swans, etc., and it’s a great resting area for them heading south in the wintertime.

Minister, I would like to read quickly just how important this is in Delta, not only to the city of Delta but to the Delta Farmers Institute, the Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust, the Delta Agricultural Society. Here’s a quote from Mayor Harvie with the city of Delta. By the way that was a private member’s bill that I put forward last fall regarding saving Brunswick Point.

The quote is: “The intent of Bill 221 is to require that the Brunswick Point properties are kept as Crown land and leased to either the original farm families or other local farmers for a minimum lease term of 20 years. Despite the current restrictions on the land use, Delta is concerned that the Brunswick Point lands could be sold to speculators with no interest in farming and plans for future non-agricultural development.”

Hon. Minister, I go on to one more quote from the Delta Farmers Institute, from the president, Jack Bates:

“We have been fortunate for over a century that the 600 acres of Brunswick Point with its fertile soil and proximity to the ocean has produced high-quality vegetable crops while providing habitat and feed for millions of migratory birds. The community needs to know that this farmland will remain as a public heritage asset in its natural environment and feed our population. It is an integral component of Delta’s 22,000 acres of agricultural land.”

Hon. Minister, we’ve been kicking this around for too many years now. The Tsawwassen First Nation, right next door, had their treaty. Good for them. They’ve gone ahead. They’re doing some great economic things. But the borderline has to be drawn so that we don’t have any more Amazon warehouses creeping on to our farmland, which has happened. But we don’t want it to happen any further.

To the minister: will you commit today to agree with my statements that this land rightfully should be sold back to the original farm families who still are on the land or, at very least, this land should remain as agriculture only and be held in perpetuity by the province for agriculture and wildlife habitat and be leased back to Delta farmers with long-term leases?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the member for raising this topic. Once again, I’ve become familiar with it not simply through staff briefings within the ministry I represent but through his advocacy efforts as well. So I congratulate him on keeping it on the front burner.

What I can commit to…. I mean, this is farmland that’s in the ALR, which is under the purview of the Ministry of Agriculture, and perhaps the member canvassed this topic with ministers in his critic role. But what I can say is that our government has no intention of removing this land from the ALR, and that includes my ministry. It’s not necessarily the lead agency on that, but we have no intentions of advocating for the removal of this from the ALR and want to see it stay in the ALR.

As far as strategy for the future of the land in the ALR, we are in discussions, and staff have reached out — and the member probably knows this — to the city of Delta and Tsawwassen First Nation to assess their interests, once again, and review with the families, as well, potential solutions. We’re doing that as well.

I guess the certainty that the member is looking for is part of the answer I gave — that this land, as far as my ministry is concerned and the government is concerned, needs to remain in the ALR.

I. Paton: One more quick question on the same subject.

[4:10 p.m.]

My office received a letter about Brunswick Point from Mr. Coburn back on July 31, and actually, shockingly, we found out, with a map that came along with it, that the province recently sold, back in November of 2019, 195 acres of farmland in and around Brunswick Point to TFN, Tsawwassen First Nation. I do have a map of this here, showing the parcels that were sold to Tsawwassen First Nation.

It was also said in the letter that it was sold at fair market value. The question I’m getting from a lot of our farm groups is: can we be told what the fair market value was of that land in November 2019? The 195 acres that were sold to TFN — what was the fair market value of that agricultural land?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The question was: the parcels of land that were sold — what was the fair market value? The lands were sold for $18.5 million. These lands were in the ALR and will remain in the ALR.

The Chair: Member for Delta South, do you have a further question at this time?

I. Paton: No. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Penticton.

D. Ashton: Thank you, hon. Chair. Appreciate it.

Minister, nice to see you again. In the essence of time, I have three questions and one comment. Just to put them on the record. I would ask for responses as soon as possible from the ministry staff.

Minister, the city of Penticton, for two years, has been in the precursor of negotiating the extension of a lease to facilitate some additional area for a CN tug for the marine museum park at Penticton, which contains the SS Sicamous and another vessel.

I have two years’ worth of correspondence back and forth. I’ll have it delivered to your office directly, today or tomorrow. Can we get an update, please? I know that time is of the essence on this lease. Two years seems to be a bit of an issue for the city, for the time that it’s taken to get to fruition on this.

The second one is also a status for the renewals of the leases for both the Naramata and the Peachland yacht club basins. Dredging — I know, in Naramata, that they have to get the leases in place before they can facilitate the dredging, which is long overdue. Also, Minister, this has been going on for an extended period of time. If ministry staff could get back to me and also the Naramata and Peachland yacht clubs on the status and when fruition might come forward.

The third and last one is facilitating access across the Crown land, not through private property, as what’s taking place right now, at Chute Lake. We had talked about this before. I know that there’s a concerted effort. They would like to get this solved. As we all know, there are issues regarding egress and issues regarding liability. We had talked before about the possibility of replacing some culverts. However, apparently, that is not going to be able to be facilitated with the forest company that has tenure up there.

[4:15 p.m.]

Minister, if we could have another look at that. Like I said, I know there’s a whole bunch of people that would like to work with the ministry with the possibility of getting this resolved.

Last but not least, Minister, I would like to thank you, personally, and your staff. I had a conference call about a week ago regarding the continual full- and over-pooling of Okanagan Lake. I just want to say thank you to the ministry staff for coming forward. Minister, we all have to work a little bit harder and a little bit smarter on this. In three of the last four years, Okanagan Lake has exceeded its full pool, and it is causing continual damage, erosion, settlement of homes, etc.

Once again, thank you, and if you can just plant the seed with ministry staff on that. I know that there’s an awful lot of people…. It’s not just lakeshore owners. With the water table affected, it affects homes far back from the lakefront.

Minister, if I could leave those with you — again, in the essence of time — and get a response, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much, sir.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just quickly to the member for Penticton, thank you for raising the issues that you did. I’ll direct staff to get back to you in an expeditious manner about the city lease; the renewal of the yacht club tenures, I believe it was; and continuing work on Chute Lake, which the member has done a good job of keeping in front of myself and the ministry. So thanks.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister. I’m going to try to make my questions a little bit more succinct without too much monologue from myself, and hopefully, we can get the same from the minister.

I’m going to switch and try not be too repetitive from previous questions, but I still want to talk about what’s relevant in my riding around the caribou recovery plan.

Can the minister let me know, within his budget, now that a partnership agreement is signed…. How much does he have in his budget to help fund the caribou recovery plan? What are the objectives and increase in numbers over the timeline for caribou as projected within that plan for those dollar amounts, please?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll try to be quick with the answers. Digging down through numbers takes a little bit of time sometimes.

The annual caribou recovery program this year provincially is $10 million. We covered that — you’re right, Member — in previous questions. Specifically, though, the central group for activities like herd planning, population management, maternity penning as well as the partnership agreement…. It’s $1.2 million for this fiscal.

The second part of the question from the member was the population and what the goal is. Specifically, in the partnership agreement, there’s not a number. It’s to achieve self-sustaining herds that support Indigenous harvesting rights as well.

The overall population in the central group right now is estimated at about a little less than 300. The historic levels were in the range of 2,000 animals. It would take a long time to get to those numbers. Of course, the herd could become self-sustaining and also be able to provide Indigenous harvesting rights opportunities before that historic number is reached.

M. Bernier: I think the whole point, though, I guess would be…. We’re investing a lot of money trying to protect the caribou — a lot of taxpayers’ money. Even from the minister’s own admission just now, it sounds like there are not a lot of benchmarks or deliverables on what we’re going to accomplish with those dollars.

Can the minister tell me, then, hopefully quickly…. If he’s covered some of this, he should have it accessible quickly. What are we spending, then, in the South Peace or the Peace region in order to help to protect those caribou? What are we spending on wolf cull right now?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: He used the term: “We’re spending a lot of money to protect caribou.” I want to make sure to remind him that the money is well spent if it’s considered against the threat we are facing by the federal government under the Species at Risk Act that would to have led to a unilateral decision by the federal government based on habitat protection alone that could have had devastating effects on local economies and those kinds of factors.

So the money specifically that he asked about: the wolf cull is $500,000 out of that $1.2 million. Provincewide we spend approximately $2 million on wolf predator management.

We had a situation where the herds that are considered under the partnership agreement were facing extirpation — in other words, local extinction — and through our measures, we’ve managed to go from annual declines of 15 percent to an increase of 15 percent per year on the populations from the measures that we’ve taken. So money well spent in the larger context of what could have been a very disastrous situation.

M. Bernier: Interestingly, I’m not going to argue too much about whether the money is well spent or not. The comments about spending the money are fine, if we can show deliverables for the taxpayers and for, more importantly, the recovery of a species at risk. That’s the main thing.

I’m running out of time, because I know I’ve got more colleagues that want to speak. So I am going to submit a few to the minister in writing. I hope he appreciates. But one last one that I just want to make sure that I get on the record. It’s actually not around the caribou, but it’s around another species, and that’s elk.

We have the reverse problem in my region, and that is the elk were almost becoming like an invasive species in the sense that the amount of damage that takes place in the agricultural zones due to our elk is incredible and, also, the issues we have ever since this government has changed the direction around other predators, such as the grizzly bears, the problems we have with them as well — coming closer into communities, now going after cattle and some of the problems there. So it’s a multispecies issue.

My last question I’ll just ask to the minister, and then more, I guess, back to the issues around agriculture.

[4:30 p.m.]

What studies are done within the ministry to ensure that we’re taking care of and listening to those issues that the farmers put forward? Can we look at more — in region 7, for instance — LEH or more opportunities for opening up hunting? At the end of the day, we’re losing a lot of money, and there are huge risks to farmers because of this. So if he could give me a quick answer on that, then I’ll pass it along.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m going to get to the answer to this question. We just have a bit of a power issue here, so I’m going to ask for a quick recess after this question to deal with that.

But yes, the specific was around studies to take care of the issues that farmers put forward. One example that was given was the elk. I’m familiar with this from the eastern part of my constituency, as well as the member for Nechako Lakes. There is an LEH, a limited-entry hunt, for elk — and the member probably knows that — in Peace River South.

We engage and collaborate with private landowners, including ranchers, on that hunt. Its purpose is to reduce the impact on feed especially. I know that elk can make a mess of farmers’ stored feed, as well as the feed that’s coming up out of the ground. So we monitor that to make sure that the LEH is doing the job that it needs to do, and if it needs to be increased, then, as long as those levels are sustainable, we’ll do that.

Chair, if I could suggest a quick break in order to deal with the power issue we have here. Maybe five minutes.

The Chair: No problem. Yes, the House will be in recess for ten minutes.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Okay. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 4:34 p.m. to 4:42 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, for the opportunity to ask some questions. I appreciate it. I know that we’re stretched for time. Half the hook is already around my neck, ready to pull me off here. So I’ll be as quick as I can.

I appreciate you know quite a bit about the industry, and I’ve talked to you about it numerous times before in Fort Nelson, with the issues up there. I appreciate we’re close. The community forest is, I think, in the final stages of being wrapped up — a great partnership between Northern Rockies as well as the Fort Nelson First Nation. That is, of course, being developed, technically, to help to create a local forest industry again back in the community of Fort Nelson, which is much needed.

Recently some of your senior staff had a meeting with Northern Rockies and some of the partnerships up there about looking at how they can best improve the forest industry. Of course, we know that Fort Nelson is removed from market. It’s a long ways up there, and looking at rates out of Fort St. John is not a feasible way to look at how to price things.

One of the concerns from this meeting was that they’re going to be testing the market to see what it can hold. I mean, I don’t think we need to really test the market. It’s been 12 years since there’s been anything happening up there. We know the issues. We know that the issue is the distance to market.

[4:45 p.m.]

The easiest thing would be to just create a correction by having that distance worked in already and adjusting the stumpage rate accordingly. But it sounds like they’re going to be taking a little piece of the community forest and putting it up — basically, treating it like a B.C. Timber Sales program — to the highest bidder, which, of course, can come from anywhere and could artificially fix that price.

Basically, my question — and I have many; I might have to put these into a formal piece of correspondence, which I’ll send you later — is: why does FLNRORD seem that they want to interfere and undermine the local objectives that were initially the reason why the community forest was created?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yeah, thank you for the question. We’ve discussed the situation in Fort Nelson and how it’s so important for them to be able to diversify their economy by reinvigorating the forest sector there. Yes, the member’s information is correct that one of our senior managers, the assistant deputy minister for the north, met recently with the Northern Rockies and the Fort Nelson First Nation and other parties up in that area, or perhaps it was by Skype or whatever we’re using these days.

Yes, we need to get some data points in order to make an accurate stumpage rate for the area. There hasn’t been anything to put the factors that the member is talking about into place. There’s been no data collection in the last ten years, because not a lot has been happening in that area in last ten years.

We have been in discussions with the community forest to see if they’re interested in providing some of their volume for a licence. We wouldn’t do it unless the community forest was on board, and it might be helpful to them because they have a fire management plan where they want to do some harvesting of fibre for wildfire risk purposes. That’s where it comes to the term that the member used of testing the market.

[4:50 p.m.]

We agree that there likely needs to be a more appropriate stumpage rate reflected in the distance from market and that it’s likely not the same stumpage rate that he referred to that is being charged in more southerly portions of his constituency. We’re working on that, but this is a step to get there. I know that the member says that we need to…. We know that there’s some need for this to be adjusted, but the only way we can do that is to first put this licence on the market and then go from there.

D. Davies: Again, I do thank you. I know that at least the conversation’s happening, which I think is important. But I certainly implore the ministry to make sure that the local piece is extremely important — the local processing as well, wherever possible — and to make sure that this market test…. Like I say, truly, it’s a base rate correction that really needs to be looked at. We don’t want to have a false market created — you know, you get a big company that does a bid just to play with the prices. I implore you to look into that, and I look forward to further conversation on that as well.

My last question — making kind of a statement, then hopefully, I’ll just get a written response from you, which is just fine. I know there has been a little discussion around water licensing as well. We have a number of businesses, and they’re actually essential services located on the Alaska Highway — these small little stops from Buckinghorse, Pink Mountain, Sikanni, and the list goes on. These small, little, tiny places are essential stop points, often the only place where someone can go to call 911 on the Alaska Highway, if they need — washroom points as well as fuel points. Water licensing…. They are, of course, being used for non-commercial uses.

These businesses are barely keeping afloat. To have more of these costs put down onto them and this incredible burden that they’re facing…. I’m hoping that the ministry’s able to look at some of these unique situations. I know there are probably others around the province where these small gas stations and little places fill an essential service. But hopefully, the ministry is able to look at some special consideration around licensing for these places.

I’ll leave it with that, Minister, and thank you for your time and turn it over to my other colleagues.

J. Rustad: I have one quick question. Then I’m going to turn it over to my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin for some rural development questions.

During the blockade on the Morice River Road, there were a number of spots set up. One in particular, set up by the Gitdumden, was a spot, of course, that was taken down to allow for access through to the pipeline construction site for Coastal GasLink.

The site has never been cleaned up. It’s a mess. There are a lot of things that are being left behind. Apparently, there was a letter that was sent to the ministry asking for the ministry to take some action and clean it up. I believe there was a response sent back that said that no action would be taken.

The question is: can the minister confirm that there will be no action taken to clean up that site? If that is the case, could the minister explain why that would not be cleaned up by the ministry?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: It’s nice to see my critic back on the screen and asking questions. I appreciate that it’s a constituency topic for him as well.

Staff are unaware of either receiving the letter — as the member said, the letter to the ministry to clean it up — or of sending a letter out on this topic. But if the member has access to a letter, I definitely would appreciate it being forwarded on.

Having said that, if there’s debris left on the site that needs to be cleaned up, we’re willing to work with the Hereditary Chiefs and the clan to ensure that it gets cleaned up.

The Chair: Any further questions from other members?

J. Rustad: I turn it over to the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

D. Barnett: Good afternoon, Minister. My questions, basically…. You may not think it, but they’re all going to revolve around the importance of rural development. The first question that I have is: what is the minister’s rural development plan in this budget?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: To the member, I apologize for the delay. It’s just that it’s a lot of work ready to be undertaken, as far as rural development goes, not just in this ministry, but overall in government.

One of the main parts that our ministry plays is ensuring that communities that are dependent on forestry are able to still have that vital part of their economy functioning. Our emphasis on value over volume is an example of rural development in this budget. We’ve allocated $10 million towards the new forest economy that will allow more communities and more tenure holders, especially First Nations, to pursue that value-over-volume prospect and opportunities.

We know that in the Interior, there is an overcapacity — with the beetle wood coming down, and the annual allowable cuts coming down because of that. In order to support forestry jobs, we need to get more value out of the wood that we bring out of the forest.

As far as contractors who work in the forests and are experiencing — well, up until recently — potentially a lack of work…. But with the high lumber prices, many of them are going back to their regular harvesting activities. Under the forest employment program this year…. That’s under our Interior forest worker support program. But the actual envelope that this ministry is in charge of is the forest employment program of $9 million targeted to activities in the bush that will put contractors back to work bringing fibre out and reducing wildfire risk.

[5:05 p.m.]

The important part of rural development is keeping communities safe and also the added benefit of increasing fibre supply. So we have the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. spending around communities in the forests. That’s part of a rural development aspect, and that’s in the neighbourhood of $40 million this year in that program to be spent. We have the community resilience initiative fund program for within municipal boundaries in reducing wildfire risk.

We were able to secure community grants at the end of the year, $14 million, and allocate that towards trail and recreation site projects as well as other projects that’ll make a difference in communities. That’s allocated for this year. That’s going to be spent in communities.

That is just part of it. I mean, the overall picture is that we want communities to be livable. We want to keep people in rural communities so that there is the ability to stimulate the economy. That’s something that is the basis of our thoughts — that people are the basis of the economy.

We need people making decisions to sustain rural communities. That’s why infrastructure projects, the $20 billion over the next three years, not specifically in my ministry but across government — building schools, building hospitals, building housing: it all helps to make rural development happen and connectivity as well.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, but that’s not quite the answer I was looking for. I was the one with our government that put together a rural development strategy. It was a strategy that was inclusive of all ministries, everybody cooperating and working together, and of course, that strategy was a great strategy. It was put together by local people throughout the province of British Columbia who volunteered their time to put this together. The funding was accessible to everyone, not just local governments. It was accessible to anyone who had a great initiative, and the decisions were all based on the economy.

So, Minister, I would appreciate in writing from you, if I may, exactly where your ministry is going with rural development. Who’s involved with it, and who is going to be inclusive? I would appreciate that in writing, because we don’t have time to discuss it further today.

I would also like to know: all this money you’ve talked about…. That’s normal money — infrastructure, etc., etc. Who qualifies, and what is the application process for this funding?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, it really depends on the envelope of funding that we’ve made available under the rural development topic area. I will commit to respond in writing to the first part of the member’s question.

As far as examples of who could qualify for the funding that I mentioned…. For instance, in the forest employment program under the Interior forest worker support program, those are contracts that are put out in consultation with district managers, in consultation with the Interior Logging Association. If it’s over a certain dollar value, it’s put on B.C. Bid in targeted areas of the province where we know that forestry contractors need employment. So they regularly monitor B.C. Bid. If it’s under a certain value, we have a prequalified list of contractors as well.

The member asked about infrastructure grants. Of course, that would be under other ministries in a cross-government approach. But it’s not just local governments; First Nations and non-profit associations can apply for some of those infrastructure dollars that I described already.

In the rural community development grants that I mentioned, the $14 million went to local governments, to Indigenous communities and organizations, to non-profit organizations. That was open to a whole gamut of different groups, not just local government.

D. Barnett: Minister, I would appreciate all that in writing too. Thank you.

My next question. They all pertain to rural development; this is all about rural British Columbia. With the funding that is going to be announced here pretty quickly, the $1.5 billion for COVID, will there be any low-interest loans for young entrepreneurs who have great ideas and need just a little helping hand to get into the value-added business in some of these rural communities?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, $1.5 billion is the economic recovery fund associated with COVID. There has been extensive public engagement where ideas, in the form of the one that the member mentioned, were canvassed — not just public engagement but engagement with specific sectors and the ministry advancing various proposals as a result of all the ministers talking to their groups that they deal with regularly.

The actual details of the $1.5 billion I’m unable to discuss at this point, because it’s still in cabinet consideration, but it will be released very soon. If the member, in the meantime, has some specific cases where young entrepreneurs, as she described, are looking for low-interest loans in order to enter or expand markets, she should be aware that the federal government has a loan program for the kind of people she’s describing — young entrepreneurs. That’s managed through the Community Futures offices, of which there are many in rural communities around B.C.

D. Barnett: Yes, Minister, we are very aware of those programs and the complicated paperwork. I was kind of hoping — if we really do want to kick-start this economy for those of us that are in the forest communities — that because of pine beetle and fires, maybe there would be some kind of a low-interest loan come out in the $1.5 billion. But we’ll wait and see.

The next questions all pertain to rural development. A question I have — I’m asking it for my riding and many rural ridings in British Columbia, and also for my colleague from Prince George–Valemount — is on resource roads. They are very important to rural British Columbia for their economic well-being. Much of our tourism product is created by these rural roads. Many of the rural roads in many, many ridings and regions are being decommissioned with no public consultation.

Minister, could we get a commitment from you that the regions will have public, open consultation before any of these roads are decommissioned?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes. Coming from a rural area myself, I totally understand her point of view that resource roads are important for many reasons recreationally for people, but also for tourism product as well.

I’ll get to her specific question, but I wanted to make sure that we’re both on the understanding — and I’m sure we are — that there is a very wide range of resource road statuses in the province and, therefore, many reasons that might be applied for decommissioning, whether it’s for wildlife reasons, for area closures or to do with access permits. I can’t say that every resource road is the same in the province, but I do get her point that they are of high value to local users as well as those who depend on them for economic reasons around tourism, for instance.

Specific to her question, we do engage with the public and with First Nations stakeholders before decommissioning any forest service road.

D. Barnett: Thank you to the minister for that.

Well, Minister, there are a lot of areas where the resource roads have been closed with no public consultation. My question, again to the minister: could the minister commit to having some public consultation? I know, in areas, there is major decommissioning work going on with no public consultation, and once it happens, then, of course, it creates a lot of issues for tourism, for local residents. So would the minister commit to having more public engagement and consultation before decommissioning of these forestry access roads?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I appreciate the question. Yes, I can reaffirm and commit to having public consultation on the decommissioning of any forest service road on Crown land.

There are situations where there is a permitted road builder. That is a different kind of situation. That’s sort of what I was getting at in my previous answer around the wide variety of resource roads. A permitted road built by a licensee is a different circumstance. But a forest service road on Crown land…. I commit and reaffirm that we will, and we do, engage in public consultation.

If there are specific situations, as the member said, that she has heard or experienced or gotten word about — roads closed or decommissioned with no public consultation — then I’d be happy to look into those situations, if she wants to forward any information on that.

D. Barnett: Thank you to the minister for that. My next question still involves rural economic development.

On Friday, there was an event here in Cariboo North, on the edge of my riding. Forests, Lands and Natural Resources was involved, with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations, in purchasing a ranch. The ranch had grazing leases and licences, and it was a great thing for the First Nation. The rancher is quite content, and everybody is very happy to see reconciliation. Of course, this is in the treaty process, the northern Secwépemc treaty.

There are approximately, to the best of my knowledge — I’ve been very engaged with it — many, many more ranches in Cariboo North and Cariboo-Chilcotin, and a few in the Clinton area, that are still in the treaty process with the northern Secwépemc.

Can the minister tell me: has there been any more indication of purchases of ranches? Are the ranchers going to be compensated if they lose any of their leases and licences, in the near future, when these treaties are finally resolved?

The question to go with that is: is the funding for the purchase of these lands…? Some of it involves FLNRO. Does the money come from the federal government, or is it strictly from the provincial government for the purchase of the lands?

[5:30 p.m.]

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m happy to discuss this situation that the member raises. Yes, it was and is continuing to be a good-news story.

It’s a situation with the northern Secwépemc peoples in their ongoing interim treaty measures, in order to fulfil our reconciliation objective where there’s a willing buyer and a willing seller. Then a rancher who’s willing to sell will put up their ranch. If the First Nation is wanting to get into ranching and the agricultural industry, then that becomes a part of bringing First Nations into — and providing more opportunity to participate in — the economy.

As far as the cost, as the member asked, it’s a federal-provincial combination of [audio interrupted] deals, from a financial aspect. Once the land is purchased, it’ll be leased to the First Nation until the final treaty is signed. The Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is the lead on the treaty process.

As far as how many ranches are potentially going to be involved in this situation, on my ministry’s behalf, that’s part of the negotiations with individual ranchers. That is information we keep confidential with them at this time. It’s good news, as far as moving forward with ranchers and First Nations on a willing-buyer, willing-seller approach.

D. Barnett: Thank you to the minister for that. I would also appreciate that answer in writing.

I have more questions, but I have to move on and turn the floor over….

[5:35 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I’m going to start our questions on the issue of flooding. There was actually an article in the Globe and Mail just a few days ago, from a report from the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation, indicating that the provinces in Canada are not doing very well on flood preparedness and that British Columbia is, in particular, quite behind on this, having not updated flood maps in more than two decades and not making maps public.

They indicate that flooding is the most expensive type of natural disaster. The number and frequency of floods has increased in recent years. The yearly cost of overflowing rivers and rising seas could triple by 2030 without more effort on flood mitigation. Here in British Columbia, of course, one of the communities that has been impacted enormously by flooding is Grand Forks.

Given the increasing number of major floods that have happened in Grand Forks and in the Boundary region and the impact on the local economy, my question for the minister is: will government undertake an in-depth hydrological study that looks at the impact of forestry practices and the connection between those and the causes of flooding, particularly in the Grand Forks region?

Hon. D. Donaldson: We are in the process. We’re working on it right now, a provincial flood risk strat­egy. It’s something we’re working on between ourselves and EMBC. It doesn’t just include strategies. It’ll include funding and resourcing and the overall, entire picture provincially.

The member had a question specifically around Grand Forks. Yes, we’re doing a hydrological study in regard to the flooding that occurred in the Kettle and Granby drainages. An interim report will be completed this fall on that hydrological assessment.

S. Furstenau: I’m glad to hear that there’s a study underway. It seems very important to get to the root of the flooding issues that are happening here. There is a lot of research to indicate that there’s a connection between clearcut forestry practices and increased flooding.

[5:40 p.m.]

My understanding is that the allowable annual cut in the Boundary area is the same as it was almost 40 years ago. My question for the minister is: has he considered reducing the allowable cut in the Boundary watershed in light of the extraordinary amount of flooding that has happened there in the past four years?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, the chief forester is the one responsible for setting the annual allowable cut determination. She does that independently of my role, which is to allocate — once her annual allowable cut determination has been set — where the volume is allotted to or to whom.

The annual allowable cut determinations are on a regular basis by the chief forester. The last was in 2015. Normally, they occur every ten years, but because of some of the conditions that we’ve seen, including the flooding, the new review will be initiated within the next two years for the Boundary TSA. The chief forester takes into account all factors when determining a sustainable harvestable level, including hydrological factors.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the responses from the minister. I’m going to switch to another topic, something I canvassed in question period: the Water Sustainability Act. I wanted to go a little more in depth on this topic with the minister.

It has been four years since the act came into effect, and only about 4,000 applications have been received by the ministry for transitioning existing non-domestic groundwater use into the province’s licensing scheme. At this rate, the ministry would only receive 5,500 applications by the time the transition period ends on March 1, 2022, which is only approximately 25 percent of the existing non-domestic groundwater users in B.C.

[5:45 p.m.]

My question for the minister is: what will the minister do, in the time remaining in the transition period, which is less than two years right now, to ensure that the vast majority of existing non-domestic groundwater users, including small farm users, apply for their water licence so that they can avoid the risk of having no access to water, particularly as we recover from COVID-19 and are looking at very serious issues around food security? Further to that, how will the minister measure success, knowing whether the plan to get the applications in is working or not working?

Hon. D. Donaldson: We are increasing our efforts to encourage pre-existing non-domestic groundwater users to submit application forms, for reasons that the member cited as well as for the reason so the province has much better data and understanding of the use of groundwater for non-domestic purposes.

[5:50 p.m.]

A few of the things we’ve done. As the member indicated, because we weren’t getting a great uptake right off the bat, we extended the application deadline to March 1, 2020. We have improved our advertising and outreach efforts. I guess a subsection of the groundwater licencing is livestock watering, so we formed a team around that specific use to address how to authorize livestock watering. We’ve cancelled the fee, as the member I think alluded to in question period, to encourage people.

So we are seeing an uptick. You know, the member is correct to point out that 20 percent, approximately, of the applications have been received, but that’s grown substantially due to the efforts that we’ve put in place as described. We have 20 percent of the applications in hand. From those applications in hand, we are expecting to have about a 10 percent authorization rate on those — in other words, about 400 done in a year. Now we’ve actually processed 980, so substantially more.

We’ll keep closely monitoring this. We want to make sure that people register in time. We’ll increase efforts if we see that we’re falling behind.

How do we measure success? Well, we’d like to get as close to 20,000 applications in by the deadline of March 1, 2022, as possible. I think that it’s important for this resource to have that in place, and it’s also important because the users need the certainty around their ability to continue using the groundwater.

S. Furstenau: Thanks to the minister for that.

I have several more questions on the Water Sustainability Act, but just looking at the time — and I have another topic I want to canvass very quickly before we end — I’m just going to ask one more question in this round. It’s related to hydrologic science and recognizing that if we’re going to properly manage water in British Columbia, we need to understand how much water there is and where that water is, particularly in light of a changing climate.

This is so essential as part of the Water Sustainability Act, to be able to have a really in-depth understanding of where water is. My question for the minister is on how much of the budget has been given to conduct surface and groundwater studies.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Staff is just pulling the specific amount together. I didn’t want to delay any further in providing an answer. We’ll have that information for the member tomorrow.

I did want to briefly highlight one area that we’ve invested in. It’s simply called the water tool, but it has been implemented in five of eight regions under FLNRORD in this province. It’s a tool for staff to understand all hydrological effects in areas in order to better consider licensing or permitting properly. We spend about $300,000 annually on that water tool alone. The water tool development was in-house, and it was awarded a Premier’s Award last year because of the innovation and the, I guess, amazing tool that it has become for land and water managers.

I can’t agree more with the member around the importance of water and the interaction of surface water and groundwater and how that’s going to become even more important to understand as climate change creates new pressures and new consequences.

We have some research projects on the west coast to study surface water and groundwater interactions, and we’ve increased our ability to understand watershed and aquifer interactivity. The Nicola watershed pilot project is a good example of that, the work that’s going on there with partners — First Nations and local community partners — in that project. So all that…. We can wrap up tomorrow with a figure for the member for that kind of resource funding that’s being spent.

I move that the committee rise and report progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:59 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[6:00 p.m.]

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

Mr. Speaker: Members, pursuant to a sessional order, a deferred division will take place shortly on the motion of third reading of Bill 23, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2020.

Members, pursuant to a sessional order, this House stands recessed until 6:10 p.m.

The House recessed from 6:01 p.m. to 6:10 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, I call the House back to order. The division will proceed in five minutes.

[6:15 p.m.]

We will now proceed with the deferred division. The question is third reading of Bill 23, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2020.

[6:20 p.m.]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

(continued)

Bill 23, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2020, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 44
Bains	Beare	Begg
Brar	Chandra Herbert	Chen
Chouhan	Chow	Conroy
Darcy	Dean	D’Eith
Dix	Donaldson	Eby
Elmore	Farnworth	Fleming
Fraser	Furstenau	Glumac
Heyman	Horgan	James
Kahlon	Kang	Leonard
Ma	Malcolmson	Mark
Mungall	Olsen	Popham
Ralston	Rice	Robinson
Routledge	Routley	Simons
Simpson	Sims	Singh
Trevena		Weaver
NAYS — 41
Ashton	Barnett	Bernier
Bond	Clovechok	Coleman
Davies	de Jong	Foster
Gibson	Hunt	Isaacs
Johal	Kyllo	Larson
Lee	Letnick	Martin
Milobar	Morris	Oakes
Paton	Polak	Redies
Reid	Ross	Rustad
Shypitka	Stewart	Stilwell
Stone	Sturdy	Sullivan
Sultan	Tegart	Thomson
Thornthwaite	Throness	Wat
Wilkinson		Yap

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:23 p.m.