Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:05 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Water, Land and Resource Stewardship
(continued)

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

On Vote 46: ministry operations, $220,818,000 (continued).

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for the detailed answer before we adjourned for lunch there. I will leave the rest of those questions to be responded to in writing. I don’t think there’s a real benefit in just reading in numbers. I wasn’t able to transcribe them fast enough for it to be meaningful. And I was also looking for a bit of a regional breakdown as well. We didn’t get into the regions and how that funding is dispersed.

There were another ten or 12 questions there that I will wait for the written responses on. I will read them in at the end if it’s necessary, but I think there’s a process for me to submit those again.

I wanted to move into water. Obviously, it’s the first thing in the ministry so we’ll start there. I appreciate the staff that have joined us. I want to talk a little bit about licensing and groundwater registration to start. I’m curious on how many water licences were issued in the ’24-25 season, and how many we expect are going to be processed this year?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you to the MLA for Boundary-Similkameen.

I read those numbers in a confusing way, so I apologize. We will get those to you quickly.

In terms of the question you just asked, in 2024, there were 514 water licence applications received by the province. And 213 application decisions were made that resulted in the issuance of new water licences. Ten licence refusal decisions were made. That was in 2024.

In 2025, so far, 132 water licence applications have been received as of April 28 of this year. We project that between 500 and 550 applications may be received by the end of 2025. And 53 application decisions have been made as of April 28 of this year that resulted in the issuance of new water licences. We project between 200 and 230 new water licences may be issued by the end of 2025. So far this year, there have been three licence refusal decisions.

[1:10 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: Going with the first number for 2024, you said 514 applications, 213 processed. What’s the difference? Are they ones that are in backlog that didn’t meet requirements or were denied?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for your question. Of the 213 applications that resulted in the issuance of new water licences in 2024…. How we make those decisions is we search for the priority water licences — for example, ones that support human health and safety, or if they’re related to homes or home-building or key priorities, as well, for the province.

They may be either in the backlog or new applications, but the ones that we don’t get to — the 514 that you referred to — just remain in the queue.

Donegal Wilson: It’s almost like we orchestrated it. My next question is: how many are in the queue?

Hon. Randene Neill: There was math involved there. Sorry, that’s why it took a while. Currently in the queue: from 2024, 291 applications; so far in 2025, 76 applications, for a total of 367 in the queue for 2024-2025.

Donegal Wilson: Do we have any in the queue prior to that, or is everything caught up to 2024?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the questions. Total water licences in the queue as of February 2025 is 2,045, and that includes the 367 that we just previously mentioned for the last two years.

Donegal Wilson: That’s a pretty significant number, a lot more than I was expecting. How many staff do we have that are working on these applications?

I’m assuming that we’re starting at the oldest and working our way forward. What is the process for how we’re getting through that backlog? What is the average time it’s taking to process those applications? I’m assuming those are outliers.

Hon. Randene Neill: I will start with this. We currently have 101 water authorization staff. They work on permitting and other related work. That includes monitoring and drought and those sorts of duties.

In the last year, we actually were able to process 139 applications faster than they came in. So we’re making a bit of progress — not a lot. And the average processing days it takes to process one water application is about 344 days.

Donegal Wilson: Is there a maximum length of time where those applications just kind of fall off the radar, or do they stay on the books forever? What is communicated to the applicant around the time frame of expectations when they make the application?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

The water applications do not expire; they stay in queue. As we mentioned earlier, we try to surface those applications that are urgent. So ones that are facing drought conditions, health issues and housing are the ones that the government issues as priority baskets.

When the applications first come in, we communicate clearly to the applicant that our turnover times are not sufficient, but we also give them an estimated time that we think their application will be in queue. When we near the end of that estimated time that we think their application is going to be in queue, we contact them to either say, “we’re on schedule” or “we’re behind schedule.” And then we give them an updated estimated timeline, if that’s what we need to do.

Donegal Wilson: How many…? What is our estimate on how many groundwater users right now are unlicensed in the province?

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Apologies for the delay.

In 2016, when the Water Sustainability Act came in, there was an estimate that there were probably about 20,000 unlicensed users in this province. There are 7,867 existing water users that have applied since 2016 that are still waiting in the queue to get permitted.

The delay was caused by…. We were trying to figure out if we could give you a number of how many new unlicensed groundwater users there are, and we either don’t have that number or couldn’t find it. If we can find it, we’ll definitely give it to you.

Donegal Wilson: So those 7,867 are in a different queue? Or are they part of the original queue?

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: We found some updated numbers, which I’ll read to you, and if they don’t answer the question, we can go further on this. As of October 2022, we had 5,829 existing-use groundwater applications. In February of 2025, so almost three years later, we had 4,697. So we were able to process 1,132 in that time.

In October 2022, we had…. Actually, you know what? I’m not going to read this out, because I’m not sure it’s going to answer your question.

It’s a different category for groundwater applications. In October 2022, we had 43 new groundwater applications. As of February, 2025, we had 33, so we reduced that number by ten.

Donegal Wilson: That sort of answered the question, but do we still have 7,867 existing water users that are waiting to be licensed?

Hon. Randene Neill: Hopefully, this provides the clarity. As of February 2025, out of that number that we gave you earlier, the 7,867, we currently have 4,697 still waiting in the queue.

Donegal Wilson: We have 2,000 in one queue, and we have 4,700 applications sitting in another queue. Am I not understanding the queues?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Hopefully, this clears it up for you. Our entire water caseload…. We have different subqueues, like existing water, previously existing water, new groundwater applications, total water applications.

The breakdown of our entire water application caseload as of February of this year, 2025, still waiting in queue: existing use groundwater, 4,697; for section 11 applications, which are changes in and around a stream, we have 500; for new groundwater applications, we have 33; for section 10 applications, we have 130; for water licence applications, we have 2,045; and for abandonments, we have 209.

Donegal Wilson: Does your sheet have the total, or are you going to make me do the math?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for that. I actually meant to do that, and I totally forgot. The total is 7,614.

Donegal Wilson: I appreciate that. Yeah, obviously that was read in, but it would be good if we could have that, if I could get a copy of that when we’re done.

Switching to water rents. Do we have a mechanism to audit the usage versus what is licensed?

Hon. Randene Neill: Basically, our two mechanisms to determine the usage of water in this province are water monitors and also the number of licence applications. Prior to 2016, we had no way to measure groundwater use at all. The challenge now that we still have is that if we do issue a licence for a farm, for example, that gives them a certain amount of water use per day, we don’t know if they hit that target. They could consistently come under it, and we have no way of determining that.

Donegal Wilson: We also don’t know if they’re pulling more than that.

[1:40 p.m.]

And then looking at the numbers that you provided previously, it looks like more than half of water users aren’t even in the application process. By the estimation of…. I think it was 20,000 or 22,000 that we think are there. We’re at 7,000, almost 8,000, that have registered as existing users. So there’s a large segment we don’t even know…. We don’t even know if our estimate was a valid number.

When we’re making those land use decisions around the water, how do we…? What matrix do you have for those decisions when you don’t know if they’re taking more or less than they were? We know we have water licences that possibly aren’t drawing anything; we probably have water licences that are drawing more. So how do we…? What is the matrix for decision-making?

Are those water licences impacting future water licence applications? Because we don’t know. Are we being too conservative, or are we not being conservative enough, I guess, is the direction. I don’t know if the question was clear there.

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

We’ll answer your first question first: are we too conservative or not conservative enough? We know that’s not a political question. We’ll answer it by saying that we err on the side of caution. We assume that every licence is using its max capability.

The water team does have a matrix. They basically look at a holistic view of what the environment can provide.

With monitoring and the number of licences, given we look to see how much water is available — what groundwater exists, what wells are in the area, what the known volumes are in the area — we also look at the hydrological connectivity between surface and groundwater.

Overall, though, I think I can say with some certainty that we are in a much, much better position in terms of our water than we were in 2016, but we still have a long way to go.

Donegal Wilson: I have more questions on that, but for the sake of time, I’m going to move on.

Drought — since we went there. How are users prioritized during a drought declaration, and how is that communicated?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

Our priority in times of drought is always human health and human safety, so drinking water is always our top priority. We take several steps.

First, we always set voluntary guidelines. You see those kinds of water restrictions that local governments do every year as well, but those voluntary guidelines are expected not just of individuals but also of industry. Those are ways to just be really cognizant of the fact that we’re heading into the summer and the drought season. We ask people to do a list of things to try and reduce their water use.

In terms of unlicensed users, we can use something called graduated enforcement, where we can actually send out natural resource officers to let people know that we’re heading into drought and remind them that if they don’t have a licence, and they’re a new user, they need to wait to apply for a licence.

In terms of licensed users, we have drought tables, and those are used at the local level. We keep people informed about what the water levels look like and what the drought tables look like.

I just want to point out that this was in my mandate letter by the Premier: to work with communities affected by drought or expected to face water shortages and to support community-based priority-setting between industrial, agricultural, residential and environmental uses for water.

Our job is to ensure better coordination between water regulators and local communities in advance of drought to support effective response during an emergency. We know that those decisions are best made at a local level, at local water tables where local governments and community and small business and agriculture come together to make those choices about the priority in their community for water uses in times of drought.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that. Yeah, I think there are some tough decisions that’ll be coming up versus agriculture and tourism. I live in the Similkameen Valley. What’s more important — the cattle, the peach trees, the vines? How is that going to be prioritized?

[1:50 p.m.]

The first-in-time model that was shared as part of the need to register…. With that many applications still sitting in the queue, what happens with the ones that never did? The first-in-time all got letters saying that they needed to curtail, but the people that never registered did not get the letters. What is the enforcement or the strategy for the never-did group?

Hon. Randene Neill: First, I want to thank you for….

Your riding, Boundary-Similkameen, I think, is one of the largest ridings in this province and the second most beautiful after Powell River–Sunshine Coast. But I hear you.

When I go and visit my parents, who live in the Okanagan, it’s stressful there in the summer. You can sit and watch the lightning strikes hit the mountain. We’re potentially in a drought position. It’s so tough. And also, in 2021, in my riding of the Sunshine Coast, we literally had to decide to turn off water to the farmers. And that is something in a temperate rainforest…. We never, ever thought we’d have to face that choice.

In your question, those first-in-time, first-in-right users who apply to get licences versus those who never did…. All we want to do is get them to apply for a licence, because all we want to do is monitor the water.

So our biggest…. What we do is really try and talk to different organizations — agriculture organizations, industry organizations, individuals — to really work on them. Since 2016, we’ve been doing this to get them to apply for a licence. Because, at the end of the day, all we want to do is be able to monitor the amount of water in a watershed so we can ensure that we have enough water for everyone.

For those who never did, as you suggested, there is graduated enforcement or graduated compliance. That’s where we send natural resource officers out to talk to folks.

[1:55 p.m.]

When we get into times of drought, people get really scared. So if they notice a neighbour, who doesn’t have a licence, using water, we often get phone calls. We tend to get a list of those folks who haven’t applied for licences. We’ll go out and talk to them, encourage them to apply, and let them know what, potentially, the penalties are that can be applied to them for not complying and not getting a licence and illegally using the water.

Donegal Wilson: I think that’s pretty much what I assumed, that we were counting on neighbours to paddle, for lack of a better word, on their neighbours.

With the queue that we saw, the other challenge, I would think, is that we have 7,000 people to get through. What are we doing to ramp up staff if we are also doing education and outreach to try to get people to register and we’re sending natural resource officers out to enforce?

It takes a year to get an application, and we have a queue of 7,000. I’m a little confused on the priority of getting those people to apply when we’re not processing the applications.

Hon. Randene Neill: I want to thank you for this question, because this is something that we grapple with all the time, and in fact, permitting and speeding up permitting is something that is also in my mandate letter. This is something that our team takes incredibly seriously.

Your question was: what are we doing to ramp up staff to try and speed up the process of the applications and improving most of the applications?

Once again, it’s not just speeding up the application process, although that is a big part of our portfolio and what we are dedicated to do and what is in our mandate. It is also working with folks to teach them about drought and doing a huge education campaign and sending people letters when we’re in times of drought, rural communities, to say we’re heading into a drought.

We have a website that is publicly available for drought tables. We have the river forecast centre, which is world-renowned, to look at those types of numbers and water predictions as well.

[2:00 p.m.]

But I think that, since 2016, we have worked on permitting reform. The status quo isn’t acceptable. We understand that. We know that. It’s obvious to you. We are going to do our very best, and we’re enacting a lot of things to make permitting more efficient and speed up the process.

Donegal Wilson: While I appreciate “We’re trying, and we see the problem,” I also am a finance person, and when we look at the budget, there’s no more money. So how are we ramping up, and where are we finding those efficiencies to meet that backlog?

Hon. Randene Neill: In 2022, the Treasury Board approved $77.83 million to advance permitting. That is the equivalent of 203 FTEs across seven natural resource ministries.

Donegal Wilson: So in 2022, the $77.83 million was announced across many ministries. How much is left and specific to this ministry for the implementation of the water licensing?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

Of that $77.83 million, $27.139 million came to WLRS. The funding was dispersed across all seven of those ministries to fill key positions in permitting. They weren’t specifically going to different things like permitting for housing or other issues. They were addressing systemic change for permitting in general — to take a holistic view across ministries, to target backlogs in priority areas, like we mentioned earlier in housing, and in many cases, areas that were in drought, and to look for long-term sustainable permitting solutions.

Donegal Wilson: Just to put a pin in that, we had $27 million to improve permitting, but we’re still 7,000 in backlogs, and the actual improvements made aren’t adequate.

Is that funding continuing in this fiscal year? And how much will you have in this fiscal year?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question that, hopefully, adds some clarity.

All of the positions that I mentioned earlier remain filled in this fiscal. I do want to clarify, because your question was specifically about water licences, that money was used to create permitting efficiencies. I wanted to give you a couple of examples to let you know about what the priorities have been and what we’re working on.

For example, in housing, we’ve cleared the backlog. It used to take 257 days for an application to go through. It now takes 108 days. That’s a 58 percent reduction in the time it takes.

A small example kind of related to water: the riparian area protection regulation. We have basically cleared that backlog, for example. It used to take up to a year for permitting, and we can do a 30-day turnaround time on it now.

Again, we’re moving in the right direction. We know the status quo isn’t satisfactory, but we’re still working really hard, and we will continue to work hard to reduce the permitting times.

Donegal Wilson: I am going to pass it over to my colleague from Delta South, who has just a couple of questions, just to be respectful of his time, and then I’ll continue.

Ian Paton: It was your government that brought in the agricultural land reserve in 1973. The Agriculture Minister’s mandate letter talks about access to farming as a career for aspiring farmers. It talks about expanding affordability and food security in the province by working with farmers to find ways to control costs and strengthening our regional food systems by supporting farming, expanding local food processing, identifying supply chain disruption vulnerabilities and working with food and beverage producers who have been impacted by weather-related crop losses.

It goes on to talk about the very importance, in the minister’s mandate letter, of the continuation of public support for the agricultural land reserve, including protection of B.C. families from food price shocks, promotion of financial success, working with farmers and food processors throughout the province and encouraging the saving of good agricultural land in this province.

I brought this up before, about this wonderful 150 acres of prime agricultural land in Cowichan Bay on Vancouver Island. I’ve been on this for about three years now. I’ve toured the property. I’ve done videos. I’ve done op-eds about the property. I’ve done many media interviews about this property.

I’ve been a good friend with the farmer, Gerald Poelman, that farmed these 150 acres. He grew corn for dairy cattle in the general area. He grew grass for hay and silage for dairy cattle in the general area. It’s an absolutely beautiful piece of farmland. This farmland supported hundreds of local livestock in that Cowichan Bay area on dairy farms. This farm was owned by the Dinsdale family.

Many years ago the Nature Trust of B.C, in collaboration with Ducks Unlimited, purchased these 150 acres of prime farmland in Cowichan Bay. Now, unbelievably, the Nature Trust of B.C. actually made application to the Agricultural Land Commission to remove this piece of land from active agriculture by breaching the dike that goes around this farmland at the foot of Cowichan Bay so that ocean water can roar in and flood these 150 acres of prime farmland.

At the end of the Cowichan Bay Road are other farmers and residents who are there that have wells. There is a huge aquifer underneath this farmland, these 150 acres. They draw the drinking water from this well, as well as for livestock. If the salt water is allowed to rush in and destroy these 150 acres of farmland, it will also destroy the aquifer and infect the aquifer with salt water, which will affect all the drinking water for many residents around Cowichan Bay.

[2:15 p.m.]

I can go on to tell you that Active Earth hydrologists did an in-depth study and in their report stated that this would, without a doubt, containment of the aquifer…. It’d have devastating effect on all the wells in the area, including the Kidd well, which serves close to 1,000 homes, the seaside village of Cowichan Bay and all of the Cowichan Bay area.

The historic Dinsdale Farm in Cowichan Bay has grown tremendous agricultural crops for over 100 years. To the bewilderment of local farmers who were leasing this land, they were told to cease farming, as the Nature Trust of B.C. planned to breach the dike and flood the entire ALR-designated farmland with tidal seawater.

Believe it or not, on February 28, 2024, the applicant to the Nature Trust of B.C. and Ducks Unlimited…. The application to remove the dike and flood this piece of farmland was made by Jesse Patterson from the actual government ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. He actually, as a member of government bureaucracy, was the one making the application on behalf of the NDP government to flood this piece of prime farmland. I find this incredible.

Will the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship confirm that the NDP government and ministry staff support the flooding and ultimate destruction of this valuable 150 acres of farmland in Cowichan Bay?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you, Member, so much for your question.

First, I just want to say that our team is very aware of the potential saltwater impacts on drinking water. We have been doing extensive testing on it, and so far preliminary testing looks like the saltwater has no effect on the drinking water. That is still preliminary.

[2:20 p.m.]

Secondly — and I know that you’re incredibly aware of this issue — there are two steps here. The first step is that this decision is currently before the agricultural land commission. This is their responsibility, under their tenure. And secondly, WLRS is responsible for the decommissioning of the dams. Once a decision is made by the ALC, then our statutory decision-maker will look at that second ask of decommissioning the dams.

Ian Paton: Thank you for that answer.

My question to the minister: would you not find it to be a conflict of interest that a member of your own bureaucracy of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship should be making an application to remove this farmland from the ALR to a third-party tribunal, which is known as the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you so much for the question, Member.

In terms of your first question, I’ll say, simply: no, it is not a conflict.

Expanding on your other question a little bit…. We’re fighting climate change right now. We’re in a time of climate change, and what we’re trying to do is help local areas have a say in governing their own watersheds and their own water security. Water is such an incredibly important natural resource for us right now.

One success story in the area that you’re talking about is the Koksilah estuary restoration project. This is a class 1 estuary project that has incredibly high biological significance not just for that area but all across the province. It’s a partnership between the Cowichan Tribes, the province and federal agencies to restore the health of the estuary, and that’s to do several things: to conserve the biodiversity, protect the local community and revitalize Indigenous food systems. This will benefit everybody in the area.

So this is…. You know, we’re in a time of climate change, and a lot of people would say climate crisis. It is all of our responsibility to do everything we can to ensure that we restore the biological integrity of our province.

Ian Paton: I would suggest that all the people sitting on that side of that desk have not even seen this property. I’ve seen this property many, many times.

Twenty-five years ago, they tried an experiment exactly as you’re talking about. They flooded a portion of the farmland. To this day, you can look at it — if anybody ever goes there from bureaucracy — to see the fence posts of the farm that used to be there. It’s a complete dead piece of land that was ruined by salt water. There’s nothing beneficial to salmon or to birds or to anything.

The migrating wildlife — what they want is agricultural land, to feed on leftover grain and corn and potatoes and all those different things. They don’t want a dead piece of land that was flooded out by salt water. So this makes no sense, what you’re telling me: to flood another 150 acres of farmland in Cowichan Bay.

[2:25 p.m.]

What I’ve seen in my eight years here under the NDP government is a death by a thousand cuts of more agricultural land being lost in this province.

To the minister, as a member of the environment and land use committee, you have the power to nullify this craziness going on. I’m asking you today: would you stand up and nullify this flooding of the 150 acres of farmland in Cowichan Bay?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you, member for Delta South, for the question.

I do just want to clarify. Every single one of our staff have said: “Hold on, we’ve been to the site.” They’re very aware of it, over multiple years.

Secondly, in terms of the environment and land use committee, I would never presuppose or assume to presuppose or make a decision on behalf of the other members of that committee.

Ian Paton: I don’t want to take up too much time. I’m going to move on to another subject. Thank you for your responses. I’m very passionate about this issue.

Back when I was on Delta city council, I made two different trips to Ottawa with the mayor and city manager to try and get funding for dredging of our secondary channels in Ladner and Steveston. At one time, we became successful, through the Port of Vancouver, through the province of B.C., through Delta and Richmond, to come up with about $10 million. The project actually took place back in about 2015.

But since then, there’s been no funding whatsoever. What we really need is simply…. You know, in today’s economics, $2 million a year is not a lot of money to do maintenance of the secondary channels in Ladner and Steveston.

We can’t forget that Ladner is a historic fishing town. We have marinas there for commercial fishboats. We have fish-processing plants, and boats cannot get in and out to even get to these fish-processing plants because of the silt that’s built up.

Now, the former Minister of FLNRO Doug Donaldson — I took him on a boat tour of the secondary channel about three or four years ago.

I know the minister took a boat tour just recently, a month and a half ago or so, of our secondary channels in Ladner to see just how bad it is not only for our commercial boats and recreational boaters but for our float homes. On low tide, our float homes are literally sitting on an angle, which is compromising their natural gas lines, their septic hookups — all these different things.

My question to the minister: after your tour of our secondary channels in Ladner a month and a half ago or two months ago, what have you come up with for any sort of plans between the provincial government, the Port of Vancouver and the federal government to eventually get us some money to get some dredging accomplished?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you, Member, for your question.

All we can do is, literally, be blunt here. Yes, the mayor of Delta, a whole bunch of float home owners and, in fact, I’m meeting with several more float home owners next week, I think…. And I remember the Coast Guard took us on that secondary channel, and at low tide he can’t even get through the channel, so if there’s an emergency, he can’t get to that emergency. It is a critical problem.

In the few weeks since I’ve been on that tour, there was a federal election. Now we know who’s going to form government. So my suggestion is let’s just cross party lines and come up with a plan, because currently there is no plan. This is something that the federal government was in charge of until 2008, I think. And then they just kind of absolved themselves of the issue, leaving a multi-million-dollar problem that local governments and the province are left to contend with, and First Nations as well.

My suggestion is…. And there are a lot of people who are really dedicated to finding a permanent, proactive solution and finding ways to get the money to do the proper dredging that’s needed. Maybe we can start working on that together, because I know it’s a critical issue. I know the MLA for Richmond-Steveston is very concerned about it too, as well as many First Nations. This is something that we need to come together and work on together.

Ian Paton: Just a side comment. I find it quite amazing that the new president or CEO of the Vancouver Port Authority has told us that they’re spending $31 million a year dredging the main channel as far as New Westminster to get our ships up. But the Port of Vancouver can’t find any money whatsoever to help out some of the secondary channels, and yet they’ll spend $31 million on the main channel.

My final question to the minister. This comes from what was formerly known as the Ladner Sediment Group or float home owners association. They were told by WLRS that they are getting out of the residential tenures of Crown land. This is in the land use operational policy. It essentially removes the potential for new float homes and puts those that own float homes at risk of losing their investments.

Owners purchased or built these float homes through provincial and municipal processes and are limited to cash sale buyers now. “As our current lease is near maturity, our investments will not be saleable.” For those who bought the foreshore property for the main reason for the first right over the water lot, these rights are slowly being taken away and they’re asking if the Minister of WLRS will revoke this policy.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you so much for the question. I’m glad you asked the question, because actually I wasn’t aware of this, so now I’ve got some clarity for you.

We understand that there are several current leases that are nearing maturity. If they do mature, they will just flip to a month-to-month lease, and we will continue to do that while we look for long-lasting, more permanent solutions. What we can say is local governments are very interested in helping us find those long-lasting, permanent solutions, so we will continue to do that as well.

There is a moratorium right now on new float home tenures because of the problems that you so eloquently described. Some of them are listing at low tide right now. We need to figure out a proactive solution for how we can manage the dredging on those secondary channels, and then, potentially, we can look at issuing and opening up new tenures for float homes again.

Donegal Wilson: Just while we’re talking about dredging, is the only issue around dredging specifically funding for dredging, or is there a backlog of permitting and permissions that they also need to get through to do dredging?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

Yes, their dredging does come under permitting as part of the Water Sustainability Act, since 2016.

[2:40 p.m.]

One of the earlier numbers I talked to you about…. Permitting applications for dredging comes under section 11: “Changes in and about a stream.” As of February 2025, there were 500 applications in the queue.

I do want to mention, too, it’s not just permitting that we’re looking at and not just a lack of funding. It’s also environmental issues. White sturgeon habitat, for example. Those are all issues that we need to look at when we look at issues in in the Fraser.

Donegal Wilson: Yeah, I think that’s why I asked the question. My experience is as soon as you want to move anything in the water, it impacts all the way down the line. I assumed there was a lot more than just money needed as well as political will to do some dredging.

I’m going to loop back to a conversation that we had earlier. The minister was so gracious to say that health and safety of people — and drinking water — is our first priority, so I’m going to switch to drinking water. I am going to speak from the Boundary-Similkameen, just because it is my riding, but I know that this issue is universal across B.C., and especially pinpointed in rural B.C. While I speak about the Boundary-Similkameen, I think that these are examples that will be applicable across the province.

I’m wondering if we know how many communities were on boil-water advisory at any point in time in the last six months.

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

Since 2003, the Drinking Water Protection Act has been the principal provincial statute concerning drinking water protection and remains the responsibility of the Ministry of Health to administer and the regional health authorities to implement and enforce.

However, the regional health authorities are responsible for issuing all boil-water advisories. The list is public, so I can read it out if you want the numbers.

As of April 30, 2025, the breakdown of boil-water advisories issued by regional health authorities is as follows: Island Health, 36 boil-water advisories; Island Health, 37; Coastal Health, 56; Northern Health, 105; Interior Health, 503; Fraser Health, five. Total advisories, 706.

Donegal Wilson: I think those numbers are reflective, why I’m going to speak about my riding specifically, being in the 503 in Interior Health.

Can you tell me whether those numbers include smaller, privately owned or managed water systems?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question. You’re right, Member. The short answer is yes. These are all on small water systems. Generally, boil-water advisories are issued for the smaller, more rural water systems because that’s where the aging infrastructure is. I know. I have dozens in my riding as well. So, yes, you’re correct.

Donegal Wilson: What I’ve learned recently having gone through a process with some residents up at Heritage Hills on Skaha Lake, where their water infrastructure was privately owned, put in when the development was built, I believe, in the early ’90s…. Might have been the ’80s. The upgrades that are required to their water system to make their drinking water usable are $23 million. This is being assessed on 321 doors in the community. And the direction path forward they have been provided….

Because the private water owner obviously does not have $23 million, and there is a segment of those 321 doors that also has a sewer upgrade that’s required for them to be able to continue to flush their toilets, the only option they were really able to do was either they were all going to have to pay $65,000 or $84,000, depending on if they needed the sewer upgrade as well, or they could vote to move their assets into the regional district, which did not take away the liability of the $23 million. It just allowed those residents to amortize that over 25 or 30 years, depending how they chose.

Those residents have made that choice to move their assets into the regional district in the hope that they’re going to be eligible for grant funding by making that move. One of the key things in making drinking water our first priority — it also says that we are going to make it affordable. For these particular residents, that’s $2,500 a year when it was amortized, plus an increase and a meter that is now required on their houses, which will increase their water bills, also, to another…. It could be up to 2,000 — we’re still assessing — per resident.

How is it the intent or the policy, going forward, that the only way that these systems can be funded is by moving them into a municipality or a regional district that’s willing to take on that liability?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for your question.

I do just want to let you know that regardless of type or size, all water systems are expected to be financially self-sufficient, setting water rates appropriately to operate, maintain, upgrade and replace their infrastructure.

That said, I do want to acknowledge what you are finding in your riding is that it is an expensive, complicated issue. And it’s not one shared solely by WLRS, this ministry, alone. The question you’re asking for the extent of moving water infrastructure into municipalities is the responsibility of Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

We do share and partner in that, as does the public health officer as well, where she does an annual report into drinking water and drinking water safety. She does study this issue, and she has come to the conclusion in her report that smaller water systems aren’t resilient, especially over the long term. This is something that we are all learning and understand.

What we’re looking to in terms of our water security and sustainability is resiliency. So when we know that these smaller water systems aren’t as resilient, we have to look at better, longer-term solutions. So that’s what we’re doing in partnership with Housing and Municipal Affairs.

Again, it’s not inexpensive. It’s incredibly expensive. And there are so many of these smaller water infrastructure and private systems that we need to work on. We will work on these closely with the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

Donegal Wilson: I could repeat the story in about 12 different subdivisions within my one corner of my riding. We were joking a little bit about it before we started.

But one of the challenges…. Is it not the role of WLRS to be monitoring these private water systems to ensure that they are meeting that obligation of ensuring they have the funding available when these things happen? Why are so many small water systems in the position they are in? Somebody, I assume, should have been checking on them.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question, Member.

A couple of things I just want to point out. First of all, this ministry does regulate private water utilities, and we do work with private companies to do the upgrades that are necessary. It is the private companies’ responsibility to do those upgrades.

But as you so rightly point out, we’re also aware of the costs to upgrade that — often prohibitively expensive. And often it’s not just the drinking water pipes that need to be upgraded. It’s also the sewage or other infrastructure. In fact, that’s what we’re facing across the province right now. Roads and bridges — I’m sure you have many examples in your riding. I know I have many in mine. These types of upgrades are needed across the board.

So we do regulate the private water utilities, but it is the private water companies’ responsibility. But we’re also aware of the cost and the rate impact that is on homeowners.

Donegal Wilson: I just heard clearly that it is the manager of the small operator, small water system’s job to ensure that the money is there to manage and replace the infrastructure.

I will ask a question on behalf of my colleague from Penticton-Summerland, because she’s not here. I was at a meeting, very clearly, where the province took over management of a water system referred to as Sage Mesa. I believe it was in the early ‘90s. Don’t quote me on that, but it has been a significant period of time.

Those residents have just been told that it’s a $32 million assessment to them to fix their water. The province was the operator and has not been adequately funding or ready to replace the needed infrastructure. What happens in that case?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question. Yes, we do have a briefing on this. Sage Mesa owns and operates a water utility near Penticton, providing service to about 250 homes.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

It is indeed managed by the province following the seizure in 1990 for mismanagement. I’ve been told a few times forcefully by my ADM that the province does not want to do this role. We do not want to be managing this. But I do want to say that the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen actually operates the system on behalf of the comptroller of water rights, which is under this ministry.

Also, the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen is conducting a referendum process now to acquire the Sage Mesa utility, which is currently managed reluctantly by the province through the comptroller of water rights. The comptroller is in support of the acquisition, as the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen has access to grants and long-term borrowing and potentially reducing the cost to customers and the timeline for completion of the system rebuild.

I’ll read this last point: “If the referendum fails, the comptroller will continue to manage the utility and will need to consider a special levy to raise the required funds for the necessary upgrades.”

But again, this is not an outcome that the province ever wanted. It was seized because of mismanagement in the 1990s, and we are actively working with the homeowners to come up with the best solution for them.

Donegal Wilson: Well, I understand the answer, and I understand that we don’t want these systems. I can tell you that we’re going to get these systems because the reality is these homeowners don’t have that money. The regional district does not have the money to continue to borrow to take on liability for these private systems.

In the case of Sage Mesa, the province was the operator, and the province stated clearly before that the operator is responsible to make sure that they’re collecting enough fees and things to manage and replace the infrastructure. The province has been managing this infrastructure since 1994, and now we’re being told that the owners will just be levied the $32 million because the province doesn’t have any money to do it.

The operator…. While there is a referendum planned, it has not actually been planned yet; it’s just something that’s being considered. The operator has forbidden their staff from climbing on the tower. The tower is that unsafe that it’s not safe for people to walk on the tower to fix the water. That tower is above these homes. It is in imminent failure, and the province is the operator.

I think that there is a different story with Sage Mesa, and I’d like to hear what the minister’s plan is as operator of that water.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you, Member, for the follow-up question.

First, yeah, we do want to acknowledge this is a growing problem all over the province in some cases, potentially. My answer is going to be similar to the answer I just gave you. The province, through mismanagement in 1990, became the reluctant manager of Sage Mesa.

We’re looking for a pathway to a permanent solution here, and the first one is working with the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen to conduct a referendum process to acquire the Sage Mesa utility, which is currently managed by the province through the comptroller of water rights. If that does fall through, we will continue to manage the utility, and we’ll need to consider a special levy to raise the required funds for the necessary upgrades.

Donegal Wilson: Well, while I understand the position you’re in, I still think that that answer is insufficient in that if this was a private water operator, they would be fined for not meeting the minimum requirements of the act. How do we allow the government to manage a utility for 30 years and not have the funds available to them to replace or manage it? And threaten with a levy, which is exactly what the owners will get anyway with 121 doors, I think it was — don’t quote me on that, but it’s somewhere in that neighbourhood — and a $32 million bill that levy is going to be beyond….

With the downloading being to the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen, what supports and funding are available for these multiple private water systems that are going to be going to the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen? What borrowing power are they going to have when they have so much out there to manage these projects? How are they going to manage them all?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you, again, for your question.

I understand the frustration around this issue. The simple answer is it costs money to provide water to these homes and these communities. Especially these smaller water systems…. As they age, the cost increases, and then the cost for replacement and upgrade increases even more. This is something that we hear from local governments at UBCM each year, and they’re facing similar problems all across the province.

The last thing I’ll say is that I want to just make clear that the water systems infrastructure responsibility rests with the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and the federal government.

Donegal Wilson: I think that the message is being heard, but it’s not being delivered, as the budgets don’t necessarily reflect what we’re seeing on the ground and the need. If you’re hearing it at UBCM, you’re hearing it from every community in my riding. We need the budget. We need a line item. We need to start addressing this.

I’ll just turn to new development. What are we doing today to prevent this scenario from repeating itself?

I have an application for a new subdivision in my riding. It’s pretty exciting. It’s about 100 doors. They’re putting in a private water system and a private sewer system. Are we going to be here in 30 years explaining to those homeowners why they have a $70 million bill, at that time, because somebody didn’t check?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you, Member, for the question. The short answer is yes, we agree with you. We’ve had a history of these small water systems over the years, and that’s exactly what we want to avoid in the future.

For example, when approving new applications, sustainable access to water is definitely one of the primary considerations for these provincial authorizations. And using your example, private owners or private managers who are building out these brand-new developments and operating these private water systems and private sewage systems….

Our number one question for that: is there enough water to sustain that new development? And the second question: is the business model sufficient to sustain the infrastructure and the cost of the infrastructure but also affordable, sustainable rates for users so we don’t end up in the situation where we are now, where we have to look at replacing the system, and it’s millions of dollars too expensive for anyone to afford.

I do want to point out, as well, that there are broader solutions that we have to look at too — conservation, overall. We don’t need to be doing a lot of the things that we’re doing. We can get rain barrels instead of using regional district water to water our plants outside.

Water metering has been proven to reduce water usage and rates by 25 to 50 percent in some municipalities. I know in the district of Gibsons, they’ve been doing a great job of reducing water usage. So those are types of things that we have to look at overall to reduce our water usage.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that. I could actually spend my whole, probably, five and a half hours talking about water. I’m going to hit just one more small thing. It’s actually a big thing, but the rest I’ll submit in writing after the fact.

But I want to talk a little bit about dams and dam safety. I know we touched a little bit on it with the Dinsdale dike breach. How many high-risk dams do we currently have in B.C.?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you so much for the question and switching over to dams. Regulated dams are characterized by their failure consequence classification. So instead of high risk, we use high consequence, because there may be high-risk dams in the middle of nowhere that, if it would burst, affected nothing. So we use consequence as opposed to high risk.

The higher the consequence classification, the higher the expected standard of care. Under the regulation, a dam failure consequence classification is given to all dams based on the potential for loss of life, the deterioration of environmental and cultural values and the losses to infrastructure and the economy should the dam fail.

[3:20 p.m.]

This province has adopted a five-tier classification system ranging from low to extreme. I’ll let you know, under each consequence classification, how many dams we have.

We have a total of 1,906 dams in the province. The number that are considered extreme under the consequence classification is 54. The number classified as very high: 115. High is 219. Significant consequence classification is 609, and low consequence classification is 883. There are 26 dams that are what we’re calling undetermined right now, which just means that at this point, they haven’t been classified.

Donegal Wilson: Do we know how many in the top three — extreme, high consequence, high, I think it is; I was writing fast — are in some form of non-compliance?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question. It’s not going to be very satisfactory. I’m afraid we don’t actually have that number, but we will get it for you.

I do want to point out, though, that when you ask which dams are in non-compliance, non-compliance can mean a wide variety of things, even something as simple as they missed a reporting deadline or a regular contact deadline. So maybe when we get you those numbers, you can ask for more specificity about what exactly non-compliancy means so we can figure that out.

Donegal Wilson: I appreciate the offer for digging into that. In the interest of time, we will do that offline.

Go a little bit into flood strategy. Obviously, we had an atmospheric river in 2021 that has impacted the communities of Princeton, Merritt. Thankfully, in Keremeos, our water mitigation held.

It is my understanding that Princeton has received funding to study the issue, but they have not received their funding to fix and replace their water mitigation measures in Princeton. If we have a large freshet this year, that could have significant consequences for the residents of Princeton. I’m just wondering what’s happening and if there’s anything in the budget for Princeton to get their dikes rebuilt.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Specific money for rebuilding for Princeton or shoring up their flood response…. The funding mechanisms are through the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness as well as federal funding. That is something that WLRS does not fund.

But just in general numbers, since 2017 the province has approved approximately $515 million in total and $375 million provincially for over 556 flood risk reduction projects. But that’s throughout the province, not specific to Princeton.

Donegal Wilson: Just for the sake of staff…. I am going to move to wildlife. I don’t know if this is an appropriate time for a break.

The Chair: Members, we will take a five-minute break. If we could please return at 3:32.

The committee recessed from 3:27 p.m. to 3:33 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

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

Donegal Wilson: Wildlife is a particular thing in this file that I hold very dear to myself personally, as well as in my career, so I anticipate that I’ll have a lot of detailed questions in this.

I’ll start with the Together for Wildlife strategy. It was launched to improve wildlife management but feels, years later, like basic funding, transparency and accountability seem a little elusive. It’s hard to see what’s happening on the ground today with this.

Can you please start by telling me what your total budget for wildlife is in this fiscal year and what it does comparative to last fiscal?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you, Member, for the question.

Some monetary spending for you just for the Together for Wildlife funding spent to date. So far in the first four fiscal years that Together for Wildlife has been around, it has invested in more than 400 projects across the province. We are committed to spending up to $10 million a year on Together for Wildlife.

For example, in fiscal 2020-2021, we funded 129 projects and spent just over $9 million. In 2021-22, we funded 108 projects for wildlife and spent just under $10 million. In 2022-2023, we funded just over 100 projects and spent almost $7½ million. In 2023-24, we worked on just under 100 projects and spent almost $7 million, and we’re still finalizing the funding for this fiscal year. So overall, 437 projects, almost $33 million we spent specifically just for Together for Wildlife.

[3:40 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: Could we have the overall expenditure in the wildlife division? I know I’d asked for a long period back that was hard to pull, but if we could have ‘23, ‘24 and ‘25 for the ministry, that would be very helpful.

Hon. Randene Neill: We are, again, going to have to defer to written answers for you. Literally, there are so many different ministries, and our wildlife funding doesn’t come just under resource stewardship. For example, it can come under our land use planning, cumulative effects, etc. So we don’t have that number here, but we will put it together for you and make sure that you have that.

Donegal Wilson: Just to be clear, as a division called wildlife, we don’t have a budget? It’s aggregated among a bunch of other divisions or…? I thought each division had its own budget.

Hon. Randene Neill: We don’t have a specific division just for wildlife. Wildlife falls under resource stewardship. Funding for that for ’25-26 is $37.761 million.

To our earlier point, wildlife conservation and stewardship also happen across some of the other areas, as well, like land use planning — we have some wildlife spending in there — water, fisheries and the coast. We have some spending in reconciliation, lands and natural resource policy.

If we want to pull what we do specifically for wildlife out of those other sectors, it’s going to take us a bit of time to do that.

Donegal Wilson: I’ll wait for the written response on that, because I think it would be valuable to know what we’re spending on wildlife in the province and be able to compare that to other jurisdictions.

I know that I had previously submitted specific categories of biologists and that’s coming in a written format later, but can you tell me, overall, how many biologists we have working in WLRS specifically and how many positions are currently vacant?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: We don’t have that information for you yet. I’m sorry, Member, we are working to get that information. Because we thought estimates would be starting for us on May 8, we weren’t able to pull that together. But we will, and we will give it to you in writing.

Donegal Wilson: Would the minister be able to clarify whether we have adequate biologists on the ground to meet the commitments we’ve made?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you so much for your question.

It’s a simple answer. The work of resource stewardship and managing our land and resources and helping to restore our wildlife and biodiversity that supports our wildlife requires a lot of people on the ground, boots on the ground. We would never, ever say no to having more of those types of resources.

Donegal Wilson: I was recently talking with some members of the local wildlife association. One of the things that had come up was that there’s only one biologist left in the office in Penticton and that two had been seconded to another region, and that biologist did not have a truck or a cell phone or the ability to travel to do his job.

I’m just wondering. I understand that we want more, but do we have enough to even do the bare minimum of the job, in every corner of the province, that we’ve committed to?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: We have implemented, and this is provincewide, management expenditure controls to prioritize funding for operational needs on the ground.

We are working together as a province and through multiministries to send professional biologists where they’re needed. We’re sending them with cell phones and vehicles as well, because obviously they need that.

When we say we’re prioritizing funding for operational needs, that means professional biologists on the ground. What we’re prioritizing right now in particular in terms of wildlife are inventory, wildlife health and critical habitat restoration for wildlife.

Donegal Wilson: In this particular case, it was a controlled burn where the biologist needed to be present. My understanding is that the local wildlife club had to pick that biologist up and bring them to the actual fire, be with them for the day and return them to the office.

Is that the expectation that we’re going to have for our staff to be able to do their job in this province?

Hon. Randene Neill: We would say in the example that you gave us of the controlled burn, that would be the exception, that that biologist would have had to have been picked up and taken there and then dropped off again.

Our fleet vehicles are shared across all of the natural resource ministries. Quite often we share offices, too, with Forests and Mining and Critical Minerals, for example. We try to make sure that everyone has signed out and has the vehicle when they need it to do their job.

I do also want to acknowledge the local wildlife organization for helping us that day. This is something that…. We work closely with First Nations and non-governmental organizations to help us forward our work to protect our wildlife in many cases.

Donegal Wilson: Yeah, I think I also want to recognize local wildlife groups in my region. They have stepped up and done more than should be expected of a non-profit organization.

I’ll switch over to chronic wasting disease. Grand Forks and Cranbrook and the areas along the bottom have been actively running a freezer program. The Wildlife Federation has bought the freezers and is monitoring the freezers. As of mid-last year, the biologists no longer had money to go collect the deer heads out of the freezer to test for chronic wasting disease, and the wildlife association had to go and collect all the heads and deliver them to Kelowna. There again, there’s another instance where our staff don’t have the bare minimum tools to meet the crisis.

Do we have money in this year’s budget to ensure that our staff can meet the need for chronic wasting disease?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you so much, Member, for your question.

I know that you know how serious chronic wasting disease is and how seriously members in Cranbrook and Kimberley and those areas take it, as well as so many organizations like the B.C. Wildlife Federation and hunters. I have to say that the government would never be successful if not for the hunters and if not for the local wildlife federations and all of those folks who are sending in samples for us to be able to test.

I know this is not a good comparison at all, but we are really likening this to the pandemic where we have to flatten that curve. We know the studies done here in B.C. with our biologists and down in the U.S. show that if we can keep a baseline of less than…. I don’t want to say the wrong thing, but below a certain baseline, we know that we can ward off chronic wasting disease for the long term in our province. That’s our goal. We want to make sure that this doesn’t take hold anywhere.

A bit of background on this — the first cases of chronic wasting disease, CWD, were in the Cranbrook area last fall and winter. A total of five cases have been confirmed so far through surveillance efforts. Again, massive thanks to hunters for helping us test all of their animals. We need surveillance, we need education, and we need preventative measures. This has been led by the B.C. wildlife health program for over 20 years.

We had a recent test of urban deer, which is potentially a huge issue in Kimberley and Cranbrook as well, and tried our best to test 100 deer in both those cases, as well as the First Nations deer cull, where we tested five more. We’ve also got some surveillance thingies — that’s the technical term — to make sure that we can follow to see where urban deer go so we can test them from that area as well.

We’re building our budget right now for this year for CWD. We’re also doing our very, very best to make sure that we have a local sampling site at the location. All the actual testing of the samples has to be done in Abbotsford because that’s an approved CFIA testing site. We need to be able to set up a testing site. That’s something that hunters have been asking for, and that preceded me as well.

[4:00 p.m.]

Last year we had funding of $716,000 from WLRS, plus an additional $214,000 from various external partners. We know that’s not enough, which is why we’re building our budget for that this year. We will do whatever we need to do to ensure that we can keep that curve flattened and that chronic wasting disease does not become prevalent in this province.

Donegal Wilson: I’ll use the word “testing,” because I like that that was the word used. We were doing some urban deer testing, and during that urban deer testing in Kimberley, we were not successful in accumulating the number of tests we needed to actually have some scientific findings about what’s happening in the herd.

Is there a plan to do some more testing in Kimberley? What does that look like as far as communication and protection for the people doing the testing?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for your question. Yes, we were, I guess, stymied a little bit in testing in Kimberley, because there were a couple of concerned citizens who were opposed to our testing.

What I will say is that right now is fawning season, and typically we would not go out and do limited-entry hunting during fawning season. However, we do year-round testing for roadkill. There is a surprising number of roadkill in that area, so we’re able to do quite a bit of testing of the deer year-round. If we see a preponderance of positives of chronic wasting disease, then we would not hesitate to do whatever we need to do to be able to get an accurate test in there.

That’s, again, where we really work closely with hunters and our First Nations in the area as well, the Ktunaxa, who are extremely concerned about increasing numbers of chronic wasting. Yeah, this is a priority for us, and we’re going to make sure that we stay on top of it

[4:05 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: I will say that I believe that it is critical. It’s not only the deer populations. We’re talking about other populations, including elk, moose and others that will be impacted by this if it is allowed to spread.

I just want to tie one more ribbon on, because the ministry is going into budgets. I was just last week at the B.C. Wildlife Federation convention, and the biologist in charge with the chronic wasting disease was there to educate hunters around the necessity, if they’re hunting in the region, of how they should harvest, how they should clean the animals, how they should be keeping the heads, and all of these things that are not as prevalent a practice in other regions as it is there.

This was a prime opportunity to educate a large group of hunters. In this particular case, our biologist did not have the travel funding to attend the conference, and the Wildlife Federation had to pay for our CWD biologist to get to a convention to educate hunters.

Is there an intent to ensure that that biologist has the funding they need this year to effectively meet the need?

Hon. Randene Neill: Full disclosure: we literally had a meeting this morning with the B.C. Wildlife Federation, and they told us that they flew up our biologist to do that. We will be reimbursing the B.C. Wildlife Federation for that generous offer.

In the future…. There was a bit of a miscommunication. We thought we could do it online, but of course, it’s far more effective to do it in person. That was part of the cost-saving assumption from some folks, but we will make it clear in the future that for those types of events, absolutely, we’ll be attending in person.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister and the staff for allowing me an opportunity to ask a couple of questions here.

In certain communities in the East Kootenays — Kimberley and Cranbrook, specifically — we do have an urban deer problem. As my colleague from Boundary-Similkameen has indicated, not only does this potentially present a very serious chronic wasting disease issue with these animals in close proximity to each other within an urban environment — and the potential for that disease to spread into the local elk herd populations, which would be absolutely devastating — but it also presents a very serious safety risk to the public.

This time of the year, as the minister knows, is fawning season, and mother deer become very protective. I know that personally, I’ve had to drive in front of deer chasing down old ladies walking their dogs and things like that in trying to defend their fawn. It’s a very serious safety concern.

I stood in front of the Kimberley council not long ago hoping to create an active urban deer management strategy. I’m just curious if the ministry has a plan or funds available in this budget to develop, with local government, active urban deer management strategies in order to keep these numbers at a reasonable level. Right now we have several hundred deer in a community like Kimberley, and it is presenting quite a safety risk.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you so much, Member, for your question.

I’m thinking we’ll give you a chance to go on record to maybe rephrase the term “old ladies.” But that’s totally up to you.

In areas where there is chronic wasting disease, we do work really, really closely with local governments to come up with strategies that work together because, as you say, in the spring fawning season, the does can be quite aggressive and protective.

Urban deer populations are in so many different communities across B.C. I know we have one. I know Mayne Island…. We’re expecting questions from one of the Green members later about Mayne Island.

The provincial urban deer advisory committee has representatives from local governments, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the province and the BC SPCA. We review funding applications every year. Previously we’ve offered about $100,000 a year to partner in locally led urban deer management projects. We’ll be honest. A lot of those projects are strategies for coexistence where there is no incidence of chronic wasting disease or any other types of invasive diseases as well.

But in terms of where there is chronic wasting in the urban deer populations, it’s a completely different ballgame. We do take that very seriously and work together to not only test — I know we’re not supposed to use the word “cull” — but cull in some instances and make sure that we work together to keep that disease from spreading.

Scott McInnis: Just for the record, I would like to withdraw my comment about old ladies and refer to wonderful women in their golden years walking their dogs. Thank you.

Donegal Wilson: I also have many communities with urban deer populations, and while they may not have chronic wasting disease today, science has established that those urban populations in high numbers living close to communities are likely to develop some sort of health issue. I think that a strategy similar to what my colleague has mentioned needs to be considered for these urban populations.

I know that door-knocking in Grand Forks in October, I was challenged by a deer. And door-knocking was very challenging with six-foot deer fences around town lots. So I encourage an overview of urban deer altogether. I’ll let my colleague from the Green Party go further on that, I’m sure.

I’m going to switch over to whirling disease. Last year we had a confirmed case of whirling disease in Kootenay Lake. I’m just wondering, for this fiscal year, whether we have a plan or a strategy on how we are going to manage the whirling disease in Kootenay Lake this year.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question about whirling disease.

As part of our own surveillance programs, we monitor what happens around us — so in Alberta and western and northern U.S. states. We knew that whirling disease was being detected in areas around our province. I think that we did our best to be prepared to find it in our province, and we did, as you mentioned.

A 2024 sampling resulted in three positive detections of the parasite responsible for whirling disease in the three southern tributaries of Kootenay Lake: in Boulder Creek, Goat River and Duck Creek as well.

The first thing we’re doing is…. To minimize spread of the whirling disease, we’ve recently introduced legislation — the “Clean, drain, dry” — so all boats must pull the plug, make sure there’s no standing water with organisms that could have whirling disease in it. Government employees and our contractors must decontaminate their gear when leaving water bodies in the Columbia watershed, and the public has to do the same. In May of 2024, as I just mentioned, everyone is required to pull the plug in all watercraft travelling overland in B.C.

[4:20 p.m.]

Just one other thing to note, which is what we’re looking at right now — the detection of the parasite responsible for whirling disease last fall. We don’t know if these are actually new detections or if this was a parasite of a pre-existing condition that we were aware of earlier. That’s something that we’re also looking into.

Donegal Wilson: I did hear a response around the whirling disease itself and the “Clean, drain, dry.” I’m aware, obviously, that there’s legislation coming, which brings up: do we have the actual boots on the ground to implement those changes if it so passes?

Hon. Randene Neill: The short answer is yes, we do have the boots on the ground that we need right now, as part of the legislation for the invasive mussel defence program. It’s operating right now today, and we do have conservation officers and conservation officers’ dogs who are doing the testing for those invasive species.

Basically what this legislation gives us to do is it compels people to stop and test and look at their boats to make sure that there’s no invasive mussels or organisms or standing water that could carry the parasite for whirling disease, for example. I’ll leave it there for now.

Donegal Wilson: Is it the intent of the program that people will self-check their stuff, or is there actually going to be somebody at the station checking them?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question. The short answer is: it is both. We are both asking people…. We’ve done a really big kind of public education and communications campaign, so people know that they need to clean, drain and dry, right?

Something as small as a stand-up paddleboard…. I know where I live, on the Sunshine Coast, we have lots of little lakes and stuff, and people go to multiple lakes in a day. What we’re asking folks to do is just understand that they need to clean, drain and dry their paddleboard or kayak or whatever it is before they go from lake to lake, just to make sure that they don’t spread any diseases unknowingly.

But also with this pull the plug legislation…. We’re doing this right now — before the summer season starts, when folks come up with their boats — so that we make sure that we now have the authority at border crossings, for example, that people have to stop and get their water vehicles inspected, whether it’s Sea-Doos or boats, anything that has a plug in, or even portable docks, so that we can test them.

One last thing, as well, when the new federal cabinet is announced, one of my first calls will be to the federal minister asking for their support with the CBSA and border officers to help us make those enforcements as well.

Donegal Wilson: It sort of was answered in the last sentence there, but my question was: who is inspecting if we’re doing this at the borders? We have, obviously, the Alberta border, we have the U.S. border, and if there is an inspection, is there going to be a cost associated with those inspections? And will they receive like a certificate that they’ve been inspected?

Hon. Randene Neill: Currently, right now, at any crossing, it’s the B.C. conservation office. We hold the financial responsibility, but the B.C. conservation office and their scent-sniffing dogs will actually do the work.

At U.S. border crossings, we do also partner with the Canadian Border Services Agency to be able to look at checking those boats or watercraft that come through the border. But again, that’s something that we need to do in a better, more effective way. That’s something that we’re working on right now.

Something else that we’re also looking at is…. Right now, we have what we’re calling a risk management approach. We don’t get a certificate or anything. But in different areas, like Alberta, they actually get a sticker, and we’re looking at implementing that policy as well. If the results are stronger and better, we’re certainly open to that.

[4:30 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: I know the CO service budget doesn’t live within this ministry. But I assume that in their envelope, then, there’s going to be an increased enforcement connected with your budget for monitoring those.

Hon. Randene Neill: Yes, CO officers are under the Ministry of Environment. But we have a budget to, I guess…. I didn’t ask if I can say the word “second,” but borrow conservation officers to come over and help us. This does not alter, in any way, Environment’s ability to do their job with their conservation officers.

We get our invasive mussels defence program. That’s the budget we use to get the conservation officers to help us with the “Clean, drain, dry” program. We also have program partners as well. I won’t read them all out, but for example, in this fiscal year, B.C. Hydro is helping us by giving us $900,000. Our total program budget this year is $3.6 million.

Donegal Wilson: For clarity, that $3.6 million is the budget for the “Clean, drain, dry” or for the invasive species overall?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: So that amount that I talked to you about is just simply for the invasive mussels defence program. But under that budget, we also do the “Clean, drain, dry” program. We also do the monitoring and the inspections. That includes the inspections for whirling disease, for example.

Donegal Wilson: Thank you for that clarification. That was what I was expecting. We had talked about chronic wasting disease, we’ve talked about whirling disease, and we kind of got into invasive mussels in a roundabout way.

The minister had mentioned that they were working on the budgets. My question is: is the envelope itself established and we’re moving money around within that envelope to the different programs, or have the envelopes themselves not been established yet?

Hon. Randene Neill: I hope we’re answering your question correctly. We do have our total for our estimates budget, and we read out kind of the sub-amounts as well. But we are still doing some of the detailed work on how to prioritize that budget based on kind of the subsets that they fit into.

But just as you know, some of our absolute main priorities — because we were just talking about it — are whirling disease, invasive mussels, chronic wasting disease. Those are key priorities for us in this budget.

Donegal Wilson: I know that each of these things has a response plan, and those response plans get triggered by different things. If the response plan is triggered, as it was in Kootenay Lake last year, do we have the budget to actually respond appropriately for what’s in our response plan for each of these things?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: As it stands now, yes, our response plans are in place. And thank you for the question. But at any time, as you know, anything can change. We need to constantly reassess and constantly pivot and constantly be ready to reprioritize, based on something that could happen that we don’t know is going to happen at this point.

But I do want to really stress, as well, that our priority, really, is prevention, because, for example, once whirling disease gets into Kootenay Lake, our options are limited. So we really, really have to focus on prevention, making sure that we keep it out of as many lakes as possible and we keep our lakes safe and work on education and communication, so people understand the significance of that and work really hard with us to make that happen.

Donegal Wilson: Yeah. As much of my riding has lakes in it, I can tell you that the “Clean, drain, dry” program is very important to the people of the Boundary-Similkameen and to residents across B.C. We value our water systems greatly.

The question around…. Last summer the “Clean, drain, dry” programs in my region — I’ll speak only because I visually saw them — appeared to be available on weekends, and there did not appear to be enforcement if people did not pull over. So I’m wondering: is there a plan to increase the presence of the “Clean, drain, dry” stations, specifically in high tourist areas, where they may not be knowledgeable about the problem?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: What we are really taking with this is a risk management approach, so we really go after high-traffic, high-volume areas. We’ll be honest. This is frustrating for us, because this is a federal issue, and we have zero federal funding. That’s why I suggested earlier that once a federal cabinet is named, this is going to be one of our first calls — to ask for funding to support something that could potentially affect the entire country. Provinces having to deal with this on their own is not going to work, and it’s not helping.

In terms of enforcement, prior to this legislation being introduced, what we had was a Chief Vet order that required vehicles to pull over, for example. If they didn’t pull over when we went to court, there were challenges in getting that enforcement to stick. So that’s why we’ve introduced this legislation. It gives us more teeth.

Also, going forward, we’ve asked staff to look into increasing the penalties, similar to what other provinces do. Penalties are much higher in Alberta. We couldn’t include it in this legislation, but we will be looking to increase those penalties in the future.

Donegal Wilson: I’m wondering if there has been any exploration with Municipal Affairs. We discussed that earlier in a previous conversation around the private water systems. In my riding, the community of Osoyoos, is currently looking at over $70 million to fix their large water system, their municipal water. Their plan is to pull from the lake.

A lot of those private water systems that we talked about earlier are also pulling from Skaha, Vaseux, Gallagher, and south. I’m only speaking in my riding, but if those invasive mussels enter the water, it’s going to have wide-scale impacts on infrastructure. I’m wondering if that has been looked at or discussed within your cabinet.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: If I may, to the member, just offer a clarification pointed out to me by the ADM. When I mentioned the chief vet order that we had to compel vehicles to stop, it was specifically for pull the plug, and this legislation will be a broader spectrum.

In terms of your question about Osoyoos and a potential new development drawing water from the lake, we haven’t specifically had any deep discussions with the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs. We are really looking for the federal government to partner with us on this. There are so many competing demands on local governments’ time, and working with another provincial ministry and going from this level down puts a lot of burden on local governments. So we would really like to partner with the federal government on this.

To your point, that is why we partner with different organizations like B.C. Hydro and Columbia Basin Trust. For example, if invasive mussels do enter some of our waterways, we estimate anywhere up to $129 million a year in infrastructure repairs and damage to our economy, whether it be damage to farmers or hydro intakes and all those sorts of things. It’s an incredibly serious issue.

Donegal Wilson: It brings to mind, for me, if the ministry is providing any advice to these municipalities, based on learnings from other jurisdictions, around whether they should be making an investment that large in pulling lake water or whether they should be looking for other areas before they spend and get too far down that road. I’ll ask the minister: is that something that’s happening today?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question. With our work with local government around things like invasive species, particularly invasive mussels, the short answer is yes. We talk to local government all the time about a host of things. We have collaborative working tables, not just for invasive species but in general for climate change. We’re looking, again, to what we talked about a bit earlier. It’s really resiliency.

With specific work regarding the invasive mussels, we partner with them with the “Clean, drain, dry” program. They’re huge partners with us in getting the word out in terms of education and communication. Then what we’ll also do is work with them about things that they can do to mitigate the impact of not just invasive species but other things as well.

[4:55 p.m.]

It is important to point out that at this point, B.C. does not have any invasive mussels that we have detected. I think so far we’re doing a good job. We need to do better, and we need to remain extremely vigilant to ensure that doesn’t happen.

So yes, but invasives are one of a host of things that we work with and partner with local governments on.

Donegal Wilson: Just seeking clarification on the statement that we don’t have invasive mussels. Does that mean we don’t have them in the lake or that none of our stations have actually detected mussels?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for asking about the clarification. It’s an important question.

Because the invasive mussel defence program focuses only on zebra and quagga mussels, that’s what we’re looking for. As of now, we have had no detection of those two mussels in any of our fresh waters in B.C.

We have detected them at border crossings. The ADM suggested that we are calling them “mussel-fouled boats” that we have found at these border crossings. We have ordered decontamination in those instances. But no detection at all for zebra or quagga mussels in our fresh waters, which suggests to us — and that means we can’t take our foot off the pedal — that our program is working.

Donegal Wilson: Randomly at a conference — I want to say about a year ago, before I was in this role — the Okanagan water board had…. I was talking to them about the “Clean, drain, dry” at a trade show. I thought at that particular time they said that they had found mussels, specifically at a station in the Okanagan. Can we confirm that that is true or whether I was mistaken?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: Hopefully this offers the clarification that you’re looking for, Member.

Since 2016, through our inspections, we have found 172 boats that have had mussels on them, or mussel-fouled boats, but we have not found any zebra or quagga mussels in any fresh waters in B.C.

Donegal Wilson: Again, a layman not in science. For the 172 boats that are mussel-fouled, were any of those zebra or quagga mussels? Did I get the second one right?

Hon. Randene Neill: Short answer is yes on those mussel-fouled boats. See, I made you say it. We have found indication of zebra and quagga mussel on those boats.

Donegal Wilson: I’m going to switch over to species at risk. I have a lot more questions as well in that particular space, but I’m cognizant of the time.

Species at risk. I’m wondering if we could have a total of how many red-listed and blue-listed species we have in B.C.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: I’m sorry that took so long for such an easy answer. The number of red-listed species in B.C. is 658, and blue-listed is 1,292.

Donegal Wilson: Looking at a five-year curve, is that number up, down or level?

Hon. Randene Neill: We are going to have to follow up with you to get the trends, whether it’s up or down or even, but we can say as a general statement that we are seeing more biodiversity declines in B.C. That’s why it’s so important to stay committed to the 30 by 30 campaign, protecting 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030 and other issues that we’re also working on now, including the biodiversity and ecosystem health framework.

Donegal Wilson: Are you able to share what the ministry has budgeted for caribou recovery in ’25-26?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question, Member.

We are still working on building our working budget for 2025-2026, but our budget last year was $8,755,000, and that has stayed fairly consistent. So that’s the ballpark number that we’re working on this year as well.

Donegal Wilson: Are you able to share what the total budget for species at risk was for last year if we’re still working on this year, just so I can see comparatively what we’re spending on caribou versus all species at risk?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Randene Neill: For our funding for all species at risk, excluding caribou, last year was just over $4 million. We’re aiming for that ballpark number again this year, $4.07 million to be exact.

Donegal Wilson: Going back to the numbers that we talked about earlier, we have 1,950 red- or blue-listed species in B.C. We’re spending $8 million per year on one species and $4 million on the other 1,949; is that correct?

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you for the question.

The answers that we gave you about the $4.07 million for the rest of the species at risk, those are actually just single spending. So the $4 million includes things like spotted owls and those very specific programs on single species. It’s true; yes, we do spend way more on caribou recovery than we do on the other single species like spotted owl and those types.

We also do have spending in other areas. Rather than manage species by species, what we’re trying to move to and what other organizations and ENGOs have told us is that we need to really take an environment-based approach on healing ecosystems instead of just species by species.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:15 p.m.