The committee met at 2:02 p.m.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

M. Bernier (Chair): It’s a real honour to have our Auditor General, Michael Pickup, and his team here today as we’re reviewing and considering the latest report for this meeting, which is Management of the Conservation Lands Program. It was brought out in May.

I see David and a few people from the ministry here as well. Good to have them here. I know we’ll be turning over to them in a little while.

As we usually start, we’ll maybe turn things over to Michael and his team to present the report, probably the Audit at a Glance.

Thanks very much, everyone, for being here today.

Consideration of
Auditor General Reports

Management of the
Conservation Lands Program

M. Pickup: Thank you so much for the introduction.

I want to acknowledge that, where I am, in Victoria today, I’m on the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ — the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations — folks, as well, and recognize how wonderful it is to be here on these lands, particularly being an Indigenous person who comes from, probably, as far away from Victoria as you possibly can get and still be part of Canada, belonging to the Miawpukek First Nation on the southeastern part of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is pretty far from where we are today. I do want to acknowledge that and say that I am grateful for all that we get to enjoy while I am here.

I’m particularly happy to be joining the Public Accounts Committee on June 21, of course, National Indigenous Peoples Day, as well, and want to recognize that. I think, as we mourn many things related to Indigenous-related matters, particularly in the recent past that have come to light, we’re also hopeful and thankful for the future and for the accomplishments of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. I do want to acknowledge that as well.

Before I turn over to the team, who will walk through a brief presentation with you, I want to acknowledge the work of the team to get us here, considering everything that goes behind one of these audits to get to this point today. I really want to take a moment and thank Malcolm Gaston, assistant Auditor General, and former assistant Auditor General Morris Sydor as well. And with us today, Amy Hart, executive director, performance audit; Suzanne Smith, manager, performance audit; Rebecca Middleton, performance audit; Tom Dennett, audit analyst; and Jessica Watt, IT audit analyst as well.

[2:05 p.m.]

I want to take a moment, somewhat usual and unusual. Usual is to thank, of course, the people who are working where we audit. I almost said the people we are auditing, but we’re not really auditing them. We’re auditing the work that they do. I also want to express the sincere cooperation we’ve received, and collaboration, throughout this. It certainly makes our work easier, and for that we say thank you.

The unusual part of the introduction I would make today is I want to acknowledge and pay tribute to Karen Wipond, who worked tirelessly for decades as a provincial conservation lands specialist. As you may know, Karen passed away on June 22, 2020. That part of the acknowledgment is unusual, but we did feel we did want to make that out of respect for the family and for those that we were auditing.

That’s by way of introduction, Chair. I’m going to turn it over to the team, who will walk through a brief presentation with you and, I understand, who are quite excited to take any questions that you may have and comments people may have for us as well.

M. Bernier (Chair): Excellent. Thank you.

Suzanne is going to jump in, I believe?

M. Pickup: Sorry, yes.

S. Smith: Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. Thank you very much for your interest in our report on the management of the conservation lands program, which was tabled May 11.

I’ll walk through the information in the Audit at a Glance, which provides a summary of the report, including the key findings. If you have the document in front of you, please feel free to follow along.

The conservation lands program contributes to government’s strategy to maintain diversity through conserving some of the most biologically productive estuaries, wetlands and grasslands in the province. Lands conserved through the program are located throughout the province and include two internationally designated wetlands and habitat critical to the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds. If the program is not managed effectively, habitats that it conserves could be harmed, including the fish and wildlife that depend on them.

Our audit assessed whether the ministry has effectively managed the conservation lands program to conserve important habitat for the benefit of significant fish and wildlife species. We focused on the period between 2016 and 2020 but also assessed older documents and data as applicable to our work.

Overall, we concluded that the ministry has not effectively managed the conservation lands program to conserve important habitat. We made 11 recommendations mainly focused on providing strategic direction, increasing direction to staff to collaborate with Indigenous Peoples, revising all outdated management plans for wildlife management areas, resolving threats to the most at-risk conservation lands, improving tracking of inventory and monitoring and reporting publicly on the effectiveness of the program.

Next I will overview our key findings that support this conclusion. For those of you following the Audit at a Glance, we’re now halfway down the first page. Our findings are organized under three sections, including strategic direction, managing conservation lands and program inventory monitoring and reporting.

Starting with strategic direction, first we found the ministry had identified the species and habitats it aims to conserve through the program. For example, species and habitats identified in conservation lands include species at risk, migratory birds, internationally significant migratory bird habitats, habitats of high species diversity, such as wetlands, and culturally important species.

Second, we found that the ministry had not ranked important habitats by priority for the program. Only one of eight regions had ranked important habitats, and three regions had completed some initial work in this area.

Third, we found that provincial direction for the program was lacking. For example, the ministry had not renewed the program’s vision, mission and goals for over 30 years, and there was no provincial strategic plan for the program. We also found that there was a lack of provincial and regional direction about the purpose of non-administered conservation lands.

Non-administered conservation lands are often used to temporarily secure Crown lands before they transition to future wildlife management areas. But not all of these lands have been set aside for this purpose.

[2:10 p.m.]

There was also a lack of direction regarding which of these non-administered conservation lands the ministry aims to maintain for wildlife management areas.

Fourth, we found a lack of specific direction to staff to collaborate with Indigenous Peoples on the program. For example, only three of eight regions had directed staff to collaborate with Indigenous Peoples, specifically, on the program.

Next I’ll move on to the second section on managing conservation land. We’re now on the second page of the Audit at a Glance. First, we found that the ministry has designated conservation lands as wildlife management areas, or WMAs. Between 2010 and 2018, nine WMAs were designated in four of the eight regions. Since the program was established, government has designated 31 WMAs in seven of the eight regions.

Second, we found that the regions had management plans for most administered conservation lands, but the majority of the wildlife management area plans were not current or approved. Of the 31 WMAs that had been designated in the province, three did not have plans. The average age of the plans for the remaining 28 WMAs was almost 19 years, and about 70 percent of them had not been approved.

Third, we found risks to conservation lands from human activity. The regions have limited strategies available to address the unauthorized use of conservation lands and had not assessed which conservation lands were most at risk. Regional staff from six of the eight regions reported unauthorized use on conservation lands between 2016 and 2020. Unauthorized uses included motor vehicle use, mountain biking, allowing dogs to be off leash, camping, illegal harvesting, vandalism, damaging habitat and dumping.

Our analysis of data provided between 2009 and 2020 indicated that hundreds of unauthorized activities had occurred on conservation lands. Furthermore, the ministry had authorized livestock grazing that was incompatible with the management objectives for conservation lands. While the ministry had established a project to help resolve issues related to livestock grazing, we found that the project had not met all of its objectives.

Fourth, we found that the regions had maintained infrastructure on conservation lands, but their recordkeeping needed improvement. While all eight regions had recently reported on their maintenance of infrastructure, most regions had not kept a record of their infrastructure on conservation lands, including dams managed by Ducks Unlimited Canada.

Finally, I’ll walk through the final section on program inventory monitoring and reporting. First, we found that the ministry lacked an accurate inventory of conservation lands. Its inventory data was not consistent or readily available. The three key sources of inventory data for the program were updated at different times, creating inconsistencies between them. These inconsistencies made it hard to assess which data was accurate. The total number of administered conservation lands was not readily available, and ultimately, we could not confirm the total number of non-administered conservation lands.

Second, we found that the ministry had not monitored or reported publicly on the effectiveness of the program because the program lacked performance measures and targets against which to assess its progress. Despite the lack of monitoring and reporting at the program level, the regions had monitored and reported publicly on the effectiveness of their site-level conservation work.

I would like to highlight the three questions that are included in the Audit at a Glance for readers to consider as they review this report.

This concludes my presentation. I would like to thank the dedicated staff at the ministry for their support and cooperation through this audit. Thank you very much.

I will turn it back over to the Auditor General.

M. Pickup: Thank you, Suzanne, for that summary.

Chair, we weren’t going to add anything else. We were going to leave it at that, if that works for now.

M. Bernier (Chair): Okay. Thank you, Michael.

Thank you, Suzanne, for that overview of the report. That’s much appreciated.

With that, we will just turn over right away, then, to David Muter, assistant deputy minister with the resource stewardship division within the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

Good to have you here. I know you have a bit of a presentation to run through for the committee as well.

D. Muter: Sure. Thank you, Chair. Maybe just a quick question on timelines. How much time would you like for this presentation? I understand quick, but five, ten minutes?

M. Bernier (Chair): That’s more than fine there, David. I’ve had a look at it. I’ve seen the slide deck. I’m sure we have lots of time to go through that and still leave lots of time for questions. Thank you.

D. Muter: Okay. Good. Thank you.

David Muter, ADM for the resource stewardship division. With me today is Christina Waddle, who is our conservation lands program specialist.

[2:15 p.m.]

First of all, my thanks to the Office of the Auditor General and their staff. In audits that I’ve participated in, in the past…. This one — a very collaborative, very professional staff. I really appreciate the work that they’ve done on this one.

I’ll go quickly through the presentation. I’m assuming folks have it up on their screen. I’ll just call out slide by slide, leaving lots of room for questions, as I’m sure there will be some.

On the overview slide, which is slide 2…. As was mentioned, the conservation lands program has a very long history. This began in the 1960s with the initial acquisitions of private lands for wildlife conservation.

With regards to this audit, while there are some key findings here that I would like to speak about, we find that the 11 recommendations are very good, and we have accepted all of them. Work has started on each of the recommendations, but none are yet completed.

A couple of key things I’d like to flag just as an overview here. The conservation lands designation tool kit includes the conservation lands program but other ecological reserves, parks, conservancies, wildlife habitat areas, ungulate winter ranges. It is the series of tools that we use for conservation for species and for wildlife and habitat. Some contribute to international treaties and agreements for migratory birds and wetlands. What we’re speaking of here today, the conservation lands program, is one of those multiple tools that we have.

I do agree, and government agrees, that there is more work to be done, and the recommendations, like I said, are very helpful. We also would suggest that partnerships with non-government conservation organizations is a key strength of the conservation lands program. As an example, the west coast conservation land management program has been in place for over 25 years. It’s governed by a steering committee which includes the ministry and partners. The partnership recently secured millions in federal dollars for estuary monitoring in partnership with the Indigenous Guardians program. It’s that type of partnership and collaboration that leads to these benefits.

The accomplishments of regional partnerships aren’t highlighted here in this report, so I thought I should share that out, as I do think there’s great value there.

One area where I think there’s nuance in the Office of the Auditor General’s findings is with respect to collaboration with Indigenous Peoples. While we agree with the recommendation and the finding, during the period of the review there were gaps in our communications to staff and direction to staff. I want to be clear that all program areas have been directed to review policies to make sure that we’re pursuing and implementing the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as well as the Declaration Act that’s been recently implemented in government here. I’ll speak a bit more about that shortly.

The key thing I’d like to remind folks of is the Together for Wildlife strategy, which has a series of goals and specific actions in it that do relate specifically to the findings here and to the conservation lands program. The Together for Wildlife strategy was released in August of 2020.

Action 11 of the Together for Wildlife strategy includes direction to “make investments to manage existing conservation lands and acquire new priority lands for wildlife stewardship.” We’ll use these funds to leverage additional investments, and we’ll strengthen ties with Indigenous governments, conservation partners, resource industries and stakeholders to better secure and manage conservation lands to achieve wildlife objectives. That’s one part of how we’re moving forward on this one.

Other steps we’ve already undertaken are a new full-time provincial conservation lands staff person, increased operational funds for management planning and restoration, and increased enhancement activities.

Just to organize how I’ll go through the specific recommendations, we’re grouping them together into categories here just for efficiency. But if folks want to dig into one specific recommendation, we can.

Going on to slide 5, then, these are the recommendations that relate to providing strategic direction: a shared list of priorities, a strategic plan and clarifying the purpose of non-administered lands. We will absolutely create an overall provincial strategic plan. It will include a process for confirming shared priorities. This will include clarification on the purpose of non-administered lands and direction for priority area identification and endorsement.

Regional implementation plans will also identify specific priorities for acquisition and for management.

We will review, as well, consistently identified Land Act designations to ensure alignment. I can speak more about that, if folks want.

[2:20 p.m.]

An example of a success story for planning is…. The Omineca plan identified the Meteor Lake wetland as a priority and was recently designated as a Land Act section 16 withdrawal and potential future wildlife management area. A large and diverse peatland-dominated wetland and riparian complex on the south side of the Fraser River, it’s across from the Sinclair Mills Nature Conservancy of Canada.

The Nature Conservancy of Canada may acquire adjacent private lands. This is an example of that partnership where, when we work together, we can leverage these additional benefits.

Going on to slide 6, this the key finding: collaboration with Indigenous People. The recommendation there was to provide specific direction for staff to collaborate with Indigenous People on the provincial strategic plan for the program. Staff were provided with direction in 2017. Many examples of successful partnerships with Indigenous nations do exist, and we’ll include specific direction in the strategic plan.

I do feel, though, that we speak about our partnership with Indigenous nations and discuss on a daily, if not hourly, basis our partnership with nations and the need to collaborate with them. That’s the context I set for my staff and across the ministry. This is kind of like showing up for meetings on time, so it is a standard expectation. I think there’s value in speaking to it more clearly, but I feel like we are doing quite well in this regard.

Going on to slide 7, this is recommendation 5: ensure current approved management plans for all wildlife management areas. Our response on this one is that provincial and regional staff are working on a planning framework to ensure that there’s an appropriate level of planning for this.

What we’re worried about here is that we want to make sure that these are realistic wildlife management plans that go with these wildlife management areas. They shouldn’t be 200-page reports. They should be something that’s realistic, actionable and reportable. It’s an important opportunity as well to engage with Indigenous nations and develop that partnership. The planning framework is also going to guide priorities and ensure resourcing needs are part of the business-planning cycle, going forward.

On slide 8, this is managing unauthorized or incompatible use, recommendations 6 and 7: to reduce unauthorized use in the most at-risk administered conservation lands and resolve incompatible use. We agree with this recommendation. We’ll be developing options to reduce unauthorized use, focusing on the most at-risk sites, and enforcement strategies as part of that package. We’ll work on a plan to resolve remaining overlaps, in collaboration with conservation partners and the range branch. That’ll include guidelines to assess the compatibility of range use on conservation lands, going forward.

On slide 9, this is about improving data and tracking on recommendations 8, 9 and 10, regarding inventory accuracy and tracking of infrastructure and data. One of our partners that we work with, Ducks Unlimited Canada, will play a key role in this. We’ll work with regional staff and create a plan for how inventory should be tracked. We’ll meet with Ducks Unlimited Canada to update information on water control structures, as they’re our key partner with that regard.

We’ll continue to work with the Crown lands registry and GeoB.C. to build a data and information management procedure to assess the conservation lands database. This will also include tracking on non-administered conservation lands. That relates to recommendation 3: systems to be updated as appropriate with regards to strategic planning.

Slide 10, monitoring and reporting. This relates to strategic planning. Any good strategic plan would include performance measures and targets. That’s a good place for us to report back on. We think this is a great recommendation from the Auditor General. It’ll be part of the implementation of the Together for Wildlife strategy, which will have a performance management framework. Again, this will be one subset of that.

Then the last slide. In summary, again, this is one toolkit that we use. We look at it as being…. Well, it’s quite a small toolkit, probably, from an overall budget perspective. As you saw in the Auditor General’s report, it’s about $1 million in the program, not including staff.

[2:25 p.m.]

That’s quite small in an overall context of $43 million that we spend on wildlife, but given the partnership model that we have and the lands that are administered under the program, it’s probably one of the more critical ones. It carries much more importance than that limited budget amount. With that, we think it’s a critically important one to pay attention to.

Again, my thanks to the Office of the Auditor General for their work on this one. We found this was a very collaborative process and appreciated the opportunity.

With that, back to the Chair. Happy to answer any questions.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thank you, David.

Thanks to everybody.

Maybe before we have any questions directly, unless there are some that pop up right away, I wouldn’t mind, as I usually do, turning things over to Carl Fischer, our comptroller general, just to see if he has any, as he always does, words of advice and wisdom on how things are going, before we turn it over for questions.

C. Fischer: Thank you, Chair. I don’t have any additional comments, other than I’ve read both the report and the response by the ministry, and they appear to be very positively aligned for future good actions.

M. Bernier (Chair): Excellent. Okay. Thanks, Carl.

Looking to the committee, then, for questions. Maybe I’ll get things rolling, probably to David, first.

I have a couple of questions. First of all, on recommendation 5 — and I understand the timelines that can sometimes come into play: why do we have a target date for the management plan of 2029? We’re talking eight years out. Again, I understand maybe the complexities, but I’d love to hear from you, David, of what the objectives are hoping to achieve and why it would take that long.

D. Muter: Great question. That’s quite a ways out there.

I think the first step is to have a framework that would include the prioritization, the criteria and the annual targets. So the target date for that framework, for wildlife management areas, is 2022. Then from that, it develops into a priority order at a regional scale. So full implementation is out to 2029, just given the number of wildlife management areas that we have to work through.

M. Bernier (Chair): Now, I assume, though, David, that different management areas in different regions…. A lot of those can be working collaboratively, but also, they’ll all be working at the same time in different areas, not one at a time, I assume, as we’re trying to roll this out. Or do you see that being maybe a staff issue or a regional issue?

Again, I was just maybe looking for a little bit more of an idea of why you feel it would take so long to achieve.

D. Muter: Well, I think it’s a prioritization, Chair, in terms of going through this in the right order. We would prioritize the most critical ones first. Yes, you’re right that this isn’t one-at-a-time. Many of these will be done concurrently on that prioritization.

I think the other part of it is that this is a partnership framework, and it’s a partnership model. So we do have to ensure that we’re doing it together with our partners.

M. Bernier (Chair): I see Christina maybe wanted to jump in too.

C. Waddle: Sure. Thanks. Yes. The main reason for that long timeline is my colleagues on the south coast kind of pushed back. I initially had a five-year timeline, but the south coast has 11 of our 31 WMAs, and they just felt they would not be able to be live by that timeline. So it may be that it’s just the one region that takes that extra time to complete.

M. Bernier (Chair): Okay. Thanks. I might have some other questions on that after, but I’ll turn things over to MLA Dan Coulter first.

D. Coulter: I noticed that there is an overlap of the oversight of maintenance, of infrastructure and of dams by Ducks Unlimited. Is there infrastructure built by the other partnership groups?

D. Muter: That’s a good technical question. I don’t know the answer to that one.

Christina, do you know?

C. Waddle: Yes. Ducks Unlimited Canada, under agreements with them, are responsible for building and maintaining that infrastructure through an agreement with government, going back about 30 years. We’ve got about 130 site agreements with Ducks Unlimited Canada.

[2:30 p.m.]

Part of the reason we didn’t have a lot of information was because they’re more the responsible party for those agreements. We do need to update our information and communicate with them more about the status, which is what we’ll do as part of that recommendation. But Ducks Unlimited builds them and maintains them.

D. Coulter: I assume the dams, the locations, say, before the dams are built and maybe after they’re built — that there’s some oversight of that.

C. Waddle: Certainly, there’s a planning process that’s approved by government when they’re built.

D. Coulter: Okay. If I could ask one more question, Chair?

The performance measures that you were talking about…. What would that look like? What could some measures include, for example?

D. Muter: Are you speaking with regards to recommendation 1, which talks about the strategic plan?

D. Coulter: Yeah. You were talking about — I think it was your second-to-last slide — instituting performance measures for the oversight of these lands.

D. Muter: Yeah. I don’t know exactly what those would look like right now, but it would come in a couple of different pieces. It’ll be part of an overall provincial strategic plan. Many regional plans would already have measures that are identified as part of those partnerships we have in place right now, but I think the recommendation here was for an overarching provincial strategic plan. So we don’t have that right now. It’s a good recommendation.

The first step will be to work with partners to develop that provincial strategic plan and then set out within that what those specific performance measures would be, what the targets and goals would be. That is aligned with what we’re looking at in Together for Wildlife as well — so to come as we work through that work.

M. Bernier (Chair): MLAs Sharma and Tegart, I saw your hands up. Do either of you still have a question?

N. Sharma: I have a question that was along the same lines as the Chair in terms of the timelines of the target dates in that document that we got. I guess I’ll focus in on one, and then maybe it’s a more general question.

I guess the feedback from the Auditor General’s office on whether the target dates seem reasonable in terms of responding to some of them…. I want to call particularly on the one about collaboration and discussions with Indigenous people, because it seemed like, in the Auditor General report, it was talking about limited direction for staff to collaborate with Indigenous people, and the target date was 2023 for a plan.

My question is: what happens now, while we’re waiting for that? Are we stepped up already in terms of directing staff to properly discuss or consult with or collaborate with Indigenous people before 2023? Is that 2023 target reasonable and acceptable, given the status of it right now?

D. Muter: I want to be clear. Are you asking me, or are you asking the Auditor General that question?

N. Sharma: Maybe a little bit of both.

First, maybe a comment on whether the target dates and the timelines from the Auditor General’s perspective are reasonable, and then just narrowing in on that very specific one to do with [audio interrupted].

M. Pickup: Sorry. Perhaps you want us to comment first, then?

Yeah. I mean, it raises a good question, right? We do these audits. We come up with recommendations. And you heard this is the response to the recommendation, both in the report and from David as well, recognizing things were happening but that there are more things to be done as well.

I think in terms of whether their response on the timelines that the government is outlining in terms of the amount of time to do this…. I think, really, that demonstrates…. One of the values of these audits is we produce this audit, government responds, there is a discussion around the response rates, and then I think, really, it is up to elected people, up to committees to then say to government and have some discussion on whether you think that is a reasonable response.

I get your point on this one — that part of the response is related to pushing it through the strategic plan. I think, indirectly, part of what I’m hearing there in the question is: is there a way to do some of that that doesn’t, perhaps, have to wait for the strategic plan, recognizing, as David said, that a number of things are happening?

[2:35 p.m.]

Is there a way to push some of that through? If it’s reminders or if it’s things that could happen very easily, does it really have to wait until the strategic plan? I think that’s part of what I’m taking out of there. I’m not trying to avoid answering your question, but I’m just being careful that the timelines are really for government to explain and to outline and then for the discussion with elected folks in terms of the assessment of whether those seem reasonable.

Perhaps, Chair, if I could pass to Dave right now?

M. Bernier (Chair): Yes. Thank you.

D. Muter: That’s very good. What the Auditor General’s offered there is exactly the way we look at it. The other thing — that this does relate to the strategic plan. But the other nuance that maybe I need to be very clear on here is that we speak with our Indigenous nation partners on this work daily, if not hourly.

Don’t take from our response on this that we’re going to not do anything until 2023. We’re working with them in very, very close collaboration on this on a regular basis. That’s key to the partnership.

The date that you have there for recommendation 4 aligns to what is in recommendation 2. That’s the point at which we’ll have a strategic plan that will have had development and say and input from our Indigenous nation partners. At that point, we can say, then, that we’ve worked through. We’ve agreed upon a strategic plan together.

M. Bernier (Chair): Niki, any follow-up, or are you okay?

Okay. We’ll turn it over to MLA Mercier.

A. Mercier: I want to thank the Auditor General for what is a very illuminating report into the management of this program.

I’ve got, I think, a two-part question. I take the point that the partners the ministry works with are diffuse and very complex. You’ve got Indigenous partners. You’ve got other ministries or other orders of government and community groups, etc.

I’m just wondering if you could speak to, Michael, why the partners who seem to do a lot of the work here were out of scope with the audit? If I’m understanding Mr. Muter’s response to my friend Mr. Coulter here correctly, am I to understand that there aren’t performance measures for the partners from government in terms of assessing the kind of public value of the work done by the partners? Is that correct?

M. Pickup: So two questions I’m hearing there. On the first question — I’ll ask Suzanne to jump in if she would like and supplement or correct anything I say — I think one of the things we’re keeping in mind when we’re doing this audit is we are looking at, particularly, the government’s role here and what government is doing. We’re not trying to audit, of course, what partners may be doing outside of the government.

We’re looking at what is government’s oversight role here, what is government working to achieve here and looking at how government is achieving that. Often it will stop at that aspect of it. Maybe I’ll pause there before we get on to the second question, as well, and ask Suzanne if she wanted to add anything there.

S. Smith: No, Michael. That’s exactly it. We’ve purposely focused on the ministry’s role, because of the mandate of our office and the work that we do, and we were very clear about that all the way through the audit.

M. Pickup: Yup, okay. Thanks, Suzanne.

Then on the second question related to that, in terms of the, perhaps, oversight by government of performance measures that partners may have and the structure of how government and this program is approaching…. Looking at that, it’s…. I’m not at all trying to pass the buck here, but in fairness to the ministry, it may be better if David outlines what exactly happens there.

D. Muter: Well, yeah. To the question, I see it as two parts. At a regional level, as I discussed in my overview, the example of the west coast conservation land management program, which has its own steering committee that we participate on with the partners…. They have a structure that is working quite well. That’s a great example, at a regional level, where there is a shared understanding, strategic direction and performance measures for that.

[2:40 p.m.]

The recommendation from the Office of the Auditor General, which we think is a good one, is for a provincial framework for the whole thing. We do not yet have targets for that. That’s identified in Together for Wildlife and something that we will be building, as I’ve said.

A. Mercier: A quick follow-up question. Obviously, in the past year with the pandemic, folks have been trying to get outdoors — get out and recreate in British Columbia — far more than normal. I speak to hunters and folks in my constituency who go out into the bush or go up north all the time and say that they’ve seen more people out and about in the back country than they ever have.

I’m just wondering if you can speak to the veracity of that but also how the ministry is handling unauthorized activity in these areas.

D. Muter: From the first part of your question…. Are more people getting out there? Yeah, absolutely. We see that in licences for fishing and hunting during the pandemic. It was great to see. You shut down movie theatres and bars, and my goodness, watch people pick up a fishing licence really quickly. In fact, the number of British Columbians getting a fishing licence more than made up for the loss in foreigners coming to British Columbia getting a fishing licence.

The volume of British Columbians participating and getting out has definitely increased, which is great to see. Anecdotally, I’d agree entirely with your comment that these folks are getting out and taking greater advantage of wild places in B.C. I think that’s a good thing. Where that ends up after the pandemic, I’m not sure. It’s probably too early for us to see where that’s going.

In terms of how we consider that, going forward, and the management here, to your question on use — conflicting use or inappropriate use of conservation lands, unauthorized use or incompatible use — there are several enforcement options that we can use there. I think signage and communication are usually the most effective tools here. It’s very, very rare that you come across people that actually want to go out there and do things on the landscape that are unauthorized. It’s usually a misunderstanding of information. Better signage, better communication are usually the best investments that we can make there.

We think that that will be part of the key options that we look at to support achieving that. We’ll be working with the conservation officer service in this regard, as well as our own compliance and enforcement branch within the ministry, to ensure that we’re improving that.

There may be regulatory tools that we have to pay attention to. There may be management planning that we have to communicate to partners and to users on these lands. We don’t know quite exactly what they are, but the commitment here is to develop options for that.

J. Tegart: Thank you for your presentation today. I know that British Columbia is a pretty big place, and everyone wants to be out and enjoying the wilderness.

I want to speak to this from the place where I feel that sometimes we’re looking at certain species and managing them into extinction. That is not to say that everyone doesn’t have the best of intentions. But I look at things like steelhead, and I look at the caribou in the north, and I hear from constituents about species across British Columbia.

[2:45 p.m.]

I wonder: when we are monitoring the amount of dollars and the number of programs that are in place to try and save certain species — when we talk about how we evaluate programs — how many more fish are there? I understand evaluating process, and I understand the process is really important. But in the end, if we’re all managing process, who manages the fish?

That might be totally off-the-wall. You could explain it to me, and I’d be comfortable with your response. But my thought is that we’re spending a lot of dollars, and we’re looking at processes that need to be strengthened. There’s no doubt. But my question in the end is: what does it mean to the species that we’re trying to help?

D. Muter: That’s a great question. That’s a huge question. I didn’t come fully prepared, but let me try. I think the way I take your question is: let’s be careful. If we just build processes and have the world’s best processes but aren’t actually achieving outcomes for the wildlife, for the species themselves, who cares if the process is perfect. A great question.

Two places I would look to. We have a distinction in the way we think about species-at-risk recovery versus broader wildlife management objectives in the province. The reason for that is that often with species-at-risk recovery, you need to take that emergency-room approach where you do some drastic things just to make sure that the patient gets stabilized so that you can then apply broader management techniques to get them back to being fully healthy.

Species-at-risk recovery, like the provincial caribou recovery program, as an example, do have some specific tools and measures that they apply. We put in place temporary protections. We put in place ungulate winter range as wildlife habitat areas.

Other management techniques. We do undertake predator management. We do manage winter recreation. We do that in partner with Indigenous Nations and communities across the province. Those are done fairly quickly, and we try to do that in partnership, wherever we can, in order to make sure we’re stabilizing those populations.

On a broader wildlife perspective, Together for Wildlife is the framework that we’re using, going forward, to achieve wildlife objectives and the specific actions that are going to support those objectives within that.

One of the goals and one of the specific actions — and I can’t recall the number off the top of my head, but I’d be happy to follow up with you afterwards — is to improve regional planning and community involvement and setting targets and objectives for wildlife within those communities. That’s where we would see communities getting more involved at a local level on setting targets and participating so that we both have a process but are also getting better numbers and better outcomes for wildlife.

Overall, the provincial investment in wildlife is about $43 million. On top of that, there are specific investments for species-at-risk recovery. Caribou is about $10 million. There are a few others that we have specific investments for. But for the non-species-at-risk category, it’s about a $43 million investment.

On things like steelhead, as you asked about that, it does get significantly more complicated, as they’re a shared responsibility between us and the federal government. We have to do our part. We seek partnership with the federal government to do their part as well.

J. Tegart: Mike, just a follow-up, if I might.

Thank you very much for that, David. I think that as we have this conversation and we talk about putting processes in place that are strengthened and measurable, the open, transparent, collaborative process is one that we must strive for.

The other thing that is very curious to me is that in government, we have a tendency to work in silos. When I read a report…. As we transition into different processes, I’m always amazed that we would have one ministry that would use land in an incompatible way with another ministry and that there would be processes and people with good intentions, feeling they’re following the rules, receiving permits and that sort of thing. We all know what that means in community, etc.

[2:50 p.m.]

When we talk about the kinds of changes that need to strengthen this program, could you share with the committee a little bit about how you share that amongst your government colleagues and people who may have an impact on the planning processes that you’re looking to strengthen?

D. Muter: Yeah. That’s a great question. Maybe a couple of pieces that would help the member with regards to that.

First of all, when we worked through the audit, staff from the Office of the Auditor General did reach out and connect with us, as well as our leadership within the three areas of the ministry — north, south and coast — whose staff did participate and share details back and forth with the Office of the Auditor General.

I have also separately checked in with my counterparts at the Oil and Gas Commission, as well as the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. So they’re aware of this audit. They’re aware of the recommendations. They’re aware that our response on them is that we accept all the recommendations and have provided our timelines on going forward with them.

I think the key piece that’s going to be helpful for ministries to work efficiently together on this, even within our ministry, is going to be the development of that strategic plan that will have goals, objectives, outcomes, performance measures and targets, and then a regular reporting on this. That consistent documentation that we can share out across government, across ministries and across different divisions in government will really be the touchstone that helps us all make sure we’re working together.

I take your point as well. Sometimes unauthorized or incompatible use does happen. It’s not out of intention. It’s out of a lack of that strategic framework and that communication that we think really is going to help here.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thanks for that.

Seeing no further hands up yet, I just wanted to jump in, a little bit on the lines of Jackie, and ask you, David, then…. I mean, strategic plans are great. They’re important. As part of the audit, we want to make sure that we have these plans. Obviously, there were some shortcomings that were identified over the last up to 19 years, in some areas, for different things.

I think you would hopefully agree with me, David, though, that strategic plans, especially with this specific topic, almost also have to be living documents.

D. Muter: Yeah.

M. Bernier (Chair): You can have some great intentions, goals and objectives. But I would argue, on a weekly, monthly, yearly basis, especially when we’re talking about our wildlife…. We talked about the steelhead. To Jackie’s point, it’s great if we have a great plan, but that doesn’t mean anything if our intended goals and our wildlife are going extinct while we have a great plan.

I’m assuming — this will be a two-part question; I’ll leave it with this one first — part of this plan will obviously have, built in, some component of flexibility to adapt, as we move along and more information is gathered, especially around the scientific data around species at risk or the wildlife in the different zones.

I assume that’s more of a redundant question — that you would assume, David.

D. Muter: Absolutely, Chair. I agree entirely. Regular performance reporting and monitoring is that: plan, do, check and act.

We would want to see the regular reporting on this one of how well we’re doing against targets to be timely enough so that you can actually tell if the strategic plan is driving us towards the goals that we’re looking for, and then that we would change course where we see that it’s not actually working. So I agree entirely.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thank you. Maybe not for an answer from you, but more of the commentary that comes to myself and, I know, a lot of my colleagues, is around basing our decisions around scientific data that’s collected.

It’s so important. We find decisions can sometimes be made for — maybe I’ll use the term — political reasons. But it’s really…. We want to make sure that science drives a lot of the information and the decisions, I’m assuming, as we’re rolling out strategic plans.

D. Muter: Yes. Where the science is going to be key is where we have plans related to specific wildlife management areas.

[2:55 p.m.]

Those plans need to be developed based upon an understanding of the habitat — the species’ needs for that area. That will be based upon experts within the ministry, experts amongst our partners that we have, as well as input from Indigenous nations. So, yes, that’ll be a key part of our work, going forward here.

M. Bernier (Chair): Okay. Maybe just one more from myself before I see if there are any other questions. But just flagging….

I know, David, that you’re well aware of some of the challenges in my area and some of my thoughts, and I’m not going to dig into those at this time. When we talk about provincial strategic plans — and I see it identified, for good reason, for the communication partnership with our Indigenous communities — where in the strategic plan will we look at, maybe, broader public consultation?

What I mean by that, I think, is quite self-explanatory. If the province is going to put a strategic plan dealing with issues in the different regions, is this going to be a top-down document? Or is this going to be — which my assumption is — public input, stakeholder input, Indigenous communities’ input and further consultation before government just comes out with a full strategic plan? That’s my assumption, but I’d love to hear your points on that.

D. Muter: That is actually exactly how it’ll be done. I wish I had Together for Wildlife in front of me. I can pull it out and come back to you, Chair.

There is a specific action in the Together for Wildlife strategy that speaks to the development of those regional plans and the participation of local governments and regional stakeholders. That’ll be the process that we’ll be following. So I’ll go back and find that specific action item in the Together for Wildlife strategy and share it with the committee, if that’s okay.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thank you. I appreciate that, David. Thank you so much.

Any other questions at this time? Well, we’ll have a chance, when we do the action plan and progress assessments as well, as we see the report-outs on that, to ask further questions, I assume, on this rollout.

I think that this is a really important audit that was done. It’s quite timely. I want to thank Michael and his team. I think that this is one that the public, especially a lot of the stakeholders, when you talk about Ducks Unlimited and possibly the B.C. Wildlife Federation and others…. A lot of the sportsman clubs, groups are really going to be paying attention to this to see what the plans are, how it’s going to be rolled out and what the objectives are as well. I think, David, you’re quite aware of that.

Again, thank you. Then if there’s nothing to add….

Michael, maybe from yourself?

M. Pickup: If I could make two quick comments before moving on.

Genuine thanks to the committee members for the questions and the interest — substantive questions that were asked and interest in the topic. Certainly, it gives us here at the Office of the Auditor General who are the in the business of doing audits full time…. It makes us feel like we’re doing our job to help you do your job when we see this kind of thing happening. It excites auditors. So I want to thank all the committee members for that.

I wanted to thank David and Christina for the comments they made today. Particularly I think, David, the comment about sharing these audit results with your colleagues across government.

Knowingly, we can’t be everywhere, auditing everything that government does. But if you look at some of the takeaways of this audit, you could put this in many programs or areas to say three things that stick out in my mind: Is the strategic direction happening in program…? And you could fill in the blank on program X, program Y, program Z. Is the strategic direction there? Are up-to-date plans in place? And is there good monitoring and reporting publicly on the effectiveness of programs?

I hope that those who haven’t been recently experiencing the joy of audit across government are able to look at these audits and pick out things that are helpful in there. So I want to thank David and Christina as well.

And again, I thank the team for the work that was done, particularly onboarding me into this process last September and welcoming me onto the team. So I want to thank the team once again as well. Thank you.

M. Bernier (Chair): Excellent. Thank you, Michael. And thanks for your enthusiasm of trying to get so many people excited about auditing and auditing processes. Not something that a lot of people have been successful at, but you’ve been doing a great job of getting people engaged, not only with the committee but with the other different witnesses and ministries. So thanks for that.

Before I look for a motion to adjourn — I don’t see any other questions — I just want to look to the Clerk, to Jennifer, to see if we’ve missed anything, as this was the only thing on the agenda for today.

I see a no. I don’t see any other, further, questions. So again, thank you, everyone who attended.

Now, just from a committee member, a motion to adjourn. MLA Coulter.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 3 p.m.