Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Tuesday, October

24, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 31 — EMERGENCY AND DISASTER

MANAGEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 31; F. Donnelly in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On clause 5 (continued) .

The Chair: All right. Good afternoon, Members. I'll call Committee of the Whole on Bill 31, Emergency

and Disaster Management Act. We are on clause 5.

L. Doerkson: I think we're nearly through that clause, Chair. Thank you very much.

I just have one last question with respect to the compliance issue. Before the break,

we were talking a little bit about what may be levied against some of these individuals

that would be involved in this compliance. I wondered if I could just get a sense.

I know that that number is perhaps evading us, but are we going to see similar penalties

as to what we see in clause 153 in this?

Hon. B. Ma:

Section 153 outlines the penalties for offences under

section 150. It does not include

section 5. The compliance penalties would be administrative monetary penalties. For

section 5, it would be set out in regulation, as enabled by

section 146.

[1:40 p.m.]

M. Lee: I wanted to just ask the minister to give her the opportunity to clarify one of her

previous responses, which was that emergency orders, certainly as contemplated under

section 5 of Bill 31, do not apply to Indigenous governing bodies. Then she stopped

her response there.

The clarification is if she's referring to the application of subclause 1(2), it would

be unless the Indigenous governing body consents. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Ma: Yes. That is correct.

M. Lee: With the interplay of subclause 1(2), which I just referred to, and clause 5, sub

5(6) says: "The minister may not make an order under this

section in relation to the

Nisga'a Nation's or a treaty first nation's powers or duties under this Act."

There's no specific reference to Indigenous governing bodies here. Is this language

more for greater certainty? Presumably, the Nisga'a Nation or a treaty First Nation

would have recognition as an Indigenous governing body. Or is there something separately

dealt with under subclause 5(6)?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The definition of "local authority" in this act includes the Nisga'a Nation or a treaty

First Nation. As part of the treaties, the treaty First Nations have the rights, powers,

duties and obligations of local authorities.

Then there are sections of the bill which we apply to local authorities but intentionally

carve out treaty nations. This is an example of a carve-out to emphasize that this

section of the act does not apply to the Nisga'a Nation or a treaty First Nation.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister and that clarification. In terms of subclauses

5(7) and 5(8), it sets up a process where the minister may request the Nisga'a Nation

or a treaty First Nation to take the action contemplated under subclause 5(2). Then

if the Nisga'a Nation or a treaty First Nation does not intend to comply with the

request, then it sets out, in writing, reasons for not complying.

On this mechanism that is established here, I would like to ask, first: what is the

purpose of this mechanism? Secondly, was there any consideration of deploying a similar

mechanism when it comes to Indigenous governing bodies? If not, why not?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Subsection (6) is there in recognition that treaty nations are not subject to the

same rules as other local authorities. It's basically to provide deference to the

unique relationship we have with them as treaty partners.

In subsection (7), that mechanism is consistent with what has been agreed to between

the province and treaty nations, directly through our consultations, as we were developing

this legislation. Subsections (7) and (8) are reflective of our consultations with

treaty nations in the development of this legislation.

To the question about whether a mechanism like this was contemplated for IGBs, the

answer is no. Bill 31 does not confer powers or impose duties on Indigenous governing

bodies.

M. Lee: Thanks for the response from the minister. Just one other question about sub (8).

To understand the nature of the relationship, as to how this bill will be implemented

— in terms of the reasons, in writing, for not complying with the request — will the

nature of those written reasons be a matter of public disclosure?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: There's no requirement under Bill 31 that those reasons be published. If government

were considering making those letters public, we would certainly be conferring with

our treaty partners on it.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

L. Doerkson: Under clause 6, I want to get a better sense of how many committees might be appointed

in the next year. I want to understand: will they take the place of anything that's

existing now with respect to the task force? If I could just get clarity on that.

Hon. B. Ma: We do currently have the emergency task force that has been tasked at looking at this

past wildfire season. We expect that task force's work will be the priority right

now. When that task force delivers its recommendations — we're anticipating that to

be by spring of 2024, for implementation into the 2024 wildfire season — and when

the work of that task force is complete, that's when we would be turning our minds

to whether or not another committee might be required.

We don't have in mind a specific committee right now. This is largely a

section that

enables the creation of a committee and the ability to provide for reimbursements

to committee members if one were struck. But we don't have one at this time that we're

preparing.

[2:00 p.m.]

L. Doerkson: Just to confirm, then, it is only the one task force that's currently operational.

I guess the minister sort of anticipated the next question that I was going to ask,

just about reimbursement. I guess it would be safe to say that all of these committees

would be a paid position, with, obviously, the distinction of individuals that are

not employed already in some way by the government. So other individuals that might

be working on that. If the minister could just confirm those two things for me, that

would be great.

Hon. B. Ma: The expert task force is the only committee that is currently active, relating to

emergency management, that involves external members. Certainly, we have many committees

internal, like deputy minister committees, and other public committees within the

public service that focus on various aspects of emergency management, various tables

that are active.

But this provision really is about reimbursements — or to enable the striking of committees

and enable the provision of reimbursements and remuneration for members of a committee

that would be outside of the public service.

It's really…. I've forgotten maybe part of the member's question. So maybe I'll end

it there, and if there are parts of the question that I haven't answered, the member

can remind me. Sorry.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

L. Doerkson: Thank you. You answered the question that I was looking for, so we'll move along to

clause 7.

Under this clause, what I'm hoping for is a clear definition of what emergency resources

this ministry may be acquiring.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The phrase "emergency resources" actually is defined back in

section 1. It's defined

as "any personnel, supplies, services, personal property, equipment and facilities

that are necessary or advisable for the purpose of taking emergency measures and does

not include land."

Some examples might be…. During the pandemic, the N95 masks. Water purification tablets.

It could include equipment like generators or excavators, as well as facilities like

recreation centres that could be used for shelter of people evacuated from an area.

Services provided by an individual who is qualified to provide a service could also

be considered an emergency resource. Those are just examples, not an exclusive list.

L. Doerkson: All of that answer was perfect.

I guess the one question I do have about that answer is I was surprised to hear about

excavators and such. I could appreciate that under or through certain functions of

this ministry, ESS, etc., we might be renting gymnasiums or ice rinks and that kind

of thing for lodging. But I was surprised to hear about equipment.

So what capacity will this ministry play with respect to those types of items? I would

have thought that those items would fall under other ministries. So I was surprised

to hear about this minister potentially securing those types of items.

Hon. B. Ma: There may be situations where EMCR may be using this kind of equipment more directly

and other situations where…. This power provides government overall with an additional

tool to procure various emergency resources, and that may be equipment to support

other ministries in their response.

An example of where EMCR might provide for or use equipment more directly might be,

for instance, during an earthquake if the ministry was coordinating more directly.

[2:10 p.m.]

I'm sorry. I'm kind of thinking of some pretty horrible.... Unfortunately, horrible

scenarios have played out around the world, but if the ministry required equipment

to excavate building materials following an earthquake to recover people, that might

be an example.

But overall, it provides government with an additional tool to obtain those resources

if required for any kind of emergency response.

L. Doerkson: It does sound like that would be more of a supportive role but, potentially, it could

be a last-ditch effort to secure, in certain circumstances, that kind of equipment.

Final question, I believe, on this clause will be: what can British Columbians and

others expect as far as transparency in the procurement of any of these types of equipment

or services?

Hon. B. Ma: If the emergency resources are acquired through the ministry's statutory appropriation

powers as enabled under

section 10, there are reporting requirements, also under

section

10. So there are public reporting requirements there. And if the procurement is done

through the ministry's base budget, it goes through the estimates process.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

L. Doerkson: Outside of disaster financial assistance.... I mean, I can appreciate that we would

obviously have relationships with the federal government on many different situations.

I'm just wondering, though, what is sort of anticipated outside of that. How will

this ministry be involved with the federal government outside of DFA?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Some examples of other agreements that the province enters into with the federal government

around emergency management, in addition to the disaster financial assistance program

and our relationship with them through the disaster financial assistance arrangement

program, include the bilateral services agreement that we have with the federal government.

This is the agreement that we have entered into with the federal government to provide

emergency management services for Indigenous communities on reserve.

I will note that there is an intention to renegotiate that agreement to make it multilateral,

because right now it's just a bilateral agreement for the delivery of services on

reserve. The agreement doesn't include First Nations in that negotiation process,

which is not very aligned with DRIPA. But that is a type of an agreement.

Another type of agreement that could be entered into under this

section could be a

collaborative emergency management agreement, if the federal government was a part

of one, or other cost-sharing agreements.

L. Doerkson: Just a follow-up question on that. What would be the timeline to...? I mean, it's

obviously on the minister's mind with respect to bringing First Nations into that

conversation. I'm just wondering. Is there any sort of framework on the table now?

Is that conversation ongoing with the federal government right now to solve that?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Timelines have not been firmed up. Certainly we are interested in moving those conversations

along as quickly as possible. We have started conversations with Indigenous Services

Canada and some of our partners. We're awaiting timeline discussions with the federal

government, I'll say.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

L. Doerkson: I guess in clause 9…. This is a bit of a vague question. We've talked a little bit

about the anticipation of incidents that may occur in our province. Frankly, under

this clause, what I'm most interested in is understanding how your ministry will actually

budget for these things.

I think we found, under

definitions, my frustration around trying to have different

communities and different local governments trying to anticipate these incidents.

I guess what I'm wondering is — yeah, exactly that: how will you budget for this?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: I call recess. The committee is now in recess.

The committee recessed from 2:22 p.m. to 2:43 p.m.

[F. Donnelly in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, I'll call the committee back to order. We were on clause 9, and the minister

was about to respond.

Hon. B. Ma: Yes. Like every other ministry, EMCR will have to go through their budget development

through the Treasury Board process, through the estimates process.

Certainly, for best fiscal management, it is incumbent on us to try to budget as closely

as possible to what we believe the response costs for the fiscal year will be. That's

good practice, generally, to be as close as possible in order to limit unexpected

impacts on government's budget and limit unexpected or unanticipated impacts on the

province's fiscal health while not overestimating those costs because we don't want

to risk stranding assets.

That being said, EMCR, in addition to being able to budget and spend to that budget

through the normal budgeting process, does have statutory spending authority enabled

through the EDMA, as we did through the Emergency Program Act as well.

That statutory spending authority allows for the ministry to spend beyond the budget

for elements of emergency management, whether they are budgeted or not. And that is

what

section 10 is about.

[2:45 p.m.]

Clauses 9 and 10 approved.

On clause 11.

L. Doerkson: How many new officers and employees will this office have over and above what will

come in through the current provincial emergency staff? Is there any indication of

that under 11?

Hon. B. Ma: For greater clarity, EMCR, the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness,

is the provincial emergency management organization. So as a ministry, we already

have a deputy minister. Subsection (2) adds a deputy minister, who will appoint within

the organization a provincial administrator and also appoint officers and employees

that the deputy minister considers necessary to assist the minister and so forth.

The structures are already largely in place, and since its creation in December 2022,

we've been continuously evaluating, I guess, the sufficiency of that organizational

structure, where we need to be bolstering resources in order to provide British Columbians

the support that they require during emergencies.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

L. Doerkson: I just want to understand fully clause 12(a). This phrase does refer to leadership

provided by emergency management. I want to understand clearly: will this ministry

be taking the lead on different incidents? I mean, will it be, I guess, overarching

B.C. Wildfire and anybody that might be working with floods or earthquakes or whatever

the tragedy might be?

[2:50 p.m.]

This question is important because I wonder about the hierarchy. I think we did talk

a little bit about this before, but I want to clearly understand: is this the place

to go in a moment of any one of those emergencies that we'll be leading the charge

on fighting the fire, repairing the flood, etc.?

Hon. B. Ma: As a provincial emergency management organization, we lead the coordination of government's

emergency management efforts. It is very likely that we will be working in close collaboration

across multiple ministries. There may be ministries that lead specific response elements

to hazards.

As an example, the B.C. Wildfire Service is the lead entity on wildfire response and

wildfire fighting response. However, as a coordinating entity, we may receive feedback

about impacts to the agricultural community, as an example, prompting EMCR to also

bring in the Ministry of Agriculture. We provide that coordination lead.

L. Doerkson: Just maybe one clarification on that. The word I'm seeing is "leadership," and that's

the one thing I'm trying to understand better. I would think B.C. Wildfire would take

its leadership from the Minister of Forests. Does that change in any way under this

Bill 31 agreement?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: To the member's specific question about where the B.C. Wildfire Service would get

their leadership and direction from, that does not change under the EDMA.

Clauses 12 to 15 inclusive approved.

On clause 16.

L. Doerkson: I just want to better understand what the disclosure looks like under this clause,

Minister, if you could just clarify. Would we expect to see…?

I mean, the clause itself starts with suggesting that this will be published. I guess

what I'm trying to understand is what information might be published, where it might

be published. That sort of points to some transparency. I'm just not…. I want a better

understanding of where and what that might be.

[3:00 p.m.]

[S. Chant in the chair.]

Hon. B. Ma: I'm going to be jumping through a few sections, because I think that it's relevant

to the question and kind of draws it together.

The question, as I understood it, was: in terms of the publishing of information,

what kind of information could be published and where? In terms of where or how information

is published, it depends a lot on the type of information, but for the purposes of

responding to the question of where or how publishing happens, "publish" is a defined

term under

section 1.

It had defined it as: "'publish', in relation to anything that must be published under

this Act, means to publish (

a) in accordance with the regulations, or (

b) if the regulations

do not apply to the type of thing that must be published, by any means that the person

who must publish the thing considers most likely to make that thing known to the majority

of the population affected by the thing."

I know. Legalese, right?

be a place where publishing information that needs to be known by a large population

of people affected by the thing being published…. Certainly, that is a very useful

tool as well.

Again, the kind of information that is being published, really does vary. As an example,

under subsection 16(b), it references information respecting, among other things,

advice given by the minister or the provincial administrator under this act.

If we flip to

section 67, it also discusses, under subsection (1), that for the purposes

of responding to or recovering from an emergency, the minister may give advice and

assistance to any person.

A very simple example of advice could be the advice that I repeated throughout the

wildfire season for people to have an emergency grab-and-go kit ready, advice on where

information can be found around evacuation orders or what to do during an evacuation

order. Information could be so varied. It could even include that. But I'm happy to

dive into any areas that the member may wish.

L. Doerkson: Maybe just specifically, might we see compliance orders and fines published?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The member's specific question is actually covered under

section 146, so it is in

there.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

M. Lee: The review, on an annual basis, with Indigenous governing bodies that are parties

to agreements made under the act…. Will those agreements not have annual review provisions

or other review terms to the agreements? Or is this particular clause meant to apply

across the board and to be read consistent with the terms of those agreements?

Hon. B. Ma: Agreements that are made under this act could include provisions that allow for more

frequent reviews or other review formats. What the EDMA sets out is that at minimum,

parties to agreements made under the act are invited to meet at least once each calendar

year.

Clause 17 approved.

On clause 18.

The Chair: At this time, we will take a 15-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:08 p.m. to 3:26 p.m.

[S. Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act, back

to order.

We are on clause 18.

L. Doerkson: I want to spend a little bit of time here. We've talked a little bit about this under,

of course, the

definitions, but I do want to get a better sense of what local governments

may be tasked with here.

I know that the minister has had a conversation with RDs and such. I certainly have.

This is probably the part of the bill that most people are very concerned about. I

think that concern really does extend to First Nations as well.

Simply put, under (2)(a), what may duties refer to? What could be included there,

and how will those duties be defined?

Hon. B. Ma: The duties that a municipality or a regional district must perform under this act

are set out throughout the act. It's usually indicated by the word "must." There are

different sections. We'll certainly run through them as well.

For greater clarity, this

section is really about the geographical boundaries within

which local authorities would have jurisdiction. It's about defining the geographic

boundaries. The duties that they would have to perform within those geographic boundaries

are set out in the subsequent sections of the act.

L. Doerkson: Okay. We'll get to them as we go through them. I had hoped we could just sort of chat

about them now, as we did under

definitions.

I do want to understand better, with respect to the municipalities…. I mean, in this

section, it does refer to duties under this act. I can appreciate that there's a long

list of them. We've actually passed by a few of those duties.

In (3), it says that except as otherwise provided, a local authority's responsibilities

under this act continue to apply regardless of whether another person is responsible

or not.

[3:30 p.m.]

Does that responsibility fall to the local authorities in any way? In other words,

if we have critical incidents, critical infrastructure, anything out there, is there

a suggestion here that the responsibility will fall back to local government?

Hon. B. Ma: Subsection (3) clarifies the duties and powers of local authorities in situations

where their responsibilities overlap with those of other persons and other regulated

entities as well as Crown land.

It basically provides clarification that a local authority has responsibility under

this act for areas within their boundaries regardless of whether it happens to coincide

with another jurisdiction. It's meant to ensure that jurisdictional overlap doesn't

lead to areas being missed or not acted upon. That's the intention of the clause.

It is not intended to say that local authorities are absorbing the responsibilities

of other entities. Rather, it's just that their own responsibilities exist within

the geographic area even if there is another jurisdictional overlap with another entity

that happens to have the same geographic area and the same responsibilities within

that.

L. Doerkson: I'm going to, maybe, ask again about this clause because, frankly, I interpret that

a totally different way. It suggests that a local authority's responsibilities under

this act continue to apply regardless of whether any other person is responsible for

performing duties.

We shared yesterday an example of, potentially, a First Nation that had a partnership

with a power generation company, and that that would be critical infrastructure. If

that First Nation and that power provider did not comply with Bill 31 in some way,

do those responsibilities then fall upon the local government to be sure that that

is looked after?

[3:35 p.m.]

I'm guessing there are…. We just spent a little bit of time talking about compliance

and how that might convince someone to perform those duties. But my biggest fear is

that — whether it's power or whether it's connectivity, whatever that may be — if

those duties are not completed, even through ways of compliance and other suggestions

of, potentially, fines and those types of things, does it fall to the local jurisdiction

to complete that work?

This suggests to me…. I mean, I'll read it again: "Local authority's responsibilities

under this act continue to apply regardless of whether any other person is responsible

for performing duties."

That really suggests to me.... Unless the minister could change my mind, it suggests

that those duties may fall to the local governments.

Hon. B. Ma: I think the scenario that the member is describing is, perhaps, where you have a piece

of infrastructure and a critical infrastructure owner that has duties and obligations

under the act, and they are not performing their duties and obligations under the

act. The question is whether or not those duties and obligations would then fall on

the local authorities to take up. The answer would be no.

What subsection (3) is describing is that the local authority's responsibilities,

which are different from a critical infrastructure owner's responsibilities, under

this act will continue to apply regardless of whether there is a conflicting jurisdiction

with another, perhaps local, authority or another entity, or other persons that have

those same responsibilities as a local authority.

So the local authority has responsibilities under the act. Those are separate from

a critical infrastructure owner's responsibilities under the act. The responsibility

would not transfer over to the local authority if the critical infrastructure owner

was negligent or not in compliance.

L. Doerkson: Then I guess the natural question would be: who will be responsible for that work?

If it's not being done, if it's not happening under compliance or if there is some

issue and that responsibility doesn't fall to the local authorities, who will complete

that? Who will lead the charge on getting that work done? Will it be the ministry?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: There are no provisions in the EDMA that shift duties and responsibilities from one

entity to another. In bringing a critical infrastructure owner into compliance, our

first step would be to work with them to achieve voluntary compliance.

If voluntary compliance efforts are not effective, that's where escalating enforcement

measures would come in. Those would be the enforcement measures that are referred

to in

part 8.

L. Doerkson: Well, we haven't fully understood those enforcement measures that might be taken.

Perhaps the minister might describe those measures as being fairly drastic or severe.

I'm just wondering because we have discussed this on a few occasions. I'd like to

better understand what those measures might look like.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Again, it is our understanding that the vast majority of critical infrastructure owners

recognize the importance of emergency management and business continuity plans. I

don't have a number, but a significant number of them will already have these plans.

The EDMA sets out what we would expect a plan to look like, and we would want to see

critical infrastructure owners come into compliance by adopting or upgrading their

plans to meet the standards set out by EDMA.

That said, if there were a case where a critical infrastructure owner really was obstructive

or intentional about not moving into compliance, regardless of how closely, and our

attempts to work with them to bring them into voluntary compliance, the types of enforcement

measures that we'd be looking to would be monetary administrative penalties.

Clauses 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

On clause 21.

L. Doerkson: I want to understand here. We've talked a little bit about hierarchy with respect

to the ministry and the role it might play. This one, I think, gets a little bit sticky.

We probably have some of this happening already, but when we talk about multi-jurisdictional,

I was curious to know why it might just be "2 or more of the following…." I can appreciate

the intent there, but I guess I'd be hard-pressed to know a jurisdiction where we

wouldn't include all three.

Now, maybe I'm wrong about that. Could the minister explain how the hierarchy may

work here in those agreements, and how that might be different from what we're already

doing?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The multi-jurisdictional emergency management organizations, or MJEMOs, are designed

in the EDMA to be a highly flexible tool. We wanted to make the configurations of

jurisdictions as flexible as possible, recognizing that different areas of the province

are all very, very unique.

So an MJEMO could be two or more local authorities, and no other level of government.

It could be multiple First Nations and no local authorities or provincial government

involvement. And it could include all three levels of government. It depends a lot

on….

A lot of the structure will likely be driven, at the local level, by what the Indigenous

governing bodies or the local authorities are hoping to be able to collaborate and

cooperate on. An MJEMO does allow for multiple organizations or multiple local authorities

or Indigenous governing bodies to work together to achieve the duties and responsibilities

under the act as a collective.

Some examples of where this might make a lot of sense might be areas that are prone

to flooding. Recognizing that floodwaters don't care about jurisdictional boundaries,

multiple local authorities may join in together, with or without Indigenous governing

bodies, to do one risk assessment around a flooding area for that floodplain so that

they're able to achieve that requirement under the act together as one, as opposed

to every single local authority doing their own flood risk assessment.

An MJEMO could be built around a partnership designed to do just risk assessments

or even carry out emergency management response together. It's really up to the parties

of the MJEMO.

The member also asked about how this was different from what is already being done

now. Technically speaking, multi-jurisdictional emergency management organizations

don't exist in law. That's a concept that is being introduced by the EDMA. However,

there are some regions of the province that have structures that are similar to what

an MJEMO might look like.

As an example, the North Shore Emergency Management Office is a tripartite agreement

between the city of North Vancouver, district of North Vancouver and district of West

Vancouver. They could reasonably, if they wished, become a formal MJEMO for the purposes

of meeting the duties and obligations that they have under the act. They already,

in practice, work as one organization to provide emergency response across the North

Shore.

Another example is the Central Okanagan regional district. They passed the regional

district of Central Okanagan emergency preparedness service establishment bylaw. That

established a four-pillar regional emergency management organization with participation

from Central Okanagan electoral districts. So there are areas in the province where

something like an MJEMO does function, but technically, a MJEMO doesn't legally exist

in law right now.

L. Doerkson: The one thing that did not come clear there to me is the hierarchy that the minister

might expect. The reason I ask that is that the minister referred to the flexibility,

but that flexibility, to some degree, is taken away in 22. We're not there yet, of

course, but it does suggest that by order, the minister may require this. We'll get

to that in a moment, but it's the hierarchy that I'm kind of interested in.

The reason that I'm asking that is, frankly, because there was a time, of course,

when…. In Cariboo, for instance — it's what I know best — largely, the regional district

would sort of take the lead on most of that.

[3:55 p.m.]

Now we're starting to see EOCs with Tŝilhqot'in people. We're starting to see different

levels of emergency response.

I guess, frankly, the confusion that exists already in that moment of disaster is

really pretty significant. I mean, it's difficult for regional districts to get their

messages out. They're consuming multiple orders or suggestions of orders from different

agencies like B.C. Wildfire.

While this bill is going to give that framework for those partnerships and those multi-jurisdictional….

Who will be, ultimately, the person that makes the call, at the end of the day? Will

the ministry play any role in that?

Hon. B. Ma: In subsection 19(2)(b), it reads that in a case where powers or duties have been set

out in an agreement or other instrument made for the purposes of joining a multi-jurisdictional

emergency management organization, or MJEMO, an employee of a member of the MJEMO

organization may be designated to act on behalf of the local authority.

[4:00 p.m.]

I read that backwards, but hopefully, that makes sense.

Subsection (2) says: "Subject to subsection (5), a local authority may designate one

or more of the following to act on behalf of the local authority." One of those is

an employee of a member of the multi-jurisdictional emergency management organization

in the case of a MJEMO. So that would be the person who would act on behalf of the

MJEMO.

I think the member's question is if there's a hierarchy within the MJEMO. The act

does not set out a hierarchy within a MJEMO. That is up to the parties of the MJEMO

to determine in advance.

The intention of a lot of these agreements is that without these agreements, we have

a shared landscape, a shared emergency management landscape, where you have the province,

local authorities, Indigenous governing bodies potentially all exercising emergency

management authorities one on top of another. This can create situations of conflict

and confusion.

The more agreements and cooperative work that we do ahead of time, the more collaboration

that we enable ahead of time, the less we are likely to enter into those conflicts

during an actual emergency management situation. A MJEMO is one of the tools that

allow for multiple organizations to come together ahead of time and basically work

together as one.

L. Doerkson: Yes, I would agree with the minister that that is a challenging time during those

emergencies, particularly when those agencies collide with each other and try to sort

through very challenging situations. I guess the reason I'm focused on it is because

in (3)(b), it says that a local authority that joins the multi-jurisdictional emergency

management organization must comply with any directions given by the provincial administrator.

To me, that sort of indicates that the province may be in charge at these times, and

frankly, that's kind of backwards to how things are working now. I mean, in many cases,

regional districts, cities, different communities will take direction from different

agencies, like B.C. Wildfire, with respect to issuing orders of evacuation or other

types of orders.

I'm not sure if that power existed before, but that's really why I'm trying to canvass

this question. It's just to better understand…. At that point of dispute or disagreement,

might the province get involved in a more serious way to actually force this compliance?

Then, I guess, the second part of that question would be: what does that compliance

look like? Is this another opportunity for finding mechanisms against these jurisdictions

that are involved in this? And how might that play out?

[4:05 p.m. - 4:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The EDMA doesn't set out the provincial government as the top of the hierarchy of

MJEMOs. It's not quite like that. It is….

What clause 3, subsection (

b) refer to is that it's…. I'm trying to rephrase this

so that it makes sense, because it kind of makes sense in my head right now. I just

want to make sure that my sentence makes sense. Pardon me.

It effectively is saying that a local authority cannot absolve themselves of their

obligations and duties under the act simply by joining a MJEMO. They still have the

requirement for ensuring that their obligations and duties are carried out, whether

it is through the MJEMO or on their own.

The act of just joining a MJEMO doesn't mean that they no longer have those duties.

They can join a MJEMO so that those duties and obligations can be achieved collectively,

but they still have to make sure that they are achieved somehow. If they're not being

achieved through the MJEMO, they still retain that obligation and duty. A provincial

administrator can provide direction that they comply with the act still.

L. Doerkson: Just one more question on this from me, and then I think my colleague from Vancouver-Langara

has a question.

I guess I would beg to differ with respect to hierarchy. This is legislation that

clearly says: "A local authority that joins a multijurisdictional emergency management

organization must…." I'm guessing…. That's pretty clear that the ministry is in charge,

if you read that the same way I'm reading it.

The part of the question that wasn't answered is: what are the compliance measures?

It says "must comply." We've talked about compliance measures in other parts of the

act. What will this mean?

Hon. B. Ma: Yes, sorry. To provide greater clarity, it's that the EDMA doesn't indicate that the

province is at the top of the hierarchy within a MJEMO, but certainly the act does

infer duties, responsibilities, powers and so forth on local authorities. So to that

end, I believe I understand where the member is going with that. Yes, the EDMA, of

course, is…. It has authority over local authorities in that regard.

In terms of compliance, a provincial administrator can provide direction for a local

authority to comply with the act. In all cases, we would work with local authorities

to the best of our ability to achieve voluntary compliance, but if voluntary compliance

is not being achieved, then certainly the provincial administrator can provide a direction

for the local authority to comply with the act.

If that local authority was not complying with the direction,

section 5 allows for

the minister to issue orders for persons to comply with direction. And then, if that

was not being achieved, then that's where the enforcement measures come in that we

referred to before and the administrative monetary penalties.

M. Lee: Just walking through clause 21(1)(a), (

b) and (c), a multi-jurisdictional emergency

management organization (MJEMO) can be formed by two or more of the following of the

three bodies.

[4:15 p.m.]

This contemplates that a MJEMO can be proceeding, presumably, in an area of common

land base, a common interest. There must be a reason first for a MJEMO to be formed

by a local authority and an Indigenous governing body in the region. Assuming that's

the case…. If that's not the case, perhaps the minister can clarify.

Secondly, if that is the case, and there's a common geographic area or common interest

for which the MJEMO is being organized, why is it the case that a local authority

and government can form a MJEMO without an Indigenous governing body?

Hon. B. Ma: To the member's first suggestion that MJEMOs are likely to be formed around common

interests, I would agree that that is most likely to be the case — that there's some

kind of common interest, be it geographic, proximity, common interests over land base.

It could be multiple jurisdictions that fall within the same floodplain, as an example.

Building on the response previously to a similar question, the MJEMOs that are enabled

by this act are meant to be as flexible in structure as possible, recognizing that

different regions of the province and different areas of the province are unique,

and they have unique circumstances.

It is possible for a MJEMO to consist of only local authorities, so two or more local

authorities. It could be possible for a MJEMO to consist of local authorities and

Indigenous governing bodies or the province.

[4:20 p.m.]

Especially if the province were involved in a MJEMO, we would certainly encourage

the participation of an Indigenous governing body. However, an Indigenous governing

body may not wish to be a part of a MJEMO. In those cases, the utility of a MJEMO,

between multiple local governments, would still exist.

It should also be noted that Indigenous governing bodies do not have the same duties

and responsibilities as local authorities under the act. So one of the benefits of

creating a MJEMO was to allow multiple local authorities to work together to achieve

those duties and responsibilities. There may be cases where an Indigenous governing

body doesn't see a benefit to them to be a part of MJEMO, but there are other cases

where they may.

M. Lee: Just as a follow-on that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin and myself would have about

MJEMOs, though…. Given that there is the "2 or more of the following," it also suggests,

as the minister just indicated, that it's possible to have a MJEMO without the government

being part of the MJEMO.

If that's the case, given the nature and the responsibilities of government when it

comes to emergency management and disaster recovery, why is it the case that government

would not be a party to a MJEMO?

Hon. B. Ma: The province's role in emergency management applies across the province, regardless

of whether a MJEMO exists or not. So we continue to play that role across the entire

landscape.

When it comes to what parties should be a part of a MJEMO, it largely depends on the

purpose of the MJEMO being created, which may vary across the province.

[4:25 p.m.]

In some regions, for instance, a number of local authorities that exist within a common

floodplain may create a MJEMO for the purposes specifically of risk assessment or

emergency management planning around that floodplain in order to achieve their obligations

and duties as a local authority.

There are many cases where local authorities will work together to achieve their obligations,

and there may not be a need for the province to be involved, but certainly, we're

very open to collaborating and working with local authorities and Indigenous governing

bodies in a number of areas. We have, and we'll continue to do that. That's the answer,

I guess.

Clause 21 approved.

On clause 22.

L. Doerkson: Under this clause — again, we just spoke a little bit about this — the minister may

by order require certain things to happen.

I guess what I want to understand here is why the minister would produce an order

to establish a MJEMO. Why would EMCR not perform as a leader under that order? If

it has come to that point where there is an order coming to actually form this, I'm

just not certain what the minister's role would be with respect to having governance

over that forced partnership or relationship.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The exercise of orders under

section 22 are anticipated to be very, very uncommon.

The concept of a MJEMO is new to the act. There could be cases where the province

determines that a MJEMO is necessary for regional coordination and collaboration on

emergency management. It really exists as a potential remedial tool if serious problems

occur as a result of a lack of coordination between multiple local authorities and

that lack of coordination is leading to unacceptable risk to public safety.

So it's not intended to be used in a regular course of operations. It's there in case

we come across a situation like that, where that lack of coordination is causing serious

problems.

L. Doerkson: I can appreciate that it may only be used once in a while, but nonetheless, the legislation

is here. I guess….

If it really has come to that point that there's that much either confusion, non-compliance,

whatever might be happening in that situation, then will the ministry assume responsibilities

for that structure that is being forced together under a MJEMO?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Referring back to

section 12 under general purposes of the provincial emergency management

organization, being EMCR, one of the purposes is "to provide, throughout British Columbia,

oversight, leadership and coordination of activities with respect to each phase of

emergency management."

An order to require two or more local authorities to form a MJEMO could be an action

that is taken as part of that responsibility. But certainly, I would say that I'm

confident in the earnestness of all local authorities to want to manage emergencies

well and to protect public safety and to serve their communities.

In requiring a MJEMO to be created, it's to address a lack of coordination between

those authorities, or those multiple authorities, and the lack of coordination between

their efforts. But my assumption — and I think it's a pretty good one — is those authorities

would still come to the table with the intention of ensuring public safety during

an emergency.

I don't want to create the suggestion that we're in a position to force local authorities

to care about emergency management when they don't. I think that it's safe to say

that all of them do.

If a MJEMO was created by order, we would certainly work with those local authorities

to make sure that MJEMO actually worked well and was capable of carrying out their

duties and responsibilities under the act. It's not the case that we would issue an

order for a MJEMO to be created when there are coordination problems and simply walk

away. That would not achieve the outcome that is intended.

That was a very strange answer I think I gave, but I hope that made sense.

L. Doerkson: We might agree on that.

It is exactly what this clause says — that you will order different local authorities

to do exactly that: form this. While I can appreciate what the minister referred to

as being used only once in a while, definitely, this would be in a serious situation,

I'm assuming, of dysfunction or disagreement or whatever.

Really all I was looking for there was to understand. Clearly, this would be only

invoked in an event where there were all of those issues that I just listed. It would

seem appropriate that the ministry would take the lead then.

I just wanted to know whether or not the ministry would be leading that MJEMO in this

situation. Just a simple yes or no.

Hon. B. Ma: It is not quite a simple yes or no answer, but I think it would depend on the circumstances

and what was causing the problem.

It is very case-specific, but certainly, if there were coordination issues that could

be resolved through the creation of a MJEMO, it would be incumbent on the province

to also work with those local authorities and make sure that MJEMO is set up properly

and that we've helped pave the way for success.

Clause 22 approved.

On clause 23.

L. Doerkson: In this clause, this

section actually allows for local authorities to enter into agreements

[4:40 p.m.]

I guess what I want to understand here is…. Those agreements are really around providing

and receiving assistance, including in the form of financial aid.

Could this ability have helped communities like Merritt or Lytton or whatever the

community might be to work directly with the federal government for payouts or funding

or that type of thing and skip through the province just to work directly with the

federal government?

Hon. B. Ma: I think the short answer is yes. This

section would allow for direct agreements between

local authorities and the federal government. Although the act cannot compel the federal

government to participate in such an agreement, it does allow for it.

L. Doerkson: Of course, I would appreciate that you're certainly not going to boss them around,

but it does intrigue me a little bit. Typically, right now, those communities would

be working through the province, of course, to handle DFA applications — disaster

financial assistance.

I guess I'm wondering what's intended by this clause. Is the ministry hoping that

those types of applications may just skip through the province and go directly to

the federal government? What might be the benefit of having local authorities like

a community like Williams Lake dealing directly with the federal government on something

like this?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Speaking directly to the member's specific question around disaster financial assistance,

the federal disaster financial assistance arrangement with the province is based on

the provincial-to-federal relationship. We do not anticipate this

section being used

to skip the province in that arrangement. The federal government requires for us to

be a part of that arrangement.

That's not quite the scenario that we're contemplating here. An example of a scenario

that…. To be more clear, this

section enables local authorities to enter into agreements

with jurisdictions outside of British Columbia. It does not mean…. It could include

agreements that include British Columbia as well. It's not necessarily exclusive to

only agreements with jurisdictions outside British Columbia.

An example of where an agreement might be beneficial for a local authority to enter

into with a jurisdiction outside of British Columbia could be if they have neighbouring

communities on the Alaskan border or the Alberta border where they wanted to enter

into an agreement around mutual aid or even mutual risk assessments or planning. This

section confirms that that that would be allowed.

Clause 23 approved.

On clause 24.

L. Doerkson: So 24 — again, we've talked a little bit about this and the pressure that might be

on local authorities for the reporting measures. I do want to just understand a little

bit better. Certainly, I know local governments want to understand a little bit better.

Some of this seems vague to me, so perhaps we'll just start with the first question

before we get to a better understanding of what any matter might mean and things like

that. At a local level, will there be any opportunity for local governments to receive

any kind of financial assistance to perform some of the duties that are being asked

of them through these reporting measures?

The reason that I ask that is that while I better want to understand timelines and

things like that, even at this point, after three or four days of conversation, I'm

still not really clear on what these reports might look like or how detailed they

might be. I do know that that is the one question that has been consistent from local

government. They just feel that they simply do not have the resources to complete

the reporting that's required under this.

[4:50 p.m.]

Now, I do know, and I'm sure the minister and the ministry will know, that local government

is definitely reaching out. They're going to take their opportunity to be heard, hopefully

through the commenting process that's open until December 31. I do know that this

is definitely on everyone's mind, what will be expected, when you see terms like "any

matters."

I guess my first question under this clause is: could it be anticipated that there

would be any financial help? We've talked all kinds about the ministry wanting to

collaborate. I think that is the first question I'd like to start with on this clause.

Hon. B. Ma: We certainly have heard from local authorities about the need for financial investments

that support their activities across all four phases of emergency management: preparedness,

mitigation, response activities, recovery activities.

The province has made investments through a variety of means already. An example is

the community emergency preparedness fund, which provides funding to local authorities

for projects that support preparedness and mitigation.

We provide response funding during the actual emergency, of course. We provide funding

to local authorities during actual emergencies. We provide funding to local authorities

through recovery processes, DFA and otherwise.

[4:55 p.m.]

We have, certainly in my conversations, like the member has, heard from local authorities

anxieties about their capacity and the resources required to implement their obligations

and their duties under the EDMA. This is largely why we are taking a phased approach.

Rather than having all of their duties and obligations come into force upon royal

assent, the majority of their obligations and duties are going to be phased in, through

regulation, over time.

Through the consultation that is currently open for the local authorities regulation,

we do anticipate hearing from communities about the level of resourcing and supports

that they would require. We would, as a ministry, endeavour to provide them with that,

although I can't make that commitment here.

It does have to go through Treasury Board processes and other processes of government

to land. Certainly, we do recognize that need and have an intention to provide as

much support and to the greatest extent that we can.

The Chair: Member, can you just hold one minute?

This committee will now take a ten-minute recess. We'll reconvene at five past five,

please.

The committee recessed from 4:56 p.m. to 5:06 p.m.

[K. Greene in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act, back

to order. We are on clause 24.

I recognize the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate you joining us here today.

I just want to start by saying how grateful I am to hear the minister acknowledge

those pressures that we were just discussing and chatting about with reference to

the local governments. I know that the communication is happening from those bodies,

and I'm glad to hear that it is being acknowledged. It's not so much skill set or

anything; it's just simply time, right? I think we'll get to a couple of those things

right now.

Maybe the minister could just clear up for me a few of these items that are defined

in pretty vague terms. So in 24(a) "prepare a report on any matter" — could that be

clarified a little bit?

Hon. B. Ma: It's probably worth clarifying that this

section does not refer to regular reporting.

Rather, regular reporting is under

section

Section 24 is more about one-off reporting. It provides broad authority for the minister

to request reports from local authorities on a wide variety of subjects as well as

to ensure the minister is aware and informed of activities occurring in different

regions of the province related to emergency management.

These general reports can increase communication and the flow of information between

local governments and the province. An example might be that if the provincial government

was working towards a provincewide hazard or risk analysis, having access to information

from local governments may be necessary to inform this analysis. This

section would

enable the minister to request that kind of information.

L. Doerkson: Surely the minister would appreciate that a clause that has those terms, which are

very vague, is concerning, of course. I can appreciate that there's reporting that's

more clearly laid out. But this whole clause, frankly, is pretty vague. It simply

refers to "within the period required by the minister."

So that is another, I guess, question I would have. Can the minister clear up what

that timeline might look like and certainly in the form and manner required as well?

I just want to better understand, because of the vague nature….

[5:10 p.m.]

I mean, frankly, it could be a 500-page report, and surely that's maybe not what the

ministry is looking for, but it certainly lends itself to being pretty vague and easily

misunderstood by myself and, certainly, governments that have to abide by this.

Hon. B. Ma: For the purposes of being clear about the intentions around this section, recognizing

that the wording can create some anxiety, as the member has indicated, this is really

about ensuring a good flow of information and the ability to request information of

local authorities. It could be information on response and recovery activities, post-emergency

needs assessments and so forth.

The reason the

section is written in a bit of a flexible manner — for instance, under

(b)(ii), it says: "provide the report to the provincial administrator…in the form

and manner required by the provincial administrator" — is really to provide flexibility,

to look at the circumstances and determine the form and manner appropriate to the

information that is being requested.

A report could be as simple as an email. If it's time-sensitive, then the timelines

may be shorter, but if it is not time-sensitive, then we can provide longer timelines.

[5:15 p.m.]

It's quite a range of types of information being requested. It allows for the provincial

administrator to determine what form and manner is appropriate or needed for that

type of information. It's not intended to be an onerous requirement on local authorities.

It's certainly not intended to be used to be onerous.

L. Doerkson: Just a comment. Thanks for acknowledging that. It is the vague nature that has people

concerned, right?

I can appreciate that the minister is clear about her intent with respect to what

might be required, but just note that that is a massive concern on the part of local

government. I'll leave that right there.

Clauses 24 to 29 inclusive approved.

On clause 30.

L. Doerkson: I just want to get a better sense of whom this authorization for volunteer public

safety providers covers.

Hon. B. Ma: Examples of organizations that would likely be authorized as public safety providers

include search and rescue organizations; Provincial Emergency Program Air volunteers

— those are the volunteers that provide air search support services; road rescue volunteers.

Those are volunteers that provide extraction services. They may extract people from

vehicles or do rope rescues and other rescue services, employing special skills and

equipment. Those are some examples.

L. Doerkson: Might it also include rural fire departments?

Hon. B. Ma: Unless the rural firefighter or fire department is doing road rescue services, the

answer is no. However, I believe they are covered under the Fire Services Act.

L. Doerkson: What kind of application processes are being considered under this clause? Are we

looking at annual, every two years? How is that process going to work?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: We currently work with many of these organizations, and we recognize the need to on-board

them swiftly onto this new provision in order to ensure continuity of service. That

on-boarding is a process that…. It will be an initial on-boarding that is likely to

be pretty smooth, intended to be smooth.

In terms of the longer-term process that is being developed, that work is still underway,

so we don't have details about it yet. But as an example, right now authorizations

are provided on a five-year basis. We don't see, at this time, any reason to change

that.

L. Doerkson: Actually, you maybe anticipated my next question. That is, are existing members of...?

[5:25 p.m.]

It looks to me like the focus really is on auto extraction and search and rescue and,

certainly, fire departments that provide that service. Are existing members going

to be expected to go through this process of application?

Hon. B. Ma: In order to ensure continuity of service, we anticipate that the on-boarding process

will be kind of a simplified, streamlined version of what will be the more permanent

on-boarding application process. These organizations are already providing these services

to us. We just want to update them into the new provision.

L. Doerkson: Why the focus on just these groups? I'm curious to understand why it doesn't extend….

It's not that I'm in favour one way or the other. I'm just curious to understand better

why it's focused on SAR, for instance, or for those fire departments that provide

this service and why it doesn't extend to other members of volunteers.

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: There are a few more examples that I'll add to the list I provided before, which also

includes…. There's the ground search and rescue, road rescue services, air rescue

support services, emergency support services, and radio communications as well do

fall under this category.

This

section is really about volunteers that provide specialized services. It allows

for the province to provide some regulatory oversight over these kinds of volunteers.

And this category of volunteers is also related to immunity provisions, given the

types of risks that they undertake in while doing this kind of volunteer work. So

there's another

section later on in the act around immunity for volunteers. This is

the type of volunteer that that would apply to.

Clauses 30 to 32 inclusive approved.

On clause 33.

M. Lee: Just on

part 3, clause 33. This

section has a number of

definitions, which refers

part 5 and

part 6 of Bill 31, and both in sub (a), which says relating to the exercise

of a power or performance of a duty under

part 5 or 6 but does not include a decision-making

agreement or statutory power agreement in relation to the exercise of a power under

part 5 or

part 6.

When we line up those two points, it says, in one case, that a coordination agreement

relates to the exercise of power but does not include a decision-making agreement

or statutory power agreement in relation to the exercise of a power under

part 5 or

part 6.

I do think that in order to understand the application of this definition, it's helpful

at this juncture if the minister could give us an example of the distinction between

the exercise of a power under

part 5 or

part 6 but is not a decision-making agreement

or statutory power agreement in respect of the exercise of a power under

part 5 or

part 6.

I would also say, presumably, that when we see the language, of course, that follows

in clause 34, we're talking about a coordination agreement with an Indigenous governing

body. As we have talked about to date in this bill, pursuant to clause 1(2) of the

bill, Indigenous governing bodies are not….

[5:35 p.m.]

I'll get the exact wording. Indigenous governing bodies are…. An order under this

agreement or act "does not apply to an Indigenous governing body unless the Indigenous

governing body consents."

Presumably, the coordination agreements, of course, is how an Indigenous governing

body will give their consent. I'd like to ask for the distinction that's being drawn

within this definition of coordination agreement in both provisions that I cited.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I think the member's question around

section 33 under coordination agreement is around

the reference that says: "but does not include a decision-making agreement or statutory

power agreement in relation to the exercise of a power under

Part 5 or

Part 6."

It may be worthwhile to clarify that these refer to different kinds of agreements.

Decision-making agreements are agreements around whether a decision is.... Oh, jeez.

I'm going to try to see if this is accurate.

A decision-making agreement is an agreement that is entered into with an Indigenous

governing body around joint decision-making or reaching consent on decisions at the

moment of a decision being made,

whereas a coordination agreement is an agreement

that basically lays out in advance the coordination of the exercise of powers in a

traditional territory or in a geographic area in order to avoid conflict of the exercise

of those powers, so to avoid the overlapping exercise of powers in the same area.

I'll pass it back to the member, who may probably have additional questions, but I'll

start there.

M. Lee: I would say that this whole

part 3, including the

definitions, cut back and forth.

They certainly refer to, as the minister just referred to, and as I did,

part 5 and

part 6 of the act.

I was asking for an example as to how this works on the coordination agreement definition

and the various parts of this definition. The minister did cite the difference between

a coordination agreement and a decision-making agreement. Of course, this definition

of coordination agreement also refers to a statutory power agreement.

[5:45 p.m.]

I can approach this discussion in a few different ways, but, I hope, Madame Chair,

you'll appreciate that I need to cut back and forth. We won't finish with one definition

and then go on to next and not come back to that definition.

With that in mind, I will go forward and ask the minister this. When I look at the

definition of decision-making agreement in Bill 31 against what's in the Declaration

on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, this definition of decision-making agreement

refers to

section 7 of DRIPA. This definition of decision-making agreement says that

it means an agreement negotiated and entered into under

section 7 of DRIPA relating

to statutory powers of decision under this act.

I'd like to ask, first of all…. To me, the definition or the description the minister

just gave of a decision-making agreement as contemplated under Bill 31 is different

from an agreement that is an entitled decision-making agreement relating to a statutory

power of decision. Is that correct, or am I hearing the minister incorrectly?

If so, perhaps the minister can just correct my understanding of what she meant to

say about a decision-making agreement, because it seems to be different from what

is focused on, even under DRIPA, as being a statutory power of decision-making agreement

under

section 7 of DRIPA.

Hon. B. Ma: I appreciate the member giving me the opportunity to provide greater clarity in my

response. A decision-making agreement relates to the exercise of a statutory power

of decision, whether jointly or through consent. In this case, specifically, we're

referring to statutory powers of decision under this act.

M. Lee: I appreciate the clarification by the minister. When we look at this definition of

statutory power agreement, it seems to mean something different, in the sense that

it's been defined differently and makes reference to

section 6 of DRIPA, which I'm

going to come back to.

[5:50 p.m.]

First, let me just ask the minister, what is the difference between…? Other than what

the words say in terms of the actual words on the page in Bill 31, in the definition

of decision-making agreement versus a statutory power agreement, what is the difference

in purpose of these two types agreements?

Hon. B. Ma: The Emergency and Disaster Management Act enables the minister to enter into agreements

with Indigenous governing bodies under sections 6 and 7 of the Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

Section 6 of the Declaration Act is a broad authority and can include agreements related

to statutory powers, defined under the Judicial Review Procedure Act to mean a power

or right conferred by an enactment.

That's to make a regulation, rule, bylaw or order; to exercise the statutory power

of decision; to require a person to do or not do

an act or thing that, without this

requirement, the person would not be required by law to do or not do; to do

an act

or thing that would, but for that power or right, be a breach of a legal right of

any person; or to make an investigation or inquiry into a person's legal right, power,

privilege, immunity, duty or liability.

Section 7 provides a framework for agreements for joint and/or consent-based decision-making

but is limited to statutory powers of decision and requires a mandate from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

So the statutory power of decision is being defined under the Judicial Review Procedure

Act to mean a power or right conferred by an enactment to make a decision, deciding

or prescribing the legal rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties or liabilities

of a person or the eligibility of a person to receive or to continue to receive a

benefit or licence, whether or not the person is legally entitled to it, and includes

the powers of the provincial court.

M. Lee: Let me just ask first, or next: has this formulation of statutory power agreement

been utilized in any other legislation brought forward by this government?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Yes, it is used in the Child, Family and Community Service Act, as well as the Adoption

Act. We'd say that those acts use a similar construction to the EDMA, with minor differences

to accommodate the different terminologies of each act.

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

When I look at the definition of "statutory power agreement" under this bill, it refers

section 6 of DRIPA but then repeats portions of

section 7 relating to decision-making

agreements. In fact, in clause 37(4) of Bill 31, it refers to the application of

section

7(2) to (5) of DRIPA to a statutory power agreement.

Does this bill contain the correct

section reference to DRIPA, or is it intended that

this bill and this ministry is varying from the terms of the Declaration of Rights

of Indigenous Peoples Act?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Yes, the references are correct. This takes the same framework in

section 7, and it

applies it to statutory powers for the purposes of this act. The reason why this is

connected to

section 6 is that

section 6 provides broad authorities to enter into

agreements with Indigenous governing bodies.

M. Lee: So just breaking down the minister's response,

section 6 of the Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act gives the authority for a member of the Executive

Council, on behalf of government, to enter into an agreement with an Indigenous governing

body.

This definition under Bill 31 refers to a person or entity that is authorized to exercise

the statutory power under this act. That is different from what is contemplated under

the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

[6:05 p.m.]

Again to the minister, why is this Bill 31 being presented, effectively, as a variation

and deviation from what's contemplated under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples Act?

Hon. B. Ma: This is not a deviation from the Declaration Act. What the member is referencing is

about who is exercising the power, not who is entering into the agreement.

M. Lee: Just to ask the minister, the requirement of a statutory power agreement as it relates

is additional qualification relating to the consent, which is set out in the "statutory

power agreement" definition. Again, why the difference in formulation between the

two

definitions, in terms of what's required?

In the first case, with "decision-making agreement," it sets out the requirements

under

section 7 of DRIPA.

Whereas in the "statutory power agreement" definition, putting

aside the reference to

section 6, it includes the specific requirements of

section

7. So again, why are there explicit conditions that are set out here for a statutory

power agreement but not for a decision-making agreement?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: If the member refers back to

section 7 of the Declaration Act, he'll find that the

provisions under the definition for "statutory power agreement" are already laid out

in the Declaration Act. So it does not need to be repeated under "decision-making

agreement," which refers directly to

section 7,

whereas under "statutory power agreement,"

which refers to

section 6,

section 6 of the Declaration Act being broad authorities

to enter into agreements, it does not repeat that language in the Declaration Act.

So by including this language under "statutory power agreement," we're making that

consistent with " decision-making agreement," which refers to

section 7, which already

has that language under the Declaration Act,

section 7.

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

This, I believe, does demonstrate the technical nature of these provisions. I wonder

whether a First Nation that's trying to work through these provisions will appreciate

and understand the distinction the minister just drew, because it's not evident and

immediately obvious to me.

I would suggest, of course, that for a bill of this nature, of this comprehensive

framework, which the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin has been evaluating in terms of

his questions back and forth with the minister here…. In clause 37, as we come to

it, there is direct and explicit reference to the requirements applicable to a statutory

power agreement, yet under "decision-making agreement," it does not make explicit

reference to those requirements.

The wording of "decision-making agreement" could be read to suggest that it is an

agreement negotiated and entered into pursuant to

section 7 of DRIPA but could go

on to say that it's subject to all of the conditions and requirements under

section

7 of DRIPA, without having to state them.

I would suggest to the minister and ask the minister again if she considers, as we're

discussing it here in committee, whether she's confident that this is clear enough

language so that Indigenous governing bodies that are working through this document,

this framework, will have a clear understanding of their obligations and requirements

as they pertain to a decision-making agreement.

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: This legislation is written in a way that takes an approach that's consistent with

other legislation that, I guess, brings

section 6 and

section 7 agreements into their

acts. I am happy to say for the record, however, that the definition of "decision-making

agreement" under

section 33 of Bill 31 does capture the substance of

section 7 of

the Declaration Act as per the reference to

section 7 of the Declaration Act and the

definition itself.

All this being said, we have confidence that First Nations that are interested in

entering into agreements under

section 6 or

section 7 of the Declaration on the Rights

of Indigenous Peoples Act are very familiar with the Declaration Act itself. In addition

to that, we are developing an Indigenous agreement framework and supporting guidance

documents to support those agreements.

The Chair: Minister, would you kindly move the motion?

Hon. B. Ma: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:20 p.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada