PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF WATER, LAND
AND RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP

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

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to consider the supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

I recognize the minister to move the vote.

On Vote 38(S): ministry operations, $100,000,000.

The Chair: Does the minister have some opening remarks?

Hon. N. Cullen: You know I do. The microphone is in front of me.

It’s my pleasure to speak today about the supplemental item for estimates from the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

I acknowledge that we’re joining, all of us gathered here today, in fine form, on the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples’ territory, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

Joining me today are deputy minister Lori Halls; James Mack, assistant deputy minister of the water fisheries and coastal policies and planning division; and Sonia Martins, our assistant deputy minister and executive financial officer, corporate services, for the natural resource ministries more broadly.

I’m here today to outline the ministry’s investment of $100 million to co-develop, with First Nations, a new watershed security fund. For far too long in British Columbia, we’ve taken B.C.’s abundant freshwater sources for granted. Unfortunately, today many watersheds in B.C. are facing challenges that will require new management approaches to help ensure that they remain sustainable for future generations.

Failing to act now will leave these precious watersheds vulnerable to impacts from climate change. British Columbians have experienced firsthand the sudden and devastating effects of climate change, from atmospheric rivers to almost annual firestorm events. We know the time for action is now, and that’s why we’re protecting B.C.’s water and watersheds as a priority for our government.

[1:40 p.m.]

In the fall of 2020, our government committed to developing a new watershed security strategy and a watershed security fund. First Nations were already flagging the health of watersheds as a key priority, and it is a shared commitment in our Declaration Act action plan.

That’s why we’ve been working together to co-develop, one, a new First Nations water table as a primary pathway to co-development and, second, a co-developed policy intentions paper and public engagement opportunity for new watershed security strategy. I was incredibly honoured to announce this work here in the Legislature just yesterday with Chief Lydia Hwitsum, chief of the Cowichan Tribes and co-chair of the B.C.–First Nations Water Table.

Co-development is a new and growing important process for us as government. The importance of this work for our relationship with First Nations is obvious. We also heard from our First Nations partners that significant resources are needed to do this work. This sentiment was echoed broadly by British Columbians, local communities, businesses and environmental groups during our first public engagement on the strategy. That was concluded last year.

Our investment of $100 million into a watershed security fund will help maintain healthy watersheds and ensure that good-quality fresh water is available to support our ecosystems and our economy in communities throughout British Columbia, now and for future generations. It’s also important to recognize that the fund is intended to grow with future contributions from the federal government and philanthropic community.

We know that healthy watersheds are resilient buffers for climate change, because they can reduce, and, at times, prevent the impacts and costs related to floods, droughts and wildfires. We already have living examples in British Columbia of work that was done in watersheds that helped mitigate atmospheric river events that we’ve seen just in the past few years. Water is obviously also integral to First Nations cultural and spiritual values. We all collectively heard that last night at the Pacific Salmon Foundation, which had an event that all members were invited to.

Through the B.C.–First Nations Water Table, we are co-developing a watershed security strategy that will benefit all of us now and for future generations to come. We’ve also launched, on March 6 of just this week, a policy intentions paper and a broad public engagement process so that we can hear from all British Columbians on how to best provide watershed security for B.C.

The actions we take will build safer communities and a stronger, more resilient British Columbia. It is the most significant contribution the province can make to the collective efforts to protect wild salmon. It is also a significant contribution to provide safe and secure drinking water to B.C. communities, as flagged by our Auditor General as well as B.C.’s provincial health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry.

This strategy is also important for our economy, because healthy watersheds sustain good jobs and sustainable communities. We have figures from 2019. One would estimate that these have only grown. The watersheds sector supported 48,000 jobs in British Columbia, an estimated contribution to our GDP north of $5 billion.

Healthy watersheds and ecological integrity are central to this relationship. We look forward to working with First Nations leaders and elders on the watershed security strategy and fund to ensure long-lasting measures to protect our watershed health. I look forward to answering any questions that my colleague may have.

The Chair: Now, Members, as the Committee of Supply examines the supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, please remember that the debate must focus on the additional funding request for the ministry. Consideration of supplemental estimates does not allow for an expansive look at ministry operations in the way that the consideration of the main estimates does.

I would ask the members hold their broad questions for the upcoming main estimates process and keep their questions to the minister focused on the supplemental funding request, an overview of which has been provided on page 1 of the supplemental estimates book.

L. Doerkson: I will definitely take that advice in a serious way. I want to preface our conversation today and, certainly, any of my comments and questions, just with a comment that I believe in this work in a very sincere way. I think that I can be very supportive, Minister, to all of the work that I think we’ll discuss this afternoon.

I certainly do have a number of questions. There’s no question that this is a lot of money. I do want to understand that fully. I also want to note that in any way that I can, I do want to work across party lines to make this good for all British Columbians. I just want that to be clear.

[1:45 p.m.]

It has been suggested, of course, that that kind of work should be ongoing, through the mandate letters and such. I do appreciate the briefing that I have had with respect to the marine park information that we received last week. But certainly, I would love to have more engagement going forward.

There’s much confusion, I think, on our landscape with respect to inventories and such. Some of that we’ll talk about today. There are certainly, in the intentions paper, a number of things I would like to talk about with measurements and how we collect that information. But I think there is quite a bit of confusion on our landscape with respect to, perhaps, whether this is provincial or federal or who we contact locally. I think that’s a serious point to make.

I’ll certainly ask a number of questions on many different topics. I will definitely try to stay within the guardrails that we’ve talked about here today.

I’ll have many questions around partners that may want to access funding, groups like rural fire departments desperate to build, in strategic locations, dry hydrants that would help them on the landscape to fight wildfire. I think, certainly, the opening comments touched on some of the damage that has been done. There is definitely a need to understand some of those things better.

Residents of Sheridan Lake, in my own riding, last week…. Now, this has changed a little bit, but residents have noted that the lake is actually four feet lower than its high water mark right now. We’ve had about five feet of snow in the last two weeks, so maybe things will be a little bit better going forward.

The fact is that this is on the minds of British Columbians. There’s no question about it, and it is very serious work.

I just want to note that also, with respect to things that are happening in my riding…. I know that we’ll talk about the province today. Certainly, even Lac la Hache, which is a big lake, is changing. The residents there have mentioned that things are changing there. I don’t know that we have a full understanding.

I really hope that this work or this fund, whatever it may be, and we’ll find that out this afternoon, will help with respect to those types of things and, of course, how it might help to derail some of the damage that’s happening with respect to flooding and wildfires and all those kinds of things.

I think that there certainly are things that we could do that would help. We’ll talk, hopefully. I’ll have questions about some of those types of projects as we go forward this afternoon.

Also, I want to note that I do have a number of colleagues that will join us throughout the afternoon with questions, although I’m a little bit alone right now. Certainly, the Green Party will also have a number of questions.

I guess what we’ll do here, if it pleases the Chair, is get underway.

The first question I have for the minister is: how was the decision made to include $100 million for the watershed security fund in the supplementary estimates?

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you to my colleague for the question and also the introduction. Discussions like this are ultimately always local, right? Looking at each of our constituencies and knowing that the watersheds upon which we rely…. It doesn’t matter where we live in the province. Watersheds and the water feed the life that sustains us. Seeing the changing environment, the increasing pressure….

I think if I were to comment on the general framing of the discourse, it’s around the resiliency. How do we build up the resiliency of watersheds with the changing environment, more intensity of floods and fires, changing weather patterns that we haven’t seen before? I know living in the North, where I live, it is consistently distressing to watch our glaciers recede further and further into the mountains and the patterns that we have come to expect consistently shifting.

[1:50 p.m.]

The resiliency of the watersheds to be able to absorb that change is the intent and will be the outcome of this work. Very specifically, with respect to the setting of priorities, the Minister of Finance sits down with the Premier, in what is an unusual year with a surplus budget, to identify key priorities to land in the supplementary estimates, which is what we’re talking about here today.

There were a number of publicly discussed priorities that the government went through: supports for health, affordability, reconciliation, climate change and emergency preparedness and infrastructure support for communities throughout B.C. One can see very clearly how a watershed security fund would fall into those priorities. As to the determination of that, that was between the Minister of Finance and the Premier, and she would be the best person to ask about this.

Last I’ll say is that we made this commitment back in 2020 that we were going to stand a watershed security strategy, recognizing also the importance of having a fund behind it. A fund that could grow over time was incredibly important to the partners that we’re going to need to do the work. Having a strategy without the fund was not seen as credible. Hence us finding the opportunity through the Minister of Finance’s decision to fund the $100 million that we’re seeing here today.

L. Doerkson: Well, thank you for that. We might come back to the glacier-receding comment in a minute. But just so I’m clear, then, this was not necessarily determined by the ministry. I mean, I can appreciate that there was some work that was done in 2020, but this is the Finance Minister, then, coming to this ministry, suggesting: “We have an extra $100 million. Here it is.” Is that correct?

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you for the question. From the very beginning and the work that has been done through the public consultation — and now my colleague will have seen the intentions paper that has gone out publicly, and we’re already seeking engagement back on that — as I said before, the intent was always to have a strategy and a fund backing it up.

The Finance Minister sits down with the Premier under the rubrics that I talked about, those various aspects of things to support across all of government. The support that we’re seeing today or that we saw on Monday was an indication of all of government support for a watershed security fund.

So that decision and process that goes through between the Finance Minister herself and the Premier is the process that they chose. Questions directly about how that process works between the two offices are best directed towards the Minister of Finance.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for that. I guess what I’m trying to understand is how the need for this expenditure was arrived at. I mean, why couldn’t it have been in another ministry, for instance, or somewhere else? I can appreciate that there was a surplus, and I can appreciate that the Finance Ministry has decided to spread this money out. But why not somewhere else, and why here? How, I guess, was the need for this one-time expenditure identified?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: I think the specific question was: where was the need arrived at in terms of having a fund? It came out of that direct consultation with our partners — First Nations, environment groups, local business groups — that the strategy was very important. The need for a fund was also identified with respect to: why this ministry? We hold this file. The Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship holds the file over a watershed security strategy and a fund. So in terms of dispersing the fund, it makes perfect sense that this is the ministry that does it.

Again, to the member’s question about the decision-making process over the allocations. I can list them again, but I think the member is probably well familiar with them, in terms of what the government’s declared intentions were across all of government and the conversation had between the Minister of Finance and the Premier’s office, with respect to those priorities and then what got funded through the surplus. That is what we see here today.

L. Doerkson: I don’t know if that necessarily answers my question. I guess what I’m trying to…. I can appreciate that there were conversations had with the Minister of Finance and certainly the Premier of the province. I guess what I’m trying to understand is: how did this ministry sort of take priority over other ministries for this money?

I can appreciate that the work that we’re going to talk about this afternoon is obviously incredible work, and it needs to be done. But I’m just wondering how this became a priority for the government.

Hon. N. Cullen: Again, when the Minister of Finance has an opportunity — and, of course, this is not an every day, every year opportunity…. The Minister of Finance was very clear, with support of the Premier, about the supports for…. I can go through the list: health, affordability, reconciliation, climate, emergency preparedness and infrastructure supports.

We were grateful that this project was chosen. It’s been a little over two-year commitment from our government — two years, I think it’s fair to say — with respect to standing both a strategy and a fund to back it up. Again, that consistent feedback we had through our consultations said how important this was.

That case was made. The Minister of Finance sits down with the Premier, with what funds are available, and then makes a decision as to how to allocate those funds. I believe there are opportunities, certainly, to direct questions specifically on how things were prioritized to the person who made those decisions. That’s the Minister of Finance.

L. Doerkson: Okay. I understand, and I’ll try to get that answer a different way, perhaps from a different ministry.

Can the minister tell me at what point in time was this need for this one-time expenditure identified?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Again, to my colleague, the identification of a need for a fund was clearly understood from our government through the public consultations and through our partners. That goes back to 2020 when we first initiated this idea.

In terms of the…. I think my colleague is asking for the point in time when the decision was made. That has to be directed towards the Minister of Finance, because she would have made that decision, again, most likely in consultation with the Premier’s office. On the prioritization and the list and the when, she would best be able to answer those.

L. Doerkson: I can appreciate there were all kinds of things happening in the Finance Minister’s office. Obviously, the minister must have made a case for this. I know that work started back in 2020.

At what point in time did your ministry approach the Minister of Finance to suggest that you would like part of the funding that has been a bit of a windfall?

Hon. N. Cullen: As I said before, we’ve been very consistent for the last couple of years about what we heard from the groups that we consulted with, particularly First Nations, in terms of strategy and a fund. We heard consistently that a fund was of critical importance. We talked about it in both of our opening statements, in a way — doing the work.

So that’s been a long-known request from our partners, from our ministry, and something the Finance Minister and her officials would have known of, and the Premier’s office, for at least two years. In terms of the moment in time when they decided to agree to this fund, again, only the Minister of Finance can answer that question.

L. Doerkson: Okay, maybe let me ask this in a different way. I know that there was an attempt to start this work back in 2020. I guess what I’m looking for is a little bit of a timeline and sort of a transition of those events that led to a go on this particular fund.

I mean, honestly, the $100 million could have been dedicated to other work in the ministry. It could have been…. I can appreciate this has taken a priority. I’m just trying to get a bit of a timeline and an understanding of how we arrived at a green light for this particular project.

Hon. N. Cullen: For my friend, we can go through the detail of 2020 and releasing the idea and consultations of a strategy.

[2:05 p.m.]

The notion of requiring a fund came very early and very consistently from our partners. It became a very early and consistent promise from us, as a government. The Premier has been very clear in his public statements for a number of months now, I believe, with respect to the possibility of a surplus and then what to do with it.

There were the broad categories, which I’ve identified a couple of times now, and very specifically with a publicly sought fund, which we and the Premier’s office have also agreed to. This is nothing but positive in terms of finding and allocating the $100 million, which we will then disburse so that it not only can be a source of revenue for the work that we’re looking at but by its design is meant to grow over time so that it can be an enduring thing.

One of the things we’ve noticed and noted particularly about watershed work is that one-off projects and one-off funding are good. Everyone will say yes. Every community group will say yes. Every First Nation will welcome it. But it has to be durable over time — sequential years.

So the design and nature of the fund that we’ve stood up, while it’s one-time year-end funding, is also to grow over time so that the work can continue year after year. Again, in terms of the specific moment and the allocations of funds and prioritization that was made by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Premier, questions are best laid to her.

L. Doerkson: Okay, I guess the next question that I would have would be: when was the decision actually made to allocate the funds for this expenditure? That would be not of the Finance Minister, of this ministry. When did that decision actually happen?

Hon. N. Cullen: Thanks for the question. The decision to allow the funds to go towards the watershed security fund wasn’t my decision. It was cabinet’s decision. As such, it is confidential with respect to when and how that decision was arrived at, as my friend could, I’m sure, appreciate.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. I’ll come back to that.

I’m certainly not asking questions about what happened at the Treasury Board. But again, this fund, by way of a one-time expenditure, will more than double the size of this ministry this year. Again, I mean, there could have been other things.

I can appreciate the importance of this fund. We’ll understand fully, I think, by the end of the day how that fund is going to work and all of that. But was there not a point in time when you folks decided that this would be committed to this fund?

Hon. N. Cullen: Just to be clear on this point, because it’s an important one. The $100 million is disbursed. It doesn’t stay within the ministry. It doesn’t, as my friend said, double the size of the ministry. By its nature, this is not to hire full-time-equivalents within the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

By design, it leaves. That’s appropriate, as it’s one-time end-of-year funding. You wouldn’t want to allocate money for ministerial operations that you could only do for one year. You’d be hiring and firing people, and it wouldn’t be a good way to run the shop. So this is money that leaves.

[2:10 p.m.]

That’s an important concept that we’ll get to today, I’m sure, when we get into the potential work that the fund will enable. But it doesn’t sit with us anymore. Once the funds are disbursed, then it’s out of the ministry’s hands by design. So the ministry won’t double. It won’t have any concept anywhere near that.

L. Doerkson: Thanks for the explanation. I am aware that…. Perhaps I chose my words incorrectly. I can appreciate that the money will transfer through, which really begs the question of why it didn’t just go straight to whichever partner we’d be working with.

But I still didn’t get an answer on the question, which was: when was the actual decision made? When was the decision made by this ministry that this fund would be committed to this?

Hon. N. Cullen: Thanks for the question. The decision on having a fund leave, as opposed to stay within government and then be dispersed that way, was directly out of the consultations that we did almost…. I wouldn’t say day one, but very early on.

There are a couple of reasons for it. One I’ve highlighted — well, I think both I’ve highlighted already. One is that by doing it this way, by having the fund leave government and sit within a separate entity — which I suspect we’ll talk about — allows it to be much more durable, and it allows it to grow.

We heard from our partner agencies and partner groups — non-profit groups, local community groups, First Nations — that the ability to raise money into a fund if it’s outside of the paradigms of government is dramatically greater. As my friend could imagine, doing a fundraiser for a provincial or federal government–held fund that you have to donate to the federal government or the municipal government wouldn’t work.

So we knew that if the fund had to be durable, had to be of scale and had to last over a significant time in order to make the work good, it had to leave government and sit within a separate entity, which is what we’re doing.

In terms of the point in time when the decision was made to fund this, it’s been a long-standing commitment, as I’ve said publicly, that we were going to have a security strategy and a fund. But the moment of when that decision was made was the Minister of Finance. The ultimate decision to do that, as I said before, was done in cabinet.

L. Doerkson: The minister has referred to the fund growing a number of times in the last couple of questions. I can appreciate, and hopefully the minister will appreciate, that I’ll come to this in a more fulsome way a little bit later on.

I did want to understand how that expectation is that this fund will grow. Are there projections of its growth? I mean, if this is going to be a fund that we’re going to spend in the good name of watershed security, then how does the minister see this fund growing?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: We’ve heard very consistently, as I talked about, that the decision or the options of having a watershed fund that was run and operated by government has certain advantages, of course. We do it all the time. We run lots of things solely through government.

There is an advantage if it sits outside of government, particularly, as we’ve talked about, the ability to raise funds and then have a more durable nature that is not cyclical, depending on budget surpluses every year to continue to run. That would make it a bit more of a precarious situation.

We have heard from the philanthropic community. We’ve heard from the business community, as well as from the federal government, the Canadian Water Agency. They have all, in their own ways, been looking for a fund that they could contribute to that would be amplified. As my friend could imagine, donating is easier to do if it’s matching dollars or it’s able to amplify. The dollar that you give is then made greater.

The fund’s design is meant to have a disbursement, of course, doing the work. One could also anticipate it keeping a core amount that allows it to have durability over time. So the expectation would certainly not be that, within the first year, the fund would disburse out all of its amounts to do watershed security work. It would be a planned durability over time of some percentage of money coming out for work, which is important, and fundraising, and continuing to grow the fund.

Our expectations from federal partners, private philanthropic groups, is that they’ve been waiting for a structure in which they can contribute that has credibility and longevity and, I think, the backing of the provincial government, in the sense of it being important. As we’ve talked a lot about the fund, there is also a security strategy — identifying critical watersheds at risk, starting to lift up the importance of watershed security as a concept and a good place where we can do work.

We had a number of conversations over the last couple of days with people primarily focused on salmon. They very much can find their way into this conversation, for obvious reasons. Healthy watersheds and good, clean water are clearly integral to the life cycle of salmon. Without that good habitat, then other work is limited.

We feel quite optimistic and confident of the interest level. Once the fund is created and established with that credibility that I mentioned, and clearly outlined….

I’ll end here, Chair. I think the partnership with First Nations in the design, the co-design, the co-implementation, the co-running, is a piece that offers not only great insights and important partnership just in and of itself but also legitimacy to the idea of someone — a federal partner, a private partner, a philanthropic group — wanting to partner.

My friend knows that in the business community, this is very much true. Partnerships with First Nations are critical. This is also true on the philanthropic and the donating side. Certainly, our federal partners want to know, first and foremost: where are the partnerships? Are they durable? Then it’s good for us to continue in that kind of a vein.

That’s why the design is, right from the beginning, in with the B.C.–First Nations Water Table, which is instruc­tive in the very DNA of what we’re doing.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for that, Minister. I will come back to this a little bit later on today, but there were a couple of things that the minister referred to there that I might want to just question quickly now.

That is, first off, the word “grow.” I know that we have funds out there like the Northern Development Initiative Trust, NDIT, things like that. I don’t know how much they receive as far as federal funds or any kind of donations or any kind of fundraising, but I would suspect that some of these funds are pretty challenged.

I would be interested to know what sort of growth might be anticipated in this particular fund.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Thanks for the question. It’s very important. There are a number of key elements in the design of this — of course, doing watershed restoration work and working within a strategy. Another key design, when the money is released and the expectation of the entity is to receive the money, is the growth aspect.

The reason I feel some confidence in this is that we saw that there was a press release from the First Nations Leadership Council yesterday, after the announcement of the money, with a direct ask — more than an ask — to the federal government. Now that this fund is in existence, the representatives of the First Nations Leadership Council — who are not representative rights and title holders but do collaboration with us and the federal government, consistently, to set up structures — are knocking on Ottawa’s door right away.

As well, I would say with the philanthropic groups and the industrial groups that might be interested in partnering and contributing to a fund, the legitimacy of those partnerships, plus the work, will be the fund’s greatest assets.

This is not a mandate that the provincial government will necessarily be going out and knocking on door to door, asking for donations, but for the entity that gets created out of this, the clear expectation, in them accepting and building that fund, is the fundraising aspect, to be able to grow.

There are some estimates of the need around watersheds right now. It depends on how you count them, by the way. There are somewhere around, we believe, 2,000 watersheds within B.C. There’s a variance in that, given how you view a watershed.

The needs are in the hundreds of millions of dollars, either through damage done through industrial activity or just needs due to a changing climate. We know the needs are very high. Setting up something as an endowment that grows over time while dispensing funds — there are models around the world that do this.

I’ll circle right back to the beginning, where I started, which is that the design, and the partnership with the B.C.–First Nations Water Table, lends credibility and legitimacy, not only for the work but for the ability to raise more funds to do the work.

Again, for salmon groups, environmental groups, philanthropic groups, the business community who work in watersheds, our anticipation is that this is going to be a very popular place to contribute. It’s much like we see, a bit, with the Pacific Salmon Foundation itself and some of the other groups. They’re very successful at being able to leverage support, not just from us but from other entities as well, because the work is good.

L. Doerkson: Yes, I can appreciate that the minister will not be going door to door looking for funds. By the same token, Mr. Chair, by using the word “growth” in referring to this fund — we haven’t even started to talk about disbursements yet — the minister has suggested that it’ll grow. Surely, there must be a model or a prediction of how much it may grow by.

Is there any indication, from the minister, of what that growth may look like?

Hon. N. Cullen: By its design, this is a co-design model. We will be co-designing this with a First Nations partnership, some of whom have been at working with us in the consultation period: the B.C.–First Nations Water Table, Chief Hwitsum and others — very, very experienced in terms of understanding the growth and anticipations and what possibilities there are.

We will co-design the expectations on growth and disbursement — what’s going out, what stays in as a core, what the expectations year on year are, and then the ability to grow that fund, depending on the sources that we identify. That’s where the work will happen.

[2:25 p.m.]

It’s respectful, I think, to do it that way, as opposed to the government coming in and saying: “By our arbitrary design, it’s going to be so many percentage of this and so many percentage that.” Our partnership will design the path for this fund — which, we think, is exactly right. Ultimately, we’ll be talking about rights and title holders and work happening within watersheds of those rights and title holders. Therefore, the design of the fund, the consultations that we’ve done to this point, are deeply integrated.

My confidence in the water table, Chief Hwitsum and others is as high as it could possibly be, in terms of that partnership being durable and good for everyone.

L. Doerkson: I can appreciate that the relationships are probably fabulous. It wasn’t I that brought up growth; it was the minister that brought up growth. I guess I’m just trying to understand that in a better way.

I can appreciate that what I’m hearing from the minister, if I’ve got this right, is that those conversations really haven’t happened at this point. Is that true?

Hon. N. Cullen: Yeah, with our partners, we’ve had very initial discussions about the opportunities for growth, as you saw in the First Nations Leadership Council letter — if you haven’t, we can get you a copy — already identifying the federal government as a natural partner to contributing.

The positive news story out of this is that this is the expression of confidence that the B.C. government is putting in the model. The $100 million stake that we’ve put in — something that we’ve heard from our First Nations partners, philanthropic groups, business community — is more than a gesture. It’s a very important first step to say: “This is viable. This is necessary and important work.” It’s work that will be done and designed together with the B.C.–First Nations Water Table, whose membership we can also afford you if that would be of any help.

That initial effort, the $100 million that we’re talking about here today, is what gives confidence to the next steps. Our partner organizations identified that early on: the provincial government should come in with an amount so that they can then be leveraged, further on, which is exactly what we’re doing.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. The minister has referred to the format referred to the model. I’m wondering if you could tell me who has designed the model.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: I was checking with dates. It was quite recent — a month, I’d say, or so ago — that the First Nations partnership wrote to us and said that in the development and design of this fund, it must be co-designed.

In the province right now, there isn’t a co-designed organization that has the capacity to work in all the watersheds in B.C. There was a requirement to create something new that was going to have those two elements — that it could work at the provincial level and that it was co-designed between the B.C. government and First Nations. So that’s why we’re going through this process.

The very next step is the co-design of that model, which was specific to my friend’s question, between ourselves and our First Nations partners. That was a very consistent and explicit desire of First Nations when talking about a watershed security fund. “Let’s co-design it so that the model has, I suppose….” Well, I won’t speak for them. The correspondence was very clear, and that’s what we followed in the direction of today, in terms of securing the fund, which we announced yesterday.

Now the work of the co-design happens with First Nations, and we get into the explicit conversations around model types and model choices and designs, and then it begins to do its work.

L. Doerkson: That answer probably creates a whole bunch more questions. I guess I’m surprised to hear that particularly on an amount of this size — I mean, we are talking about one-tenth of $1 billion — that this money is going to be somehow deposited into a fund that isn’t developed yet. I guess that, frankly, seems a little confusing to me that that work hasn’t already been done.

Earlier we talked about how we arrived at a decision to invest $100 million, why we’re doing it, that we’re creating a fund. But it sounds, to me, as though that work is not even done yet. Is this money just simply going to sit somewhere, and what would be the timeline for creating that fund?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: I appreciate my friend’s questions, because the model that we’re using here is new. This is not something he or I have engaged in before, and the courage to do it new came directly from our consultations with our First Nations partners for some of the reasons that we’ve talked about already, from their point of view. They wrote to us explicitly and said that we need a different model for doing this kind of work, for a couple of the important reasons we’ve already canvassed.

The timeline, as my friend I think insinuated, but not in a bad way, is to locate the financial partner by the end of the month. The B.C. Real Estate Foundation is a very likely candidate to be the recipient of that. The commitment that we would expect, and it would be written into, essentially, the contract with them…. The co-development with First Nations and the B.C. Real Estate Foundation, if they’re chosen, would be then to co-develop the model…. The timeline question beyond that that my friend talked about is to establish the model in the near months after that, at the end of March going forward.

But our expectation is that we would see projects on the ground within this fiscal year. So money dispersed by the end of March to a verifiable partner who can work at scale. The B.C. Real Estate Foundation is one of a very short list of groups that could handle and has experience, as my friend would know, working in partnership with First Nations rights and title holders on watershed restoration. There’s not a long list of those that can work at the provincial level. They then would co-design the model with First Nations, again, which was a very explicit request in our consultations.

The disbursement of funds, the proportion going out — our expectation is that would happen within this fiscal year. We would start to see projects within watersheds, co-design model, durability and, also, as we talked about in the previous question, conversations about the growing of the fund, efforts to secure other supports.

Again, seeing the support from the B.C.–First Nations Water Table, the First Nations Leadership Council, individual rights and title holders identifying this as a place for partners to give financial support to — we feel confident in that.

My deputy minister just handed me a note with respect to the landing of projects: ’23-24, just to not confuse anybody. This is our expectation of when projects would actually…. We would start to see it in our communities — the work identified, the work happening, volunteer groups, agencies and moneys starting to be used for the good work that we know we need to do.

[2:40 p.m.]

L. Doerkson: Thanks for pointing out that I wasn’t intentionally trying to be combative here. But I am trying to understand this, because the minister has referred to a number of things — namely, a little while ago, suggested that the minister would not be necessarily making demands. It’s not a great way to start a relationship with a partner, and those kinds of things. I think I would be correct in saying that.

By the same token, there have been many claims made about growth and philanthropy and all kinds of other things. So it would seem to me that the minister does have some requirements of how this fund will be structured.

Again, I guess I’m a little bit shocked that it’s not already determined, all of those things, as we deposit $100 million to a partner. If the minister is not going to necessarily be demanding, I guess…. Can the minister identify some goals and such that he’ll be conveying to whoever happens to be the partner on this?

I will come back to the partnership in another question, but I would like to know that.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: I have a fleet of lawyers working on this right now to make sure I use the exact right terms, because this is…. I make a joke, but it’s also very important, actually, just in terms of how this rolls out.

How this will happen is through a grant agreement. My friend might be familiar with that as a tool. It’s a very, very common tool. We have standard operating procedures when we do grant agreements. There are eligibility criteria, and we stipulate outcomes.

So when it’s something like this, one could imagine, in terms of identifying the purposes for a watershed security fund, we’d be talking about things like capacity-building for First Nations partners and watershed planning as purposes that would be envisioned within this. And in that eligibility criteria would be that the fund itself is co-developed and that it has the capacity in its design to leverage further funds.

So that’s the way that the government, in putting out a grant agreement, would ensure that we respect what we heard through consultations, which is all of those things I talked about. We went through the consultative process since 2020, asking what people thought a watershed security strategy and fund would require. These are the things that folks informed us of, government, particularly our First Nations partners.

In respecting that, as we put a grant agreement in place, we would identify those things through the eligibility criteria of the recipient. In order to receive this, you have to agree to this. Then the co-development process happens.

Again, I want to appreciate and emphasize that it’s new as a way of doing something, and it’s newness is different. That’s okay, because that was one of the things that we were asked for, as well, in terms of giving the outcomes that we want. To me, the outcomes being: very durable, accepted at the community level and seen as something that other contributors would feel very confident in participating in. All of these elements that I outlined here today, I think, are only additive.

Finally, and plus, the $100 million contribution that the provincial government is making on behalf of the people of B.C. is a significant vote of confidence to those that are participating — that the B.C. government has seen this as a good idea and this way of doing things as a good idea.

L. Doerkson: Thank you to the minister. I guess that really was my question right there. The minister has identified that there would be a grant agreement in place. Along with that comes, and I think I could quote: “In order to receive these funds, you must do this.”

It’s the minister that has suggested that there would be growth, there would be this and there would be that. I’m trying to understand what you may be dictating to the partners that will be involved in this. We’ll talk about the partners later.

Is there a measurement for growth? Is it 1 percent? Is it 2 percent? What will disbursements look like? I mean, those are the things that we’ve talked about here.

Trust me. I agree that it’s a courageous move to build this new fund, but I want to understand, because the minister has also suggested that you don’t want to start a relationship by dictating rules, etc. But it does sound to me, by design, that there will be some rules offered up by this ministry to this partnership. So what do those look like?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: I was just checking to see about grant agreements, which are very different than a contract agreement, where you can stipulate very, very specifically. Grant agreements have less of that.

We’re in conversations, actually, this week with potential recipients — in specific, REFBC, the Real Estate Foundation of B.C., as well as our First Nations partners — over some of the things that my friend is canvassing here in terms of the…. What we’ve talked about before is the eligibility criteria and the stipulations. We have the notions.

A good reference point would actually be some of the work on the intentions paper. It, again, was arrived at through those consultations as to what eligibility would be like. The eventual form and structure…. My friend was very specific. Is it a percent of this or a percent of that? That’s what, ultimately, comes through the co-development with the recipient and the partnership that they make with First Nations in terms of the design. How much growth? What are the expectations of the fund over time? That is something that they will manifest together.

Again, this is all honouring what we heard through the consultation process, which was very important for us in putting this out the door. This is new in some parts of the structure. But in terms of the levers and the specificity of control over something like a grant agreement like this…. That’s not that unusual on government issues, which we do across different sectors.

My deputy minister was talking about health care. It has very sizeable grant agreements. This is pro forma for that. You don’t get to dictate every single stage of it. I would add to that, though, that the nature of this…. It is, in its DNA, a co-developed fund. To respect that is to say: “Well, you co-develop it together. We’ve put a contribution to start things off.”

[2:55 p.m.]

We have some eligibility criteria, which I can articulate a bit more. I’m still in that back-and-forth with the potential recipient. But they are things that my friend would assume — capacity-building, watershed work — and not a bunch of other things.

That we feel very comfortable with, especially given the past few years of doing work with groups like the REFBC. This is the work that they’re engaged in. This is the work that they want to do. This is the work that they will do.

L. Doerkson: There’s certainly work that I would assume, for certain.

Again, the word “dictate” came up. I can appreciate that the ministry is going to build this airplane, I guess, as it flies, type of thing.

My question is around goals. I’m trying to understand if the minister has specific goals with respect to words that he has used here today — growth, those types of things. I mean, I don’t know what it takes to make this fund successful. I’m guessing 1 percent growth would make it last for a long time, depending upon disbursements.

That’s what I’m trying to understand. What kinds of goals might the ministry have around, specifically, growth?

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you, Chair. You snuck in while I was in deep consultations.

A specific question around our own expectations of growth. It was identified very clearly by many of our partners — different non-profits, First Nations — in terms of what is the ambition, what is the work required when it comes to a watershed security strategy?

The number of $1 billion, given the number of watersheds in B.C., which are many, and given, also, the state of watersheds in many of our communities, the state of salmon and the state of all of those indicators that we use…. Approximately $1 billion is what has been identified by outside sources, including some of the partners that we’re talking about.

The motivation is there, and the ambition is there. The initial $100 million that B.C. is contributing to this fund is certainly a good start. The criteria we’ve talked about in the initial grant agreement are the recipient’s ability and willingness to raise further funds.

Very specifically, to my friend’s question, we are not imagining, in the agreement, having a specific “thou shalt grow by a certain percent every year.” Given the ambition that the groups describe, the First Nations partnership, who will be co-developing the fund in terms of the work required; and previous capacity that we’ve seen to raise funds — the First Nations Leadership Council letter to the federal government with their intentions to seek it; we feel very confident in their ability to grow. And in order to do the work, it must.

That is the challenge ahead of us all, collectively, I would argue. This fund will be placed, ideally, in order to be an excellent vehicle for that.

To the specific question, we are not laying a criterion down of a certain percentage of growth over time.

[3:00 p.m.]

L. Doerkson: Okay. Let me ask this, then. If the minister is not going to dictate growth numbers, what would be the result of this fund not growing? In other words, going forward, if the ministry sees….

Let’s face it. The province is going to be, of course, the largest partner, to begin with. Hopefully, somebody comes along to double that contribution. But if this fund should go the other way, what would occur then?

Hon. N. Cullen: As we’re in the midst of negotiations with a potential recipient, this conversation is actually quite helpful, talking about some of the things that we’ve already contemplated.

[3:05 p.m.]

In a grant application agreement like this there is performance reporting back to government, which is important, and there are some core initiatives. One of the core initiatives and expectations is, as I’ve mentioned a few times, that the grant is co-developed. That is a clear expectation that will placed into the criteria.

So that is a clear expectation that will be placed into the criteria. On some of the specifics around the leveraging and whatnot, we’ve talked about it in eligibility criteria. Does the recipient have the ability? Do they possess the criteria in order to perform that kind of work to raise more funds? Have they done it in the past? Obviously, the Real Estate Foundation of B.C. ticks those boxes in a significant way.

In terms of, again, back to the…. I guess my colleague is looking for what levels of control…. I don’t want to assume. I could be incorrect in this. But doing this through a grant agreement gives us the ability to put the DNA in, which we have decided upon from our consultations over the past couple of years.

That’s not solely government’s view; it is our partners’ view — co-development, the ability to disperse funds and then have those key outcomes, the ones in which we are doing the work in the field that meets the criteria one would expect in a watershed security fund.

In terms of further stipulations — percentage, we’ve already talked about. Then seeing this model work successfully will be the so-called proof in the pudding, so an ability to get the work done, an ability to continue to have a durable effect by being able to leverage further funds from other sources beyond the B.C. government.

But you’re right. We are the first contributor on this. That was identified early on as being a very important step in the vote of confidence that there is a fund, that the fund will do good work and that the B.C. government believes in this approach, which we do — that watersheds and watershed security is something that is affecting us from the Interior to the north, to the south to Vancouver Island.

Watershed insecurity is probably another way to think about it — incredibly expensive, incredibly stressful, incredibly hard on our economy and on down the line. So the notion of standing up a watershed security fund to remove the insecurity from many of the communities in which we live, which are feeling increasingly insecure, is something that we believe the fund is a good indication of. And certainly our First Nations partners have been loud and clear that this is the direction that they want us to go, so we’re going.

L. Doerkson: Let me try that question again. I appreciate everything the minister just said and agree with certainly some of it, for sure. But my question was: what happens if the fund…?

I mean, we’ve talked a little bit about growth. We’ve talked about the potential for that to be dictated through some of these agreements. Those are not my words. Those are the minister’s words.

I can appreciate that the minister is beginning a new fund. But my question is: what will happen if it is not growth? And I can appreciate, again, that the B.C. Real Estate Foundation has a great track record, and, certainly, the partners that we’ve talked about here are very committed to growing this fund. But we have seen other funds struggle.

My concern is the economic downturns and excess depletion of funds, maybe taking on too many projects at one time. What happens? It sounds to me as though the minister, and maybe that’s the second question in and amongst this one, sees this fund as lasting forever, potentially, or certainly for a long time. So I want to understand what the mechanism is in place if we start seeing the fund deplete. I would ask that of the minister.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: I appreciate the question, and I apologize for not answering it more directly in the last engagement. As we are in…. I wouldn’t say it’s a sensitive time, but we’re in the midst of that back-and-forth with potential recipients over some of the criteria that my friend is asking about.

I can’t be exactly specific, but the notion of a floor — that the fund doesn’t deplete below a certain level — is one of the things that we’re engaging the recipient in. It’s a general expectation, and we were just canvassing other funds that we have established over many governments, over many times. I’m thinking of the Columbia Basin Trust.

Or there’s the Great Bear Rainforest initiative, which was established under Gordon Campbell, in an agreement with Coastal First Nations in Canada. That fund, through the markets, the ups and downs and the highs and lows, has maintained itself. For their board of directors, that’s one of their charges, right?

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has a rotating green fund. So one can imagine and foresee the expectations of how to make this truly durable.

To my friend’s specific question, “Is the ambition for this to last forever?” well, if the need does — which it very well might last forever — then yes. The durability of this goes well beyond the term of a government or several governments or many.

We know the stresses upon our watersheds in a changing world. Even under a 1½- or 2-degree scenario of climate change, we know the effects are significant. We know that even without that, with population growth, with overharvesting in our seas of wild salmon, the stresses are there.

Our watersheds, and the resiliency that we wish to build up through this fund, require a vision that goes beyond the normal terms that we talk about in this place: funding for a year, funding for six months, even funding for five years. Hence the design.

To the specific question of imagining the fund just starting to deplete right through their capital of the $100 million and then coming back in a few years empty, that’s something that we’re talking about actively right now, to not allow that to happen.

Happily, we have successful models of boards that have established funds, oftentimes with government assistance at the beginning, and continue on over time, especially if they’re credible and successful. It becomes an easier place to put money if you’re a private foundation, if you’re a private investor, because you know it’s credible. You see their work; you like their work; you like to fish, let’s say. It’s a good place to locate it.

So that ambition is held, certainly, by me, and it was very much arrived at through the consultations that we need something that has the capacity to grow. We think the design that we’ve arrived at here, particularly the co-development piece, along with the work — the work is good work — will give it all the chances of success. That’s why we imagine it going for as long as the watersheds are in need, which could be for quite a long time.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for the comments around this engagement being helpful. I certainly hope it will be.

If it pleases the Chair, the minister and the staff, I’d like to turn it over to my colleague from Penticton, who has an engagement here shortly. He has a few questions around actual projects, but hold this thought, because we’re going to come right back to this in a bit.

D. Ashton: In the discussions that I’ve been privy to, about watersheds and the incredible importance and knowing about it, and living in an area of a catchment basin of more than one big watershed…. Specifically, I’ll speak to my peer here from the north. A Mission-area watershed in Kelowna provides 70 percent of the runoff in the freshet into Lake Okanagan.

[3:15 p.m.]

Whatever we do or whatever direction the government goes with this, I would hope that there will be some responsibility on those that have management opportunities or are working in the watersheds to ensure that those, I’ll say, downstream or downlake from the watersheds are included.

We have been faced in numerous years, in the Okanagan, with continual freshets that have been underestimated and that have caused damage and continue to cause damage to those that not only live along the lake but those who are in low-lying areas. So all I ask is that that be part and parcel.

We know that we want to preserve these watersheds. Living in a community that has a very large drainage, also the Summerland area watershed, which I’ve been, in my life, very fortunate to be able to participate in recreational uses in it…. We just want to make sure that management of watersheds is front and centre, and how it will be done. I would just ask the minister to take that into consideration during the opportunity that this fund may present to those around the province.

Madam Chair, thank you very much for the oppor­tunity. More of a statement than a question.

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you to my friend from Penticton for the comments. I could…. Well, I don’t have to imagine. I know very well, just in terms of the reliance of decisions that happen both upstream and downstream…. As somebody said, we all live downstream of somebody. Knowing that interconnectivity is essentially what the watershed security strategy is about — tying it all together as a watershed.

You might not have been here for this part of our conversation. We just recently — yesterday, today? — released our intentions paper. Yesterday. I would very much encourage…. It’s released for comment. It’s released for people who work in the field, who have interest. We can absolutely get my colleague or colleagues the link to that. Already, people are engaging in it, because that’s the opportunity to say: “We see your design. We see how you’re thinking about watershed strategies. Here are some concerns that we have. You haven’t involved this particular community group in the thinking.”

This is an excellent opportunity not just for us as colleagues, elected people, but for those we represent. We know the Fruit Growers Association…. We know there are certain water table groups at the very, very local level, some who have been engaged with this for many years, who, frankly, in our conversations, have been quite frustrated, in many parts of the province, for many, many years — not having the tools to truly change what’s happening within the watershed yet constantly feeling the effects of decisions that happen elsewhere.

This is what gets me animated about the watershed security strategy. It’s that ability to think that way at the watershed level, hence needing some funds to do it, because some of the work, much of the work, is really not accounted. Certainly, as my friend would know, at the local government level, in the regional districts, there just isn’t the money. There really isn’t, whether we talk about diking enhancements, on and on, the work within streams….

I very much encourage my friend’s comments and to bring those comments to his constituency, if he chooses to, and the people that he knows within the various water interests — which he kind of argues is almost everybody, if they’re paying any attention — to comment on the intentions paper which, again, was co-developed. Aspects of that were co-developed with our First Nations partners, who wanted this, as the process going out, to eventually land on the security fund itself so that we’re doing things in the right way, with good information, from the people who are most affected.

So thank you for the comment and question.

D. Ashton: I would like to thank the minister and would hope that the ministry also worked with the Ministry of Environment, because those are going to be hand in hand, especially in all the watersheds.

A. Olsen: I’m wondering if the minister can…. The reference has been made a few times now with respect to the B.C.–First Nations Water Table. Excellent name, by the way. How was the water table established? How were the members of that water table picked, or how was it populated?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you to my friend. Welcome to this part of the conversation.

I kind of like the First Nations–B.C. Water Table. But anyways, we inherited the structure that we have, the B.C.–First Nations Water Table. The creation of this actually originated out of a motion from the FNLC, the First Nations Leadership Council, to direct the FNFC, the Fisheries Council, to develop terms of reference and an approach to this. That was back in September of ’21. Initial meetings happened in June of ’22.

I have the membership list, if it would be of interest to my friend, as to who actually sits on the table. I’ve mentioned Chief Hwitsum earlier, who’s the co-chair; Hugh Braker, who my friend would know very well; Peter Erickson from Nak’azdli; Cheryl Casimer, very high-standing. All of these folks — I’m just looking through the list — Rod Peters, Iris Wallace, Reynauld Star, Robin Lowman, Deana Machin, Julian Yates.

Then there was the First Nations Fisheries Council support. Jordan Point, who I think I see around today, and Jacquelyne Fitchell were on that. That’s on the First Nations side.

We just couldn’t have asked for a better group of folks in terms of developing that approach and the terms of reference, which we established back in June of 2022 to see if the approach that we got to yesterday in the announcement was correct. And that’s been the partnership since then.

A. Olsen: Just of interest, how is it that the water table and the participation of First Nations, all people who are very busy doing a lot of other things…? How is their participation supported? In order to be able to implement what the priority of this government’s $100 million funding….

It’s all of our priority, of course. But we’ve created this fund now. How are the folks that are participating in this ensuring that they’re able to pay attention to the work that’s needed and being compensated for their efforts?

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you for the question. It’s an important one as government…. Well, everybody — industry, non-profits…. There’s a lot of engagement going on right now.

[3:25 p.m.]

In the past and probably too many times currently, it’s overlooked as a component of just knocking on the door and asking for counsel.

We made a budget. FNFC requested a budget from us, just in terms of covering honorariums, travel costs. We made those moneys available to FNFC. In terms of how that money was dispersed within the First Nations side of the B.C.–First Nations Water Table, that was their business.

I would also point out, although it was not my friend’s question, that anticipating the future use of the fund, the larger fund and what grows from it, eligibility of things like capacity-building within nations is anticipated. So it’s not simply the work of working in the watershed streams, the biology. One also imagines the participation. We saw this through some different work, but I think it’s instructive.

The healthy watersheds initiative. One of the things that stood out for me in talking to the leadership within that group — Chief Hwitsum was part of that — was the inclusion of protocol and ceremony in budget lines in all of the projects that were initiated. Maybe that’s a common practice, but I had not seen that before.

It stood out to me that in her reflection, many of the projects that were initiated through that, some of which were from First Nations exclusively, didn’t include costs for ceremonial. They were sent back and said, “No, you need to add that part in if you’re doing this kind of work,” which is very innovative, from my perspective, and certainly not from many others.

To return back to the beginning, FNFC requested a budget of us. We made that available so that they could support the membership that, as my friend said, could properly engage and pay attention to the important work that was in front of us all.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the response. I appreciate the different approach that’s being taken here, I think, because of Indigenous engagement and the involvement of it in the decision around where this fund is being created and the information that’s gathered.

I think what’s important is that that’s not just a one-time thing, that there’s going to be ongoing engagement, and to think about how maybe part of the money that’s in the fund can sustain the ongoing engagement and participation so we don’t get into a situation. I’ve raised this in another one of these supplementary estimates where a lot of that technical work, a lot of that legal work, is for the First Nations people to volunteer. I don’t think that’s appropriate, and I don’t sense or believe that that’s what’s happening here.

With respect to…. I’m going to jump around a little bit because then I’m going to hand it back. I only have a few minutes here. My colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin was asking about the funds and the growth of the funds. Has the ministry considered — perhaps when there are fines levied against industry or there’s money being collected because a company has wronged the regulation or whatever — that that money could then go in and be a part of the sustaining of this fund over the long term?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Thanks to my friend for the question. The decision of making that possible so that for somebody in a violation or through a rental arrangement, the money would go directly into the fund, is an across-the-government policy change that, frankly, is a good contemplation.

One could imagine a future state, but that’s not a decision we can put into this criteria, because it goes beyond our capacity as our ministry. It’s a Finance decision. But it’s a more than interesting notion of user-pay going into the contribution and the restitution of what damage was done.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Members, since the bell has rung for a big House vote, I will put this meeting into recess. We’ll see you back here when we’re done.

The committee recessed from 3:31 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We’re currently considering the supplementary budget estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the minister’s response prior to the recess. I think there’s a wide variety of different options for the provincial government to consider going forward. I recognize we’re not talking about the future; we’re talking about this right now. I think fines is one of them. Fees might be another source of revenue, to ensure we’re making all of the activity around watersheds, all the activity around water, contributing to water, to the protection of water and to the restoration of water. I think that’s the spirit of this fund, to do that.

I only have a couple of minutes left here, so I just have a question. We’re putting, with this vote, $100 million aside to create a fund for watershed security. The question is around the siloing of the provincial government and the relationship that the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship has with the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Mines, the Ministry of Environment. To ensure that work that’s being done….

There is a promise here. The promise is that by including First Nations into this, that the work, the outcomes, will be that watersheds will be secure, that they will be improved and that, hopefully, nature will return to what it once was.

What is the interaction between WLRS, or Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, and Forests, say, or Mines to ensure that what’s going on down here in the watershed is not being detracted by what’s going on up there in the watershed?

Hon. N. Cullen: I thank my colleague for the question. He’s of course right, in thinking about watersheds, and that’s the sound advice that we’ve gotten, through the consultation process with the B.C.–First Nations Water Table.

I read the list of membership. I won’t read the entire list of membership on the B.C. side. He can rest assured that it not only had representation from my ministry, but it also had representation from the Ministry of Forests; the Ministry of Indigenous Reconciliation; the Ministry of Health — because of course, drinking water is a hugely important component of this; along with other ministries that were representative and supportive of the B.C. water table, which continues.

That’s the table, which was engaged in setting up — what we’re creating with the entity that will receive the funds.

The ultimate goal of the fund and the strategy is to think and plan at watershed levels, right? This is the ultimate cross-sectoral effort that is essentially the genesis of this ministry itself. When we were creating…. I know this is a little bit outside of estimates, but it’s pertinent to the question.

[3:50 p.m.]

In creating this ministry, we spent a great deal of time and consultation to ask First Nations, industry, local government: what’s working, what’s not, when dealing with the provincial government with respect to land use planning or the absence of? How do we build an entity within government, by its design, to do better, to do a more holistic approach in thinking about maritime planning at scale, watershed level at scale and, at the highest level, which is modernized land use planning?

Hopefully, within the next number of weeks and months, we’ll be standing up phases of projects across the province with First Nations. Implicit in them will be the capacity to do exactly this: within a modernized land use plan, the watershed-level-specific recovery restoration and then, hopefully, implicating some of those tools that my friend referred to.

When we set up the water table, it was a cross-ministry. When we do modernized land use planning — as we’re doing and initiating in Treaty 8, Blueberry River, Tahltan and others — it’s cross-ministry by design, and it has to be. The siloing, I would argue, has been one of the main ways we have failed the ecological imperative that we have as a province because of one not talking to the other. From a local perspective of someone living in the northwest, that was always frustrating and very confusing, and the outcomes were what they were.

A. Olsen: I’m actually going to just end my questions there because I have been tracking what my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin has been talking and asking about, and I’m confident that the questions are being asked and responded to.

There’s a lot that’s going to happen with this over the next few years that we’ll be involved with. I just want to say that I think that of the initiatives that we are investing in, in these supplementary estimates, this is one of the most exciting areas for me.

As someone who came in here working on salmon policy in the earliest times, 2017, 2018, I was thrilled when the BCSRIF brought $143 million. It seems like these supplemental estimates are…. The $143 million is nothing compared to what we’ve been talking about this past week. We’ve been talking about over billions of dollars, and I think that $100 million is a great start.

I look forward to seeing this fund grow. More than that, I look forward to seeing the coordinated decision-making that the minister was just talking about so that the investments that we’re making in this fund — to improve the watersheds and improve their function and the outcomes for them — are not being diminished by other decisions that are being made in government, which is often what we see.

I thank the minister for the answer, I thank the member for a few minutes here, and I’ll just take my seat.

M. Lee: I just wanted to turn back to the previous response from the minister. As we look at the overall collaborative structure, moving forward, and as we step forward into the many policy objectives and intentions that are set out in the intentions paper, how will individual nations of the 204 be directly involved with the watershed planning and impacts within their own territories?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: I thank my friend from Vancouver-Langara for the question. Absolutely. Good confidence-building, I suppose, with the criteria of having the rights and title holders implicated. I’m not sure how familiar my friend is with the healthy watershed initiative. That was stood up, and when funds were dispersed in different iterations over the last number of years….

When the project is actually going out the door, it implicates not just the rights and title holders but also has had the tendency and capacity to include other interested parties: local government, local conservation groups, school groups. It had a very positive and magnifying effect in terms of a project that you see go out the door.

Some of them implicate those directly involved and stop there. This one, in our experiences when dealing with watersheds, almost inherently broadens out and involves people that come at it from different interest levels, be it safe drinking water, be it salmon restoration and all the other things that we care about.

The short answer is yes to his question, in terms of rights and title holders being implicated, when the projects are actually initiated on the ground. And that would be the expectation of projects funded by the watershed security fund itself.

M. Lee: I have the opportunity to ask one more question at this juncture in the committee process. Then I’ll be rejoining the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin a little later today to, hopefully, have the opportunity to ask a few more questions to add on.

I appreciate the response from the minister. Appendix A sets out the articles under UNDRIP, with which the strategy is intended to be consistent. Just one example. There are a few others that I’d like to touch on, but for now, article 26 of the strategy, in appendix A, of course, brings over from UNDRIP the reference to: “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.”

As the minister would well know, we had the opportunity, my colleague the member for Abbotsford West and myself, with the former Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, three and a half years ago, talking through each of the articles of UNDRIP through many days of committee review.

I wanted to ask the minister. Obviously, we know that as we look at reconciliation, words matter, so I wanted to turn the minister’s attention to page 5 of the intentions paper and the third paragraph. It just raises a question, not so much the words themselves but in terms of the government’s view and approach when we talk about title and article 26, as I just drew the minister’s attention to.

This third paragraph leads in with: “As the original occupants of the land.” I haven’t continued to do the study, although I’m pretty alive in my own shadow minister role to language and the use by this government. But of course, the words that do follow refer to the legal rights of First Nations.

Of course, in the committee process on the DRIPA act, we had the opportunity to reconfirm with the minister that there are no new rights that are being created under Bill 41 that brought in DRIPA and that it was to be read through the constitutional framework of Canada, including section 35 of the Constitution. As I look at the words leading into this third paragraph, when they’re referred to as the original occupants of the land, “original occupants” is a new phraseology that I don’t know that I’ve seen from this government before.

I’d ask the minister: is there an intended meaning for these words as to how it is to be read, consistent with article 26 of UNDRIP?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Thanks to my friend for the question and the pointing out of that particular line. A couple of points. One is that he will, I think, be well aware this was co-developed with First Nations in terms of this intentions paper.

So from its very inception and the work and the results that have come from it, we feel quite confident with our partnerships. With the specific terminology that’s used here that he’s drawn attention to, which is on page 5, paragraph 3, under the subheading of “First Nations,” I’ll endeavour to take that back to my colleagues at MIRR to see if there’s any concern. Certainly, we don’t believe any concerns were raised with our co-developing First Nations partners, but I take his comments at face value.

I’d bring him back, as well, just one page, to page 4. The subheading is “Reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.” He’ll know well the declaration on the rights of people action plan and that this entire work, the watershed security fund, is seeking to achieve three very important actions within it, specifically actions 2.6, 2.7 and 2.9. This is very much about the collaboration with First Nations in developing strategies. So 2.9 speaks to developing new strategies to protect and revitalize wild salmon populations.

We feel very secure and confident in terms of the intentions paper writ large but also the effort of a watershed security strategy, watershed security fund, which is the discussion here today, and the achievement of some very…. I won’t speak for First Nations, certainly, but very important actions under the DRIPA action plan that we believe will be well addressed through the setting up of both the fund and the strategy.

I appreciate the comments on the specific wording. There’s not, I believe, any intent to alter or evolve terminology, but we’ll certainly take it back to our friends at MIRR and others. But the intentions paper was co-developed with First Nations, and that gives us great confidence in its orientation and some of the outcomes that I’ve talked about already.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response. I’m going to be departing shortly.

As the minister and his team review that further, just in terms of language use, and as there may be follow-on discussion at main budget estimates….

As we look at how government continues to move forward with a very important collaborative model here, it’s really the positioning of this that I’m digging into, let’s say, as we look at the language of article 26, as government and ourselves are being held to that. Obviously, article 26 refers to owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. That’s the distinction that I’m referring to, when these leading words just refer to originally occupied.

[4:05 p.m.]

Originally occupied seems to suggest something different and, perhaps, more limiting than perhaps what is intended. That’s really what I’m referring to. But I will look forward to the further opportunity later this afternoon.

L. Doerkson: We digress. I want to go back a little bit to where we left off. One question only on this. That is simply: is there a mechanism in place to protect this fund from a depletion?

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you to my friend. As I mentioned, I think, prior to the votes that we had, we’re in discussions right now, live-time, which is good. One of the stipulations we’re talking about is the establishment of a maximum drawdown in the fund, below which it couldn’t….

The only small caveat. This is true of some of those other funds that I mentioned to the member prior to our going to vote. Typically…. Not exclusively but typically, funds will be held in various markets. They’ll be invested in various places. As my friend knows, there’s an up and down. Certainly, my RRSPs could attest to that.

The notion of having that in the negotiations right now with the potential recipient is important to us. It’s understood. I wouldn’t say this is a hard negotiating point at all. The intent…. We talked about durability previously. Durability is greatly hampered if the funds go below a certain amount and continue to exhaust, then the expected durability…. I would also offer, just as a bit of commentary, the confidence in the fund would also potentially suffer, from other contributors, if, within the first year, it was depleted in a significant way.

We’re establishing those thresholds to make sure of the viability, the attractiveness of the fund as a place for others and knowing that we need it to last. We want to disperse. We want to have good work done, and we have great faith, with our partners and the co-development of the way that the money is going to move out, that that longevity-type thinking will be implicit in what’s going on.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister.

We’re going to get to the partners here in a few minutes, but I did actually note some of the conversation that we did just have in the hall. I would like the minister to expand a little bit on potential comparables to this fund. The minister did mention one or two. I didn’t, honestly, hear what they were.

Could you please provide a few examples? Maybe give a bit of an indication of what those models look like with reference to what we were just talking about, the depletion or the growth.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Some of the models, we did talk about. The establishment of the Great Bear Rainforest initiative, I mentioned earlier. There is also the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions set up back in 2008, I believe, under some similar designs. Those are models that my friend could look towards.

In terms of the ambitions connected to those, one being a conservation economic development model in the Great Bear…. It’s meant to do some conservation initiatives as well as providing economic opportunities to the nations that participate.

The Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, dealing with climate change — their ambition is to exist over many, many, many years. It’s not a one- or two-year experience to support the Great Bear Rainforest. It’s not a one- or two-year experience to support climate change.

My only hesitation is that we don’t direct those funds, but what we’ve seen, and this could be true across Canada, is when significant funds are established, one of the things that the managing groups tend to bring in is the expertise of knowing how to manage large amounts of money sustainably over time, to take appropriate risks, etc. But that will not be a purview of the government explicitly. We will not be placing ourselves in the management level.

I want to be very clear. As we’ve talked about earlier, in a grant agreement, talking about the criteria, one is the co-development, critical with First Nations; and the other one we talked about is the ability to disburse and continue over time and raise other funds, etc., which is inherent in that ability to exist over time.

L. Doerkson: What was the process followed to determine the allocation of this amount?

Hon. N. Cullen: We’ve had some canvassing of this. The process, again, in year-end funds, dealing with a surplus allotment, was a conversation and a decision between the Finance Minister and the Premier’s office with respect to priorities. I listed some of those earlier — I can again — with respect to the government’s efforts of helping people, but best taken up with the Finance Minister for a specific question like that.

L. Doerkson: I know it’s a small room. I heard “asked and answered.” But the fact is that this is a different question.

The question is: how did we arrive at this amount? Why $100 million? Why wasn’t it $50 million? Why wasn’t it $150 million? I’d appreciate to understand how we arrived at this particular amount.

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you for the clarification of the question. I just like the term “asked and answered.”

[4:15 p.m.]

The amount, in terms of the $100 million, was determined by the Finance Minister, I believe, in consultation with the Premier’s office.

L. Doerkson: I’m curious to know how this is going to affect the ministry’s overall budget. I’ll just leave it there. I’d like to hear a comment on that.

Hon. N. Cullen: In terms of the budget, this, of course, gets recorded within this fiscal year on the ministry’s budget, but as we’ve talked about a lot, it’s one-time. In terms of ongoing, in terms of the ministry’s budget, that’ll be the debate or the conversation we’ll have around the general estimates, but this is one-time. It’s affected through this fiscal year, and that’s it. In terms of any long-term effect or effect on the general budget, there isn’t one. We can talk about the general estimates when we get there, for sure.

L. Doerkson: Let me ask that question in a different way. Because of this funding, will there be other pressures on the ministry, going forward — for management, for those kinds of things? Clearly, we’ve got staff sitting here today answering questions about this fund.

My question is: is there going to be a lasting effect? This is not outside of the supplementary budget. This is because of this.

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you for the specificity of the question.

Just for the record, staff here today defending the supplementary estimates are all volunteering — so no cost to the government. Is that right? Is that not correct?

They’re not volunteering. Working with me should be at time and a half.

With respect to…. It’s a very good question. The watershed security strategy that we are standing up will, of course, have implications. That we’ll absolutely talk about in the general estimates, in terms of projects and initiatives outside of that.

In fact, though, the watershed security fund, once it’s established and operating…. I don’t want to promise this, because I can’t. I don’t know the outlay of the funding. But one could imagine it relieving some cost pressures on the ministry. One would imagine the fund disbursing out to communities and building First Nations capacity, which, in some cases right now, the ministry is allocating money for.

Again, I’m not going to overpromise it, but one could easily imagine that scenario in which things that we are currently doing might, in future scenarios, be covered by the watershed security fund, which would be, of course, independent from the ministry at that point.

We’re not counting on it, and when we get to general estimates, we can talk about where we are spending money. In terms of standing up this fund and negotiating, as we are right now, once released, we don’t anticipate cost pressures on the ministry itself.

L. Doerkson: I can appreciate, inside the fund, the partners that are involved, etc. They will obviously go through engagement, and that kind of a thing.

[4:20 p.m.]

I guess what I’m trying to understand is how the ministry will be having a connection to that going forth and what kinds of costs might be borne by the government to continue that engagement.

It would seem to me that, certainly, it’s not as though we’re simply going to turn these funds over, unless the minister wants to correct me, and that’s the end of it. I mean, I’m certain that we’ll have some kind of engagement, going forth. So I’m just curious to know what that looks like and how much it may cost.

Hon. N. Cullen: I wouldn’t see this as an extraordinary cost, but as I talked about before, there will be a requirement for a review from the grantee, so coming back with performance. There will be some staff time to review it and see how things are going, but that wouldn’t be anything of great note. I wouldn’t imagine it requiring extra resources from us. We can do that in-house.

We have a department that does this. We have currently budgeted…. We can talk about that in main estimates, absolutely. The Water Protection and Sustainability Branch exists. It’s funded. It exists. That is a point of engagement that we would imagine being able to use if there’s some moment in time, or a project is funded and there is some bit of side work that’s needed.

Like I said earlier, one could also anticipate both sides of the ledger in the projects that we are funding right now, Indigenous capacity that we are funding right now. One could foresee a future not too distant in which the watershed security fund would be able to absorb some of those costs. Again, I’m not promising it. We’re not putting it down in a spreadsheet of anticipated offsetting of revenues or anything like that.

It’s collaborative work. Some of it’s work that we’re doing and solely funding out of the ministry right now. With the establishment of a fund, it could help alleviate some of those pressures in future.

But generally, to my friend’s question in terms of establishing the fund, the reporting back cost is fairly minimal. There might be some other ancillary costs, but marginal at best and done by people that we’ve already hired and engaged and work within the ministry.

L. Doerkson: One more question, and then I think we’ll move on to the partnerships that we’ve sort of touched on today. Has the one-time expenditure that the government is seeking approval for been reviewed and approved by the Treasury Board?

Hon. N. Cullen: Yes.

L. Doerkson: Today we’ve talked a little bit about the partnerships that may be formed, going forward. Today there seems to be one consistency, and that is the B.C. Real Estate Foundation.

I just wanted to get a sense of how close the minister is to making that official. If I could just understand how far along in that process we are.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Clearly, the partnerships, particularly with the B.C.–First Nations Water Table, has arrived us here. It got us to yesterday, in terms of being able to announce a co-developed fund. The anticipation, of course, when we do land on a place to put the money, if it’s REFBC or another, is that within that, there’s the requirement to co-develop the actual fund itself.

Obviously, the fund announced yesterday has to be completed, in terms of negotiations, by the end of the month and released. So we’re in that two-, three-week period. This is not a months’ long negotiation of settling it. We’re in that right now.

We’re also moving and checking the interest level from our First Nations partners of how much they want to be implicated in this phase, this back-and-forth phase with the potential recipient, be it REFBC or others. We don’t know that interest level yet. Yesterday was an important first step.

As my friend can see from some of the people who participated in the announcement and some of the supplementary quotes that have come through news releases, the enthusiasm for what’s happened is very strong. If our First Nations partners want to be involved in this particular phase over the next couple of weeks, then we’ll do that. If they allow the negotiations to just happen between us and REFBC or another group, we’ll do that as well.

I don’t want to presume it, but we’re into the…. We have some drafts. We’re working through that. We’re getting there, almost there.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister, for that.

I mean, it sounds to me as though…. I don’t want to assume now, but it feels as though this is the way the minister is leaning. Would that be fair to say?

Hon. N. Cullen: The short answer is yes. We’ve done our due diligence internally. Our preferred partner would be the Real Estate Foundation of B.C. We’ve talked about this before, but we feel very good with the work done on other and similar projects. We believe that the criteria that we’re looking for in a grant agreement, they’re well placed for.

I mentioned it, also, earlier. There’s not an exhaustive list of groups that could handle this kind of money, with these types of requirements, in terms of relationships, frankly — the ability to co-develop a fund, manage the funds, set up an appropriate skill-level board to see it through.

To my friend’s specific question, it is my preference. It’s not completed. We haven’t signed an agreement, so I can’t say it until it’s done. But we feel confident with their leadership and, even more importantly, the endorsation coming from our First Nations partners on this, towards them as a viable and consistent and good partner. That is what, ultimately, gives us assurance.

L. Doerkson: I’m just wondering with respect to other potential partners or partners that may have been considered. Certainly, yes, they seemingly would be quite capable. But others — Fraser Basin Council, Ducks Unlimited, all of those other organizations in our province…. Have they been considered if they had an opportunity here? Perhaps the minister could provide a bit of a sense of how many organizations may have been considered.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: We received, from the Indigenous side of the B.C.–First Nations Water Table, essentially an endorsation towards the quality of the work with the REFBC, the Real Estate Foundation of B.C. Let’s try not to use too many acronyms.

It’s probably a question of relationship and timing that this work has been happening. Minister Heyman stood a program up two years ago. Great success and very much a co-design, a co-partnership model in which we were seeing rights and title holders deeply engaged.

I won’t speak for the Real Estate Foundation. Over their time, they have evolved the practices that they use in terms of doing the work in the field and are seen by many of the groups that my friend referenced — I don’t want to speak too much for them — as one of the lead proponents in the province able to have those relationships.

Also, I didn’t mention the criteria in my last answer. Can you land a size of fund like this competently? Do you have First Nations partnerships and the ability to co-develop a fund? Can you work on a provincial scale? The Real Estate Foundation clearly meets all of those criteria. Plus, the endorsation that came from members of the B.C.–First Nations Water Table directly pointed us towards the Real Estate Foundation, saying: “We’ve done the work with them. They’re good, and they’re trusted.”

As my friend would know, in any relationship, trust matters enormously. In doing something quite innovative like this, it matters at least that much, if not more.

L. Doerkson: I would agree that trust is, obviously, going forth with this size of a project or projects, I guess, certainly important.

It does sound as though this was really a referral by the B.C.–First Nations Water Table to this ministry to work with the B.C. Real Estate Foundation. Would that be correct?

Hon. N. Cullen: The letter that we received, which was…. According to the Canadian English dictionary, “endorsation” is, in fact, a word. Some would maybe refer to it as an endorsation.

[4:35 p.m.]

Certainly, reflecting on the work of the healthy watersheds initiative…. I would really encourage all members….

There were so many projects in so many communities. We can provide a list of what took place in different constituencies. Just outstanding work — again, not just on the what-was-done piece but the relationship piece. I’m acknowledging, more and more, that as critical as the actual work you do in the stream or in the watershed or whatnot is your ability to have a durable relationship over time, because the work is required over time.

It was very important to us to see the work done. Then the work was acknowledged by the First Nations members of the water table, pointing towards it and saying that the relationship is good.

One aspect that I don’t think we’ve hit upon is the…. The Real Estate Foundation has what they call an Indigenous leaders advisory council. It sits as a very prominent part of their decision-making. This might be….

Some of the other groups my friend mentioned…. I know some have been moving and adapting strategies in this way. Certainly, in the North, I’ve seen that.

I don’t want to say it’s the leading example, but it’s a very good one in terms of…. At a very high level, the organization’s development and decision-making have been pointed to by First Nations, saying: “Your Indigenous leaders council is what gives us confidence in the way that projects are being manifested.”

So you know, we had some conversation earlier with our friend from the Third Party about the inclusion of things like cultural opportunities, ceremonial recognition in budgets. It’s not something I would ever have pushed or seen before, but because of the leadership within the Real Estate Foundation’s Indigenous advisory council, it became part of their standard practice. All of these things have led us to fully agreeing, not that that fully mattered, that this was a good path to follow, in terms of beginning the negotiations with the Real Estate Foundation.

Again, on its surface, most British Columbians, maybe not familiar with the Real Estate Foundation, would think they’re about real estate, but then you see their projects and their work at the community level. I think they’re very much in line with Ducks Unlimited and some of the other groups. They have got great credibility, in my communities at least, as well, in terms of restoring habitat, doing good conservation work and doing it at a collaborative level.

That’s the short history of it.

L. Doerkson: Thanks for that information about the real estate council. I want to ask again…. I can appreciate that the ministry may have arrived or is about to arrive at a decision to go with the Real Estate Foundation.

My question is: what other considerations have been given? I mean, were there conversations with Ducks Unlimited or any of those different groups? I would like a little detail about who else may have been considered.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: I appreciate the patience. We wanted to make sure we got the full list.

We did, essentially, an internal review looking at potential partners. In the past in the healthy watersheds initiative, we had funded a number of groups, some of which my friend has referenced, I believe: B.C. Wildlife Federation, $5½ million; Living Lakes, or the Rivershed Society, $1½ million; Redd Fish Restoration, $1½ million; Farmland Advantage, $1.5 million; Ducks Unlimited, $1 million. We’ve done work with lots of groups and will continue to and had good experiences across the board. In the next year’s list was the Real Estate Foundation, which ran a larger suite of projects.

After that internal review, it felt like this was our preferred choice. As we’ve said, we’re in the midst of settling the negotiated terms for that agreement. I do hope we arrive at it. I think they’re good partners, and our First Nations partners think they’re good partners, which is helpful.

It’s not to discredit, and it doesn’t discredit, any of the work or the partnerships we’ve had with other groups. We just felt that this group fits the criteria in the right way and recently coming out of pretty significant work through what we can all admit were pretty trying circumstances, in the middle of a pandemic — hiring up, initiating relationships with many First Nations in a pretty successful way. So they proved their mettle, not just to us as a government but also to the First Nations partners on the B.C.–First Nations Water Table.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister.

Perhaps I’m not asking the question in the correct way. I can appreciate that they’ve done great work. I can appreciate that they have great relationships, and it sounds like they have a great relationship with the ministry. I’m asking…. I’m trying to understand the process here and trying to understand who else may have been considered.

The minister has vaguely stated that yes, we’ve talked to some of those groups. I’m curious to know: are we talking about two groups, other groups? Are we talking about ten? This is $100 million. I mean, surely there’s been consideration given to other groups. Ducks Unlimited and groups like that have done multiple-million-dollar projects in my riding. I can think of one at the Chilko Ranch that is pretty extensive. They certainly would have good relations, not just with the ranchers but the First Nations in the area.

So I’m trying to understand how many other groups would have been involved or had a potential shot at proving their, I guess, value with respect to this funding.

Hon. N. Cullen: It’s not my friend’s fault, in terms of the posing of the questions. I think sometimes I might misunderstand.

We did an internal review. We looked at groups that we had gone through, work that I mentioned before. It wasn’t…. There were, I suppose, three that I would point to, just in terms of importance in coming to this decision.

[4:45 p.m.]

One is previous working relationship, and many groups could fit that. Capacity not only to handle the size of this particular fund but also capacity to co-develop. Does the group have experience co-developing funds, strategies and policies? I guess the opportunity for the Real Estate Foundation is that they had just done it, right?

We were attending and participants to watching whether it was successful or not. As much, again, as it was our belief that they had been successful in the endeavour of co-developing and delivering projects to restore watersheds, the First Nations representatives thought that was true as well, in terms of their success and their capacity to do this, then recommending or endorsing — choose whatever words you will — in a direct correspondence with us. If you add all those things up together, they’re good.

Once we had done that internal review and said, “Who ranks well within all of these really vital and important things?” REFBC does well in all of them. Again, we have done and will do work with other groups. There’s no doubt about it. We value them. I value them up north, where I live, and we’ll continue to do that work.

This specific project. The capacity to co-develop is easily said, hard to do. It takes time, takes experience, takes failures and takes expressions of humility and the ability to show that you’ve been able to do it in the past. The Real Estate Foundation from 15 years ago probably couldn’t have met those criteria, actually, because they hadn’t done it. Now they have, and have done so recently, in partnership with us, in a partnership with First Nations. It put them in the right place at the right time.

L. Doerkson: If I heard the minister correctly, it was an internal review. There were no conversations, then, with other groups. Was there a process — I don’t know what you want to call it — that was available to other groups to apply, to be heard too?

Hon. N. Cullen: The way that my colleague describes it is correct: an internal review. There wasn’t an application process. We looked at the criteria that we needed. We looked at the support letters coming from our First Nations partners and the success of the projects that we’d just recently had with the REFBC. That’s why we’re engaged with them right now. Again, we haven’t settled on the final terms, but it is our intention to.

L. Doerkson: Okay. Well, that’s great. I guess I can see that the minister is probably very close to making an arrangement or a partnership with the B.C. Real Estate Foundation. I guess a few questions back we talked a little bit about the size and the scope of the project, noting that this is 1/10 of a billion dollars. It’s a pretty hefty sum for anybody.

When I looked at the B.C. Real Estate Foundation website, it suggested that it has, since 1988, granted about $100 million in funding. In 2021 and 2022, it had granted $3.3 million, which is certainly a far cry from what we’re discussing here today.

I guess my question is exactly that. There seems to be a level of confidence that the B.C. Real Estate Foundation can handle this, and certainly, I’m sure they can. I’m just wondering what sort of a situation we see within their organization to take on these funds.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Actually, REFBC does a lot of different things, but just with respect to the B.C. government, over the last two years, they’ve administered $27 million of grants out the door. As importantly, as part of their evaluation, they were able to evaluate the projects with respect to reconciliation and effectiveness. That is born out of the Indigenous leaders council work that they do. This is something very interesting and exciting to us.

Government does these types of grants all the time, significant amounts of money out to other groups. The evaluative capacity of the Real Estate Foundation not just to evaluate — “Is the watershed in a better place? Is the stream in a better place?” — but in seeking to evaluate its effectiveness with respect to reconciliation I think is a very interesting, if not incredibly important, innovation that we see.

I’m not going to speak to other agencies, other groups that work on environmental issues or health or any of the other effects that we do as government. I’m just very interested and excited. We can share, hopefully, some of these things with my colleague across the way and other members that might be interested.

As we start to do these partnerships, it’s one thing to have a co-managed board, which we’re going to ask REFBC to do, in setting up the fund — very important. An­other good step is that the work is respecting rights and title holders. My friend asked about that earlier. Or it might have been his colleague from Vancouver-Langara. Are the projects going in the field with First Nations participation? Good.

Now we evaluate. Do we have the capacity to evaluate — not just on ecological terms but on reconciliation terms: was this effective in advancing reconciliation between the partner groups that were involved?

I know that in my constituency, in the northwest, this would be a very welcome development from many of the groups — be they industry, be they environment groups, be they government — of trying to understand, when we’re working in partnership: how do we evaluate whether that partnership was successful? Just on that relationship level, I think it’s excellent.

I try not to be too huge a superfan, but again, my relationship to this agency was very minimal, next to none, a year ago. Every interaction I’m having is impressing me, in terms of their ability to manage the $27 million, and not just the amount but how it was managed — effectiveness, review.

To then look to them and say: “Well, could you handle doing more? Could you co-develop and create a fund and then co-manage that fund with First Nations in a successful way?” My confidence is high. And as important as my confidence, it’s the First Nations that have been involved. They have a great deal of confidence and have expressed that to us as a government.

L. Doerkson: I’d like to ask a couple of questions. Actually, I’ve got to go back to that.

The question that I asked was on their capacity to handle this. Now, I can appreciate that maybe I’ve read something wrong on their website, but they’re managing $27 million, as was the suggestion from the minister. I’m sure that’s probably right, but we’re talking about four times the funds.

Now, I can appreciate…. We’ll get to projects and such in a moment. I’m just wondering: what is their capacity? I mean, do they flick a switch? We’re talking about projects that may be happening as early as this year. We’re talking about the transfer of a tenth of $1 billion. From what I have seen, even if it is $27 million — which, by the way, is not what their website suggests; perhaps I’ve read something incorrectly — what is their capacity, tomorrow morning, to receive this money?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: I can’t speak to the reference my friend is making to the REFBC website. We know, for our own accounting, in our relationship with our REFBC, it was $27 million, just with our participation, in the last couple of years. That was done extremely well. All of that, of course, is under government scrutiny.

On the very question he’s asking, capacity to manage, there are two things. One is in terms of receiving. Yes, $100 million…. Of course, it’s not distributing $100 million. That would be antithetical to the purpose of the fund. It would be moving significantly less than that, as you mentioned, in projects this year. Their ability to move and manage $27 million worth of projects is well established, well endorsed and seems to have great credibility.

One of the questions we did ask REFBC is the very one my friend posed: “What’s your capacity to handle this?” What they gave us back…. This is dated not that long ago, February 17 of this year, under the category of financial and investment management. We can make this available to my friend.

“Each year REFBC manages the receipt, investment and expenditure of millions of dollars in revenue from pool trust accounts, investments and grant sources. Evidence of REFBC’s capacity to provide sound and stable financial and investment stewardship is the following: management of REFBC’s general and impact investments, as outlined in the general and impact investment policies; providing quarterly and annual financial and program reporting to the Finance Ministry; negotiating, establishing and monitoring compliance agreements for more than 1,800 trust accounts with every credit union and bank in British Columbia.”

The more you dig, the better it gets with respect to their capacity. They have some articles on reconciliation, and t They have a number of supporting documents that, I believe, are publicly available and that we can make available to the member.

There are audited financial statements from ’21-22, their general investment policy, so they very clearly and publicly describe how their investments work and what their policy is with respect to that; REFBC’s impact investment policy, appendix 3;an investment committee terms of reference — they have an investment committee, and they have a terms of reference, of course, that would guide them; and principles of criteria of future funding.

The very question my friend posed: can they handle it? That’s about as good as you’re going to get when you’re talking to groups that work in the conservation field. All of that, in terms of competence, fiscal competence…. You add their relationship, their ability to form those long and what appear to be very durable relationships, with First Nations and the endorsement from those First Nations. That’s a pretty unique and important criterion that we looked at.

Again, for probably the third time or fourth time, my confidence, our confidence, is very high with their capacity to handle what it is that we’re negotiating right now.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for that, Minister. That certainly helps.

I do want to ask a couple of questions about the administration of this fund going forward. Is there any sort of indication of what administration costs may be from the Real Estate Foundation?

Hon. N. Cullen: Yeah, just a clarifying question: administration costs to the government or administration costs that REFBC imagines?

[5:00 p.m.]

L. Doerkson: I’m curious about both. I think we already sort of canvassed the suggestion that the cost would be quite minimal from the government perspective, but I am very curious to know what the administration costs might be from the Real Estate Foundation’s perspective.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

Hon. N. Cullen: We are in the midst of negotiating that exact question right now with REFBC as to what would be permissible costs and amounts. Whatever is negotiated will be publicly available. There’ll be transparency with respect to how the funds are being allocated and how much is being allowed for or what kinds of things are being allowed for with respect to administration. And, yes, my friend’s suspicion was correct in terms of administration costs back to government: minimal or near-minimal to nothing.

Again, I’m not committing to it because we can’t, but perhaps offsetting some of the cost to government right now in terms of watershed initiatives. When we support certain projects for capacity funding and whatnot, one could imagine this fund being able to absorb some of those costs in their projects. But we’re not committing to that financially right now.

L. Doerkson: Earlier we talked a little bit about the grant agreements and sort of the foundation or the framework for what this might look like. I’m curious to know. I know that we’ve refrained from using the word “dictate” earlier, but we did also talk about grant agreements. I mean, is there a level that is acceptable to the government as far as administration for this fund? And is there a way to convey that to myself and others by way of a percentage point or something? There must be some framework out there for that.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: My friend can appreciate the trickiness of being in the midst of negotiations on this and then being able to be precise in answering the question that he puts, which is a good one.

Two elements. There’s a number of grants that we have set up over time, so we have a range of what we’ve seen in the past, from very small numbers for administration costs. The one, perhaps, difference in what we’re talking about with this particular fund, and this is what we’re trying to be live to as we negotiate this, is that we’re asking the Real Estate Foundation to establish and co-develop a fund.

That could, one would assume, implicate things like capacity, for the First Nations side of the conversation, to be able to engage meaningfully. It was a question earlier from our friend from Saanich North and the Islands: are we being supportive? To this point, as government, we have, administering this grant to First Nations. They’re going to co-develop it. Would a permissible administration cost be assisting First Nations in the co-development of the fund? You’d have to say yes, otherwise you’re asking First Nations to participate and fund themselves the travel, honorariums and whatnot.

That being said, I think an important point of something that we also envisioned…. Again, I have to be a little imprecise because we’re in the midst of negotiating this piece. It is an expectation…. It would be a credible expectation, if I can put it that way, that a fund of this size will garner — hopefully, if they are smart — a significant amount of interest. That interest in an allowable source of paying for operational would be coming from the interest garnered from the fund rather than drawing down the principal. I’m not sure if I’m being clear.

The fund gets set up. The fund is invested. It doesn’t sit within the REFBC or doesn’t sit within the entity. It’s invested. There’s interest, and appreciation is gained off that. An allowable expense, one could imagine we would negotiate, is to say: “Your operational costs are not coming out of principal, but your projects that you’re funding into the watersheds around B.C. and your operational costs for running the fund, capacity-building and whatnot, are also sourced from there, rather than drawing down on the principal.”

All this to say that we do have expectations of the so-called floor of how much can be drawn down in the establishment of the fund. We want to keep a very keen eye to that, because we don’t want a scenario in which it’s overdrawn and doesn’t have the heft or the credibility in the marketplace to sustain itself over time, have enough capital to receive enough interest to keep going and grow and be of size so other funders feel confident coming in and being able to contribute as well. Those are criteria we’re keeping in minds here.

L. Doerkson: I think we canvassed that exact thing. I don’t know that we ever got to an absolute solution, which was: was there a mechanism in the event that this fund starts to deplete? You’ve mentioned that again, but we’ve never really understood, this afternoon, what happens in the event of that.

My question isn’t about the depletion of the fund. My question is: what is palatable to the minister or the ministry with respect to administration costs on this fund? Let’s face it. We’re talking pretty big money; even 1 percent is going to be a pretty significant amount. I guess what I’m wondering is….

[5:10 p.m.]

We’ve talked this afternoon about this being quite unique, that it’s new and the courage it takes to do that, but we’ve also talked about other models that have been considered and may be helping to build some of the framework around this.

Again, my question is about the cost of administration. I mean, I want every dime that is possible to go into the good work that the fund proposes to do, so I want to get clarity, if I can, around those costs.

Hon. N. Cullen: There are two questions in here. One is about concerns around depletion, and it wasn’t answered to the member’s satisfaction. Let me try again, in the context of us, as we speak, being in the midst of a negotiation. One could, I suppose, have some sympathy for being public and as transparent as I possibly can, while at the same time having a very important negotiation with a trusted partner.

On the depletion, we talked about this a bit before. We have a performance reporting mechanism. Every year the fund has to come back to government and say how they’re doing, how their performances are. Are projects done? How is the fund doing? Any concerns around significant drawdown, we’ll see in their projections, we’ll see in their current performance. I share the member’s concern. If it were to get too low, then the capacity of it to be durable is diminished, and a whole bunch of other consequences would be real.

Second, there is what I would call a vested interest for the organization and the co-development of the fund to keep administration costs as low as humanly possible while doing the job right. To take my friend’s concern in the reverse, if someone came in and said it’s going to cost us 20 bucks to set up a new fund that’s going to administer $100 million, I’d be concerned as to whether it’s a good administration or not. You have to do it. You have to do it right. It’s a significant amount of money.

Third point, the administration costs in its first year will be, obviously, more than it would be on the ongoing basis, because of the cost to establish…. The cost to bring First Nations in with the right capacity requirements that they need will be higher than any other year because you don’t build it in the second year; you build it once. We acknowledge that, and that is in our conversation right now with REFBC, trying to imagine what those costs will be and to be very sincere about it.

We have to negotiate this. We’re doing that right now. Whatever terms, specific percentages — that, my friend, I can’t answer right now, but they will be made public. There will be public scrutiny about the agreement that we’ve settled. What are the administration burdens and the costs to the fund? How are the performance requirements going to be met so that the public, the treasury — us being accountable to citizens? Every year we’ll be able to look at the fund to see how it is doing. Do we have concerns?

[5:15 p.m.]

Again, if I look around, just at the B.C. examples that we talked about earlier, there is a relatively healthy set of examples, conservation-based–type funding that has been able to maintain and sustain itself, even over fairly radically swinging markets.

I wish, as I said earlier, I had my RRSPs with some of these conservation groups. They have pretty sophisticated funding mechanisms. They do. They seem to have done okay. Our expectation would be that the competence level will be equal to this, because the funds I referred to earlier….

I can get the list out again — the climate change fund out of Victoria, yeah. They’ve all handled near-similar amounts — a little bit less — but they’ve also sustained themselves over 15, 20 years, and a growing amount. They’ve not depleted down into their core asset. So that’s positive.

It’s a good model. It’s new in some ways. The fact that we’re co-developing it is new — with First Nations. The fact that we’re using an endowment, essentially, set up by government, with others to join, hopefully…. That’s not particularly new, and it’s been done to relatively good success — Columbia Basin, others, Great Bear Rainforest and whatnot.

L. Doerkson: We had actually canvassed this, probably two or three hours ago, but now it brings up a whole different line of questioning.

To me, it’s concerning that the minister has suggested a number of times that we’ll meet once a year to evaluate this fund to know…. If it’s depleting, we’ll have a solution to that. We’ve talked about the potential growth, but we’re not sure what that number looks like either. And now we’re talking about administration costs that, if they’re 5 percent or if they’re 10 percent on $100 million, we’re talking about very significant costs here.

I guess…. What are the metrics on this project? I mean, how will you determine….? The minister has made it clear on a number of occasions that we will monitor for the depletion of this fund to make sure that it’s successful, that we’ll monitor the growth of said fund as well, and that $20 wouldn’t be enough with respect to administration costs. But in my mind, 10 percent might be too much.

I’m just confused that we’re going to do all this monitoring, we’re going to deposit $100 million into, potentially, an account held with the B.C. Real Estate Foundation, and we have no metrics at all around what will make this fund successful or not successful. Could the minister provide some of those details?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you to my friend for the question. A couple of things. One is, as I said at the end of my last question, the innovation piece of this, which is quite exciting with respect to the co-development. As we’ve gone along with this experience on watershed restoration and watershed security, the co-development nature of this has been very important to us as a government.

As our friend from Vancouver-Langara was canvassing earlier, about the declaration of the rights, it’s satisfying some very important aspects of the action plan. One of the things that we heard was the ability of a fund to be independent of government, because of the advantages that brings — the ability of the fund to invest in the market, the ability of the fund to seek and gain other funds from private sources, other sources that government just simply couldn’t do.

Also, I know all colleagues enjoyed our conversation around Bill 8, which probably didn’t get enough time in some of our….

No, just kidding. It had enough time, canvassed within the House.

One of the things…. We heard a couple of things from the opposition — as well as, obviously, from government — in terms of general support for the REFBC being a really competent and good organization. We just went through the experience of $27 million with them in our communities — fantastic, co-managed, well reported, low administration costs, all those things that my friend has talked about as being of concern.

We also know from the OCG that this being a non–government reporting entity is required. Hence the bill and the changes that we’ve made. Now we’re here with them being a preferred source. The independence and the advantages we get also mean that we can negotiate out aspects of how the fund will work — in terms of setting the floor, concerns about drawdown and those types of things.

As we did with Great Bear Rainforest, done under a previous government, under Premier Campbell’s government, as we did under the climate institute in setting up those funds, once they move private, once they are a non–government reporting entity, the “control,” or my friend used the words “dictating powers of the government,” by its very nature and by its design, is less. So getting the partner right matters a lot.

I was very encouraged to hear the support from all sides of the House for this group as an entity — the Real Estate Foundation explicitly. Then hearing the support from First Nations having just gone through $27 million worth of watershed projects, co-developed and co-managed, gives us the confidence that we’ve chosen a good partner. You need that confidence.

There’s no way to have your cake and eat it too, I guess, would be the phrase. If you want them to be independent, be able to raise money to be a non–government reporting agency, to have that independence of movement, thought and action, you set them off in the right way. That’s what we’re doing right now in the negotiations.

All of those criteria that we develop together, in coordination with this potential partner, become public. They’re not held secretly. So the public, the opposition and whoever is concerned with this will be able to scrutinize: did we negotiate a good deal? Are those criteria that are set, as best as we can, for the receiver of the funds, done in the right way?

Then again, back to the co-management and the co-development of the fund itself, that is where the confidence ultimately lies — that we have expressed the desire that whoever receives this fund is not going to go out and act independently and alone or do with it what they will. We’re going to set some guardrails, I suppose, to how it is that it’s done, but I’m unable to give the member a “percent” on things like first-year administration and second-year administration.

I think there are some guidelines that we can look to and that one could expect, given other experiences of government, various governments, ours, Liberal or previous — I don’t know if the Socreds ever did; it doesn’t really matter — where governments have done this. They’ve granted over. They’ve seen the funds set up. It becomes independent. It has a reporting requirement back to the Legislature, which is good.

This one is unique in that it’s going to be done in partnership with First Nations rights and title holders, which is a very interesting and important part to me and, I think, many other people.

[5:25 p.m.]

L. Doerkson: That answer was a little bit sort of all over the place, frankly.

Minister, I am trying to understand. In your own words, you have said that you would deliver guardrails, boundaries, etc., to potentially…. I know that we haven’t inked the deal yet, so to speak, with the B.C. Real Estate Foundation. But I guess I’m trying to understand what some of those metrics might be.

Frankly, you just referred to the low administration costs on the $27 million that was just managed by the B.C. Real Estate Foundation, so perhaps I could get clarity on what those were. Would that be a fair indicator of what we might expect, going forward?

Hon. N. Cullen: The specific answer to my friend’s question is 8½ percent in the last round — the $27 million the Real Estate Foundation did to the healthy waters initiative, all those projects that we talked about, to some great success. It was that.

The caution is twofold. One is that that’s $27 million. Talking about $100 million is a very different sum of money. As he said, 8½ percent of $27 million is very different than 8½ percent of $100 million, just in terms of the quantity of money we’re talking about.

Second, the job is different. The job of administering a number of projects in watersheds across B.C. is a different task than the job of co-developing and standing up an institution to administer a large endowment of $100 million.

I hope it’s helpful just in being able to give the member a number, but it’s a bit of an apples-to-oranges piece simply because the quantity is changing and the job is changing. That is why we’re in those negotiations right now with the Real Estate Foundation to settle on something, understanding the scope of work and, given the concerns that my friend rightly raises, to make sure that we don’t draw down what would be an unacceptable level of moneys in the establishment of the thing, yet doing the job right.

You can get a bridge built super cheap. You want to make sure that the bridge stands over time. This fund has the performance stand over time, so we’ve got to do it right. That will be our conversations with a trusted partner.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and thank you, Member. I’m just going to remind both of you to go through the Chair when you’re asking your question, please.

L. Doerkson: Great advice. Thank you, Chair.

That is my concern. I mean, if we’re talking about $8½ million that, potentially, we could see as administration, that is a whopping sum of money. I would definitely have some concerns about that going forward.

I’m wondering, within that administration, would there be further costs to further engagement? In other words, will this fund actually be paying for the engagement that we will see over the next little while, and what does that number look like?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: I was just checking to see…. This is, I think, a fairly decent reference point. If my colleague remembers the time of June of last year — going with the B.C.–First Nations Water Table, arriving us to yesterday — we had allocated money for First Nations capacity in terms of participation. That was the question from our friends from Saanich. It’s a good question in terms of honoraria, travel, that type of thing. The budget for that within ministry — that was out of ministry — was $300,000, to give him a sense of what it was for engagement and participation.

In terms of participating in the next stage, that will be in our general estimates conversation that we’re happy to have. We have some allocated funds to help with the engagement process in the near term — near to mid-term, I would say is fair to say — specifically with regards to this.

Going ahead, though…. We touched on this a little bit earlier, but I want to come back to it. An eligible cost from the fund off of interest or income that the fund receives can pay for that type of work, for First Nations capacity-building — again, not a drawdown on the principal. We’ve seen in other funds — and again, we’ve got models out there — that the moneys are invested, generally speaking, and smartly, generally speaking. Paying First Nations to participate, bringing up capacity, science, travel, honoraria, that type of thing, is not drawn out of the principle. It’s drawn out of the interest accrued or profits that have been received from the investments of the fund.

I want to assure members that those two principles are very important to us. One is that First Nations are fully given resources to participate in the design, co-design of the project. We’re helping with that up to this point. We’ll continue in the near to mid-term. As the fund establishes itself, starts to receive income, which it will — any fund of that size will receive income — an allowable expense that we’re negotiating right now would be to help the administration and particularly the capacity and inclusion and participation of First Nations who are involved at the strategic design level.

I hope that answers the question.

L. Doerkson: I can appreciate the number $300,000 has been introduced here. I would suggest that that would be quite light, considering the scope of what I think the minister is trying to accomplish here.

But I want to talk a little bit about investment now. You’ve mentioned a number of times this afternoon…. I think the minister actually could be quoted as saying that he wished his RSPs were with some of these companies.

I guess my first question about this is: who is actually going to manage the $100 million fund?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Again, all of this is pending a successful outcome of a negotiation. As of the end of this fiscal, end of this month, the funds would go to the REFBC. That’s where it will be deposited. They would then be building the stand-alone fund, independent of their other operations.

I think the member will recall that I read a note out from the Real Estate Foundation. dated February 17, in terms of their capacity to do what they do right now, in terms of managing funds that are then accruing some capacity to raise funds. So they have negotiating, establishing and monitoring compliance agreements for more than 1,800 trust accounts with every credit union and bank in B.C. They have a very articulated general investment policy and impact policy statement.

To remind my friend again, and it bears repeating, the fund will be co-developed. It won’t be exclusively to REFBC’s decision as to how to set that up. This is the commitment we came through from our negotiations, our consultations, with First Nations. Once the money is deposited, there’s a second stage, which REFBC sets up the structure on with First Nations. It may look very similar to some composite of the water table that we have, but different, for their own sake.

Again, the advantage of doing it this way, as we’ve experienced in the province under different governments and administrations in the past, is that when it’s done this way, the ability to invest the dollars, which government doesn’t do that way…. Second, the ability to raise funds through other groups is greatly enhanced.

I appreciate the member’s concern. It’s right to raise concerns about how things are administered. It is in the vested interests of the REFBC and their First Nations partners, certainly, to administer the fund well and to administer the fund with as low administration costs as possible. Their ability to then go and grow the fund and sustain the fund over time is increased.

So there’s no advantage. There’s no real experience we have in B.C. that I can think of. My friend might have some, where the government has granted over a significant fund, and it’s gone badly. It’s drawn down too significantly, too quickly. I can’t think of any off the top of my head.

Given the experiences we’ve had around Great Bear, the funds on Haida Gwaii that the previous administration established, as well, they’ve all done very well. In most cases, they’re co-developed — and a deep reliance on professional investors, etc.

The structure of it is not done, generally speaking, internal to the organizations that we grant. When we’re talking about this significant amount of funds, you have a professional administration and a management board making those very astute decisions of large amounts into the market, generally speaking.

L. Doerkson: The minister was just getting to the part that I was interested in when he stopped. That is…. I can appreciate…. Although it is confusing, because on some suggestions this afternoon. we’ve heard that we’re not going to be a part of this. Then in this case, we’re going to be co-developing a plan and part of the structure going forward. So maybe I’ve misunderstood.

My question is…. The minister has referred, this afternoon, on a number of occasions, to the fact that these funds have done well in these other organizations. In fact, so well that he wished they managed their RSP.

Again the question is: where will the money be deposited? The minister has referred to 800 credit union accounts. Is this money going to be in a credit union? Where is the money going to be deposited? Who will be managing it? What potential returns would you expect?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Again, pending successful negotiations over the next couple of weeks, they’re deposited within REFBC. They have an investment policy. I didn’t read out all their entire investment policy, but it’s public. We can certainly get it so members could be assured as to how it is they do their investments, which they have multiples of.

One slight correction. The member may have misheard me. The co-development of the fund will not be done with us. It’ll be done between the REFBC and First Nations. This is very important given the OCG’s concerns around REFBC remaining a government reporting entity, using year-end funds and such and such. That was the concern that we collectively mitigated.

I was glad to hear the support from around the House not just to make the change but also support from around the House, all three parties, talking about the credibility of this group. We did this in a way…. There was some anticipation, at least, of making them an available candidate for such an effort. Again, given just the very, very recent experience our government and First Nations have had with the REFBC in administrating the $27 million — outstanding. Outstanding. I have yet to hear a significant critique.

Explicitly to the member’s question, deposit it at REFBC. They co-develop the structure of the fund with First Nations. Following that, reporting back to us as a government in the Legislature once every year. Just about everything other than the negotiations we’re in right now, everything I’ve talked about, is publicly available documents. So it should give reassurance to the member.

L. Doerkson: Yes, the minister is correct. I am definitely concerned. I just don’t get a sense…. I appreciate that what the ministry is doing…. I don’t think I would be quoting incorrectly that it’s unique, that it’s new, that it’s something that we haven’t, perhaps, done before or whatever.

I guess the frustration…. Perhaps it’s not even frustration. It is concern, though, on my part, and I’m sure I would share it with many British Columbians, that this is a very large sum of money. The clarity around, to quote the minister again, guardrails around returns and expenditures and everything else just haven’t been identified yet.

I can appreciate that that work is ongoing. I guess it’s just surprising to think that we’re doing that work after we got a cheque for $100 million. I just would have presumed that that is exactly the work that would have been done in order to receive this money.

Now, I can appreciate that we heard earlier…. I don’t want an “asked and answered” again. I can appreciate that that money was given to this ministry via the Finance Minister, and it was approved at the Treasury Board and everything else.

I guess my question is: did the Treasury Board, at the time of making that decision, know that this work that we’ve been discussing for the last five or six hours wasn’t complete?

[5:45 p.m.]

Did the Treasury Board know, at the time of their decision…? Did the Treasury Board know that the work that we’ve talked about here this afternoon is not complete and that it is actually sort of a work-in-progress that they’ve just assigned $100 million to?

Hon. N. Cullen: My friends, that’s why I wanted to be clear on the question towards the end, in terms of the deliberations, awareness or lack of awareness or whatever the question specifically was with respect to Treasury Board.

He will well know that the deliberations of Treasury Board are held entirely in confidence. His colleagues can confirm that. I can’t speak to any of those deliberations or what was or was not considered within them.

L. Doerkson: I really wasn’t asking about the deliberations of the Treasury Board. I was asking about the timing. Obviously, this decision…. I mean, I guess I could almost attempt to answer the question myself, with all due respect, Minister.

Clearly, the Treasury Board has made the decision to fund this $100 million. Clearly, they must be aware that while there is a potential plan, it really hasn’t formed. It’s not buttoned up and decided as to what this looks like, going forward.

Let me ask you this. Is there any chance, Minister, that something could derail this funding at this point? If there was a relationship that did not form, for instance, with the B.C. Real Estate Foundation, what would happen in that situation?

Hon. N. Cullen: I’m a hopeful guy. I think we will settle the agreement. To the member’s concern, if not, the money is returned back to government.

L. Doerkson: I want to just spend a couple of minutes, if we could, on projects.

Now, I know, and it has been made clear, that this is sort of a work-in-progress as far as what’s happening with the potential relationship with the Real Estate Foundation and, certainly, with respect to a number of other things.

[5:50 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the minister could provide some clarity around the goals that the minister may have or may hope to achieve with this funding.

Hon. N. Cullen: A couple of things. What’s the old expression? In looking for future behaviour, look to past behaviour as a good indication.

The healthy watersheds initiative…. We’ll get a comprehensive list for the member, if he would like. It gives a good flavour of the types of projects that we have funded to this point — a lot of them co-managed and co-developed.

Of course, in anticipating what types of projects would be authorized under an agreement between REFBC and First Nations…. You don’t want to overpresume, I suppose. They have a negotiation to do, and they will fund things.

Some of the key outcomes the province is looking to realize…. I’ll list five of them here to help give some guidance: restoring and maintaining ecosystem services and watershed health; supporting climate resiliency; supporting watershed governance; including local organizations in meeting their mandates; economic stimulus through direct job creation; and supporting reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in advancing the UN declaration.

I think those are both specific and broad in the sense of what projects one could anticipate in the Cariboo or up north or on the coast here.

Achieving those reconciliation initiatives. Maintaining healthy ecosystem services is a general frame. The resiliency, which we’ve talked a little bit about earlier, in terms of a watershed’s ability to absorb some of the impacts and effects of climate change. Jobs, which we’ve done. We can list out those outcomes and the $27 million that has happened already. An excellent job creation program, particularly in some small and rural remote communities, which I’m enthused about.

By its very design, reconciliation advancement would feel quite likely and positive. It’s an outcome that we’re looking for as a government. That’s why we’ve built into the DNA of what happens next that negotiation between the real estate board and First Nations, co-developing what happens next.

L. Doerkson: I want to get a sense of, I guess, how much…. I note, of course, there is sort of an arm’s-length relationship here that will be formed as we go forward.

I want to get a sense of what the minister may see as an indication for projects to be dispensed each year, going forward.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Pursuant to my friend’s question with respect to the projects…. One is, by the very nature of what it is that we’re doing…. We’re going to fund, hopefully, the Real Estate Foundation board to go and co-develop and co-design, with First Nations, a fund that will then administer the projects.

I don’t presuppose what those projects will be. As I said in my previous answer, a fairly good indicator of what may happen is to look at what has happened already in a very similar scenario. The amount of money in that case was $27 million over two years. First Nations and the Real Estate Foundation board, as partners, did…. I read out just prior to this some of the criteria we’re looking for. Those are very broad.

A second component is that some projects…. You could have many projects that are very small, and you could have a few projects that are very large, with a much larger impact but only realize five projects.

I literally won’t be in my office with a map of the watersheds of B.C. deciding which projects get funded. It’s the nature of what it is that we’re doing. It is giving independence. This is important to the OCG as a non-government reporting entity. It has its independence from the Crown to be able to go ahead and initiate, with the DNA that we’re placing into the fund, the watershed stewardship recovery strategies that we’re talking about.

I would add this. Our influence as the government, particularly my ministry, would be much more directed towards modernized land use planning, which we’re doing across B.C. in various iterations with First Nations.

One could imagine…. I’m giving a future scenario. It’s a little hard to predict. This fund is successfully arrived at. REFBC is running a number of projects under this new fund with First Nations. A nation has arrived at a government-to-government agreement with the province over the territory and within the territory has identified these critical watersheds that need restoration.

Now we’re talking about excellent synergy. It’s the ability to manifest work on the ground. We can arrive at modernized land use agreements with First Nations and a very active and bona fide good partner alongside that’s doing some of the on-the-ground restoration work that will be achieved.

My colleagues will be aware of the recent agreement with Blueberry River. Part of that agreement was, essentially, a restoration fund that the province is providing. It’s necessary. That’s what’s going to happen to achieve certainty in that part of the world. As we advance through these types of mechanisms, I think we’re achieving something that is a bit more innovative.

Again, back to his earlier point, what is new here is the co-development. What is not new is the government granting a program. We’ve done this lots, where we’ve cut a cheque. It has gone out under a structure, independent of government influence, to decide which projects to pick.

[6:00 p.m.]

We’ve done it. We’ve done it lots. We do it across multiple ministries. We’ve done it across multiple administrations. You’ve just got to set up the parameters as best you can. That’s what we’re doing right now.

The Chair: I am going to ask members, if they have a conversation, they can take it outside. The rule is that if I can hear you, then it’s a bit loud. Thank you.

L. Doerkson: I appreciate the minister’s answer with respect to not knowing. I think I prefaced my comment with the fact that the minister would be arm’s length to making some of these decisions. I think the minister also noted that he’s not going to be putting pins on a hundred different things that may be happening throughout the province, or perhaps only one. I mean, it may be just one very large project.

I can appreciate that, but that wasn’t the question I asked. The question I asked, and maybe I’ll try to ask it in a different way, was: what are the metrics around success, I suppose? How much will be dispensed? Surely there is some indication. I mean, we’ve talked about the potential for 8.5 percent with respect to administration costs.

While I know we haven’t been able to identify rates of return or any of those types of things this afternoon, surely the people of British Columbia could expect we would be spending or investing more of the $100 million than we would be paying for administration. I can appreciate that we’re hoping this fund lasts a very long time. What I’m trying to understand is the metrics around that yearly reporting we’ve talked about a number of times today.

What will the minister point to or how will the minister determine success with respect to the amount of funds dispensed for projects? Not for anything else, just for projects.

Hon. N. Cullen: Measures of success, for us: a co-developed fund, co-administered, that is able to leverage further funds and is able to then fund consistent projects that improve watersheds across B.C. over a very, very long term. The structure of what we built, we believe, gives us a good chance of that success — a co-developed, durable, leveraged fund that’s administered and co-developed with First Nations.

[6:05 p.m.]

That is improving, in a sustainable way, the quality, the durability and all those things that I talked about earlier of our watersheds to provide good, clean drinking water and to be able to adapt and absorb the effects of climate change and help be a part of the significant process of rebuilding wild salmon stocks — all of those outcomes that we’re looking for. This is a tool that we believe will be incredibly vital in the coming years to doing that.

Our confidence in the partnerships that we’ve achieved to this point with First Nations; the success we’ve had with our likely candidate, our hoped-for a candidate, in REFBC; the capacity of governments in the past, again, governments of all stripes…. When the Great Bear Rainforest initiative was set up, when the climate change fund, there wasn’t a written-in stipulation on the return of investment from government. It didn’t happen.

The clear motivation to the fund managers, to the fund administrators, is to keep administration costs low, to make sure there’s a solid return of investment so they can keep going. They know, if it’s a fund on Haida Gwaii, if it’s fund on the coast, if it’s the Columbia Basin Trust, that the last thing you want to do is be responsible for winding a fund down so that it can’t do what it’s intended to do.

We’re basing that model, the model we’re using here, on what I would argue have been some very successful initiatives, over decades in B.C., over many different administrations. What’s different is that from the beginning we’ve implicated ourselves with First Nations in co-designing it. I know it can be frustrating. I suspect it’s frustrating, not having some of the specifics. The timing is tricky, as my friend can appreciate. We’re negotiating right now.

In terms of the outcomes piece, I described them in those general terms because it’s a non-government reporting entity that we’re seeking to create. So my ability to say “thou shalt” six months from now is, by its design, not possible and nor should it be, just in terms of the specific projects that get performed in the watersheds, which we hope to see within this next fiscal for the projects.

We’ve done this as a government before. We just never have done it this way, this profoundly integrated with First Nations. I haven’t read them, but I’ve got quote after quote of First Nations leaders around B.C. celebrating the lifting up of the fund that we did yesterday and understanding what it’s meant to do and wholly supportive of its efforts to do it, along with quotes from non-government agencies and other folks. We didn’t bother going into municipalities and business groups, but we can gather those citations as well. This is a well-supported concept.

It’s good to have the scrutiny over what exactly the design is and all the rest, but I hope, ultimately, members can leave the conversation knowing that there’s a great deal of hopefulness behind this and that the integrity behind the relationships that have been formed in the design are of the highest standard.

I feel very good about what we’re, hopefully, about to do if this vote passes and we’re able to administer those funds. Then we’ll be coming back to the Legislature in the months and years to come on specific projects and also on the reporting and the functioning of the fund over time.

We can dig up the funds that have been around for 20 years and look to them for their performance and confidence in terms of administration burden, return on investments, how they’ve been doing in terms of their own durability. They’re quite good.

The Chair: We have seven minutes.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for that warning, Chair.

Thanks for the answer, Minister.

I don’t want to give the minister any sort of an indication that I don’t think this work is not great and that there isn’t a lot of hope in the room. Certainly, I would confirm, for the Chair, I have a lot of hope as well. I’m just shocked, I guess, at the size of the fund and that at this late date, we don’t have some clarity around a number of things.

I can appreciate that it is in the best interest of whoever manages this fund, whether that be the Real Estate Foundation or whoever…. I can appreciate that there are good reasons and good motives to keep administration costs down and continue to grow the fund.

Frankly, to have no sense of boundaries and just vague suggestions that there’ll be yearly reporting and we’ll understand that it’s successful or not but not be able to point to a clear understanding of: “We’re going to get 5 percent return; we’re going to spend 8.5 percent on administration, and we’re going to determine that we’re going to invest 15 percent or 20 percent yearly of the fund….”

[6:10 p.m.]

Look, there are smarter people that would figure all of that out. I guess what I’m saying is that I’m surprised that we don’t have that figured out at this late date, particularly when there’s clearly $100 million about to transfer hands here.

With respect to projects going forward, again, I can appreciate there is a sense that will be at arm’s length, but I can also suggest the ministry is very well equipped to help with regard to different types of projects that may be happening. I mentioned in my comments right off the top that Sheridan Lake in my own riding is four feet lower than it should be.

Now, I can appreciate we got a ton of snow, but there’s something happening there. I think the ministry is well positioned to be able to indicate that that might be something that might be worthy of some research.

I guess I’d like to ask one more question around that. Going forward, how will the ministry be involved, if there’s any involvement at all, in perhaps making priorities on the landscape?

The Chair: Member, may I just ask one question for clarification? Will you have more questions to follow today?

L. Doerkson: I’d like to make a statement after this.

The Chair: Looking at the hour, then, because we have to adjourn here in about two minutes…. Do you think we can do it?

L. Doerkson: Yeah. I think so.

The Chair: Okay.

Hon. N. Cullen: The member is right. Next fall we’ll bring forward a watershed security strategy. That remains our obligation as a ministry, and that is our work. That shows government efforts to identify for British Columbians priority watersheds, what the strategy is in terms of the recovery and recuperation. The ability of a fund like this to be able to then go and do some of that work will be critical.

I hear the hopefulness and I hear the concern just with respect to some of the specifics we’ve tried to talk about here today where the member was not finding satisfaction in the specifics. I would say that the stars might be aligning, and I think they are aligning quite in a good way. Government is interested in a watershed security strategy, identifying where the key projects are and having a robust fund that’s able to be co-developed with First Nations.

L. Doerkson: Noting that the Chair is doing sign language to tell us to move along, I just want to say quickly that I am hopeful that everything here works out well. I certainly hope the minister will appreciate that I will certainly try to hold the ministry to account.

I am concerned. I just want to highlight that, honestly, there was no clarity around a lot of mechanisms, and I think that those have to be developed very, very quickly — no mechanisms around the protection of the depletion of the fund, or certainly no clarity around that.

With respect to other things, whether it be rates of return and all those other things, I would hope to see clarity going forward on that as you forge your relationship with the B.C. Real Estate Foundation. Frankly, I think that’s owed to the people of British Columbia. I can appreciate that we’ve had other good funds out there. My hope for this is that this will also be a good fund.

That’s going to conclude my questions today. I want to thank the minister and the staff for the time here today — appreciate it — and am looking forward to the estimates in the next week or two, next month or so.

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

Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

[6:15 p.m.]

Members, a division has been called. In accordance with the sessional order adopted by the House on February 6, 2023, the division will take place in ten minutes. As a reminder, only the permanent members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

[6:20 p.m.]

A division is about to take place. The question is shall Vote 38(S) pass.

Vote 38(S): ministry operations, $100,000,000 — approved on the following division:

YEAS — 8
Beare	Begg	Chow
Cullen	D’Eith	Farnworth
Olsen		Sharma
NAYS — 3
Ashton	Halford	Merrifield

Hon. N. Cullen: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:21 p.m.