PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Parmar in the chair.

The committee met at 1:03 p.m.

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order.

We’re meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $413,993,000 (continued).

B. Banman: I want to thank the minister and staff for your time. A couple of questions. I just want to focus in on the Water Sustainability Act and water rights in B.C., if I may.

Water rights in B.C. may be exercised under a system of priorities according to their respective priority dates. That is, for those that may or may not know, first in time, first of right. During times of scarcity with water, licensees with the earlier priority dates are entitled to take their full allocation of water over the junior licensees. As an example, a water licence with a 1930 priority date would have precedent over a licence with a 1960 priority date, regardless of the purpose for which that water is used.

The first question I have is: would the minister be so kind as to confirm whether or not that is accurate, what I’ve just read out, that understanding? Let’s just start with that.

[1:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I’d love to enter into this debate. This Water Sustainability Act was under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forests. It was transferred, I think in September of last year, to Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. So as much as I’d be enthusiastic about dealing with your question, you’ll have to take it up with the other minister.

B. Banman: Thank you very much, Minister.

What I would like to do then is move on to actually…. As we all know, we have had horrendous forest fires within British Columbia. Would the minister include that…? When it comes to managing those forests after a burn — or prior to a burn, even; prior to a burn for sure it does — does that fall within the jurisdiction of this ministry?

Hon. B. Ralston: The answer is yes.

B. Banman: Now I know that I’m in the right place.

One of the questions that has happened is that after a burn, I’m sure that the minister and staff would acknowledge, there is approximately a year and a half where much of the timber that is standing actually has value.

Would the minister please confirm that that is, in fact, correct, that even though that forest has gone through a horrific fire, there is still value in that timber that’s standing that could be used for a number of things with regards to its use in the fibre industry?

Hon. B. Ralston: Yes, there is value. It depends upon the species and the severity of the burn that the stand has experienced. There is what’s called a burn severity analysis which is conducted to find answers to that kind of a question. Companies, B.C. Timber Sales, First Nations are obviously interested in finding out that and are able then to engage what the prospective economic value of the stand might be.

I know there’s a series of questions coming, so I’ll await the next question.

B. Banman: Thank you to the minister for the answer. Yes, there is value. I get that there is a burn severity analysis, I believe, the minister just…. That was the name of that.

Would the minister be so kind as to explain who it is that looks after that analysis, and how long that analysis actually takes?

[1:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: There are two ways in which the burn intensity is analyzed. One is through on-the-ground inspection. But given the size of some of these areas, that is difficult sometimes.

There’s also what’s called burn intensity mapping by satellite and remote sensing data. Those two things are integrated. Usually that begins after the fire has ended and after the smoke has dissipated. Sometimes there’s lingering smoke in the area.

Remote sensing requires clear skies for successful and usable imaging. Then those two sets of data and analysis are integrated into the forest inventory.

I expect the member will then go on to ask a question about what happens after that.

B. Banman: Well, actually, I appreciate what goes into it. But my question is: how long does that actually take? Because we have a finite time…. I’ve been told, and perhaps the minister can confirm that that is approximately correct, that there is a year and a half to get this valuable timber to market. How long does it take this ministry to do that analysis?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: There’s a range, obviously, here. For priority fires, if they’re able to do the mapping, the weather conditions, the smoke conditions and such, they can do that in a couple of weeks. I would say, roughly, it’s a 60- to 90-day average, but there are exceptions to that.

The Donnie Creek fire in the northeast of the province, which was huge…. Because it spanned such a vast area, assessment was taking place at the areas that were at the beginning of the fire, while the fire continued in a more distant location and was not yet finished. All of the mapping and all of the analysis is complete for last year’s fire season.

In terms of the question about the shelf life, if I can put it that way, of burned timber, it really does depend upon the species. For example, pine can be ten or even 20 years, whereas spruce would be a very much shorter period. It’s very species-dependent and also dependent on the severity of the burn.

B. Banman: Where I’m going with this is: there is value in the timber that’s standing. As the minister has just said, there are varying lengths of time that it takes. But what I’ve heard him say, with the exception of Donnie Creek, which is exceptionally large…. But I’m sure the minister would agree that within Donnie Creek, there had been assessments already done on part of that, where we could have equipment going in there and harvesting that wood now.

The minister will…. We are watching forest companies and sawmills shut down in rapid succession throughout the province. We are watching people lose their jobs and entire communities being turned upside down because of lack of ability to get into and access fibre. What I’m hearing from organizations that are in the timber industry is that they desperately want to get in there to harvest these particular stands that are burnt and that, in addition to that, they will actually reforest on the way out. It is a win for the environment.

The question I next have for the minister to confirm is: would the minister agree and confirm that after a burn, if we have things such as an atmospheric river or a heavy snow load, these burnt forests no longer have the ability to retain the water, as they once did during a freshet, and that by leaving them as is, this actually, especially with the record levels…? We’re not talking about small burns here or there. We are seeing unprecedented burns.

Would the minister agree that by leaving nature to take its course, this actually potentially has a huge, devastating effect on the environment and on fish habitat?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Great. A couple of different responses to the couple of questions that the member proposed there.

The Donnie Creek fire. There are already 700,000 cubic metres in salvage, permits that have been issued, some to nations and some to companies. Salvage has already begun in parts of that burn.

In terms of companies and a quick start, if they own the tenure, there’s no barrier to beginning salvage work right away. That’s something that companies are eager to do.

In terms of the questions the member asks about the impact on hydrology, the water flow — all of that is accurate. So that’s why there is an emphasis from the office of the chief forester and in the ministry on prompt reforestation. The ministry plants or directs the planting of over 300 million trees a year. That’s for all the reasons that the member set out in his question. That’s important work, and it’s begun as promptly as possible.

B. Banman: Again, thanks to the minister for the answer.

As I suspected, the minister would confirm that the faster we can reforest these areas, the faster we will be able to mitigate the damage, and in particular, help protect our waterways and help protect fish habitat.

[1:25 p.m.]

You mentioned Donnie Creek. I guess the question I have is: how many salvage permits have been issued in the last three years?

If I may, the minister asked…. No, not just for Donnie Creek. We have seen unprecedented fires in the last three years. Of that, could the minister tell me…?

Actually, I’ll make it more exact. Can the minister tell me approximately how many hectares have been lost to wildfire? Of that, how many hectares worth of salvage permits have been put in to salvage the valuable timber that’s there? More importantly, how much has been reforested from those areas that have been salvaged? Just salvaged. Not the ones that already, if a fire….

I understand the minister’s point that if someone has a permit on a woodlot to cut, for instance, in a certain area, if there’s a fire, they still have the right to go in and salvage stuff without hindrance. But I’m talking about…. In response to fires, how much of the hectares that have been consumed…? What’s that number? Of that, how many permits have been issued to salvage those hectares and then reforest?

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you to the member for that question. I’ve got some background figures here. I’m going to focus on 2023 to begin with.

In 2023, the timber harvesting land base burned, in the south, 4,869,814 cubic metres; in the north, 30,739,688 cubic metres; on the coast, 725,079 cubic metres. There’s a qualification here in the note: not all the area burned is harvestable. Things such as accessibility, damage, retention areas and cultural values all impact the amount of volume available for harvest.

Fourteen WSOAs — wildfire salvage opportunity agreements, the department is replete with acronyms — assigned by First Nations are in process; seven additional ones are currently in negotiation. The north area is currently working on issuing 1.25 million cubic metres of non-replaceable forest licence volume under those WSOA agreements; and it’s 50,000 cubic metres in the south.

The statistics for the previous years that the member has referenced are not available here but can be provided subsequently in writing.

B. Banman: So the general public can understand, if we have, say, 100 percent of the burn area — not all of that is going to be going to be harvestable; I understand that — can we break that down into a percentage of 100 percent of burn? What’s the percentage of that area in hectares that have been issued a salvage permit?

Seeing as how the minister brought it up that some of that is not…. I am sure that there are going to be statistics as to roughly how much is never going to be harvestable. It’s either beyond what it is or, you know, it was too small a stand or not the right species. The minister has given a few examples of that.

Let’s break it down into a digestible chunk for Joe Public and for my mom, who’s watching at home, so that she can understand: of the 100 percent that was burned, what is salvageable? How much could have been issued, and how much has actually been issued, to get in there and get that valuable wood before it rots and goes bad? Let’s use 2023 as the example, unless it would be easier to use 2022. I’ll leave that to the minister’s staff to sort out.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The answer turns out to be a little bit more complicated than I had anticipated. I had mentioned the figure of 1.4 million cubic metres, for the 2023 season, which have been issued permits. That’s approximately 20 percent of the viable. That’s not the first number, the total burn. This is the number that the member mentioned, a subset which is the viable area. Permits have been issued so far for 20 percent of that.

Now, that process continues, and it can continue for some time. The economic value of the burned timber, depending on the species and the market price, is not a static number. It might be even years after the burn, if prices rise, that it may then become economic to actually harvest areas that, in the initial first year, might not be economic. I guess with that qualification, just to understand the complexity.

[1:40 p.m.]

For the reasons that the member noted earlier, the idea is to undertake that kind of harvesting, get the licences out and get the work done and the replanting beginning as fast as possible.

B. Banman: What I understand…. Of the 100 percent that is viable, only 20 percent of permits have been issued thus far. That now leaves myself and many others wondering. That seems like a very low number.

In addition to that, as the minister has pointed out…. When it comes to fish habitat and the environment, time is of the essence to ensure that we do everything possible to mitigate the damage, especially when it comes to our waterways.

I guess the question I have for the minister is: why is that number so incredibly low? It seems low. Keeping in mind that we are already now approaching the next fire season, why has it taken so long to issue as little as 20 percent, and what has the ministry done to expedite the salvage rights or the salvaging licensing to happen in a faster way? How many staff have been hired to expedite this? What has been done to be able to get…?

As we talked about, there could be as little as a year and a half. I think, if you talk to most people at home, they will say: “You know what? I get that it may take ten years.” There will be value there for ten years, but it is totally unacceptable to allow that kind of time to take place when we now have the risk of the hydrology that we talked about destroying the environment, slides that are going into areas, roads that are being washed out, infrastructure that’s being washed out.

I bring this home to me. My neck of the woods saw firsthand what happens in an atmospheric river. If, heaven forbid, that comes again, what extra has this ministry done to expedite that? What I am hearing from the folks out in the field is that little or nothing has actually been done. I don’t know whether that’s a fair comment or not.

How many extra staff have been put through to actually assess this work and ensure that permits are going out the door as fast as they possibly can? What I’m hearing is that it’s business as usual, if not slower than before or not being done at all.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I appreciate the member’s question. I have, as minister, directed that this wildfire salvage be a priority. Indeed, following that direction, staff have been reallocated to salvage planning and permitting and to wildfire recovery and restoration. There are some….

I think one needs to bear in mind that the season that just passed was unprecedented. So the volume that has already been permitted is a very high amount compared with the typical season. I’m not saying that as an excuse, but I think it’s important to place it in perspective.

The other influences on wildfire salvage…. There are a number of limitations. One is accessibility to a road. It has to be within one kilometre. Slopes that are suitable for ground skidding. It has to be moderately to severely burned timber. There have to be areas within the timber-harvesting land base, which amounts to about 30 percent of the province, and areas where First Nations cultural concerns are not limiting.

I have expressed and directed that wildfire salvage be a priority. I think the member knows that given the shortage of fibre, which the Premier has identified in his speech at the Prince George Natural Resources Forum as one of the highest priorities of the ministry….

Companies are, in a way that they have not been previously, eager to seek out and receive fire-damaged wood and have adjusted their milling processes to accommodate it. It is valued and sought after. There is a market for it. We’re moving with urgency, given the value of that timber and the market for it.

B. Banman: I thank the minister for the answer.

The minister brought up First Nations and consultation with First Nations. What I’d like to know is (a) how many First Nations have we actually consulted, and (b) how long does that consultation process generally take before the harvest salvage, in this case, licence is issued?

We now know that it can take anywhere from two weeks to three months to assess the damage. How long can the consultation process, on average, take with First Nations to be able to get to the point where there is an agreement in place that those areas can actually be issued a salvage licence? How much consultation has actually been done to date?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: There is a consultation process put in place. I’ve, again, directed that that be expedited. There are post-wildfire planning tables that involve nations, industry and communities. But generally, the cooperation from First Nations on these types of consultations is very good, because people want to understand the urgency and also want to get to work.

To take the example of the northeast, where we had talked about the Donnie Creek fire and just major fires in that region, by February we’d issued one million cubic metres in the WSOA agreements to nations and 700,000 cubic metres to industry. In some ways, the fire there is not technically even out because there are these underground holdover fires. But the bulk of the fire had diminished by October, November.

I would say that that is relatively and admirably expeditious in terms of making the assessment, fulfilling the consultation process and issuing the contracts. Now the work is beginning.

B. Banman: Again, I thank the minister for the answer. I’m not sure I got a clear sort of…. So it takes two weeks to three months to assess the damage? I’m not sure I got an answer on that.

Let me go straight to the heart of it, percentage-wise. Now, let’s just keep with the year and a half. Let’s go with the lowest common denominator that there is value for a year and a half. We now know that only 20 percent thus far have been put out for the last fire. We’re approaching, now, the beginning of the fire season. It was right around this time of year where we started having fires. We’re now ticking off at 12 months, close to when they started. That leaves six…. We can call it six months, 12 months, whatever. We know we’ve gone at least half a year past.

[1:55 p.m.]

What is the time frame, on average, after the fire has been extinguished that it takes for a salvage permit to be issued? It depends on how we divide this up. We could say that it takes a very, very long time for the 80 percent that have not been handed out. But, on average, how long does it take to get an actual salvage permit after the fire has been extinguished?

Hon. B. Ralston: I appreciate the member is hoping to get an answer that results in a statement of an average. But it really would be misleading to simply state an average. It’s really very region-dependent, and there are a series of factors that are required to give such a figure.

Maybe I can give an example about the northeast region, because that’s where there were huge fires, and the biggest one, the Donnie Creek wildfire, which was approximately 620,000 hectares. About 20 million cubic metres of merchantable timber was impacted, about 50,000 hectares of restored cutblocks were impacted, and 560 kilometres of fire guard was constructed for fire suppression activity. So a huge fire, one of the biggest in the history of the province.

[2:00 p.m.]

Wildfire salvage harvesting has started, with over 400,000 cubic metres of potential salvage permitted and 200 million more currently in the permitting process. First Nations with interests in the Fort St. John timber supply area have been actively engaged in the North Peace wildfire recovery working group.

Again, I appreciate the answer the member is hoping to get, but I don’t think it is really one that I can give, because it would not really be accurate and may very well mislead others.

B. Banman: My time is up. I appreciate the minister for the answers that he’s done.

I would say the following. The only other question I have, which can be in writing, is: of the percentage of logs that are being salvaged, how many actually are being exported from the province as whole raw logs? That can be an answer.

I would say this to the minister. I am not alone, in that doing everything we can to mitigate the damage and salvage what we can…. When an industry is collapsing, I would say to the minister that we need a Herculean effort to be able to save these jobs, and not only that but do what’s right by the environment, which is to help replant on the way out and protect the waterways.

I do appreciate the time. Thank you very much.

A. Walker: I’d like to continue on where the Leader of the Third Party ended, which was discussions about the amount of old-growth forests logged in British Columbia.

Her question was about transparency and making data available. My question is very specific, however. Referencing that same CBC News article, we saw that in 2019, there were 39,400 hectares of old-growth forests logged, and two years later, that number had increased, according to that data.

My question very specifically is: what is the amount of old-growth forest harvested in British Columbia for the year 2022 and for the year 2023?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The forest land base of the province is about 59 million hectares. The total hectares of the province, the size of the province is 95 million hectares. The total forest land base is 59 million hectares. Just to put that in context.

In 2020, 41,818 hectares of old growth were logged. In 2021, 41,930 hectares were logged. That’s an increase of 112 hectares, because the member mentioned an increase. Stanley Park, for example, is 404 hectares, so it’s a quarter of the size of Stanley Park that was the increment in old-growth logging.

For 2022, the figure is preliminary because the numbers are not final at this point, but it’s 28,688 hectares.

A. Walker: That is good to hear. The numbers the minister shared are actually higher than what was previously published for 2020-21. But the preliminary results certainly show that the trend is going in the right direction, and that’s something I’m sure folks can be quite pleased with.

When the technical advisory panel launched their process and went through that engagement, we’ve now recognized that First Nations were not a part of that process. After that technical advisory panel result was released, we certainly learned, through that process, and I appreciate it.

[2:10 p.m.]

I’ve listened to the questions before. I don’t want to get into what land is there and what’s not. We’ve heard that answer. The question I have, that’s very specific, is: of the 2.6 million hectares that were announced in that mapping process, how many of those hectares have been deferred or protected?

Hon. B. Ralston: Just to make sure I’ve got the statistics right, I’m going to read this note here.

In November 2021, the government announced its intention to work in partnership with First Nations rights and title holders to defer development within 2.6 million hectares of old-growth forests. Of the 2.4 million hectares of old growth that has been deferred or newly protected since November 2021, 1.23 million hectares is at-risk old growth identified by the old growth technical advisory panel, and an additional 1.19 million hectares were identified by First Nations.

That’s the figure that leads to the final conclusion that I’ve been citing earlier in the comments that I made here.

A. Walker: I appreciate the clarity.

Of the land base that was designated by the technical advisory panel for deferral, which government had agreed at that time to defer, what is the total land base that has been deferred or protected?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I think this is what the member is driving at. So 1.23 million hectares is at-risk old growth identified by the old growth technical advisory panel, and an additional — this is non-technical advisory panel area — 1.19 million hectares were identified by First Nations. That process is…. The member, I think, was present when the Leader of the Third Party was asking questions. This process continues. I hope I’ve made that distinction clear.

A. Walker: So 1.23 million hectares was identified by the technical advisory panel as at-risk old growth. My understanding is that government had agreed that that would be deferred. Obviously there’s been a discussion since then with First Nations about their input on their land base. The question was: of that 1.23 million hectares…?

We’ve got a map out there that designates all these different pieces of land. It’s not one big parcel, obviously. There’s a lot of little pieces. Of that mapped area, a couple of years after this process has started, how much of that today is deferred or protected, and how much of that is not deferred or protected?

Hon. B. Ralston: The 1.23 million hectares, which is the subject of the member’s question, are deferred. The process is ongoing, and I think this may be what the member is heading towards. The decision about the ultimate status of those 1.23 million hectares will be determined by the process. I think it’s likely that it will be conserved, but that decision has not been finally made yet. It’s still in….

The deferral process is an interim process. Highly likely about the outcome, but, as I think the member is going to suggest, not certain. But it’s highly likely that there will be decisions made about that that the member will agree with.

A. Walker: Recognizing, of course, the deferral processes is temporary, and protection is long-term…. But that work needs to be done between government to government. I fully respect that. I just was wanting to make sure that, as of today, those lands designated have not been logged. I think it’s clear through the minister’s response that that is the case, that they have not been logged. I appreciate that.

Just going through my notes before my last question. I’ll tie the two together to save time here. I was provided with a preliminary number for 2022. An estimated roughly 28,000 hectares, 29,000 hectares for 2022, were logged. Just wondering if there’s any preliminary number for 2023.

Then I’d like to shift into the Private Managed Forest Land Act review. The what-we-heard report came out on that in August 2019. It’s an important review.

[2:20 p.m.]

The questions that were asked through that were to ensure that this program is achieving the objectives that the program has, environmental management but also sustainable forestry management. Of the responses of that review, 57 percent came from Vancouver Island, even though we represent 3 percent of the land base and only 17 percent of the population.

The responses: half of those didn’t agree that the broad goals are currently relevant. Two-thirds disagree that the public environmental values specified in the managed forest land act are actually being upheld and that the regulatory framework is not achieving the objectives of the act.

Question is: following that 2019 report, the what-we-heard report, what has changed in the private forest managed lands, and what does the future hold, as obviously we’ve got the watershed security process underway? I gather there’s a second review that’s taking place.

Following this report, what has changed on the private managed forest lands, and what can people in my community, constituents and those that rely on the forest industry, expect moving forward as far as the private managed forest land act?

Hon. B. Ralston: There isn’t a preliminary number for 2023. I think 2022 would have to be closed off first. But that will be disclosed as soon as it’s available.

The private forest land review. I think what the member was quoting from was from the what-we-heard report. No further steps have taken place in the process of following up on that review.

At the moment, the process is posed for our sister ministry, Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, to conduct their work on the watershed sustainable strategy. Where that’s at probably would be a question better directed to the Minister of WLRS during his estimates, which I think have yet to take place.

A. Walker: That what-we-heard report came out in 2019. We don’t have a lot of private managed forest land in the province, but in Parksville-Qualicum that is our forested land base. There was considerable engagement that took place, considerable feedback, and I’m surprised that there’s been no change since then, since that report. I will follow up with the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

I want to thank the minister and their staff for making this time available. We have a long history of forestry in this province, and we have a bright future in forestry. I thank them very much for their time.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I’ll ask the minister if he has any closing remarks.

Hon. B. Ralston: No, I just want to thank the staff who’ve been here yesterday and then, through some fits and starts, both this morning and this afternoon.

[2:25 p.m.]

I want to thank them for their patience and their hard work on the file, not only in the last few days, but the continuing work that we do in Forestry. It’s a big team, and there are many challenges in forestry, but I certainly think that we’re up to them, and I look forward to working on the considerable challenges in forestry. I think we have potential solutions and will continue to strive to achieve them.

With that, perhaps I can move the requisite motion.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 30: ministry operations, $413,993,000 — approved.

Vote 31: fire management, $232,736,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 53: Forest Practices Board, $3,991,000 — approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. The committee will now take a five-minute recess while we prepare for the next ministry.

The committee recessed from 2:26 p.m. to 2:33 p.m.

[R. Parmar in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AND CLIMATE READINESS

(continued)

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We’re meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates for the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $79,047,000 (continued).

Hon. B. Ma: If I may, Chair, I’d like to begin by responding to two of the outstanding questions posed by the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin yesterday that we were not able to find a firm response to.

The Chair: Go ahead, Minister.

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you.

Thank you so much to the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin for allowing us some time to verify responses to a couple of questions that he asked.

[2:35 p.m.]

The first question that was outstanding was his question regarding whether any communities were currently being supported with the transportation of potable water due to drought. We have confirmed that the answer is no.

However, that is not to say that there are not communities that we are carefully engaged with, due to concerns regarding drought. However, as of this time. we are not currently supporting any communities with the transportation of potable water.

The second question that we had committed to responding to was to provide a split between the public sector DFA and private sector DFA payments. I will provide, to the member, that response now. For fiscal year 2021-2022, the province paid out approximately $3.6 million in disaster financial assistance, of which $2.7 million was to private individuals, residents and businesses. The remainder was public.

In fiscal year 2022-23, about $30.24 million was paid out through the private stream, and $4.3 million was paid out through the public stream, for a total of approximately $34.6 million. If the sums are not adding up exactly, it’s just because I am truncating the number. I could provide it to the single-dollar digit if the member insists.

For fiscal year 2023-24, based on the data that we have as of the third quarter, just over $1 million was paid out through the private stream, and $7.5 million was paid out through the public stream, for a total of $8.5 million.

I will say, however, just for clarity, that these values are based on fiscal-year payouts. So they may not align with events that people are familiar with occurring within calendar years, for a number of reasons — one being the difference between a fiscal year and a calendar year. It’s also because there can be a processing delay as applications are made and adjudicated and as funds are issued.

I’ll also note that it is not the most useful metric for determining how far along the recovery is within communities — to focus only on the payout amounts for public disaster financial assistance — because of the way that disaster financial assistance is processed through the public stream.

I won’t presume the critic’s line of questioning that will come next, but I will offer that I am happy to elaborate on what I mean and provide an overview of the high-level steps involved in the processing of the disaster financial assistance program for the public stream.

I can also speak to dollar commitments that have been made so far to different communities for various events. Keep in mind that disaster financial assistance is only one of the programs through which the province works with communities to provide them with funding. The numbers might not align here if one were thinking about the total amount being reported as dollar amounts committed to communities.

I just wanted to provide that clarity. It’s because disaster financial assistance is only one of several programs through which we’re able to provide supports to communities for recovery and mitigation works.

L. Doerkson: I certainly don’t need the pennies or any of that information. What I am trying to understand, though, is what that sort of split is between residents that might be receiving these funds and, of course, our municipalities. When the minister refers to public — gosh, I can’t remember now what the quote was; public something — is it the municipalities that receive that?

[2:40 p.m.]

I think I heard the minister say $4.3 million, roughly, in 2022-23, and then in 2023-24, potentially $7.5 million. If I’m understanding — I’m seeing the minister nod her head — that is for municipalities, not for residents.

Hon. B. Ma: The critic is correct. The public stream is the funding that we provide to municipalities, regional districts and First Nations. The private stream is the funding that we provide to individuals for their residences and businesses.

L. Doerkson: Thanks for that. I’m going to come back to DFA a little bit later and talk about specific instances. I do appreciate getting a bit of a better understanding of that.

I do want to spend a little bit of time on the budget itself before we get into some specifics. I didn’t have, of course, the benefit of participating in this process last year with the minister, but I want to get some examples of what might be under climate readiness. I believe it’s $38 million. I wanted to get a better understanding of what might be in that category.

Hon. B. Ma: Under the climate readiness programs line item in the budget, that covers funding for mitigation projects with communities, as well as the disaster and climate risk resiliency assessment that the ministry is leading.

I will note, as well, that outside of this particular line item, we do provide funding for disaster risk reduction mitigation activities through the community emergency preparedness fund. Under the previous budget, an additional $180 million was committed to that fund, for a total of $369 million, but it is administered through UBCM. So it doesn’t show up in our ministry budget for this fiscal year.

L. Doerkson: The minister touches on a point that has certainly got me a little bit confused. I can appreciate there’s money coming from other ministries and other places. That’s why I’m specifically asking this question. I think we’ll see a little bit later that there has been $243 million promised. I’m unclear as to how those funds move through this ministry, noting that we’re really looking at a budget sheet of $101 million, $125 million and $115 million.

I can appreciate, too, that the ministry is obviously connected in so many ways to other things, whether that be WLRS or Forests. I know there are all kinds of opportunities for cross-pollination between the ministries, but that’s exactly what I’m trying to understand, I suppose — where the funds are coming from.

[2:45 p.m.]

The minister referred to the term “mitigation.” Honestly, I’m not arguing that it’s too much or not enough; I don’t know what the right number is. I’m trying to understand why those items wouldn’t be in this budget. I do want to get a bit of a sense of what mitigation work is being done. I’m hoping I can get a little bit of a better understanding of where the funds are coming from.

Hon. B. Ma: I can answer this question in a number of ways. Rather than assume where the critic would like to go, I’ll allow him to elaborate after I provide an initial response.

I’ll start by breaking down the allocation of the $234 million being referenced. I’ll speak to some of the other programs that are all part of the work that EMCR does in order to support disaster risk reduction and mitigation. We can go into those programs as well and provide more information if the critic is interested.

It is the case that the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness acts as a central, lead, coordinating agency on behalf of the province around emergency management across all four phases. However, a lot of the other ministries carry mandates on various hazards. So we do work with them very closely.

For instance, the Ministry of Forests carries a mandate on wildfire fighting. WLRS now has a mandate around drought. The technical expertise that the province relies upon to help guide a lot of the work that we do will exist in many of these other ministries. Working closely with our ministry partners across government, EMCR pulls together a lot of the work happening.

I’ll provide a breakdown of the $234 million. Of that, there is the top-line response to where that funding is coming from. It’s all being drawn from contingencies. It won’t show up in this particular boat, but it is accounted for in the contingencies draws.

The Barrowtown pump station — that’s $76.6 million. That flows through EMCR out of the ’23-24 fiscal budget.

Then there’s an agricultural water infrastructure program that accounts for $83 million of that $234 million. That also flows through the ’23-24 fiscal year budget, through the Ministry of Agriculture.

There is a water metering pilot program, of $50 million, which is coming out of fiscal year ’24-25. That flows through the Municipal Affairs Ministry.

[2:50 p.m.]

There is $14 million that is being provided for the Cowichan weir, flowing through fiscal year ’23-24 that flows through the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

There’s also $10 million being committed to the St. Mary Lake program. It’s a project that supports water storage capacity to sustain environmental flow on St. Mary Lake on Salt Spring Island. That’s coming out through the ’24-25 fiscal year through the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship as well. Those are some of the contingency draws that are being used to support these immediate projects.

In addition to that, the ministry also, of course, administers the disaster financial assistance program, and then we contribute to the community emergency preparedness fund that is administered through UBCM. So that’s the $369 million, of which I believe just over half has now been distributed to communities.

There are also contributions that the province makes to certain cost-shared programs with the federal government — for instance, what we call the green ARDM program, the green infrastructure program under the ARDM. If you’d like the acronym spelled out, I will figure that out for you.

There’s also a COVID-19 resilience infrastructure stream of ARDM as well, and there’s provincial funding towards that too. So there are quite a few different buckets that all work together and basically support overall mitigation and disaster reduction.

L. Doerkson: That actually helps a great deal, Minister. It actually helps for another set of estimates in WLRS as well. So thank you for that.

I guess now turning back to the $38 million within this ministry, I think the minister said earlier that that was for mitigation. I just want to better understand what the minister is referring to as mitigation. Is that physical work? Is it managing these funds? What’s happening with this nearly $40 million?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Climate readiness programs. That line item provides for costs associated with the delivery of disaster preparedness and mitigation funding programs, as well as strategic reviews and training and exercises.

Disaster preparedness and mitigation funding programs could include provincial contributions to those cost-shared programs with the federal government. It could cover a wide range of disaster preparedness activities and mitigation activities, including risk assessments, all the way through to physical infrastructure.

This funding tends to flow right into communities. So when we talk about the delivery of disaster preparedness and mitigation funding programs, that usually means cash to communities to support their mitigation projects.

You’ll notice that in each fiscal year, this line item grows by a substantial margin. That’s basically in recognition of the growing need for the ministry to be able to contribute to these kinds of programs. In addition to this line item, there is, of course, the CEPF program that we have been using to substantially bolster the amount of money that is available to flow into communities immediately while our ministry kind of builds up capacity to be able to also administer further supports direct from our ministry, in addition to what is being provided through UBCM.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. I want to just ask a couple more questions on this, because I want to be crystal-clear, Minister, with respect to….

There’s some amazing funding and work that’s happening through FESBC, but I’m sort of getting a sense that perhaps the ministry may be funding work in our communities that might be that kind of logging that might be occurring around fire mitigation.

I guess I’m trying to get clarity with respect to actual projects. The minister has said that these funds flow to the community. Once they’re in the community, I’m trying to get a sense of what they’re actually completing.

I know that, for instance, in Williams Lake, we’ve had much fire mitigation around our community, but a lot of that work has been done through FESBC. I’m curious to know if there are funds here that communities can apply for and, if so, how that might be used.

[3:00 p.m.]

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

Hon. B. Ma: In trying to consider how best to respond to his question in a way that is most useful, if the critic would allow me, I think I might actually speak to it from the perspective of the kinds of projects that CEPF has been covering.

The line item within the ministry budget is meant to be quite complementary to that, so it will give the critic an idea of kind of the scope of projects that are funded through EMCR, whether it’s through CEPF or some of these other cost-sharing programs that I referred to, like green ARDM. Maybe I’ll start that way, and I hope that it will provide greater clarity for the critic given the nature of this question.

CEPF, which is the program that is administered through UBCM, has multiple streams that communities can apply to. When I say communities, I mean, municipalities, regional districts, as well as First Nations.

I’ll read out some of the streams that exist. For instance, there’s a funding stream for flood risk assessment mapping and mitigation planning, of which we have approved, so far, 127 projects in the province.

There is a stream for emergency support services, equipment and training. That’s to build local capacity to provide emergency support services through training, volunteer recruitment and retention, as well as the purchase of emergency support services equipment. Some communities have used the funding to purchase sea cans and fill them with emergency gear for their communities. Under that stream, 377 projects have been approved.

There is a stream for emergency operations centres and training. This is to build local capacity through the purchase of equipment and supplies required to maintain or improve an EOC and enhance EOC capacity, and 458 projects have been approved under that stream. This is all through since 2017, by the way.

Under the fourth stream, this is probably the stream that is, I would say, the big dollar stream. It’s structural flood mitigation, which is…. Oh, well, actually that one’s retired and been replaced, but there was a structural flood mitigation stream. There were 52 projects approved under that. That’s projects to prevent or eliminate or reduce the impact of flood or geological hazards. That’s construction of actual structural mitigation projects.

[3:05 p.m.]

That has been since replaced by a stream called the disaster risk reduction–climate adaptation stream. That supports eligible applicants to reduce risk from future disasters, so it’s no longer limited to flood hazards. It could be other hazards as well, and 168 projects have been approved under that stream.

There are other streams. Indigenous cultural safety and cultural humility training, 44 projects have been approved under that one.

There’s a stream for volunteer and composite fire department equipment and training. We’ve approved 340 projects under that one.

A public notification and evacuation route planning stream. There have been 119 projects under that stream.

There’s an extreme temperature risk mapping, assessment and planning stream as well. So 47 projects have been funded under that stream.

If the critic is wondering about the types of hazards these projects tend to address, of the almost 1,900 projects that have been approved through CEPF since it was created in 2017, the vast majority — so over 1,000, about 1,050 — of those projects are considered all-hazard. So it’s hazard agnostic. It provides support to communities in preparation for whatever may come.

Of the other hazards that are often addressed by these projects, 442 of them were for flood and 340 of them were for fire. However, I will note that significant funding, and the vast majority of funding, for the fire prevention program actually flows through FireSmart.

In terms of addressing excess fuel on the ground and preparing communities to be fire smart, most of that funding actually flows through the Ministry of Forests. There were also 50 projects for extreme temperatures, so that’s both heat and cold. There were 11 projects addressing tsunami, two projects that were addressing seismic risk and two for avalanche.

That’s the range of projects that we seek to support, the types of projects that we seek to support when we talk about mitigation and adaptation funding. Like I said, most of this has flowed through this CEPF program, but we also do have some funding within ministry to manage, to distribute to communities for complementary programs like that.

I hope that helps.

L. Doerkson: It helps very much, Minister.

I just want to turn our attention back to what we were just discussing, the $234 million committed to multiple projects. We talked about the Barrowtown pump station and a number of others. I wondered how these projects may have been picked over other communities like Lytton and Merritt and other communities that we’ll discuss as we go forward.

I know that there’s a massive commitment here: $77 million, $83 million, $50 million. I think the minister mentioned a couple of other ones at $14 million and $10 million. So there certainly seems to be a significant amount of money coming back into the province. I’m just wondering how these projects were picked over those other communities.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Looking through this list, I will note that a couple of these projects with large dollar amounts assigned to them are actually provincewide programs. For instance, the agricultural water infrastructure program is a program that already exists, but the demand for it far exceeded how much money had been previously allocated to that program.

This is the program that provides funding to support communities and the agriculture industry to improve water management during times of drought, in order to ensure human food and livestock sources are secure. Given the state of the drought that the province experienced last year, it became very clear how important this program was to the agricultural community and to food security in British Columbia in general. So we were pleased to support the province in getting that funding through there.

There’s also the water metering pilot program. That accounts for $50 million of the $234 million. This program was identified as needed — again, given the drought that we saw last year and the likelihood that we will be experiencing widespread levels of drought throughout the province in the years ahead and possibly for…. I suppose it’s too early to know exactly how long it will last, but the climate is changing very rapidly, and we need to adapt.

The water-metering pilot would support communities in improving their capacity to conserve water, by identifying leaks and supporting management of use. It’s an extremely important move for the province to take and for communities within our province to take.

The Barrowtown pump station was funded, based on its readiness as a project, within the general mitigation plan. It didn’t fit into other funding streams. The region has been working together, across three levels of government — First Nations, the province and municipal governments — on an overall plan for flood mitigation.

[3:15 p.m.]

They have an application into the federal government for DMAF funding. But the Barrowtown pump station is particularly vulnerable, given what happened in the 2021 atmospheric river event. It was almost lost due to flooding, so it needs resiliency upgrades immediately. The province determined that it couldn’t wait for the DMAF program application, I guess, to carry through to its conclusion before work began on Barrowtown.

I will say that the province also provided funding to the city of Abbotsford in the last fiscal year, as well — I believe it was last fiscal year; it might’ve shown up in the fiscal year plan prior — in order to start work on developing resiliency upgrade plans for the Barrowtown pump station, given it’s, I guess, vulnerabilities.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. I want to try to ask that question again, if it’s all right with the Chair.

Not specifically…. I guess we’ll get to that in a moment, with respect to specifically how the ministry is involved in some of these projects. I am interested in asking a couple of questions on the water-metering program.

Specifically, the question to me is: how are these things prioritized? I guess that’s my question, Minister. I’m trying to understand better. I think the minister referred to the Barrowtown pump station as being critical and definitely something that needs to be addressed right away, so much so that we might actually take that on provincially and then sort of try to collect funds from other sources at a different date or time.

I guess what I’m trying to understand is…. You know, we’ve heard so much about Lytton. We’ve heard not just from the community there; we’ve heard also from the residents outside of Lytton, just outside of Lytton. We will come to that in a more fulsome way a little bit later in this conversation. But also Merritt, as well, has had so much damage. Again, we’ll come back to that in a more fulsome way.

They’re really looking for support from the province to the tune of around $20 million or $25 million or so, but there’s also a significant amount of federal money that may be lost if they don’t get that funding provincially, right?

I guess what I’m trying to understand is how these projects were picked. I can appreciate that Barrowtown may be critical and it needs to be done right away, but these other items are critical as well. I’m just wondering how these were put on the list over and above those ones.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: It’s not a function of whether one community is more of a priority over another community but, rather, where they are in the process of their recovery or their mitigation planning, what funding envelopes are available to them for various aspects of work.

EMCR works very closely with communities to understand and help develop their mitigation strategy and then determine what aspects and elements of the overall plan can fit into the various funding envelopes that are available to us collectively, whether it is through the federal DMAF funds or DFA funds or mitigation funding, and so forth.

There is a distinction, of course, between recovery work and mitigation work, although, in some cases, I will say that there’s a significant relationship between them. Part of the work that EMCR does with communities is to try to work with them on their overall mitigation plans and their recovery plans and determine how best to get all of the pieces funded.

Speaking to Lytton…. Lytton is still in a state of recovery. I would be reluctant to suggest that they were in the mitigative stage, because they are still recovering now. We have been supporting them since the beginning. The province has committed over $58.5 million to the village of Lytton so far, but that was allotted for and added in previous budgets, so they’re not being called out here in this fiscal year.

To provide a breakdown of where that funding went or what it was for, of the $58.5 million that the province committed to the village of Lytton, $9.36 million goes to support ongoing village of Lytton operations and staffing. We provided $23.4 million to enable debris removal, archaeological support work and soil remediation; $3.4 million to help re-establish essential infrastructure and services; $2.1 million for future village of Lytton operations, and we continue to work with them.

Funding has been flowing, and we’ve been able to work with the village and with our colleagues across government to find funding sources for these various critical elements.

When it comes to the city of Merritt, I should clarify that communities like Merritt have been working very closely with us on their recovery, and a lot of progress has been made, but absolutely the work isn’t over. So in addition to $10.2 million that we have provided for residents and businesses in Merritt through the disaster financial assistance program, the province had already committed $52 million to the city of Merritt for flood recovery and resiliency as well. That includes money that we provided. This came out in the previous budget.

We provided over $10 million to rebuild the Middlesboro Bridge. We have now also approved, in principle, $46.5 million to repair the two dikes that were referred to by the member. That is a provincial commitment.

It is the case that the province will likely seek to receive a partial reimbursement from the federal government through their disaster financial assistance arrangements program for that commitment that we have made to Merritt. But that application does not impact Merritt’s ability to access the funding that we’ve already committed to them. That’s the $46.5 million. That’s a provincial funding commitment that we have provided to Merritt.

That being said, we are aware of the need to find a solution for the acquisition of additional land beneath those dikes. That’s what the city of Merritt has been talking about recently. We’re committed to continuing to do this work with them, as we have done from the beginning.

I had several conversations with Mayor Goetz over the last few days to reaffirm this commitment. Our teams are actually meeting again, I believe, next week to discuss next steps. Merritt is receiving support from the province, but there is more to do. We have to keep working with them.

[3:25 p.m.]

Again, to provide an overall summary of what has been committed to the city of Merritt so far, there was the $10.2 million that was provided as direct financial support to homeowners, tenants, small businesses, charitable organizations and farms. That was through DFA. And $4.5 million was provided through the CEPF program.

So $13.2 million, plus the 46…. I’ve got to add it up now, for me. The $13.2 million and $46.5 million — that’s $59.7 million that we have committed to the city of Merritt. Through DFA, we’ve provided an additional $330,000 for flood mitigation studies. Municipal Affairs provided them with $24.3 million for interim flood support funding.

There was also that one-time funding for the Middlesboro Bridge, which I don’t believe is included in this summary, is it? It is. So that includes the one-off funding that we provided for Middlesboro Bridge as well, and we have more work to do.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister.

I certainly appreciate the numbers that the minister just introduced. The thing that I do appreciate probably more than anything is the distinction between mitigation and, of course, recovery. We will come back to this for sure in the next few hours and discuss that a little bit more.

I really am very much in favour of the support for the dike mitigation that you’ve talked about, because honestly, as far as an investment is concerned, when you think of the new levels of debris flow being so high now in Merritt and the prediction for those debris flows to happen at least once more in the next hundred years and then half of those happening twice more in the next hundred years, we could be looking at, in today’s dollars, an $800 million or $900 million cost to the province.

I hate to think what that looks like 20 years from now. To me, that is exactly what that $20 million is for. It’s mitigation to mitigate flood in the future.

The thing that is most, I think, worrisome for me on that is that there’s $98 million of federal funding attached to the 21…. Sorry, it might be 98…. It might be $80 million that would come from federal funding on the supply of that $20 million from us. But we’ll discuss that a little bit more later.

We digress here. My apologies. I’m kind of off the beaten track here.

I did have just a couple more questions about the actual ministry and its structure. I wanted to get back to those questions, if that’s all right. I want to just get a better sense of how many employees are in this ministry now and where those employees are located throughout the province. I just want to get a bit of an understanding of the structure.

In different communities throughout the province, I mean, we obviously have forests. We have WLRS and everything else. I want to understand if that’s accessible in a place like Williams Lake or Terrace or wherever.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: We currently have a base staff complement of 359, keeping in mind that because of our ability to access statutory appropriation, we do surge up when required. So there are a couple of hundred more staff members that are funded through that statutory appropriation, but they are not considered base staff. We will be growing to a base complement of 400 staff under this budget.

We are a very regional organization as well. The headquarters is on the Island over by Keating Cross, but we have regional offices that include Kamloops, Prince George, Terrace, Smithers, Surrey, Victoria and Nelson. Of course, there are also staff members who work remotely, so they could really be positioned anywhere throughout the province.

I will also comment on one of the comments made by the critic about $98 million of federal funding that might be lost due to the land acquisition piece. To provide a correction, of the $98 million of funding that has been committed to the city of Merritt so far, the vast majority of that — the vast, vast majority of that — is actually provincial funding. That’s provincial funding that has been committed to the city of Merritt.

The land acquisition piece is outstanding, and that is the work that we’re committed to continuing to do with them.

L. Doerkson: Thanks for that, Minister. We’ll certainly come back to that piece about Merritt. I will better understand that, for sure. I do have a number of questions about that. Thank you for the answer.

[3:35 p.m.]

I can imagine that the staff levels will surge up. There’s no question about that. The member for Prince George–​Valemount just showed me a burning ban for the Cariboo-Chilcotin that was issued a few hours ago. That’s certainly frightening, with respect to drought up in my region. So I can appreciate that the number may quickly change.

One last question just on the ministry itself. I know last year was an exciting year. We spent many hours together, Minister, with respect to Bill 31. I’m going to have a few questions about Bill 31 and compliance and those types of things.

What goals does the minister have for the coming year?

Hon. B. Ma: I was wondering if I could get a clarification from the critic on his question. Was he referring to our goals with respect to implementation of the Emergency and Disaster Management Act or our goals for the next year generally, as a ministry?

L. Doerkson: Well, now that the minister asked that question, I suppose the question is both, actually.

We are going to talk, Minister, about Bill 31 and the implications of that bill and how we may go forward with it.

Specifically, I’m interested more in knowing what the minister may have as goals for the ministry, other things that we might be seeing coming forward and, certainly, any improvements that might be made. Definitely I’m interested in the other as well.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I will say that since the creation of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness, we did have a mandate to support increasing the capacity of the province to support communities through emergencies and climate-related disasters. That does mean building up our base capacity, our year-round capacity, in order to provide to British Columbians an organization that was not just focused on response but also an organization that is able to support them through recovery, through the preparation for emergencies and mitigation prior to the impacts of disasters.

I will say also that we have a service plan that outlines all of the top goals and the strategies and the objectives of the ministry. So I’m happy to read into the record some of those goals that we highlighted through the service plan.

For instance, we have a goal to ensure that B.C. strategies and systems reduce the impact of climate-driven hazards and other emergencies and disasters. We have a goal to create the space and do the work that is necessary to recognize Indigenous people as true partners and leaders in emergency and disaster risk management and to work towards ensuring that B.C. has modernized and enhanced emergency management across all four phases. That’s preparation, mitigation, response and recovery.

We’re doing that through a number of…. We hope to be able to provide a number of deliverables in the coming year. We do that through championing evidence-based approaches across the B.C. government to identify and reduce disaster risk and climate risks and invest in disaster risk reduction, so some of those investments that we were talking about earlier. We want to lead provincial coordination for disaster risk reduction and climate readiness initiatives.

You know what? I realize I’m just reading these bullets.

I guess overall, what we’re trying to create here and to build up is our ability to support British Columbians through emergencies, through all four phases of those emergencies. That’s basically the bottom line of it. Some of the activities that we are focused on right now are better shaping the delivery of services to Indigenous peoples that consider their needs and cultural perspectives. We, of course, are working to implement the emergency and disaster risk management legislation, the EDMA.

We are working on achieving key deliverables that we have under the EDMA. For instance, the delivery of a provincial disaster and climate risk and resiliency assessment. That’s targeted for release this summer. We are updating the comprehensive emergency management plan to support that EDMA implementation.

We’re working to support local authorities, First Nations and search and rescue organizations and implementing the new legislation by developing and providing them with new tools, new guidance, templates, providing capacity funding to local authorities and First Nations to support Indigenous engagement requirements, providing responses to technical questions.

[3:45 p.m.]

We’re trying to build up our overall readiness for the upcoming…. I call it a hazard season, but we now know that we’re experiencing disasters throughout the entire year, although it does intensify around the summer because of wildfire and drought and often flooding before and after.

We have been working to build up our readiness posture in advance of the 2024 wildfire season, working to implement the recommendations of the Premier’s Expert Task Force on Emergencies. Some of that work has already been announced. The rest of it is actively underway.

There’s also a goal to…. I’ll just provide an example of one of our objectives. We want to drastically increase the number of communities that are registered to the ERA tool so that they can be able to provide evacuees with digital support and e-transfers as part of our work to improve the delivery of emergency support services to communities, particularly given the lessons learned from 2023.

A big part of our focus this year is to do things better than last year, based on what we learned from what happened last year, and to constantly be improving our ability to respond to emergencies as we go.

L. Doerkson: Thanks for that, Minister.

I want to turn our attention now to shelters throughout the province. We’ve had, obviously, shelters for both cold and hot weather.

I think we’re going to be told to go to the big House here shortly, as well, Minister.

Again, coming back to shelters, I want to get a better sense of how this program works. I think there was a press release last year that indicated that we had more than 5,500 shelters in place. That was for warming shelters. I know, certainly in my community…. And I just talked to the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, and they’ve had the same sort of situation. We obviously have the ability to provide these shelters.

I guess what I’m not certain on is that often, in my case, there have been public structures that have been used. I know that there has been some sort of a funding mechanism to help the community run these facilities. I wanted to get a clear understanding of how EMCR is implicated in that and how this program is being run and, sort of, who is running it. Is it being run at a local level, or is the minister perhaps taking the lead on these?

Just one more question attached to that. I want to get the cost, or investment. I’m not opposed to these shelters. I’m just trying to understand what we’re doing here and what the investment looks like.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The member had referred to a couple of different programs that I’ll provide clarification on.

The extreme weather shelter program is actually delivered by the Ministry of Housing, through B.C. Housing, I believe, so it is not an EMCR program. However, EMCR does provide funding for warming centres.

[3:55 p.m.]

Warming centres would be delivered and operated by local governments, and EMCR will reimburse local governments for incremental costs. For instance, it could cover the rental cost of a facility. If it is not a building that is owned by the city — perhaps they’re renting a private hall to use — that is eligible for reimbursement. We would cover incremental costs around utilities, janitorial costs, additional security that might be required for both day and night use.

We cover incremental wages. So if additional staff or staffing hours are required to staff the warming centre, that would be eligible. We cover costs for blankets, warm drinks, warm clothing — that sort of thing. But the need would be identified by the local community, and they would deliver the actual service. We provide the funding for it.

In terms of how much has been invested into this program, I will say that there’s not a particular cap of funding. It’s not like we set a certain amount of funding, and if we run out of that funding, we stop funding warming centres. We actually continue to fund as many warming centres as is needed for that particular year.

The community would identify the need for the warming centre. Oftentimes the triggers might be based on weather forecasts, extreme temperature alerts from Environment and Climate Change Canada, and so forth.

L. Doerkson: I guess what I’m trying to get a sense of, Minister, is…. I’ll say thanks for clearing up the distinction between housing shelters and then these warming shelters, and I can appreciate that there is not a cap on the funding.

I guess maybe what would be easier to ask would be: how many of these shelters opened that were funded by the province in the last year, in both seasons? For instance, in 100 Mile, we used arenas during the heat of the summer, and in the winter, we were using, I believe, the Gibraltar Room. I’m trying to get a sense of perhaps what last year’s cost was. I can appreciate it’s difficult to predict what it would be. Then I guess what I wondered is where in the budget it fell into, what category it fell into.

The Chair: We’ll call a recess now and then reconvene after royal assent.

The committee recessed from 3:58 p.m. to 4:16 p.m.

[R. Parmar in the chair.]

The Chair: All right. Welcome back, everyone. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order.

We’re currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

Hon. B. Ma: If the member will allow, we’d like to get back to him on the question about numbers so that we can get as accurate a count as we can muster.

In terms of how those centres are funded, they would be funded through a stat vote. That would be the emergency management vote 22. It’s out of that.

L. Doerkson: Thanks, Minister. That’ll be just fine. I’m just trying to get a sense of how many of these shelters have opened up in both different seasons, both in hot and cool. I can wait for that information. It’s not a problem at all.

I wonder if the minister, though, could clear up the process of how this works. Is it as simple as a community applying for the funds or reaching out? I’m unaware of how the process works, and I’m trying to understand who reaches out to who. Is it the province that reaches out to the community saying, “Look, we need to do this; we’ve got a heat dome coming,” or is it the community that is actually reaching to the province for that funding?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: If we are aware of an extreme weather situation coming up…. EMCR may actually do some active reach-outs to communities to encourage them to open warming centres or cooling centres. We may set up a coordination call for emergency management partners in the area to discuss what’s coming, especially if the forecast is showing extreme cold temperatures or extreme heat temperatures. We may do that. That’s an extra thing that we would do.

Really, the need for a warming centre or a cooling centre is identified by the community. It’s very community-driven. If a community identifies that they do need a warming centre or cooling centre….

The eligibility criteria and, I guess, the policy for having warming centres or cooling centres covered is publicly available. It’s available to look at. We can provide you with the link, if that would be helpful. The community would simply call up their regional Emergency Management and Climate Readiness office and request a task number. It’s as simple as that.

Many communities may submit an expense authorization form. It’s not like a big grant application or anything like that. It’s a very simple form just so that they’re absolutely clear as to what is or is not eligible for reimbursement.

The authorization for a task number to allow a community to receive reimbursements from EMCR for a warming centre or cooling centre is done at the regional office level. It’s a very operational decision that’s made. It doesn’t have to come all the way up to the minister and be signed off and then go all the way back down to the community days or weeks later. It happens, oftentimes, immediately or close to immediately.

L. Doerkson: Okay. Thanks, Minister. That answers that question for me. I’ll look forward to seeing what the numbers look like, not just the number of centres but how much funds, in the past, have been committed to that.

I want to move along a little bit to volunteers and talk, potentially, a little bit about Bill 31. I do want to speak, I guess, to what happened with search and rescue teams throughout the province just after Bill 31 was brought into effect.

I have a couple of questions from Dwight Yochim, who, I think, is still a little bit frustrated. I want to just chat a little bit about the situation that developed there. I want to understand if the contracts that were sent out to search and rescue teams throughout the province have been contemplated for other volunteers. I know that we have multiple volunteers, of course, through ESS programs.

Frankly, we did touch a little bit on this in committee stage of Bill 31, but I do want to understand the mechanism and what Bill 31 is going to mean for all of our volunteers. Specifically, I want to start with SARA, just to understand…. Has that relationship improved? What is the current development with respect to B.C. Search and Rescue?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Gratitude to the critic for the question. I guess I would start by acknowledging that the communications for the rollout of the invitations to apply for authorization as a public safety provider under the EDMA to search and rescue groups could have been done a lot better. I take personal responsibility for that.

I have to say…. I was on leave for the birth of Azalea very shortly after the legislation was brought into royal assent. During that time, when I was away, was when these invitations to apply for authorization as a public safety provider were issued. It meant that I was not around to support the communication effort that should have occurred during that process.

For greater clarity, the reason why the ground search and rescue groups were invited to apply for authorization as a public safety provider was to enable the provision of the protection of the legal proceedings that are afforded to public safety providers under the EDMA.

[4:30 p.m.]

Under the EPA, individual volunteers were provided — sorry, what is that term — protections, civil liability protections, so individual volunteers were provided civil liability protections under the EPA. Under the EDMA, we also extend that protection to the groups as an organization. Search and rescue groups are each independent organizations, so by registering as a public safety provider under the EDMA, it would allow them to have that protection.

There was no intention to fundamentally change the way that those services were being delivered through this application to become a public safety provider. However, there were clearly insufficient communications around this process and that lack of assurance that I could have provided as minister if I had not been on leave. I think that led to quite a lot of confusion and concern.

Since then, we have made a few changes and taken action to try to restart and repair that relationship. We’ve been working very closely with BCSARA. We have a good working relationship with them at the provincial organization level. We actually hosted a town hall to acknowledge the shortcomings of this process directly with ground search and rescue groups.

I delivered a personal apology and made the acknowledgment that I just did right now and basically laid out a path forward for us. EMCR staff, as well as the full BCSARA board and requesting agencies — those are the agencies like the RCMP who actually request the services of GSAR — are actually spending the entire weekend this weekend together to talk about the path forward.

In terms of the what the EDMA means for other volunteer groups…. The EDMA contemplates three volunteer groups. There were the GSAR groups, ground search and rescue groups. It talks about emergency support services volunteers. It talks about road rescue groups. You’re testing my knowledge on the actual wording of the legislation.

Now, they might not have actually listed them, but I certainly communicated with them, those groups, during the debate on EDMA.

I will say that emergency support services volunteers are different from GSAR groups because they tend to be volunteers of the local government. They tend to be volunteers of the municipality, the regional district or the First Nation. They’re not independent groups in and of themselves like GSAR groups are.

Road rescue volunteers often also fall under that format, although there are a few road rescue groups who may not. So we’re working through whether or not they should be offered the opportunity to be onboarded as a provincial safety provider as well.

Going back to where things are at with the ground search and rescue groups and the authorization as a public safety provider, I will say that 78 percent of eligible ground search and rescue groups have so far applied for that authorization and therefore will be able to have the protection of legal proceedings afforded to them under the EDMA. However, the requirement for ground search and rescue groups to apply as a public safety provider has been lifted.

We had previously very, very strongly recommended, encouraged — I suppose, set a requirement for — GSAR groups to apply as public safety providers. But given the concerns that have been raised and some of the reluctance of groups, that requirement has been lifted. We’ll continue to work with them and find a path forward so that we’re able to ensure that British Columbians are supported by a strong ground search and rescue community throughout the province.

L. Doerkson: Thanks, Minister. I appreciate that that happened while you were on leave. I think, unless I’m misunderstanding, that there might still be some frustration at that level.

[4:35 p.m.]

We will get into the other volunteers, because I do have questions about different organizations that are somewhat…. I suppose they’re not funded by anybody, really. They’re kind of in a no man’s land where they’re operating by themselves, but they are having to operate within the guardrails of certain liability issues, etc. The challenges that they’re faced with are pretty extreme, but I’ll come to that in a minute or two.

With respect to the letter that went to, of course, the Premier on January 8…. Just noting some of the points that that came up in that letter was that EMCR ignored and did not disclose significant safety concerns found in the training audit. I’m sure the minister is aware of the training audit that I’m referring to, so I don’t want to go into that in great detail. But some of the points are that there was a disrespectful attitude to search and rescue volunteers. There were a number of other concerns in a fairly large letter.

I wondered, first off, if the minister is aware and has seen the audit. Secondly, has there been any clear reason why it was withheld?

Hon. B. Ma: Yes, I do understand that EMCR had undertaken a review of annual training records. The letter would have referred to the annual review of the records associated with class D helicopter rescue. The review did not identify significant safety concerns.

A couple of months ago — I don’t remember exactly when, several weeks ago, a couple months ago — EMCR shared the nature of the findings with the BCSARA president and co-chair of the SAR volunteer joint health and safety committee, who then in turn shared them with BCSARA board.

[4:40 p.m.]

At the time, the BCSARA board had indicated to EMCR that they didn’t require an additional report or documentation, although I understand that they have since requested that the documentation be released, and we’re in the process of doing so.

L. Doerkson: Thanks, Minister. Maybe just if I could ask if the minister could expand.

There are other serious allegations in the letter: bullying, intimidation, threats, potentially sexist behaviour, all kinds of things. While that’s all concerning, I guess what I want to understand is what steps EMCR has made to repair the relationship between SARA. I can appreciate…. I think the minister said there were groups meeting. I’m not sure how EMCR is involved in that.

I’m happy to move on, knowing that this relationship is repaired and that this letter has been addressed in a fulsome way. I think they’re still very concerned about a number of these different things.

Then, I guess, secondly, if there was technology that hasn’t been brought forth for use, I wonder if the minister could explain what that technology is and why it wouldn’t be considered, or why, potentially, it is being considered.

I guess there are two questions there that I would love to hear the answer to.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Yes, upon receiving the letter and the concerns outlined, I actually personally met directly with a group of representatives from ground search and rescue groups that raised some of the concerns.

I connected directly with the BCSARA president. We’ve had several conversations since, very excellent conversations where we reaffirmed our mutual commitment to ensuring a strong ground search and rescue landscape for British Columbians. That means working together to make sure that volunteers feel respected and heard, that they feel that they have a voice and a pathway into government and into our ministry, to me, to express their concerns.

BCSARA is very committed to making sure…. I heard from BCSARA how committed they are to working directly with the GSAR groups to ensure that that voice is available and that the GSAR groups feel as though they are being heard.

They also hosted three separate town halls earlier this year, one that I was at personally, and another that staff from EMCR was at, in order to provide greater clarity on what the Emergency and Disaster Management Act was all about and answer questions. BCSARA also hosted their own town hall to discuss internally some of the concerns that have been raised.

This weekend there’s a joint meeting of EMCR staff and the BCSARA board, as well as requesting agencies. They’re meeting all weekend, on Saturday and Sunday, to discuss the path forward. Part of the conversation will certainly be about the use of technologies as well.

It is worthwhile noting that the kind of technology or the capabilities or the kinds of services that are being requested of ground search and rescue groups…. Where those requests are initiated is the requesting agencies. That includes the RCMP, emergency health services, local authorities and First Nations as well. It’s local authorities, First Nations, B.C. RCMP and the emergency health services.

L. Doerkson: I’ll take us back to the question with respect to the technologies that are suggested in the letter that could save lives right away. I’m grateful for the answer that I just got with respect to whatever relationship-building is happening, specifically with B.C. Search and Rescue.

[4:50 p.m.]

Also concerning in the letter is an allegation that EMCR is ignoring advances in technology that could save lives today. The minister, I’m sure, is aware of them — the use of Artemis, use of drones and video-scanning software. Those are all three well-defined well-explained, potential lifesaving technology pieces that could be incredibly helpful.

I guess what I’m trying to understand is: is this letter true in suggesting that these technologies are being ignored, or is the minister considering them now?

Hon. B. Ma: Yes, EMCR is considering the use of these technologies. We, as a ministry, however, are required to work with requesting agencies for approval of the use of these technologies for search and rescue, and those conversations are ongoing.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister.

I’m just wondering if I could get a sense of what the biggest concern is with these. Is it liability? I mean, it seems to me the use of drones and such are being used in so many other industries today. Search and rescue seems to feel that these are lifesaving, vitally important possible solutions to some of their rescue missions.

I’m just wondering: what are the specific items that would permit these teams from using these lifesaving technologies today?

Hon. B. Ma: I cannot speak on behalf of the requesting agencies as to what their concerns are, but we are working with them. We’re working through their concerns with them.

I should also note that we’re not doing this alone We do this work jointly with BCSARA.

L. Doerkson: The minister has suggested that other agencies are going to make the decisions on this. I guess one final — potentially one final — question on this letter.

Is this allegation false then — that SARA has suggested that EMCR ignores advances in technology that could save lives today? It’s bullet No. 3. Is that a false statement that BCSARA has made?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I should provide greater clarity on EMCRs, I guess, participation in this work. I mean, we are very much a part of this process. We work with BCSARA and the requesting agencies through whatever concerns may be raised about the use of these technologies. So we’re very much at the table and working together with them.

I understand what the member has read out to be the position of the author of the letter as an individual. We don’t understand that to be the position of BCSARA. We are working closely with them, with the board, with the team. Basically, we’re working in partnership with the association on these challenges, and we hope to get a lot done this weekend when we meet with the requesting agencies and BCSARA again for the full weekend.

L. Doerkson: We’ll move on, Minister, from the letter.

I agree that, obviously, these were the thoughts of the author. I do know that many of these thoughts, though, were corroborated by a number of other individuals that I spoke to, and certainly, they’ve had a lot of concern.

I’ll move on to other volunteer agencies. I saw, potentially, some question marks in the minister’s eyes when I was talking about fire departments that are sort of in a no man’s land. I’d like to explain that a little bit further to her.

I have spoken about departments like the Greeny Lake fire department, for instance, in my riding. While I know that’s one fire department, certainly, this fire department would not be unlike so many others.

What I mean by that, Minister, is that they’re not funded by anyone particularly. They raise all of their own money.

The reason I’ve talked about Greeny Lake so often in the Legislature is that I just think they’re an amazing group of volunteers that sadly…. I hope that they’re not called into action, but at the moment that there is a lightning strike on Mount Timothy in my riding, they’re going to be the first people dispatched to that site.

The problem they’re facing is that they are in a situation where they’re facing a $500,000 expense in buying a new truck because they’re faced with a truck that’s timing out. I guess that’s my whole point.

[5:00 p.m.]

This is a department that is operating on its own. It’s funded entirely by themselves, but they are still, of course, volunteers that are dealing with liability. These guys sell hot dogs and 50-50 tickets, and they run a campground. It’s unbelievable what they do in order to protect their community, which is very remote, from fire.

Again, I need to stress that they are not unique. There are many departments out there that are in this situation. The problem, as I’ve said repeatedly…. Potentially, it’s a little bit misleading, but I joke about their fire truck, which has been to 25 parades and three or four fires. It’s relatively a brand-new truck, although it’s 25 years old. Now, through the offices of Public Safety, we have been able to get an extension on that particular truck.

I can’t stress this enough. This is a group of people that are simply trying to manoeuvre liability and all kinds of training and everything else. Every time they turn around, there’s another barrier in front of them. The latest barrier, of course, was the cleaning of turnout gear, whether it had been used or not used.

I don’t want to belabour the point. I guess what I’m trying to understand is how, potentially, what’s happened with SARA could be affecting volunteers like this. I know that the minister referred to auto ex earlier and other groups that potentially are funded by regional municipalities and different levels of local government, but these folks are kind of in a spot where they’re a little bit concerned about provincial reach over them as well.

I wonder if the minister has any comments regarding, first off, the funding of these types of departments. Many of them have tried to go through gaming programs and those types of things, and of course, they’re not qualifying. They’re just simply not getting the funding. I can’t stress it enough, because I’ve got a number of these departments in my riding. As I noted here a couple of hours ago, we’ve just gone on a fire ban, which is the earliest I’ve ever seen in the Cariboo. That’s for certain.

I’m wondering about those two items. One, how will Bill 31 potentially affect, or not affect, these volunteers? Secondly, we talked a little bit about hundreds of millions of dollars going to communities. I can’t think of anything more important than this kind of mitigation. Is there anything that the minister might offer up with respect to funding, and also, how will Bill 31 affect them?

Hon. B. Ma: I want to thank the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin for being a voice and an advocate for these wonderful volunteers, the volunteer firefighters that protect communities right across the province. I agree that their devotion, what they give of themselves, what they risk in order to protect their neighbours, their loved ones and their broader communities is incredible. Really, when we think about the heroes of this province, they certainly fall under that category, in my mind.

[5:05 p.m.]

I’m afraid that I won’t have a ton of information to offer for the member, because volunteer firefighters are actually governed by the Fire Services Act, not the EDMA. The EDMA has no effect on these volunteers. The Fire Services Act is under the auspices of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. I understand that their estimates are still to come.

That being said, there is one connection that I can think of with EMCR. Through the community emergency preparedness fund — that is, the CEPF program — we do have a stream of funding to build the resiliency of volunteer and composite fire departments in preparing for and responding to emergencies through the purchase of new or replacement equipment and to facilitate the delivery of training. Under that stream, 340 projects, for a total of $17.2 million, have been approved so far. That is the extent to which volunteer firefighters are funded by EMCR.

The remaining questions that the member has would be best directed to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for that, Minister.

Could you just repeat the program, please?

Hon. B. Ma: The program is the community emergency preparedness fund. This is the fund that is administered through the Union of B.C. Municipalities. However, I should note that through this program, the grants are quite small. We’re talking a maximum of $30,000 per project. That’s why 340 projects, totalling $17.2 million so far, have been approved.

It sounds like the member is perhaps referring to grants of a much larger size. I just want to add the caveat that this stream, under the CEPF funding, is very useful for quite small volunteer fire departments. I mean, $30,000, in these small organizations, is nothing to laugh at. It certainly helped many of these organizations to stock up some of the equipment and do some replacement equipment and facilitate very important training, although I acknowledge that it is not the larger amounts that the member may be seeking for his community.

L. Doerkson: Thanks, Minister. That’s helpful. Certainly, it could help with other things. I guess I will continue my plea for funding for some of those larger things.

When we look at the investment that the province is considering with respect to mitigation work in other areas — and that mitigation might be diverting water, creating a dike, rebuilding a bridge or whatever — I can’t think of anything more important, in many cases, than putting out fire before it becomes completely out of control. I will certainly research that program a little bit more.

In the last moments of today, I wondered if we could just get a little bit of clarity around the contracts that were sent out to BCSARA. Would we or could we expect to see that sent out to other volunteers in the province, volunteers like ESS? I’m also curious to know what other volunteers might fall under the minister’s leadership. I know ESS, and of course, I’m aware of BCSARA. I’m wondering about any other agencies that would fall under the leadership of the minister.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Most of my response to the critic I’ve already provided in a previous question, but I’ll try to reiterate it in a way to provide a more fulsome, I guess, explanation.

First off, the types of volunteers that would be governed or affected by the EDMA or are contemplated by the EDMA would include ground search and rescue groups, emergency support services volunteers, PEP Air volunteers, radio operators and Road Rescue volunteers. These are the public safety lifeline volunteers.

Now, the contracts that the member is referring to, those are…. They’re not quite contracts. They are invitations to apply as provincial safety providers. That’s what I was referring to previously, that if an organization registers as a provincial safety provider, they are granted civil liability protections as an organization under the EDMA. It benefits these groups to receive the civil liability protection, but they’re only able to access that benefit as a provincial safety provider, a registered provincial safety provider.

[5:15 p.m.]

GSAR groups were invited to become provincial safety providers. Emergency support services volunteers are volunteers of the local government — so the municipality, the regional district. They’re also volunteers of First Nations, so they are not provincial volunteers. They will not be given the opportunity to register as provincial safety providers.

PEP Air volunteers are federal volunteers. So it won’t apply there.

Radio operators tend to be individuals. They’re not organizations. If the member will remember, in my previous response…. The Emergency Program Act provided civil liability protection to individuals. The EDMA provides civil liability protection to individuals as well as organizations. But because radio operators are a mishmash of individuals as opposed to organizations, there’s no benefit to them to apply for civil liability protection by becoming a provincial safety volunteer.

Road rescue volunteers are primarily attached to municipal fire departments and, therefore, fall under the same format or category or circumstance as emergency support services, although there are some road rescue volunteers that are independent groups who would be offered the opportunity to register for that protection. Then there are a few road rescue volunteer groups that are not quite either. So we’re working through which ones might be afforded the benefit of becoming a provincial safety provider.

L. Doerkson: I’ve been told to ask a quick question. The question really was whether or not these other agencies would get this contract.

Now, I think the minister referred to it as an invitation. I would say that that’s kind of a loose term. I mean, the contract that I saw for SARA did suggest that you either sign this or you won’t be deployed.

My question is: what does that mean for these other volunteers? Will they be asked to sign a similar contract? Sorry. The minister referred to it as an invitation.

Hon. B. Ma: This is the same response as I provided earlier. So I’ll try to provide even greater clarity.

They are not contracts. They are invitations to register as a provincial safety provider. When you become a provincial safety provider, you’re afforded the protections that are offered by EDMA, which include civil liability protections for the organization. That was the purpose of the invitation to become a provincial safety provider.

I will also say…. Because EMCR saw this as a benefit to organizations, it likely led to us underestimating the concerns that that invitation would raise. Again, I take responsibility for not being around to facilitate the communication process around that invitation and not being able to provide the assurances that I was, then, able to provide, as minister, when I returned from leave and gave directly to GSAR groups during that town hall that I was at.

Becoming a provincial safety provider…. The only difference, really, is the ability to access this civil liability protection. Whether a GSAR group becomes a provincial safety provider or not, they are still required to operate within the policies and procedures that are managed by EMCR.

Originally, it was the intention to get all GSAR groups to become provincial safety providers and to give all GSAR groups the benefit of the civil liability protection that comes with that registration. Since we heard the concerns raised and the reluctance from some groups to register…. Although 78 percent of groups have registered, there do remain some groups who prefer not to register.

We have since lifted the requirement to register to continue on as a GSAR group. So those GSAR groups who do not register as provincial safety providers will continue to be deployed. We will continue to work with them, and we will work with requesting agencies to, basically, carry on that valuable service that these volunteers provide.

The question….

The Chair: Minister, just noting the hour.

Hon. B. Ma: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Forests and report progress on the esti­mates of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:20 p.m.