B.C.\u2019s auditor general says necessary oversight was missing on how the Village of Lytton was using provincial funding, according to a new report that examines the government\u2019s role in Lytton\u2019s recovery after the fatal 2021 wildfire.<\/p>\n
The Office of the Auditor General released the report on Tuesday (March 17), which was an independent look at the provincial government\u2019s role in Lytton\u2019s recovery from the wildfire that swept through the village and surrounding areas on June 30, 2021. The report looked at the period of June 30, 2021, to March 31, 2025.<\/p>\n
Auditor General Bridget Parrish found the provincial government\u2019s role in the village\u2019s recovery was challenged in three areas: Supporting the village\u2019s complex and unprecedented recovery needs; ensuring Nlaka\u2019pamux were partners in the village\u2019s recovery; and providing oversight of the village\u2019s recovery activities funded by the province.<\/p>\n
\u201cFirst, the province\u2019s legislation and policy were not sufficient to support the complex and unprecedented needs of the village. Second, while the village sits on the traditional territory of the Nlaka\u2019pamux, the province was unable to facilitate collaboration between the village and key Indigenous governing bodies,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Anticipating disaster recovery in communities that have low cash reserves<\/p>\n
\u2022 Enhancing oversight of provincially funded recovery work<\/p>\n
\u2022 Ensuring local communities are supported in implementing the 2023 Emergency and Disaster Management Act\u2019s requirements, which became law two years after the fire<\/p>\n
\u2022 Developing a framework for assessing a local authority\u2019s capacity to lead disaster recovery<\/p>\n
Lytton\u2019s role in the region and the fire\u2019s impact<\/p>\n
After several days of record-breaking temperatures and the heat dome, the Lytton Creek wildfire started on June 30, 2021, south of the village.<\/p>\n
Two people died in the wildfire, and 90 per cent of the village\u2019s homes, shops and services were destroyed. While some people\u2019s homes were spared in the fire, the report says the loss of Lytton as a service hub was \u201ccatastrophic\u201d to the village\u2019s 210 residents and thousands of people in the region.<\/p>\n
Lytton serviced the Nlaka\u2019pamux reserves and unincorporated areas represented by the Thompson-Nicola Regional District. The report said that several thousand people relied on the village\u2019s grocery store, bank, post office, school, health centre and RCMP detachment.<\/p>\n
The report notes that the wildfire ruined key infrastructure and left widespread areas of contaminated debris. It also destroyed the village\u2019s electrical infrastructure and exacerbated pre-existing issues with its water and sewer systems.<\/p>\n
The village also had service agreements for the Lytton First Nation reserves and the Skuppah and Siska First Nations.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe village\u2019s elected officials and staff lacked disaster recovery experience, and there was no engineer, planner, or recovery lead on staff. They were immediately overwhelmed by the magnitude of devastation,\u201d Parrish\u2019s report says.<\/p>\n
Support after the fire<\/p>\n
Emergency Management BC, now the Emergency Management and Climate Readiness Ministry, was responsible for leading provincial emergency management activities and coordinating with other ministries and health authorities. Lytton\u2019s recovery required coordination with the Housing and Municipal Affairs, Forests\/Archaeology branch and Environment and Parks.<\/p>\n
Public Safety Canada partially reimbursed B.C. for its delivery of emergency management, while Infrastructure Canada committed funds to the village for construction of public buildings to be used by all community members.<\/p>\n
The province attempted to support, but not lead, the Village of Lytton\u2019s recovery.<\/p>\n
The report notes that at the time of the fire, the Emergency Program Act \u201cwas silent regarding the involvement of Indigenous Peoples.\u201d<\/p>\n
Indigenous Services Canada directly funded Lytton First Nation\u2019s on-reserve disaster recovery after the wildfire.<\/p>\n
Ten days after the fire, the federal and provincial governments issued a joint letter to the Nlaka\u2019pamux Nation Tribal Council on the governments\u2019 commitment to the council. Each government then sent separate follow-up emails on how they would work with the tribal council and Lytton First Nation.<\/p>\n
Village\u2019s \u2018complex and unprecedented\u2019 recovery needs<\/p>\n
The report says B.C.\u2019s emergency management legislation and policy weren\u2019t sufficient to guide the\u201d complex and unprecedented recovery of a whole community.\u201d<\/p>\n
At the time of the fire, the province was just modernizing the Emergency Program Act, which was a decades-old statute focused on emergency response. It didn\u2019t include a comprehensive legal framework that established responsibilities for managing disaster recovery.<\/p>\n
The village lacked staff and funds to lead the recovery, and most residents were either uninsured or underinsured.<\/p>\n
Before the fire, the Village of Lytton employed six staff, but there were no bylaw officers, planners, or engineers to inform recovery planning, and no recovery manager to coordinate it. The municipality also had a small budget and low financial reserves.<\/p>\n
Taxes and service fees were reduced after the fire, which further limited the village\u2019s revenue base. The village\u2019s costs multiplied at the same time as it needed to hire staff with skills and experience to lead the recovery.<\/p>\n
The Village of Lytton was also unable to leverage B.C.\u2019s two emergency funding mechanisms under the Emergency Program Act: the Disaster Financial Assistance and a system to borrow money to pay expenses caused by an emergency.<\/p>\n
The financial assistance program provided 80 per cent reimbursement for infrastructure repairs, with the remaining 20 per cent the responsibility of the municipality. Lytton received only $48,000 for a public rights-of-way survey and the removal of garbage cans, planters, picnic tables, etc., from sidewalks.<\/p>\n
Ensuring Nlaka\u2019pamux were partners in the village\u2019s recovery<\/p>\n
At the time of the wildfire, the province was in the early stages of aligning provincial legislation with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, the emergency management framework for First Nations at the time was based on the federal Indian Act band system, with the federal government paying the province to deliver on-reserve emergency management services, including recovery, to First Nations.<\/p>\n
The report says that the Interim Provincial Disaster Recovery Framework referenced the UN Declaration, but it didn\u2019t touch on traditional territory or impacts on Aboriginal title and rights. It also didn\u2019t provide guidance on how a local authority should work with Indigenous governing bodies to recover from a disaster.<\/p>\n
As a result, the Nlaka\u2019pamux Nation Tribal Council\u2019s role in the village\u2019s recovery was limited. Nlaka\u2019pamux territory includes the Village of Lytton.<\/p>\n
In 2022, the tribal council drafted a memorandum of understanding to strengthen the relationship between itself and the village and identify priorities for recovery. The village didn\u2019t sign the memorandum of understanding.<\/p>\n
Parrish\u2019s report found that the lack of a legislative framework impeded the province\u2019s efforts to bring together Nlaka\u2019pamux and the village to plan and participate in the municipality\u2019s recovery.<\/p>\n
She said that \u201cultimately, a collaborative partnership failed to emerge,\u201d adding it was a missed opportunity for the village and the province.<\/p>\n
Oversight of the village\u2019s recovery efforts funded by B.C.<\/p>\n
The report says the provincial government provided recovery funds directly to the Lytton \u201cafter it became apparent the village could not fund its own operations or recovery activities.\u201d<\/p>\n
Through a series of agreements between Emergency Management BC, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Village of Lytton, the province provided more than $61 million. The province had paid the village in lump sums up front.<\/p>\n
Parrish says Emergency Management BC received incomplete spending and progress reporting from the village. The village provided \u201cmost\u201d of its monthly spending reports in 2022, but not for 2023.<\/p>\n
Formal reporting was required in the agreements, but the report notes there was a \u201clack of reporting\u201d on whether the funds were being used for the agreed upon purposes.<\/p>\n
\u201cWithout the reports, the province could only say what it expected the village to spend under the terms of the agreements. The province could not say with certainty how funds were spent,\u201d the report says.<\/p>\n
Emergency Management and Climate Readiness ultimately hired a private firm in 2023 to review the village\u2019s use of the funds to determine whether funds were used appropriately, whether all funds were accounted for, and if requirements for each agreement, such as reporting, were met.<\/p>\n
The firm found that the village\u2019s documents were \u201coften missing and incomplete.\u201d There were also frequent changes in village management that resulted in \u201cinformation gaps.\u201d The firm, in its report, said the village was \u201cacting in good faith,\u201d but it \u201cappeared that they lacked the leadership and governance capacity to manage such substantive and complex contracts.\u201d<\/p>\n
The province set up a new funding agreement in 2024 that included expectations that the Village of Lytton submit monthly financial reports.<\/p>\n
Parrish\u2019s report noted that the village had provided all required reporting under the new agreement as of March 2025. The agreement was extended to December 2027.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"B.C.\u2019s auditor general says necessary oversight was missing on how the Village of Lytton was using provincial funding,…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":545555,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[194299],"tags":[49,48,87674],"class_list":{"0":"post-545554","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-surrey","8":"tag-ca","9":"tag-canada","10":"tag-surrey"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/545554","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=545554"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/545554\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/545555"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=545554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=545554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=545554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}