Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 3, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act.

Mr. Speaker: All right, Members, we have to continue. Please, for those who don’t have business in the House, maybe quietly leave.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that this bill be read a second time now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, can we have some quiet, please? Thank you.

Minister, continue.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The amendments contained in this bill to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act continue with our government’s commitment to improve and expand B.C.’s parks and protected areas system.

The amendments enhance the protection of B.C.’s spectacular beauty. They protect important conservation values, and they will provide more opportunities for British Columbians to get out in the parks system and to retain the vitally important connection to nature that, as we’ve all noticed over the last two years, has been so integral to our physical and mental well-being. People’s desire to interact with nature has never been greater, and we know that parks provide a critical opportunity to connect with nature and strengthen our well-being in every way.

These amendments are also another step forward on the path to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples throughout B.C. and the implementation of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. My ministry has consulted thoroughly with First Nations on all of the amendments in this bill with the potential to affect Indigenous interests. Following the addition of these lands to the parks, the ministry will continue to work closely with Indigenous peoples to find meaningful ways to recognize their culture and their connection to these protected lands.

The amendments are part of our regular practice of adding land to the protected areas system, modifying protected area boundaries to correct errors and safety concerns, improving the descriptions of protected area boundaries and correcting administrative errors. With over 14 million hectares contained in the B.C. Parks system, regular legislative updates are absolutely critical to the successful management and protection of our system as well as the additions and improvements that we make.

The majority of the additions in this package come from strategic private land acquisitions. Our ministry’s acquisition of this land ensures that the ecological and recreational values that make these parks so special are preserved for our children and our grandchildren. Our government understands the expectations and increased interest in the use of our parks, and we’re working to accommodate those by the acquisition of more land and increased investments in park infrastructure across our province.

From 2021 to 2024, our government is investing $21½ million to expand and enhance opportunities for outdoor recreation, including new campsites, trails and upgrades to facilities. The investment is part of a total $83 million budget increase to B.C. Parks’ operating and capital budgets: $36 million overall for operating and $47 million for capital. Combined, these will strengthen the management of our parks system and provide a more enjoyable visitor experience for everyone.

I’ll now move on to provide some specific detail on the amendments contained in the bill. Firstly, and of great interest to British Columbians, this bill adds land to ten class A parks as follows.

Naikoon Park, on the northeast tip of Haida Gwaii, will have an addition of 123 hectares of land that the ministry purchased in 2020. The addition protects a mixture of wetlands and sand dunes.

Hole-in-the-Wall Park, near Chetwynd, will have an addition of 14 hectares of Crown land. This will add the culturally significant spring and cave feature, known as the hole in the wall, to the park. This feature was erroneously excluded from the park when the park was established.

Blue River Black Spruce Park, on Highway 5 between Clearwater and Valemount, will have an addition of 59 hectare, which our ministry purchased in 2020. This acquisition contributes to the protection of the ecological integrity of the riverbank and upland habitats of the park on the North Thompson River.

Edge Hills Park, north of Lillooet, will have an addition of 50 hectares of land, which the ministry received as a donation in 2020. This parcel, adjacent to the west side of the park, will enhance wildlife connectivity and provide additional protection for the Fraser River bluffs.

Valhalla Park, in the West Kootenays, will have an addition of 32 hectares of land, which the ministry purchased in 2020. The addition of this particular inholding will improve connectivity across this very large park and prevent future incompatible activities from occurring in the parcel.

[2:35 p.m.]

Okanagan Mountain Park, on the east side of Okanagan Lake, will have 21 hectares of land added — which we received, again, from a donation in 2020. I want to recognize the many British Columbians that have left, as a bequest to all British Columbians, property of significant ecological value, sometimes of cultural value and often of recreational value — many times helping us to fill in some of the blanks in park areas that we’d wished, from inception, to include but were not able to at the time.

In addition to the donated parcel, a trail and access point on two hectares of Crown land known as the Golden Mile Trail is being added to the park. These park additions also enhance wildlife connectivity and species protection and will provide an important recreational linkage to the existing park.

Gladstone Park will have an addition of six hectares of land, which our ministry purchased in 2019. The purchase completes the province’s ownership of the northern lake frontage of Christina Lake. The acquisition includes the mouth of Sandner Creek, an important kokanee spawning area. The park addition also contains old-growth forest and a pristine beach area, and 14 hectares of Crown foreshore will also be added to this park.

The Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park will have an addition of 18 hectares of land, which we purchased in 2020. This addition builds on previous acquisitions that will increase important connectivity for wildlife in the park. The largely undeveloped addition includes habitat for mule deer and grizzly bear and 450 metres of lakeshore along Kootenay Lake. Five hectares of Crown foreshore will also be added to the park. Christina Lake Park, at the popular south end of the lake, will have three hectares of Crown foreshore added.

Kootenay Lake Park, Davis Creek site, north of Kaslo, will have five hectares of Kootenay Lake foreshore added. Like the foreshore additions to Christina Lake, Purcell and Gladstone, this foreshore addition increases the protection of adjacent lake values and improves the management of lakefront recreation.

A second important part of the bill is in amendments that modify the boundaries of two parks and two ecologi­cal reserves.

Firstly, four hectares of land will be removed from Big White Mountain Ecological Reserve. This land was mistakenly included in the ecological reserve when it was established in 1972 and overlaps with what has always been understood to be a controlled recreation area for Big White Ski Resort and that has been in place since 1963.

And 0.2 hectares will be removed from Burnt Cabin Bog Ecological Reserve to remove important water supply infrastructure that was also erroneously included in the ecological reserve at the time of its establishment.

An additional two hectares will be deleted from West Arm Park to remove the area that’s required by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for a right-of-way for a publicly travelled portion of Svoboda Road.

Several other boundary modifications will be made to Omineca Park to correct administrative errors: 297 hectares will be added to the park from land that is currently established as a protected area under the Environment and Land Use Act, and 172 hectares of Germansen Lake mainline road will be deleted from the park, to be managed instead by the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

Finally, these amendments make several administrative corrections and improvements to our legal descriptions. This is an ongoing process in B.C. Parks to make these boundaries more accurate and more easily understood and followed. This includes moving from a metes and bounds and lot and parcel method of description to mapped boundaries that are called official plans. They’re simply more accurate, more understandable and more practical for field surveying than the written metes and bounds descriptions.

British Columbians take great pride in our parks and protected areas system. It is the largest, on a percentage basis, in Canada, in terms of protecting land and the species and ecosystems that depend on it. Over 14 percent of our province is contained within our provincial protected areas system.

[2:40 p.m.]

These amendments will continue our commitment to improving the system. We’re not only looking for opportunities to add ecologically and culturally significant lands but also to improve recreational opportunities and experience within our diverse system. And of course, we’re always looking to protect unique and irreplaceable ecosystems and biodiversity that are contained within them. Expanding B.C. parks is an important investment in a healthy future.

With that, I look forward to the comments from other members.

R. Merrifield: I’m very glad to take my place in this second reading today. I’m going to start by echoing the minister’s words, because never before have our parks been as important as they are than after the last two years that British Columbians have been through. Our outdoor spaces, our parks, our nature have been almost a healing, as it were, for some of the mental health aspects of the pandemic and how hard it has hit all of us.

These Protected Areas of B.C. Act amendments are a regular occurrence in the Legislature, and rightfully so. Our parks are some of our most important assets. They are boundaries and jurisdictions that help dictate how we can better protect our wildlife and ecosystems.

They are one of the greatest attractions that bring in hundreds of thousands of tourists to our province every single year who come to explore and to enjoy our lands and wildlife while supporting local tourism businesses and operators.

They are a reflection of our national and international identity as a province. This is, after all, beautiful British Columbia. As has become common practice, amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act are regularly undertaken by governments of the day to add land to parks and conservancies and modify or correct the boundaries and improve boundary descriptions. It’s also important to recognize the ongoing work of the Ministry of Environment staff to better protect our parks and expand their accessibility, availability and environmental protection, as has been outlined to this House through this legislation.

These land purchases, as well as the boundary and administrative changes, must also act to improve the availability and accessibility of our provincial parks and to better protect our ecosystems and better serve British Columbians wishing to enjoy them. While we can celebrate the achievements outlined in this legislation, there are several reminders that our work to expand and improve our parks and protected areas is far from over.

Many of the boundary amendments and acquisitions of additional land were made through the purchase of private property, as well as property donations from ecological and environmental advocates, as well as from generous British Columbians who want to see this land protected and maintained for years to come. Of course, the province is only able to acquire this land when it becomes readily available. Government has a responsibility to capitalize on future opportunities in the coming years as they become readily available so we can continue to make prospective changes to our park boundaries while operating within our province’s budgetary means.

Our parks and ecological reserve boundary changes must also be made in partnership with our Indigenous communities, and always in the spirit of forwarding reconciliation by acknowledging their generational knowledge of the land around us.

In speaking with the staff of the Ministry of Environment, I was also reminded that many of the boundary changes outlined in this legislation are the result of an emergence of new discoveries and revelations of the parklands and ecosystems. For example, in one case, boundary changes are taking place to protect a spring that was not included in the initial land purchase, despite it being the intent of the purchase in the first place.

We have to remember that many of the land surveys which dictated our current park boundaries took place many years ago — in some cases, as much as a century ago. A recent boundary change has been made in light of a discovery that an entire water system has changed course since the last survey was conducted. All of these cases are a reminder of how important these administrative changes are as we make our parks and boundaries reflect the current and ever-changing world around us.

There is more work to be done, but it is no reason to not support and commend the changes that have been made and that are now outlined in this legislation. I look forward to asking more probing questions on some of the details of the bill, especially surrounding Indigenous consultation and current rationale on specifics.

[2:45 p.m.]

I would like to conclude by offering my thanks to the staff of the Ministry of Environment for their continued work and advocacy to expand our parks, protect our environments and allow British Columbians to better enjoy the lands that we are all so blessed to explore and live in every day.

A. Olsen: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 3, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act.

Recognizing that this is sort of an annual adjustment that happens within B.C. Parks system where staff kind of collect a variety of different amendments that can be made to the act in order to reflect, I think, where we’re at now with protected areas of British Columbia and making sure that our park system remains vital and vibrant and available to humans to enjoy but, more than that, to ensure that humans are not disrupting every square centimetre of this province. It is a protection, I think, for us to ensure that there are places left for flora and fauna that are non-human.

With that, I think that it’s important that not only speaking to the member’s comments before — that these are incredible and important places for humans to get out and experience nature and enjoy some time, do some forest bathing, get in and feel the positive impacts that nature can have on our mental and physical well-being — but that also the biodiversity that is represented in parks must be protected for our ecological well-being, as protections against severe weather impacts like we have seen in this province over the last year and longer with respect to climate change.

The legislation before us, like the previous iterations of this legislation, is definitely something that I and my colleague in the B.C. Green caucus definitely support. I think that it’s important for us to be taking the lands that are donated to the province of British Columbia and adding them to parks and continuing to increase the vibrancy of our parks and ecosystems across the province.

I think that it’s important also to note that part of the work that has been done in past iterations of this bill is a naming exercise that has reflected the traditional Indigenous place names that are associated with the areas within various provincial parks. It’s unfortunate that this year we don’t see a real engagement in that, and that could be a lack of Indigenous nations stepping forward.

However, I do have a number of parks in my riding, and I think that what I would like to see going forward…. I made it known to the ministry that there are processes that, when given the opportunity, I’d be very happy to help with in order to continue to encourage the renaming of those parks or the addition. As we’ve talked about in the past, this shouldn’t be seen as removing anything from the parks but adding context and adding understanding to these incredible places.

One of the things that British Columbians often do when they visit a park is they get to know the place a little bit better. They get to know the history of the place a little bit better.

We have seen, as an example, ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱/John Dean Provincial Park, an additive process where this government recognized the long history that the W̱SÁNEĆ people had with that sacred mountain that we know as ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱. We were able to both honour that long history of that place and the sacredness of it for the Indigenous people in the area and, as well, recognize John Dean for donating that treasure at the heart of the Saanich Peninsula and making the contribution. Indeed it remains, well, one of the last places on the Saanich Peninsula that has any substantive forest remaining on it. It is there, because we have it added to a park.

[2:50 p.m.]

We get the opportunity of learning about the history, learning about the flood story and that place of refuge for the W̱SÁNEĆ people. Indeed, uniquely, it has now become a place of refuge for all people living in W̱SÁNEĆ on the Saanich Peninsula. As a park, it is also a place of refuge to…. You can almost get away from the buzzing of the airplanes if you go up there. Almost. It’s very close to an airport, so it’s difficult to do that, but it is something that I think needs to be celebrated.

I look forward to working with the minister and staff within the ministry. There are a number of parks in Saanich North and the Islands that I’d be happy to engage in the process right now for next year, if the minister is going to be bringing a similar bill forward in future sessions. I can identify at least two parks right now that would benefit from adding to the story that we tell about the parks in our ridings.

I’m certain that there are members in this Legislature that, if given the opportunity to engage, could use this opportunity, in fact, to engage Indigenous Nations in their ridings and use it as an opportunity to build relationships and be that advocate, but also be that meaningful connection between the communities that we represent and the minister and the ministry staff.

I think one of the other things that I’d like to highlight here — and this is something that I’ve brought to the attention of the ministry in the past, and it seems like a good opportunity now to just highlight — is that while we can go through the necessary process of adding additional lands to parks, it’s really important that the next step in the spring session, the budget step, is that we see a marked increase in the investment that British Columbians are making into our parks system.

We can celebrate daily or monthly or annually the fact that we have a large number of hectares of lands protected under this act. However, if we’re not investing the appropriate level of funding into the park system, then we start to see the erosion of the value of those lands. I start to think about some of the parklands in our territory, and this isn’t just provincial. I will say that, because I think that the provincial government has been doing a better job, but without the adequate amount of resources, there’s not the attention that needs to be made — to fuel loads, as an example — within our parklands.

There’s one non-provincial park in particular that I’m thinking about in my riding that could use a much larger amount of funding in order to deal with the really huge increase of combustible material that’s on the ground and that poses a threat to the people living in those neighbourhoods.

My hope is that I can be a useful advocate on behalf of the minister in advocating for his government to increase the budget to the park system so that we can ensure that the trails are not only being built so people can have access to it but that the trails that are built are not unnecessarily damaging sensitive ecosystems — which, if they’re not constructed quite properly, can have, actually, a deleterious effect on the ecosystems of those parks — and that the annual maintenance budget reflects what’s needed in terms of our values here in this House, on behalf of the parklands that we have set aside from our extractive industries and our extractive activities.

With that, I’m happy to support this bill. I will be happy to support a larger budget. I think, through the minister to his colleague, the Minister of Finance: I’ll even be happier to support a larger budget for parklands and the proper maintenance and upkeep and construction of trails within our parks.

I look forward to engaging the minister and the ministry on a few of the parks in my riding that could benefit from adding their historic and the proper place names to those places so that we are remembering and acknowl­edging and celebrating the entire history of this province in a good way.

With that, I take my seat.

Thank you for this opportunity. HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

[2:55 p.m.]

M. Lee: I wanted, to just start my comments, to join my colleague the member for Kelowna-Mission on behalf of the official opposition to bridge off of the member’s comments from Saanich North and the Islands — and to remind the minister that in the second reading debate on a very similar bill last fall, the minister very much was encouraging the approach that the member for Saanich North and the Islands just invited, which is cooperation with MLAs in this Legislative Assembly to find the right level of partnerships, collaboration with Indigenous peoples in the traditional territories in which we have our constituencies.

The minister said that the bill, as it was then framed in a very similar way to these amendments, would allow the government “to continue moving forward with the ongoing reconciliation efforts with Indigenous peoples by renaming,” in that case, “two parks to include their place names. That’s an important step in implementing the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples….”

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

The minister went on to say: “From our ministry and the B.C. Parks staff, we have a continuing process of consultation with Indigenous peoples, the rights and title holders, and many productive discussions with respect to improving cultural interpretation in the parks and engaging the nations as part of that — signage and, ultimately, management.”

I’m going to come back to the word, in terms of management, in a moment, but certainly, as the member for Saanich North and the Islands talked about, there’s lots of opportunity — lots of opportunity that we’ve expected when this House passed, unanimously, the adoption of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. We did that on November 28, 2019 — 26 months ago.

When we passed that legislation in this House, unanimously, with a very important historic, significant ceremony, with many leaders of Indigenous peoples here in this province, we passed it in a way that said, in section 3: “In consultation and cooperation with the Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, the government must take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the Declaration.”

I know that many colleagues of mine here, as we address pieces of legislation that the government brings forward, in the last 26 months, have asked the questions: what has changed? Since we passed DRIPA, as it’s known in this House, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, we’ve asked: what has changed?

I can tell you that the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and the member for Skeena took great pains to go through, in their comments on second reading and in committee, to ensure, of course, that the consultation — elements of collaboration and discussion with Indigenous peoples in terms of their traditional territories and their traditional activities, to the extent that there are overlapping claims by First Nations and Indigenous peoples on the parkland that’s referred to in this bill — is not unduly impaired.

Certainly, I’m sure, we will hear from the minister, as he indicated in his second reading speech that there has been a level of consultation, as he did confirm when we looked at the similar regime last time, in the fall of 2021.

I would just like to take this opportunity as the new critic for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation to continue the dialogue. The dialogue is about this, as the member for Abbotsford West and myself had, 27 months ago, five days of committee stage to talk about DRIPA.

[3:00 p.m.]

The obligation of this government is: “(1) The government must prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration. (2) The action plan must be prepared and implemented in consultation and cooperation with the Indigenous peoples in British Columbia. (3) The action plan must contain the date on or before which the government must initiate a review of the action plan.”

These are subsections 4(1), (2), (3) of DRIPA — again, the bill that we passed in this House 26 months ago. What do we have now? We have a draft action plan — a draft action plan that has been put out by the minister respon­sible in June of 2021. This is on the basis when the government had said — the minister’s predecessor here in this House — that it would be a matter of months for the action plan to be put in place. It’s been 26 months.

They put out a draft action plan in June of 2021 and gave Indigenous peoples and First Nations until July 31 of 2021 to comment, the so-called consultation. I understand the minister responsible has said that the action plan is coming. We’re waiting. Debates and discussions on bills like this give us the opportunity as MLAs in this House to get the clarity, the transparency, that we all need to have about the implementation of DRIPA. That clarity we get on an annual report. Yes, there have been two annual reports, as required. There will be a third one. Two annual reports that were based on no action plan.

We are left with using the House’s time to have discussions in the nature of every bill that comes in front of this House. So I expect that at committee stage, the minister responsible — and this is the reason why I’m raising this on second reading right now — will be able to confirm that, in accordance with DRIPA, this bill is consistent with the declaration. I say that because when I look at the debate that was had on the previous bill, as I mentioned, at the persistence of the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and the member for Skeena, I note that the minister responsible for this bill said: “We engage….”

Let me just say this for context. As part of the consultation with Indigenous peoples, “we serve notice to nations that have asserted an interest in the territory, and we include in that a description of what we’re proposing as well as maps. When we get responses, we answer questions.”

The section that I was most interested in is this: “We engage in discussion with them, and part of our legal analysis of whether we meet the tests that are required is an analysis of whether we meet the tests required under our new piece of legislation, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.”

I would like to know from the minister, when we get to committee stage and if he hasn’t answered today in his response to our second reading debate: what has the government determined to be the new test required under DRIPA? He made reference to them. He says they’re new tests. I’m not sure, and I’ll look back at the Hansard over five days of committee stage. I’m not sure I heard the words “new tests.” That wasn’t the case by this government 26 months ago. So now there are new tests.

I will say that when I look at the report…. The annual report that was issued by this government, the 2020-2021 report, indicated, on page 17, a new approach. It now is reporting on specific articles of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

In this case, it’s Article 29.1, which says: “Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources. States shall establish and implement assistance programs for Indigenous peoples for such conservation and protection, without discrimination.”

[3:05 p.m.]

It seems to me that that seems to be a relevant article of DRIPA, as it applies to the Protective Areas Act that we’re looking at here, in this bill.

This appears to be a shift. When you look at the draft action plan, the 70-plus actions that the government has put out for consultation…. I know I can stand corrected here, in further discussion, but I don’t see a specific reference to Article 29.1. I see general reference in terms of how there needs to be, under 2.7 on page 8: “Co-develop and enhance strategic-level policies, programs and initia­tives reflecting collaboration and cooperation on stewardship of the environment, lands and resources.” That is the level in which the action plan speaks to.

I am just wondering now, as we look at…. It’s one thing to talk about: have First Nations been properly, duly consulted with under the obligations of the duty to consult? I just mentioned the test.

We all understand, under section 35 jurisprudence, that this government has that obligation. We understood that UNDRIP was going to be interpreted through the lens of section 35 jurisprudence. That’s what we spent five days in this House going through. I’m just mindful — and I look at the transcript; the previous dates on the similar bill — that there are new tests. I’m also looking at this draft report that goes specifically to the article.

That brings me back full circle, then. If we are looking now at this action plan and reporting on a draft…. First of all, it’s in draft. It hasn’t been finalized after 26 months, which is my first point. The second point is that it’s now referring to, in the annual reporting…. This is the only level of transparency that we have for this House.

My concern is that it’s been 26 months with no real progress by this government. We know what’s been going on in this province over the last 24 months, 26 months. I understand that. But the fact of the matter is that we know, in this area of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, in this province, in these lands, that we need to make meaningful progress. It is not just status quo. It’s not just checking the box. So when I hear the member for Saanich North and the Islands talk about missed opportunities, sure, there are lots missed opportunities. It’s very piecemeal.

I look at the reporting back on the progress that’s made. When I look at a bill that’s being presented to this House, it’s not just about asking questions about what’s included. It’s about what is not included. Then I look at the reporting by the government against this particular article of UNDRIP, which there can be discussion with.

I’m sure I’ll have my opportunity in estimates to have my discussion with the minister about the approach of this government, but if they’re going to go through and report on every single article of UNDRIP that the government is making progress on and then report on, in detailed fashion, the specific, “Well, here’s an example of what we’re doing,” where is everything else?

Is that really what we’re going to be doing in this House? I’m concerned about the use of resources that we have. We have to use them in a smart way. Again, I look forward to having the opportunity, as we go into the committee stage, to certainly reconfirm what has occurred, with our critic here, the member for Kelowna-Mission, in terms of the specific parks that are under consideration here.

I’ll just make one more comment here, in terms of the throne speech. The throne speech talks about, in two places, of course, the opportunity…. And this brings me back to this. The minister, of course, in the debate on this similar bill last fall, talked about management. That was the word he used. The throne speech talks about the same thing: “Most critically, B.C.’s commitment to reconciliation must come to life through the consultation, collaboration and co-management of land and resources envisioned in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.”

[3:10 p.m.]

Well, again, I ask the minister, at the committee stage: what is the government doing to make progress on co-management? What is the intention of that? What does that mean in the context of protected areas of this province?

What does it mean when this government brings forward a bill that presents protected areas of British Columbia and does it without any transparency other than relying on government about their consultation process with First Nations, Indigenous peoples? If they’re truly talking about comanagement, where is the evidence of that? What’s the level of cooperation, collaboration, that this government is doing? I think we need that level of transparency and clarity. We also need to know from this government how they are making progress.

With those comments, I’ll take my place here and look forward to committee stage on this bill.

K. Greene: I am pleased to speak today to Bill 3, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act.

We know that British Columbians care very deeply about our provincial parks, which are important for our physical and mental well-being. I often say that getting outside is good for your mind, body and soul, and it is. Our parks bring people, families and communities together, provide outdoor recreation and new cultural experiences, and protect species and ecosystems found nowhere else in this world.

Climate change is affecting our land and water ecosystems and putting even more strain on our natural environment. Biodiversity and ecological values are so important, which means that our parks and protected areas are even more special. Our parks are a treasure. Expanding our parks system ensures more lands are protected and cared for in perpetuity for all British Columbians. The proposed additions to ten provincial parks strengthen the protection of our natural legacy and allow us to expand and enhance the visitor experience.

By purchasing strategic private land in wilderness parks such as Valhalla Park, we’re able to ensure that incompatible activities do not take away from the wilderness recreation experience that these parks offer British Columbians.

We are also protecting a portion of a popular recreational trail that currently sits adjacent to Okanagan Mountain Park. This former old highway road corridor now serves as the start of the Wildhorse Canyon Trail, the first section of which is known as the Golden Mile Trail. Adding the Golden Mile Trail allows us to manage and protect this valued recreational feature.

Expanding Hole-in-the-Wall Park protects a unique spring and cave feature that is culturally significant to First Nations in the area. Collaboration with First Nations is important to a healthy and strong parks and protected areas system.

These amendments also add adjacent lake foreshore to Gladstone Park, Christina Lake Park, Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park and Kootenay Lake Park. The foreshore additions will enable improved protection of adjacent lake values consistent with the upland park areas. We know that people want us to effectively manage these popular beach sites for people to enjoy and to protect the values for generations to come. Including foreshore in these parks provides B.C. Parks the authority to manage these activi­ties, such as boating and beach camping in these areas.

Our parks can sometimes suffer from being too popular. It’s important when you’re heading outdoors to remember why you’re there: for the beauty of our province’s natural areas. As I learned in Girl Guides, take only photographs and leave only footprints.

The B.C. Parks website has great resources for responsible camping. The website includes smash hits like “Parks are not self-cleaning” and “Wild animals are supposed to eat wild things.” Please check it out. Responsible camping means that we can all enjoy a litter-free wilderness and that wild animals stay safe. Leave your campsite or trail in the condition you found it or better. When we all take responsibility for our visits into nature, we will all have a better experience in our pristine forests, beaches and mountains.

Balancing conservation and recreation is important for B.C. Parks. Protecting additional areas, such as the ones included in this bill, means that we’re able to protect important ecological values and also to ensure that any recreation activities are respectful of our beautiful province. So many British Columbians love getting outside and enjoying nature. Camping, hiking, bird-watching, fishing, meditating, canoeing, photography, stand-up paddleboarding — the opportunities are limitless, whether you’re nine or 99. B.C. parks are for everyone. You belong in nature.

[3:15 p.m.]

We know that for people with diverse backgrounds, trip planning and booking is a crucial step for a successful and rewarding trip to B.C. parks. Expanding our parks and protected areas, as we have in this bill, is complemented by work we’re undertaking to improve the B.C. Parks website and campsite booking program. We’ve heard from park users that the current system wasn’t working for them, and we’re taking action. We have a sample website up right now, and if you’d like to participate in giving us feedback on the new platform, please head to beta.bcparks.ca.

Like the streams, creeks and rivers that flow through B.C. parks, we aren’t standing still. We’re adding to our parks through this bill, and with last year’s historic three-year $83 million budget increase, we’re able to improve recreational opportunities and parks through capital and operating budgets. That is truly exciting.

British Columbians have been visiting our parks in record numbers, and those visits have increased even more since the start of the pandemic. Rather than being a temporary phenomenon, those visitors will come back for the very same reasons that we have attracted visitors from around the world. Our province is spectacularly beautiful.

The park areas in today’s bill are no exception. If you’re looking for some eye candy, search #beautifulbc on Instagram. Just looking at images of soaring trees, powdery snow-covered trails and fog clinging to silvery pines will give you that sense of peace and calm. But imagine being there in person. The record-breaking 3.1 million campers who stayed in B.C. parks last year experienced firsthand the physical and mental benefits of B.C. parks.

There were also record-breaking numbers of day visitors experiencing those positive benefits from recreation outdoors. That’s why we’ve added more than 1,700 campsites to provincial parks and recreation sites over the last four years and recently acquired two more properties that are intended to be added to Tribune Bay Provincial Park on Hornby Island. These properties will complete the beachfront of Tribune Bay and add an existing private campground. After consultation with First Nations and input from stakeholders, we can start potential campground improvements.

Did you know that more than 14 percent of our province is contained within our provincial protected areas system? With this bill, our park and protected areas in B.C. will increase by 174 hectares and be included in the more than 14 million hectares of parks and protected areas in this province. We continue to look for opportunities to add ecologically and culturally significant lands and also improve recreational opportunities and experiences within our diverse park system.

Visiting B.C. parks was one of my most favourite things to do when I was a child. I especially loved going camping. Exploring for interesting bugs, discovering salamanders and poking rocks with sticks could take all afternoon. My kids were lucky enough and are lucky enough to grow up in B.C., like I did. The small joys of testing the size of the sploosh for different-sized rocks in the water is something that can only be learned at your favourite creek, pond, river or beach.

Kids in future generations are going to have less opportunity to experience our beautiful province because of climate change. Parks are not immune to the same events that have reshaped large swaths of land, destroying forests, roads and livelihoods and killing many, many people. Forest fires, floods and heat domes are all here to stay, and they will get worse as greenhouse gas emissions rise.

After last year’s heat dome, I visited several parks. What I saw at Porteau Cove Provincial Park still haunts me. The smooth stones of the beach were essentially gone. They were covered with a thick layer of mussel shells and other dead marine creatures. The beach was crunchy — crunchy. It’s estimated that a billion aquatic creatures died during the heat dome, cooked in an ocean that was heated by climate change.

Fighting climate change is not just a simple moral imperative to leave a better planet for our children and the generations after. Our economy, our food systems, our supply chains all depend on a hospitable planet. What we’ve seen to date — the destruction, the devastation, the loss of livelihood and lives — is with only 1 Celsius of warming. Scientists estimate that we’re on track for 3 Celsius or more of warming, which is unimaginable.

[3:20 p.m.]

Taking action on climate change is urgent and encompassing. Meeting emission reductions outlined in CleanBC will ensure that we do our part to stop heating our planet to the point of catastrophe. Protecting parks and biodiversity are important commitments that will be reaffirmed with the passing of this bill. These special areas are important for British Columbians as beautiful examples of the best that nature has to offer and as protection for nature that is facing increasing threat from climate change.

I am delighted to be able to work with the amazing and dedicated people who are making B.C. parks an even better place to visit, while also protecting sensitive ecosystems and respecting Indigenous culture and knowledge. It is my pleasure to speak in favour of this bill, and I look forward to future additions to B.C.’s incredible park system.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, would the minister like to close debate, please.

Hon. G. Heyman: I’d like to thank the members of this House who have spoken to Bill 3 for their comments and their observations. It is always important to talk about B.C. parks, about biodiversity and about reconciliation.

I want to address some of the remarks briefly. I want to thank the member for Kelowna-Mission, as well as to welcome her to her new role as opposition critic for Environment and Climate Change Strategy. The member identified, I think, some very good points that I’d be happy to explore further with her in committee stage. In particular, the member noted that she hoped that our government would continue to proactively look for opportunities to purchase lands that are worthy of protection, that have significant ecological or recreational interest or that will complete parks.

I want to assure all members of the House and the public that we have a budget to do that. We have a priori­tized list of particular areas that we’re always looking for the opportunity to purchase for addition to our parks and protected area system if a fair price can be arrived at. Then, of course, we also have backups if something higher in the priority list is not available. We’d be, certainly, very happy to explore that during third reading.

To the member for Saanich North and the Islands: your focus on the importance of ecological values in the park system, the protection of biodiversity and ecological systems, is very important. One of the first announcements I had an opportunity to do as minister was in an area formerly known as Eagle Heights, in the traditional terri­tory of the Cowichan Tribes and also in the constituency of the Third Party Leader.

The name of that new park, that area that was purchased by our government…. The Indigenous name is Hwsa­lu’utsum. It was noted, when we made the announcement, that this was not an area for people to go camping. This was not an area where people would go for uncontrolled hikes. This is an area of some significant old-growth Douglas fir, some sensitive grasslands, some rare species. It is an area that we added to the park system to protect and conserve its ecological integrity.

I also note the member’s raising of the issue of opportunities to advance and to support the recognition, for all of us, of significant Indigenous culture, history, knowledge and spirituality, as well as naming. I had a very profoundly moving experience that was initiated by children of the W̱SÁNEĆ people in the member’s constituency, where they asked, as the member pointed out, that we rename John Dean Park to recognize the significance of that area to their people — a significance that they’d heard about in stories but never saw recognized in the names around them. That led to the naming of ȽÁU,WELṈEW̱/John Dean Park.

[3:25 p.m.]

There are many more opportunities. I don’t want to imply that one or two actions address the issue, but these are actions in good faith that signal the willingness to take more action in the future.

I’d certainly welcome the member for Saanich North and the Islands and other members who have ideas about how we can enhance and promote our protected area system generally, but specifically with advancing reconciliation or looking for opportunities to signal to all British Columbians the history and the tradition and the culture and the significance of places for the Indigenous peoples who called a particular area home for millennia, to recognize that in naming, and then further recognize that in collaboration and other forms of engagement with the Indigenous peoples in the area.

Because I have spoken to representatives of a number of nations, I know when we do that, and when we enter into that process with open-mindedness and open hearts, it does have meaning. It is a step. Maybe a small step, but an important step of many steps that, together, constitute reconciliation.

I will highlight for the member, also, who urged us to continue to expand the budget that in last year’s budget, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society of B.C. noted that the over $80 million that we put in the capital plan for three years was the most in decades and was significant. They expected good things to come from that, as do I, and as I believe the member does.

Of course, continuing to invest in British Columbia parks now and well into the future will be not only a service to the environment, to the planet, but also to British Columbians who value and who receive significant physical and mental health benefits from reconnecting with nature. We do that through the budget.

We also do that through the activities of the B.C. Parks Foundation that was established by the previous government and with whom I am happy to work. I am happy to work with them because they are coming up with new initiatives and assisting the people of British Columbia to add more areas to our parks and protected areas system.

We also work with NGOs that often come forward with money to purchase and protect particularly ecologically significant areas. Of course, the B.C. Parks licence plate program is highly successful and provides funding for student ranger programs as well as other park enhancements.

Finally, to the member for Vancouver-Langara, I look forward to his questions and comments in committee stage. I will note that we consulted, as I said earlier, broadly with nations affected by these changes. But we consult more broadly, generally, whether it is the setting aside of the Mount Edziza Conservancy and then the ultimate renaming of that to Tenh Dẕetle Conservancy at the request and with the collaboration of the Tahltan people as part of a shared prosperity agreement, whether it’s upcoming meetings with Lheidli T’enneh, meetings being set up with the Líl̓wat, as well as the First Peoples Cultural Council. It is an ongoing process.

I recently had a meeting with representatives of the Tsleil-Waututh people with respect to a park in their area, Say Nuth Khaw Yum, in which we have had for many years a collaborative management agreement about ways in which we can expand and enhance that collaborative management agreement, as well as put more resources into an area that has significant cultural and spiritual signifi­cance to them and, of course, is an important part of the B.C. parks system.

I look forward to the committee stage. This bill has important amendments that will continue our commitment. But of course, it is one more step of the journey.

I also want to join the member for Kelowna-Mission in thanking the staff in B.C. Parks and the Ministry of the Environment for the work they do — the very detailed day-in, day-out work that they do — that has resulted in these changes and in a vibrant parks and recreation system and network for British Columbia.

[3:30 p.m.]

I also want to thank the member for Richmond-Steveston, the parliamentary secretary, for the significant work she has done to promote B.C. parks to conduct consultations with British Columbians about how we can enhance the recreational opportunities for British Columbians in their parks. Thank you very much to my parliamentary secretary for your very important work in this regard, all of which forms part of not only this bill but also our actions in the parks system generally.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 3, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2022, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Dean: I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 2.

Deputy Speaker: The House will be in recess for five minutes as we switch tables. Thank you.

The House recessed at 3:31 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING
AND VALIDATING (No. 4)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 2; R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 3:39 p.m.

On clause 1.

Hon. J. Osborne: I’d like to introduce the staff that I have with me today. They are Tara Faganello, assistant deputy minister for the local government division; Kara Woodward, executive director for the local government policy, research and legislation branch; and Patrick Glanc, a senior policy analyst for the same branch.

I’d like to thank my critic, the member for Penticton, the critic for Municipal Affairs. I look forward to the conversation that’s about to come. Ready to go.

[3:40 p.m.]

D. Ashton: I’d like to say thank you to the minister for the opportunity and also to — I’m not being facetious — her incredible staff. Having worked with your ministry in local government, I would just like to thank them very, very much for their abilities and the information they provided to people like myself in local government. It makes a huge difference, so thank you.

Minister, just to start this off, a quick question: what are the intended effects of this legislation, for the record, please?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the question around the intended effects of this legislation.

This legislation is narrow in scope. These amendments are required in order to provide a clear legal path for the village of Lytton to repeal, as well as repeal and replace, any bylaws that were lost or partially lost in the fire they experienced on June 30, 2021.

In some cases, the continued effects of the fire might make it challenging for the council of the village of Lytton to comply with all of the requirements set out in legislation and regulation in relation to adopting a bylaw. So in these circumstances, the village of Lytton might seek to have certain requirements or conditions waived or modified or replaced. These amendments would enable them do that.

Those modifications or exemptions from existing conditions and requirements will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

D. Ashton: May I ask the minister when MEVA was first discussed in government for the town of Lytton?

Hon. J. Osborne: The beginning of discussion about this item, by staff internal to government, was late fall.

D. Ashton: I would just like to ask: late fall by staff…? The fire was 7½ months ago. Let’s take off three months for late fall. A lot was happening on the ground in Merritt, and somebody was brought in to help out, a gentleman I have a huge amount of respect for. A CAO was in place.

I’m just curious about…. I’m not trying to be detrimental. Please, don’t get me wrong. I’m just curious about the timelines and time frame. Why so long? Was it asked for? Was it something that was proposed by government? If I could get an answer to those.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Of course we recognize that the situation in Lytton was an absolutely unprecedented event. Not only did the village lose all of its…. Well, not all. Pardon me. Not only did the village lose many of its records, but it also lost backups of those records, and it takes quite some time for the village staff to begin to go through the process of recovering some of the bylaws from various different sources to understand which bylaws were lost and how they could move forward.

For example, they reached out to the regional district. They talked to former staff as they began the process of trying to assemble the missing portions and bylaws. Our staff continued to work with the village directly to support them in this process, and it was finally identified, as this was uncovered, that the only remedy was a legal remedy, and that was amending legislation through MEVA in order to allow them to establish a new suite of bylaws. That’s why we’re taking the steps that we are.

D. Ashton: Of course, to MEVA…. Is the ministry and staff considering…? Having grown up in local government, the computer is here with its file server, the next room is the backup, and the bylaws are in the basement. So are we looking forward into the future where recommendations will be coming from the ministry to ensure that the great difficulty that the town of Lytton is going through in replacing their bylaws doesn’t happen again and that there will be backup files somewhere in this wonderful province?

Hon. J. Osborne: The member rightly points out that it is best practice for local governments to take good care of their bylaws. Certainly there have been many things learned out of the experience in Lytton. Our staff intend to work with our partners, the Local Government Management Association, to educate local governments around the importance of having remote backups as a records management best practice.

D. Ashton: In winding the clock back, late fall — I’m going to presuppose that was before November, or early part of November — would there not have been an opportunity to bring this forward a little earlier than to wait until the session now, in February?

Hon. J. Osborne: The simple answer is no. The work that was being done internal to government didn’t even come forward until January — to enter that process, to come through the cabinet approval process and end up where we are today.

D. Ashton: Again, I’m just posing the questions. Could there not have been some anticipatory thought that this may be coming forward, and in conjunction with the staff working with the people of Lytton, to maybe facilitate this a bit earlier?

[3:50 p.m.]

Again, these are generalized questions. I’m just asking for a time frame on it.

Hon. J. Osborne: With respect to being able to anticipate this problem, I think it’s probably best answered by simply saying that this absolutely was an unprecedented event. There wasn’t a way to look back in time and see how things had been done previously.

It took quite some time for staff to work with Municipal Affairs staff at the village, as well, to really understand what had been lost and what steps could be taken to re-establish their full suite of bylaws. The staff at Lytton wanted to determine the best path forward, so because of the time that that took, it landed us here today, where we’re considering this bill.

D. Ashton: Jumping back to the legislation, may I ask: why is the scope of the legislation so narrow?

Hon. J. Osborne: This is a case of only fixing what is necessary to fix. It is targeted specifically to Lytton as a tool to deal with their lost bylaws. Other local governments don’t need this tool, so it would be inappropriate to amend the Local Government Act. Because this is an exception to the general rules, it needs to be very specific in this case.

D. Ashton: Thank you very much.

We’ve all talked in this Legislature about climate change and what’s happening in the world. So a question is: with the threat of natural disasters heightened in the past few years, why is the legislation not expanded to take a look at that specifically? I know you had mentioned other municipalities and other local governments, but I look at what happened north of Oliver. I look at what’s happened in the Fraser Valley.

[3:55 p.m.]

As we have discussed, MEVA legislation is a wonderful tool. It can be a big hammer, unfortunately. So I’m just kind of curious why government has not looked at expanding that plan for the future, to be ready, unfortunately, if something else happens. Touch wood it doesn’t.

Hon. J. Osborne: First of all, I’d say this is a framework that has been developed for the first time, which could be used in the future, certainly. But it is targeted specifically to Lytton, and despite the fact that in this case, it was a massive fire that caused the loss of these records, in the situation where another community, for some unforeseen reason, experienced a loss of records and a backup — an extremely unusual situation — this framework could be applied.

Again, I would come back to the fact that this needs to be targeted specifically to Lytton to deal absolutely with that need for legal certainty when it comes to the need to repeal and replace lost bylaws, and it ensures regulatory oversight where modifications to any of those legislative requirements are needed on that case-by-case basis. So this is to provide the council of the village of Lytton with flexibility to respond to these exact circumstances that have resulted from an absolutely unprecedented situation.

D. Ashton: Was Lytton consulted on this legislation?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes.

D. Ashton: I overheard earlier that there is a council meeting either tonight or tomorrow in Lytton. Will this be up for discussion to the people of Lytton through their current council?

Hon. J. Osborne: We’re not certain what’s on the agenda tomorrow night with reference to this bill, so I can’t answer the question.

D. Ashton: Well, will council be taking this legislation to the people of Lytton?

Hon. J. Osborne: Will council be taking this provincial legislation to the people of Lytton? They’re not required to do so. We are taking the legislation, the proposed amendments, to the people of British Columbia through this process today.

D. Ashton: It’s my understanding that Lytton is a council of five — four elected councillors and a mayor. It’s also my understanding that there are two vacant seats there. So there is now a council of three.

[4:00 p.m.]

It’s also my understanding that there have been split decisions in the short period of time that council has been able to get back together to try and do the work that council, or most councils, would do in normal situations.

This, again, is incredibly important legislation, not only to the province of British Columbia and to the people of British Columbia but, especially, to the people of Lytton. There are going to be some substantial decisions made through MEVA. I would just ask: do we not think it is appropriate that council should be discussing MEVA legislation to the people who are most affected in this — i.e., the people and citizens of Lytton — so that when it is implemented, the people of Lytton realize what MEVA can and maybe cannot do for them?

Hon. J. Osborne: With respect to taking this provincial legislation to the people of Lytton — say, through a council meeting — I would say that we don’t direct what councils take to the community in that manner. It is their preroga­tive to do so if they wish.

This provincial legislation, if passed, will enable council to repeal and replace bylaws on a case-by-case basis, but those cases must be taken through the normal processes that are defined in the Local Government Act, and that would require them to do that in an open council meeting, with the proper notification.

D. Ashton: I thank the minister for that.

I did say in my statement, when we were first discussing Bill 2, that I have a huge amount of respect for staff at municipalities and regional districts. In a quote to me was: “MEVA legislation is liked, because it allows staff to conduct themselves the way they used to be able to conduct it — with not a lot of consultation with the community.”

[4:05 p.m.]

I know it’s an extenuating, unprecedented circumstance in Lytton, but as bylaws that are replaced and maybe updated come forward, it can really change the scope of building and what the town does, etc., etc. I would just hope that that is something that the ministerial staff would be discussing with council — the current council of two, plus the mayor — to ensure that the people of Lytton realize that, yes, there is a process, but there is a lot that could be happening quite quickly and being conducted under MEVA legislation.

Again, I would just ask the minister and staff to ensure — and I ask — that the people of Lytton will be notified about all the aspects that MEVA will give to the council of Lytton.

With that, this section 56…. My peer from Abbotsford West, I know, has a couple of questions next.

Hon. J. Osborne: Was there a question, and if so, could it be repeated?

D. Ashton: Are staff and ministerial staff going to ensure that the people of Lytton realize that council now has a procedure in their hands that can make a huge difference to get people back into Lytton and bring Lytton back to some normality but also has the ability to bring things forward a lot quicker without a lot of public consultation? I would just ask if ministerial staff and the minister are going to ensure that the people of Lytton understand what MEVA can and cannot do for the town of Lytton.

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. Thank you for the suggestion.

Although we’ve encouraged Lytton to communicate what is taking place, certainly staff from Municipal Affairs could be available for, say, a town hall meeting or some other appropriate venue to explain what these MEVA amendments are and how they will be used by the village of Lytton and answer questions from the people from the village of Lytton.

M. de Jong: May I say: the minister heard my exchange with her colleague the Public Safety Minister earlier, so if there is a theme over the course of the next few questions that I’m going to ask, I want to reveal it at the outset so that the minister at least has an idea where my general area of concern might lie. Then, perhaps, she can address it through the course of her answers.

The government, I’m certain, and the minister and her colleagues understand the magnitude of the devastation and the impact that has on people. I don’t question that. I don’t have any doubts in that regard. I do, though, in the context of the kinds of frustrations we heard about in this House during question period from people who own property and heretofore have lived in Lytton….

They are curious, and therefore I am curious — and I think some of my colleagues are curious — that the first statutory instrument, legislative instrument we would see in the House deals with an aspect of this that I am going to characterize as bureaucratic. I don’t use that as a pejorative term, but it is designed to address the keeping of records — important records, but records nonetheless.

[4:10 p.m.]

For all of the components of this, for all of the challenges — we haven’t had them all enunciated, but there are undoubtedly many — the government has chosen to exercise its prerogative legislatively at first instance not to deal with those impediments that are precluding people from going back to their homes but to deal with this impediment.

I think it’s appropriate for us to explore, just a little bit, what the nature of that impediment is that has elevated this to the very top of the legislative agenda. We are told that, because of the fire, there is an issue around the destruction of records. Can the minister advise the committee about the magnitude of that? Clause 1, which we’re dealing with, refers to some of the dates that are tied, undoubtedly, to the fire that occurred.

Has the entire body of Lytton law disappeared? When I say “Lytton law,” I mean, of course, Lytton municipal law. Has the entire body of Lytton municipal law disappeared? What can the minister say to the committee about what has been identified as missing at this point?

Hon. J. Osborne: While I cannot answer the question of exactly how many bylaws have disappeared completely, and how many bylaws have only been partially lost, I can say that it is the case that certain bylaws have been lost in their entirety, and of some bylaws only a portion has been lost.

Now, fortunately, Lytton can still operate. They do still have a procedures bylaw, for example. They still have a building bylaw. But the OCP, the official community plan, is a good example of where the bylaw itself remains intact, to the best of my understanding, but the maps or the schedules that are attached to that were lost in the fire.

The point of the legislation, of course, is to provide them with the legal certainty, so that they can go about re-establishing the full suite of their bylaws. to be able to operate and focus on the recovery that residents are all, obviously, so very, very dependent upon. This is a critical tool for them to be able to do that. That’s why we’ve brought the legislation forward at this time.

[4:15 p.m.]

M. de Jong: We’ll come back to the official community plan. I think it was astute of the minister to use that as an example, because it may turn out to…. We’ll explore that in a moment. I think many of us can see the relevance of that. There’s an aspect of this…. Maybe I’ll bunch these questions up so I don’t take too much of the committee’s time.

Is there a chronological element to what was lost? By that, I mean bylaws that may have been passed in the immediate six months prior to the fire. Or is it more random than that? I will say to the minister that my question stems from this understanding: that for any community — obligated as it is to inform the ministry; these are delegated forms of government — bylaws that are passed are provided to the provincial government via the ministry that the minister is in charge of.

My expectation would have been that the ministry contains a duplicate copy, as it were, of the body of law that is applicable at the local level in Lytton. If that’s not the case, I’d be interested to know why. I would also understand that there may have been recent enactments of the council of Lytton that had not yet been transmitted to the ministry.

I’m interested to know whether there was a chronological element, because the picture that’s being painted right now, I have to say, is that the repository of the bylaws that govern this community existed exclusively in a building that was destroyed by fire. That’s not my understanding. My understanding is that there is a legal requirement for enactments to be transmitted to the ministry. I’m sure the minister will be able to provide additional information in that regard.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Generally speaking, the most recent bylaws remain intact. They’re available on the website. They were recovered through agendas, for example. But some of the older bylaws are most likely the ones that are difficult or impossible to recover. So it isn’t random, but there is a little bit of a pattern there.

However, it is up to the village to let us know which bylaws specifically are missing or partially missing and need to be repealed and replaced. Of course, they are prioritizing those and focusing on the functional bylaws, the ones that they need to operate and undertake recovery.

Bylaws are not passed on to the ministry by rule, except for certain financial bylaws. For example, the financial plan bylaw, development cost charge bylaw, loan authorization bylaws — a copy is on record with the ministry. But many of the rest of the bylaws are not required to be registered with the provincial government.

I think that’s that.

M. de Jong: Coming back to the general question and theme that I began with, can the minister sort of explain for the committee and, perhaps more importantly, the hundreds of people waiting to return to their homes — I ask this not to be adversarial or mischievous — how, if at all, the prioritization of this legislation helps them get home sooner, it now being close to eight months since they were driven from their homes and told that they cannot return? How, if at all, does this legislation, decidedly the number one priority for the government, help those people get back home?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. I do understand the intention of the question here.

We are taking these steps to amend the MEVA legislation to allow Lytton to have the legal certainty that they need to re-establish a full suite of bylaws so that they can focus on recovery — for example, providing certainty for services like garbage collection, water delivery, sewer. These are things that are incredibly important to the village as they recover. So this certainty is needed, but this is only one element of the supports that this government has already provided to the people in Lytton.

I do want to take the opportunity to be clear that this is a legislative step that is necessary and that the other supports didn’t require legislative amendments to deliver. For example, the $6 million of emergency services support funding. The staff positions that we have provided to assist the village of Lytton. The $1 million provided in December for operations and for economic recovery. And, most recently, the over $8 million to help the village re-establish the core services and recover some of the costs that they have spent in responding to the fire.

We have tackled this at our earliest opportunity by bringing this legislation forward at this point. It by no means is the end of the support that we will be providing to the people of Lytton. I know that every member in this House wants to see this happen as quickly as possible so that people can return home and rebuild their lives.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the minister. That’s actually a very helpful answer, but it does give rise to, I think, an obvious question, because…. And it’s a question. I don’t want to put words into the minister’s mouth.

I will tell her what I take from that answer — delivered, I think, with all the genuineness that she intended. It sounds like the re-establishment of a full suite of bylaws and services is a prerequisite to letting people go home. That’s what I took from that answer. If that’s so, then the people, the residents of Lytton need to know that. It sounds like, in elevating this to the very first statutory initiative, and given what the minister just said, that the appropriate way that the government believes it should be proceeding is that before allowing people to go back to their property….

Maybe this is the part that I’m having a little bit of difficulty with. I don’t quarrel or dispute with the advisability of ensuring there are proper local structures in place and how that is, actually, ultimately a prerequisite to having a functioning community. But it sounds like what the government is saying is that that is a prerequisite to allowing people to return to their property.

If I own a piece of property in Lytton — I mean, I’ll be blunt — I want to get there and start cleaning up and, in the example I gave, maybe park a trailer. I don’t really care that some of the bylaws have been burned. So if the minister is saying that the government attaches that degree of importance that, as a prerequisite to allowing people to return, it wants to be satisfied that a full suite of bylaws and services has been re-established, then we better hear that now, because my guess is that that’s going to mean that people aren’t going back to Lytton anytime soon, and they deserve to know that.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: There are many processes that are occurring simultaneously to enable recovery in Lytton, and at no point have I ever said or has anyone on this side of the House said that it is a prerequisite for people to go back to their homes — having this legislation in place. So I want to be very, very clear about that.

Additionally, this legislation includes a ten-year vali­dation period, because we know that as the weeks and months come, other bylaws will be identified and issues will come up. This enables Lytton to be able to do this, in time, as is needed.

Again, to be clear, many processes are happening simultaneously. This is one legislative step, one of many steps that need to be taken. It is happening in tandem with other aspects of recovery and will not inhibit a single person from returning to their homes.

M. de Jong: That, too, is very helpful — that this is not a prerequisite, that the introduction and passage of this legislation is in no way a prerequisite for people returning to their home.

I guess now is as good a time as any to ask: what is? We now know — thanks to the minister — that the re-creation of an entire body of bylaw material and the full restoration of services hasn’t been the obstacle to people returning to their property. What is?

Hon. J. Osborne: Today’s MEVA amendments are one part of our government’s response and assistance to Lytton and their recovery. Of course, this is a multiministry approach, and all hands are on deck.

I would be happy to arrange for an update for the member and other members opposite on all of the actions taken. But of course, here we are today, in committee stage, discussing the amendments specifically for MEVA.

M. de Jong: I am particularly interested in clause 1, in some of the defined terms, “legislative requirement” and “specified bylaw.” The minister, just a moment ago, took great pains to point out — at my request and, I think, provoked by my question — that the introduction and passage of this legislation is, in no way, a prerequisite to people returning home.

[4:35 p.m.]

I think she would agree that that, today, is the paramount issue. I mean, I hope she agrees that the paramount issue today is: when can people go back to their homes or what’s left of their homes? I say this respectfully. I think she just told me: “Beyond this legislation, that’s not my department.” That’s not good enough. That’s not good enough. She is the minister responsible.

People want to know why it is they cannot go back to their property. The minister has been helpful in that regard and said it is not about this bill. I think they appreciate that. I certainly do. Okay, what is it about? Why can’t the fellow that I described earlier today in this chamber go back to his property? That, with the greatest of respect, is her department, and people would like to know.

Hon. J. Osborne: This is a multi-ministry response, and I will continue to work with my colleagues, and my staff will continue to work with staff from EMBC, from PSSG, other ministries, to do everything that we can to get people back into their homes in Lytton as soon as possible.

M. de Jong: Okay. What does that mean? The minister is the minister in the executive council responsible for communities, responsible for municipal law. I know she takes those responsibilities seriously. We are talking about a piece of legislation that exists, by the minister’s own admission, to address an extraordinary circumstance. I don’t think that anyone is quarrelling with that.

Presumably — and I said this a moment ago — she will accept this proposition that the single most important aspect today relating to that extraordinary circumstance is: when can people return to their homes? The minister very helpfully pointed out a few moments ago that this legislation, as significant and important as it ultimately is for the reconstruction and down the road, in no way is a prerequisite, in no way influences the answer to that question.

I hope she doesn’t think my question impertinent, because it is certainly reflective of the one thing on the minds of hundreds of families: when can I go home? Apparently, Bill 2 doesn’t influence that one way or another.

As the minister responsible for communities in this province, it is, I think, entirely appropriate to ask her, as part of this conversation as it relates to legislative requirements and specified laws: then what is? What are we waiting for? What is standing between the people who were chased from their homes by a catastrophic fire and their ability to return home? And believe me, people are interested in her answer.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: As Minister of Municipal Affairs, of course I’m very pleased to be able to bring forward these amendments today. These amendments are incredibly important to the village of Lytton. Again, as I’ve said before, they provide them with the legal certainty that’s required to re-establish a full suite of bylaws — one step in a whole series of steps and actions that have been taken and need to be taken in order to enable the village to recover and for people to get back into their homes as quickly as possible.

Of course we recognize and understand this is incredibly important for the people of Lytton, and that’s why we’re working so hard across ministries and, through support from the staff, with the village of Lytton to do just that. There are issues around contamination and debris removal that do need to be taken into account. Again, these are the responsibility of colleagues and an all-of-government approach to being able to do what’s needed to be done.

With that, I…. Again, we’re here today. We’re discussing the amendments to the MEVA act that provide that legal certainty for the village of Lytton. It’s an important step, one that needs to be taken.

M. de Jong: Okay. Well, that, too, is helpful. We now know that there are some related legal construct issues that the minister has identified as requiring attention. We are presumably dealing with that. She, just a moment ago, mentioned, in a fairly vague way, some contamination issues. What can she tell us about that? And are there other issues that stand in the way of people returning to their homes in the village and community of Lytton?

Hon. J. Osborne: I’m very pleased to be able to discuss the amendments to the MEVA act that provide legal certainty to the village of Lytton. I’d be pleased to help arrange for a briefing or an update for the member or members opposite on other actions and questions that they may have.

M. de Jong: I don’t live in Lytton, but there are a whole bunch of families that do or did. They don’t get to go to briefings. This exercise we engage in is public. It is broadcast. As the representative of the Crown, the representative of the executive council speaking to the issue of Lytton today, is that all the minister is prepared to say to people about when they can expect to go home? “One of my colleagues will get back to you”? Is that the message that the minister and the government want to emerge from this exchange? “I don’t want to talk about it”?

You know, I was the Minister of Forests in 2003. We had the worst forest fire season to that point. We have had worse ones since then, when broad swaths of communities were…. In one case, an entire community, a smaller community than Lytton, was wiped off the map. People were back there in a matter of weeks beginning the process of rebuilding.

As the minister responsible for municipal affairs, I have to say I am a bit astounded and certainly disappointed that the minister’s response to what is ultimately the single most important question relating to this legislation, and anything else to do with Lytton, is a question she doesn’t want to answer. So I’ll try one more time, at the risk of being repetitive.

[4:45 p.m.]

I am grateful to the minister for having said there is nothing in this bill — nothing in this clause of the bill — that is a prerequisite to people returning to their homes. So we know that. But they’re still not allowed to return to their homes.

The minister has said something in this debate, in this public chamber, about contamination. I want her to think about what her reaction might be if she was one of those families and you were watching the minister responsible for communities say: “Yeah, we have a piece of legislation, but that’s not key to allowing you to go back home. But there’s something about contamination.” Okay. Well, what? How long is it going to take to fix it, or what are the estimates? And by the way, in the meantime, while the repairs are made to the legal — the bylaws and the constructs — why can’t I go back and begin to do what I can on my own property?

I have asked these questions. The minister has pro­vided what she believes is an appropriate response. I think it’s a disappointing response. I’ll give her, before I move on to a couple of other matters, one last chance to not speak to me or even the committee but to the people that are particularly interested in this: the residents of Lytton.

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member, again, for the question. I’ve heard his questions, and I’ve provided answers. I’ve explained how our government is responding to Lytton with a cross-ministry approach, together with our staffs in the village of Lytton, to do everything that we can to help them and help people get back into their homes as quickly as possible.

We’ve remained in strong communication with the mayor — myself, personally, as the Minister of Munici­pal Affairs and, of course, our staff directly with the village of Lytton staff. We will continue to do everything that we can.

As a former mayor of a small village myself, I can understand somewhat just how devastating and impactful this fire has been and how much we need to work together as ministries, to work together across the House to support the people of the village of Lytton. That’s exactly what I’m going to continue to do.

While my focus as the Minister of Municipal Affairs is on steps like this — again, amendments that are being introduced to provide legal certainty to the corporation of the village of Lytton so that they can focus on recovery…. This is an important step in that recovery, and I’m going to continue to do that.

I look forward to the member’s next questions.

M. de Jong: Is the minister aware of any other statutory impediments we’ve been having? We’ll continue to have conversations through the committee stage debate on the reconstruction of a body of bylaws and the relevance of that. But are there any additional statutory impediments that the minister is aware of that require addressing at the provincial level in order to facilitate the return of people to their homes and property?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: No, I’m not aware of any statutory impediments within the purview of Municipal Affairs at this time.

M. de Jong: Okay. Well, that answer came with a big qualifier, and that is: “within the purview of Municipal Affairs.” Look, the minister correctly pointed out that she was the mayor of a community, and she, I think, has some appreciation for the challenge that people there are facing.

That, too, is a remarkably unhelpful answer, because it’s: “Well, I’m not aware of any impediments in my department.” I mean, the minister has tried to emphasize how the government is all working together, and I want to believe that that is the case. I know that she had cross-ministerial briefing material that will summarize the challenges that the community faces and the challenges that the provincial government faces in helping the community to address those challenges.

Let’s not be cute about this. The community — and the people, more importantly, from that community — don’t care which department of government the statutory impediments may flow from. They want to know if they exist. So is the minister saying that she is unaware of any additional statutory impediments across government to allowing people to return to their homes? Or is she saying: “I’m not aware of any within my department, and there may be statutory impediments elsewhere in government that will prevent people from returning home”? That’s the question that people want to have answered.

Hon. J. Osborne: I’m unaware of any statutory impediments.

M. de Jong: Had I known that the answer would be that straightforward and unequivocal, I wouldn’t have gone on my little rant. Thank you.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, the Attorney General, of all people, should know that you wouldn’t want to waste a good rant. No.

The section in the legislation we’re dealing with on the defined terms — legislative requirements, specified laws…. The minister has pointed out how this is designed to provide the council with some flexibility. I think the committee recognizes what the overall intent is.

[4:55 p.m.]

What I’ve not heard from the minister thus far, though, are examples of how she believes that flexibility might be exercised. I’m certain that she and the ministry and the government have some of those examples in mind, and I think it would be instructive to hear what she believes are the most likely scenarios in which the tool and the flexibility created by this legislation will be utilized by the village council.

Hon. J. Osborne: With respect to the question around the flexibility and the application of that flexibility, this will be done on a case-by-case basis. I think it’s important to point out this is a forward-looking exercise and that there is a ten-year period that the village of Lytton will have to be able to use these amendments.

In terms of examples, certain bylaws have requirements of public notice on repeal and replacement. However, to repeal and replace at the same time, instead of providing public notice twice, we could, for example, through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council approval, modify the public notice requirement so as, for example, to provide notice to a range of people who are living in a broader geographic range, as the people from the village of Lytton are doing right now.

M. de Jong: Okay. That is actually a little bit helpful.

Maybe if I try to cut to the chase of where there may be some lingering questions or concerns…. My colleague from Penticton began to touch on this. Residents and property owners will, I think…. Well, right now their circumstances are, of course, desperate, and they will recognize steps being taken to facilitate their return and the rebuilding of the community and view those positively.

[5:00 p.m.]

Where they may be, though, to the minister, somewhat hesitant is — to use her example — where the requirements for public notice are altered, in circumstances where there may be bylaws recreated that directly impact on their individual properties, for example.

I can probably anticipate, to this extent, what the minister would say, which is: the intention is to facilitate the recreation of pre-existing bylaws, not to change them. But the owner of a property would likely want to have an opportunity to examine a recreated bylaw to ensure that it meets that test, that it hasn’t either inadvertently been changed in a way that adversely impacts their property rights or, I suppose, in the worst case scenario, purposely changed through the recreation exercise.

Is the minister able to offer the committee some indi­cation of how the tool is going to be used? Will the test for when it’s used differ depending on whether we were talking about bylaws of general application or bylaws that relate to specific privately owned parcels of land?

Hon. J. Osborne: Regardless of whether a bylaw is of general application or is specific to property, bylaws will come before council in an open public meeting. All members of the public, whether they own property or not, will have the opportunity to provide comment and feedback to council.

M. de Jong: Right. As a general principle, I don’t argue with the minister, but the essence of what we’re dealing with here, I thought, is to, in some cases, alter or accelerate or otherwise — I don’t want to say reduce, because I don’t mean to be accusatory — change some of the requirements that a council might otherwise have to abide by in creating an original bylaw.

If the minister understands…. I mean, there is a difference in the process of reconstituting and reconstructing bylaws of general application. The minister is correct. I mean, council meetings are public, but if we get to the point where we’re now reconstituting and having to reconstruct bylaws that pertain to specific titles and specific properties, I’m not sure it’s sufficient simply to say: “Well, the meetings are public.”

The minister knows this from her days as a mayor. Councils go to great length to notify property owners when their land rights are being impacted.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member. I do think I understand the member’s question and where he’s going. I want to be clear that of course this is not an opportunity for the village of Lytton to make massive changes in any bylaw, whether of general application or specific to a person’s property.

[5:10 p.m.]

The intention is not to change, for example, a bylaw that directly affects a person’s property without them knowing or in a way that is done without caution. In fact, the way that these amendments are structured, there are a number of checks and balances that are provided so that in the case of having to rebuild a section of a bylaw or an entire bylaw, it is done on a case-by-case basis; it is done in a cautious way, with direct contact between Municipal Affairs staff and the village staff; and that it would require Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council approval. That’s the regulation-making authority, of course.

I think I’ve answered the member’s questions. If not, I’m sure that he’ll let me know.

M. de Jong: I think we’re getting there. I’ve monopolized the committee’s time. I’ve just got a couple more things I wanted to run through.

It sounds to me like the minister is confirming that the objective behind the tool that is created here is very much to reconstitute or recreate an existing legal instrument, a bylaw, that has been lost due to fire and that the tool does not contemplate, as part of that recreating process, altering it. If that’s not the case, then I’m anxious to hear it.

I think property owners and people in Lytton will be interested to know, once they get back home, that the tool that’s being created here is to recreate what was. Then, going forward, there are the generally provided-for processes by which bylaws can be amended and altered, and nothing is frozen in time forever.

If I’ve got that, if that is what the minister is saying is the intent of the legislation and how the sections have been constructed to facilitate that, then I think I can move on.

Hon. J. Osborne: I can confirm. The member is correct.

M. de Jong: Slightly different but related, then: would a property owner have to have any concern about a situation developing where, as part of a bylaw reconstruction or recreation, grandfathering provisions that they had secured — for example, for non-conforming usages — would be adversely impacted?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The intention is to preserve all existing circumstances of non-conforming use — for example, a reduced front-yard setback or lot size. Then moving forward, of course, any changes would go through the regular process for approval.

M. de Jong: Okay. Again, that’s helpful in the sense that I believe what the minister has said is that the approvals that would flow through these and subsequent sections, for the use of this tool by the village council, would be contingent upon the council satisfying the ministry and the provincial government that what has been recreated captures precisely what existed at the time of the fire on June 30 and does not derogate from or add to the rights of a property holder. The minister is indicating that that is accurate, and I don’t need her to revisit that.

I think my last question or two relate to the use of the tool generally as provided, starting with the defined terms in section 1. We’ve had a bit of a conversation about how the council, in concert with the provincial Crown, can make use of this to begin the legal reconstruction of bylaws and how what’s contemplated are, perhaps — I’m trying to look at the terms that the minister used in the act itself and in the sections themselves — exemptions from statutory requirements. I think that’s contained somewhere in one of the definitions — exemptions from statutory requirements.

These are tools that are being created for use by the council. I think I know the answer to the question, but I’m going to ask it anyway. They are tools for use by the council. There are no similar sets of tools available to the resi­dents themselves, I presume.

[5:20 p.m.]

For a returning resident whose home has been destroyed and who wishes to get on with the reconstruction of that home and/or outbuildings on that property, is there any similar mechanism that would allow that individual to reduce the amount of time and some of the process required to get on with…?

We talked about recreating the legal framework and, in that case, recreating their life. Is there any part of this tool — and I think I know the answer — that an individual caught up in the disaster that was Lytton could avail themselves of, to say: “You know, I merely want to rebuild the house that I lost, and instead of going through three readings, can we just get on with it and file a building plan and move forward?” That’s a clumsy example.

I hope that the minister understands what I’m saying, because it strikes me that what we’ve done is tried to take some steps here that will make government’s life easier, in this case the council of Lytton. But have we done anything to facilitate the rebuilding process for the families that had to flee Lytton last June?

Hon. J. Osborne: I think the member is correct that he does know what the answer is. The answer is that these tools are for the village council to use to have that legal certainty so that they can repeal and replace their bylaws, and that this is helpful for all residents of the community as a collective.

I would point out that the building bylaw was not lost and that there are amendments to the building bylaw that are before council right now — and going through the normal processes, including receiving feedback from the community — that will help residents.

M. de Jong: I think that my last submission on the clause goes as follows, and the minister may choose to respond or not. To the extent that from her position she and the government can turn their minds to how those tools or a tool can be created that would assist individual property owners in a way similar to what we had before us with respect to the town council, I think that idea has some merit.

[5:25 p.m.]

Sometimes the most frustrating aspect of all of a disaster is, obviously, the disaster itself, but then the challenge that families and people encounter, trying to make themselves whole again and the bureaucratic wall they face and the inability to navigate around that wall. So that’s a request, a suggestion. The minister’s answer didn’t surprise me. I expected it.

Then, finally, a plea, if you will, to the minister. The debate around this legislation, I think, is likely to continue into the next day or days. I come back to the question that I asked. I’m not asking her to revisit the exchange that we had, but I think her own experiences in local government equip her to understand well what the predominant question in the minds of people in Lytton is today, and that is: when can I go home?

To the extent that she is able, on behalf of the government, to offer insight into that…. I take her at her word that this legislation, limited as it is around the application to individuals, is intended to do that, is one piece — I think is the word she used — to help accomplish that objective.

If in the time available to her, as we move through this legislation, she is able to include in her answers an expanded explanation for what this will do, in concert with other things leading to, we hope, an eventual and speedy return for people to their property, then I think she will find a very positive response.

I will say at the moment that that question remains unanswered, disappointingly so. But as I say, I think of this legislation as an opportunity for the government to communicate to people where it sees the ongoing challenges, its response to one of those challenges and how people can be returned to their homes as quickly as possible.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to engage in the discussion today, and the minister may or may not wish to respond to what I’ve just said.

A. Olsen: Recognizing that, I think, part of these questions might have been asked, I just wanted to ask the minister, with respect to the keeping of documents…. I know that some bylaws have to be signed by the minister, and other bylaws don’t.

I’m just wondering if in the context of what we’re doing here today and the disaster that played out in Lytton over June 30 and then the days following, the ministry has considered, as part of a service, keeping the updated bylaws of municipalities here on government-of-B.C. servers.

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question.

First, I want to again clarify that this is an extraordinary set of circumstances. Not only did the village lose a fireproof safe in the office but also lost the backups that they had, which may have been in other buildings, because so much of the town burned down. This is why they need this very specific set of legislative amendments — to be able to have that legal certainty to repeal and replace the bylaws that are partially or wholly missing.

[5:30 p.m.]

There are no bylaws that are signed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The member may be thinking of Islands Trust amendments, some of which do come through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for final approval. There are certain financial bylaws that are required to be deposited with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs — financial plan bylaw, for example, development cost charges, loan authorization bylaw — but as a whole, local governments have the responsibility to maintain their bylaws and to maintain the backups.

Of course, a lot has been learned from this set of circumstances. We’ll be working with our partners, like the Local Government Management Association, to communicate best practices to local governments to ensure that they do everything they can to avoid being in the situation that Lytton, unfortunately, finds themselves in.

The Chair: We’ll take a five-minute recess at this point.

The committee recessed from 5:31 p.m. to 5:37 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling the committee on Bill 2 back to order.

Saanich North and the Islands, if I remember my ridings correctly, you’ve got the floor.

A. Olsen: Well done. Nice to see you back in the chair.

Thank you to the minister for the response. I guess the follow-up that I would have is that we’ve heard for the last two years how everything is unprecedented, how everything is unique — we’ve never gone through this before. I think one of the concerns for me is that…. This situation where we have a town burn down hasn’t happened before, and we’re all going to hope, collectively in British Columbia, that it never happens again.

To suggest that because it’s not happened and perhaps is unlikely to happen, we wouldn’t take an extra step to say…. We’ve got, I think, some fairly good horsepower in here to provide a service like that for all of the municipalities and local governments in the province. So if a situation, whatever that situation, happens again, then something like this process that we’re undertaking right now, seven months later, is not a process that’s necessary. Because the documentation for those communities, at least the most sensitive documents for those communities, are stored in a backup service that the provincial government, who…. This is our legislation. We could provide that for them.

Is there consideration within the ministry to create such a database of all of those bylaws and sensitive documents, maybe maps, on behalf of local governments?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you again to the member for the question.

Something such as he suggests certainly could be contemplated, but I would clarify that local governments are an autonomous order of government with a set of responsibilities, including the responsibilities for record management practices and best practices around server backups, as we have learned in the case of Lytton and will be communicating through, again, our partners at the Local Government Management Association around those best practices.

It was an extraordinary situation — a first time ever that such a thing has happened for a local government.

Now, as I said, we could contemplate providing such a service to the 188 local governments that exist right now and the thousands and thousands of bylaws that exist and each of the amendments that would be filed each time that’s undertaken by a local government. There are costs to that. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs, at this time, is really focused, again, on supporting local governments in best practices around records management and best practices around storing of backups.

D. Ashton: A couple of occasions that extraordinary circumstances and extraordinary measures are going to be required…. We all think that that is going to be transpiring with Lytton. A question: were First Nations consulted, specifically to this MEVA bill?

Hon. J. Osborne: Ministry staff have notified First Nations in the area about the proposed authorities under these MEVA amendments. In particular, that’s the Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council, which includes the Lytton First Nation. Municipal Affairs will continue to monitor and engage the tribal council as needed. If a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council regulation is needed to modify, exempt or replace legislative requirements for a specific bylaw where the content is unknown, further consideration will be given at that time to the necessary consultation that might be required for a particular bylaw.

D. Ashton: Again to the minister, thank you. You said special legislation — did I hear that correctly? — may be required through the Lieutenant-Governor.

My question is: has UNDRIP/DRIPA been discussed in part with Bill 2, or has it been considered in this bill at all, in conjunction with discussion and acceptance by First Nations in the area?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the question.

I appreciate that considerations under DRIPA guide all of the work we do in this House now, especially when it comes to legislation. Because this particular set of amendments is very specific to the village of Lytton, that’s why the consultation has focused on the First Nations directly in that area. Then, as I previously explained, we have notified the First Nations in this case.

D. Ashton: Minister, I would just draw your attention back to the discussion that you had with the press on February 9, regarding the recovery bill, and a comment that you had said: “It’s a very important archaeological site as well.” How does that fit under what you are bringing forward with this MEVA legislation?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: While this legislation is not directly focused or focused at all on the archaeological status of the Lytton area, if a proposed modification to a requirement impacted a provincial statute that is related to the archaeological status, for example, then this would be examined on a case-by-case basis.

Again, there is a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council ap­proval that would be required for such a modification or waiving of a requirement. In that case, as I just responded to the previous question, if that regulation is needed, then at that time consideration will be given to how the First Nations should be involved, engaged and consulted.

D. Ashton: If that transpires, are we looking at additional time? I know that archaeological searches are taking place at this time. Are we looking at an additional time frame for people to get back to Lytton? I’m not asking you to look into the future. We know it is an archaeological site. We know there is cause for concern, because that has been raised already. Is that going to cause additional time delays for people to start to rebuild their lives in Lytton?

Hon. J. Osborne: I was pleased to provide an answer to the previous question, which was a hypothetical circumstance, but nothing in this legislation is delaying response.

E. Ross: We’re talking about Bill 2, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 2022, specifically in response to the fire that wiped Lytton off the face of the map. That’s what we’re talking about. After seven months, we’re talking about, basically, an act that brings back the power of council that actually brings back the power of bylaws and enforcement.

The question was raised by my colleague from Penticton in terms of consultation with First Nations. There are a number of First Nations in the area, probably six to seven of them, that are in question. I do know what would happen in normal circumstances under Aboriginal rights and title case law.

There were great accommodation and memorial speeches given in this House to the late Delgamuukw, but there was more case law than just Delgamuukw. Delgamuukw was the foundation of how the Crown relates to First Nations interests in B.C. and Canada. There was Mikisew Cree. There was Gladstone. There was Haida.

I don’t know how Bill 41, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, actually gets employed when we’re talking about Bill 2, or in relation to any type of future activity on behalf of the Crown, going forward, to be honest. I don’t know. But I do know what the existing case law says in the case of Crown activity that may or may not infringe on Aboriginal rights and title interest.

In terms of Bill 2, is the minister aware of any type of activity that comes from this amendment act that might infringe on Aboriginal rights and title?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the question.

No, I’m not aware of any such set of circumstances.

E. Ross: Then why the mention of the issues surrounding an archaeological assessment or anything relating to archaeological — in an interview that you gave? Is there something else other than First Nations interests that might be uncovered doing an archaeological assessment in the Lytton area?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, in an interview with the media, I did refer to the archaeological status of the Lytton area. The legislation and the amendments being contemplated today don’t touch on archaeological status. But I do think that it does underscore, emphasize, just how important it is to be collaborating and partnering with First Nations and also why, of course, it is so important to consult, to notify, just as we have done with these Bill 2 amendments being proposed today.

E. Ross: I do understand the Enabling and Validating Amendment Act in terms of what it’s proposed to do. It’s one step of many steps, as far as I can understand from the answers I heard today — not really sure on the timeline in terms of when Lytton actually gets built — but there are two of significance that actually came out in the last month.

One was the archaeological assessment. Just by this bill alone, the enforcement of these bylaws that the minister is proposing will have to address an archaeological assessment at some point. The Crown is actually responsible for this, at the end of the day, and I think the question in everybody’s mind is: how many steps is it going to take to get these people back into their houses in Lytton and get them rebuilt? What steps are we talking about?

It was already mentioned by the minister that there are a number of steps, including an archaeological assessment, that will have to go hand-in-hand with this enabling legislation. Unless I’m wrong. So if the Crown is responsible for Indigenous interests in regards to the rebuilding of Lytton, then the interests of the archaeological assessment will not get covered by this legislation. Am I correct?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, archaeological assessments are absolutely a part of the recovery and rebuilding process. But the amendments proposed here today in Bill 2 focus on providing the legal certainty to the village of Lytton to repeal and rescind bylaws and to rebuild that full suite of bylaws so that they can continue with the governance and operations of the corporation of the village of Lytton and provide the services that they need to, to residents, to enable them to come back soon as possible.

E. Ross: That’s what I thought it meant. I thought that’s what….

[6:00 p.m.]

I think it was important for the people of Lytton and the First Nations people to understand that this is very specific. It’s very focused. It’s very isolated, and really doesn’t…. It’s step 1 in probably a ten-step process, from what I can understand. So there is really no real timeline for this. There are no real objectives laid out for this. This doesn’t really speak to anything except the idea that a council now will have bylaws related to enforcement, I guess.

That brings us back to the overarching question that my colleague from Penticton brought up. In terms of this legislation, the minister said that they notified First Nations when my colleague asked: “Was there consultation?” There is a difference between consultation and notification. It’s laid out in the courts of B.C. and Canada.

In terms of the notification, was it a notification to talk about, “Yes, we have enabling legislation” or was it notification that says: “Yes, we want to start the consultation process on Bill 2, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act of 2022?”

Hon. J. Osborne: I can confirm for the member that the former is correct that this was notification of the proposed amendments in Bill 2.

E. Ross: The notification had really nothing to do with Aboriginal rights and title. It just notified the First Nations that there was the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 2022. There was no mention of rights and title. So when my colleague from Penticton asked if there was any consultation, it seems to me then the answer is “no” because just notification of this bill was made. There was no mention in the notification of any Aboriginal interests in terms of Bill 2.

Hon. J. Osborne: These legislative amendments were reviewed by the Indigenous law group in the Ministry of Attorney General, and it was determined that notification was the appropriate action for this particular set of amendments.

E. Ross: With all due respect, that is not what UNDRIP says. That’s not what Bill 41 says. Bill 41 doesn’t say the government will actually assess the information and then decide for First Nations what’s best for First Nations. That is not what Bill 41 said.

In fact, Aboriginal rights and title case law that was established in the courts of B.C. and Canada does not say that. That’s the difference between notification in terms of what is best for First Nations coming from the government perspective versus what consultation and accommodation is.

[6:05 p.m.]

I mean, I can cite case law in terms of what it means, in terms of principles, but for the minister’s review, I can recite what her own government said in terms of what should have happened with Bill 2 and, for that matter, every legislation that passes through this House.

In the interpretation, section 3, it said: “In consultation and cooperation with Indigenous people of British Columbia, the government must take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the Declaration.” That’s what it said. It didn’t say: “We’ll decide and then tell you what’s good for you.” It said: “In consultation and cooperation.”

This hasn’t passed yet, and I don’t understand it. The government has not consulted or cooperated with Indigenous people that are actually the rightful title holders in this question, meaning the six First Nations in the Lytton area, so there is still time for the government to actually consult and, most likely, accommodate the First Nations in the territory.

Does the government intend to pursue true consultation, accommodation, as laid out by the courts of Canada and B.C., as well as in the government’s own document, Bill 41, UNDRIP, the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question and submission.

As part of cooperating with First Nations, the notifi­cation process is important in enabling and letting them know that these amendments are proposed and may take place. Should a First Nation respond with the request, specifically to sit down and ask for more information or a more in-depth conversation or consultation, of course, we would be pleased to reply in the affirmative and would do just that.

E. Ross: That’s not due process that’s been laid out in courts since 2004. The onus is not on First Nations to actually address the rights and title when the Crown is aware of an infringement. The onus is actually on the Crown. You can read the case law yourself. It’s not in Bill 41, but as it says here, in Bill 41, the UNDRIP document is actually based on section 35 of the constitution. So just notifying a First Nation and just expecting them to somehow kick-start a consultation or accommodation process is very unfair.

A typical First Nation receives 50 to 100 letters per day, and they’re trying to manage all of it while still trying to protect their Aboriginal rights and title. It’s really the responsibility of the Crown to address consultation and accommodation, so notification — that doesn’t cut it. That’s not meaningful consultation.

It sounds to me like notification without any follow-up, without any due process to address a true consultative process, is not in the plan of this government or your ministry. Is that correct — that there is no real plan to address consultation and accommodation of Aboriginal interests and only notification has been given without any real process for following up on rights and title interests?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the question, again.

[6:10 p.m.]

As provided in a previous answer, the Indigenous law group did review this specific set of amendments. These are very narrow in scope, affecting the corporation of the village of Lytton, required to provide that legal certainty to be able to rebuild the full suite of bylaws for their strong governance and operations of a centre in a region that services many, many people. It was the determination that notification was the appropriate method.

I appreciate the member’s submission. Thank you very much. I think I’ve answered the question, and we can move on if he wishes or not.

E. Ross: Oh, I understand the answer. I’m just trying to address…. I understand the purpose of this. We all want the village of Lytton to be rebuilt. I’m just trying to see if the government is going to live up not only to the Aboriginal rights and title case law established in the courts of B.C. for the last 40 years but also to their own promises, when they’re bringing in new legislation, to ensure that every piece of legislation is in alignment with Aboriginal interests.

I’m not talking about the outcome of this enabling legislation. I’m talking about what the provincial government actually agreed upon when they actually brought this Bill 41 to the House in the first place.

The question just remains the same. I’m not sure if it’s really answered or not. Meaningful consultation means going in and talking to the rightful title holders. It doesn’t mean going to a law group or a bunch of advisers or an advocacy group or a lobby group and saying: “Do you think we should consult or not, yes or no?” And if they say no, which is what I’m hearing, then the government has already made a decision on Aboriginal rights and title interests in respect to Bill 2: that it does not need consultation, it just needs notification, which actually contravenes Bill 41, this B.C. government’s own bill.

So notification only. There’s no real plan or process to really address consultation of Bill 2, the enabling amendment, in respect of rights and title case law or even Bill 41, which was passed in this House here a few years ago. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you again for the question.

As stated before, yes, the legislation was reviewed, and it was determined that notification was the appropriate step to take. I will add, as explained before, that government has been working closely with Nlaka’pamux Tribal Council and that that collaboration is an extremely important part of the recovery in Lytton because, of course, Lytton is a really important service area for up to 1,500 residents living in the region.

We’ll continue to do that, that collaboration, and continue to do everything that we can in the response for Lytton and the recovery for Lytton.

M. Lee: I just rise to join this committee review. As has been said by all our colleagues here on this side of the House, we clearly want the residents of Lytton to be able to return home and for the reconstruction to happen, which hasn’t been happening for the last seven months.

I know that when we were debating Bill 3 in this House, just only, I guess, a couple of hours ago, I had the opportunity to talk about Bill 41. It’s been, actually, 26 months since this government has not met what has been set out in the DRIPA, the act itself. This is what the member for Skeena is again saying, with the member for Penticton.

[6:15 p.m.]

I know, as well, when we were debating Bill 3, protected area act of B.C., as I noted to the Minister of Environment…. That minister clearly, in this House, has acknowl­edged that notification is not consultation. That was in response to my colleague, the member for Skeena, and the following questions from the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

I appreciate where we are in this day and, regrettably, how we’re going through this. It’s going to take some time here, because we have to get this right.

The only opportunity, as I said in the previous bill debate, for members on this side of the House to understand this government’s approach to DRIPA in ensuring that we are meeting the obligations — I’ll note here for the minister, because there may be some time for the minister to review with her staff and the Ministry of Attorney General’s staff as well — is this.

What the member for Skeena is talking about, as well, is specifically articles 19 and 11 of Bill 41, now DRIPA. Those articles come into play by nature of this bill. What we’re looking for is clarity in terms of how this government has proceeded.

To get that clarity, and noting that to the minister, let me just ask for clarity purposes: which First Nations were notified and when?

Hon. J. Osborne: Notification was sent January 29 to the Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council, which includes the Lytton First Nation.

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

I overheard, because I wasn’t in the chamber, the member for Abbotsford West, I believe, asking a question relating to when was this bill first being presented and considered. January 29, I presume of…. It was only basically less than two weeks ago or just a little over. The articles that I’m referring to, of course, use the term “free, prior and informed consent” in both cases.

I know that in the government’s throne speech, in the government’s draft action plan, in the government’s reporting in the annual report on the implementation of DRIPA, there is certainly language that the government has utilized which relates to consultation — which again, as I noted in the previous bill discussion, was around the section 35 jurisprudence that the member for Skeena was referring to, all through the lens of DRIPA.

[6:20 p.m.]

Consultation, collaboration, comanagement, in fact, are all referred to in the way the government is proceeding. So it would be surprising that the government, as it moves forward with addressing the real, urgent need of getting Lytton rebuilt, would take a full six months to notify First Nations.

Again as we’ve said, notification is not sufficient. It’s very concerning — the absence of the action plan, what this government is doing. So 26 months to implement UNDRIP, and we’re still talking and wasting time in this chamber trying to get clarity from ministers on that side of the House as to how they’re dealing with implementing UNDRIP. This is what we’re left with. It’s very frustrating, certainly, for us and for the residents of Lytton. We need to get clarity. This is why we’re spending the time here. We know this government needs to act, and this is what we get.

Article 19 relates to: “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with Indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.” Administrative measures presumably include orders-in-council. The minister has referred to this. This is not like multiple-step procedure here. The member for Skeena thinks this feels like it’s a ten-step process.

Free, prior and informed consent means early consultation and involvement. That’s what members of this House effectively authorized. So we’re all trying to address this as we go along, but it’s been 26 months for this government to figure this out. We’re still at this — every single bill, asking this question and getting unclear answers.

Again, how has article 19 been complied with in the context of this bill?

Hon. J. Osborne: To be clear again, these amendments are focused specifically for the corporation of the village of Lytton to be able to re-establish a full suite of bylaws to provide for good governance and operations of the village as they recover. They are to enable the village to replace specifically the bylaws that they lost — not to create new bylaws that create new conditions, but to replace what was lost.

Because of that, when Indigenous legal counsel examined the amendments, they determined that notification was the appropriate step. If passed and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council regulation-making authority is used, then, at that time, due consideration, of course, will be given to notification or consultation with First Nations. But these amendments focus specifically on the framework.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.