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

Morning 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; J. Routledge in the chair.

The committee met at 11:08 a.m.

On clause 5 (continued) .

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster

Management Act, to order. We are on clause 5.

L. Doerkson: We'll start this morning with getting a better understanding from the minister on

what types of orders might be contemplated and considered under 5(1).

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The orders contemplated in subsection 5(1) are the orders that are listed under subsection

(2) of

section 5, so being orders requiring a person to do any of the following with

respect to the person's powers or duties under the act: " (

a) exercise a power or

perform a duty; (

b) comply with the directions of the minister or the provincial administrator

with respect to exercising a power or performing a duty; (

c) consult and coordinate

with another person or entity in exercising a power or performing a duty, including

requiring consultation and coordination in accordance with (

i) the regulations, or

(ii) the directions of the minister or the provincial administrator."

Probably some examples would be helpful. Examples of orders made under this

section

could include a minister ordering a local authority to update an emergency management

plan to align with any new standards if they have not done so in a satisfactory manner

or have delayed the process beyond an acceptable amount of time.

In the same scenario, perhaps if the local authority is not adequately meeting their

requirements to consult and cooperate with Indigenous governing bodies while developing

the emergency management plan, the minister may make an order for them to take action

to remedy that.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. The examples do help.

I'd like to get the same information with respect to the term "duties" under (a).

I'd like to understand better what that might entail. I can presume that that is going

to entail what we just spoke about, but I want to understand for sure that that is

the case.

Hon. B. Ma: In this case — or not even in this case…. The term "duty" in the act is used to describe

any action that is required of a person as defined by the act. Throughout the entire

EDMA, you'll see requirements that are placed on various entities. It could also be

requirements that are prescribed through regulation as well.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister.

I think we'll spend probably this next hour better understanding exactly what these

things are.

[11:15 a.m.]

I think this really is the part of the bill that I have heard most about — the requirements,

whether they're legislated or whether they are brought to local governments in a different

way through regulation. I think that's really the concern that so many have, and I

think First Nations have the same concern, particularly with respect to what we muddled

through yesterday as far as the definition around "a person."

Under, I believe, (3)(a), we talk about compliance a little bit. I'd like it if the

minister could give me a bit of a sense as to a timeline that local governments and

First Nations may be looking at with respect to compliance. I haven't really seen

that in the act anywhere, and I want to get a sense of what may occur to a First Nation

or a local government in the event that there is a non-compliance.

Hon. B. Ma: In terms of the schedule, at which point different entities would have to, I guess,

come into compliance, that's being developed through regulation.

[11:20 a.m.]

Part of the public consultation and the engagement with local authorities right now

on the local authority regulation actually includes a question around

schedule and

timelines and what local authorities believe they…. We're receiving their feedback

on how long it would take for them to come into compliance under various parts of

the act. That hasn't been prescribed in the EDMA.

I will clarify that this

section really is about a minister's ability to issue orders

in the case of an entity being obstructive. It's really a last resort piece. Throughout

the rest of the EDMA, we will encounter, in different sections, different requirements

and duties that are being applied to various entities. This

section is about the ability

of the minister to create an emergency order to require compliance if we're seeing,

like I said, an entity that's maybe being obstructive or refusing compliance, and

so forth.

I also want to clarify that as was defined by previous sections, emergency orders

issued by the minister do not apply to Indigenous governing bodies.

L. Doerkson: Thanks for the clarification, Minister.

I guess, then, this is the framework for the ministry to impose orders and, potentially,

timelines and all kinds of rules around what the minister, frankly, will deem fit.

To me, I guess I should have said in my previous question that there's concern, obviously,

at a local level what that might mean, and we'll get to that in a few sections from

now or a few clauses from now. But frankly, that concern is the same for some of these

potential entities.

We did talk a little bit about entities, and we tried to get clarification. Can you

just list a couple of entities for me that would be considered under this clause?

Hon. B. Ma: Some examples would be local authorities, critical infrastructure owners and public

sector agencies if they had duties under the act and unfortunately were refusing to

move into compliance. That order could be made for them.

L. Doerkson: I guess I can appreciate the vagueness about what the minister might be suggesting.

What I'm trying to understand is who those individuals might be. Surely there's been

some consideration with respect to companies that may have some of this infrastructure

that may see themselves having regulations or legislation levied against them, and

certainly, potentially, fines for non-compliance.

Are those companies like Telus? Who would be these companies? I can appreciate the

term "critical infrastructure," but I'm specifically trying to get some examples of

who might be caught in this clause.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I guess the reason why we're not naming specific companies right now is because there

isn't a regulation for critical infrastructure owners at this time. The regulation

would define critical infrastructure owner of critical infrastructure being regulated

from which the specific companies that might be captured in that definition would

flow.

But because it doesn't exist right now, providing specific examples of real companies

right now might give the wrong impression that they are immediately going to be regulated

when, in fact, the regulation doesn't currently exist and won't be able to exist until

the EDMA is in place.

L. Doerkson: I think that's case in point part of the frustration around the bill, because I think

there are many people that are on the landscape that are unclear how they may be affected

by this. It makes it difficult to have that conversation with respect to clauses like

this, because in this clause, it's clear that critical infrastructure will be legislated

or regulated in one way or the other to comply with certain requirements.

The requirements were discussed under "definition." We talked about continuity plans

and different things under the

definitions

section of clause 1. Of course, this really

points to…. The biggest question in the room is how this will affect those owners.

I guess I'll try one more time for a potential example of even two or three that might

be affected by this. Because I know that I have heard from, certainly, gas line companies.

I've heard from different hydro-producing. We talked a little bit about partnerships

with respect to First Nations and hydro producers like Run of River. I think those

were words that the minister used the other day.

I would like to try and understand better what companies out there might expect to

see regulation imposed on them.

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I want to be able to provide the member with as fulsome a response as possible without

getting ahead of cabinet deliberations. I'm trying to find that line there, recognizing

that regulations are put in place and approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

That's why I'm taking a little bit of time here, hoping I can provide an answer that's

a little bit more helpful.

I would say that, certainly, there would be consultations with sectors prior to the

development and during the development of regulation. Regulations would not suddenly

appear and be a surprise to those sectors.

In terms of timing, I'll also assure the member that we're not looking at issuing

regulations for critical infrastructure owners imminently. At this time, our regulatory

development priorities are the local authorities regulation and the post-disaster

financial assistance regulation development. Those will take several months at the

least. We'll also need to work with First Nations about their priorities around regulations.

So we don't anticipate this being imminent, and as the work to develop those regulations

occurs, we would certainly be consulting with the sectors.

To be a bit more helpful, some of the sectors that EMCR is contemplating prioritizing

in the development of those regulations, when we get to the point of developing regulations,

are probably the sectors related to telecommunication, transportation, energy and

utilities.

So again, those are EMCR's intentions right now, recognizing that there are still

cabinet deliberations and decisions that have to be made there.

[11:35 a.m.]

L. Doerkson: That's helpful, Minister. I appreciate you trying to answer. The sectors are, at least,

certainly helpful.

A question about the regulation and, of course, the compliance portion again. We're

nowhere near discussing the fines in the back of the bill. But I'm just wondering

what is being thought of here. If there is non-compliance, is it safe to say that

there will be a mechanism to issue fines under that non-compliance? I can appreciate

that there is, obviously, much work to do as far as consultation, but I can't imagine

you'd be consulting with these entities with respect to what a fine or non-compliance

might look like.

I would love to get a bit of a better understanding as to what is being thought of

here.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: It may be more helpful for us to actually delve into some of the penalty details under

part 8, where we actually go through all of the different enforcement measures.

But by way of kind of providing more context related to the member's question, and

section 5, I guess I'll speak more broadly that when it comes to critical infrastructure

owners, we understand them to already be very invested in emergency management and

business continuity plans, because they recognize how incredibly important the work

and the service that they provide is.

We expect that there will already be a great amount of interest in making sure that

even within their own organizations, they have strong emergency management plans and

they have strong business continuity plans. Working with them to bring them into compliance

with whatever future regulation will be developed is part of the work.

As with all emergency orders, the preferred approach of EMCR is to try to reach voluntary

compliance. We see, through very specific examples, right down to evacuation orders

in communities, that voluntary compliance is really the goal. If you have somebody

that is refusing to leave their home, sending police down to drag them out of their

home is really counterproductive.

In all of these cases, the preference…. Even when it comes to

section 5 and bringing

organizations into compliance, the preferred route is to work with them and to try

to reach that voluntary compliance. Really, this provision is used as a last resort.

In terms of the member's specific question around enforcement, there's a significant

number of enforcement-related clauses in

part 8. We might want to go through them

line by line there. It might be more helpful.

L. Doerkson: I guess I'm just curious why, under clause 153, we've outlined fines of $100,000 or

a year in jail. Now, again, we'll discuss that later, of course. But that's referring

to a person. We were just sort of debating here the meaning of a person being what

we have broadly discussed so far, being a corporation, Indigenous governing body.

But also, individuals will fall under that category as well.

Can the minister provide any clarity as to why we've defined these fines under 153

but not under this section?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The fines under

section 153 apply to the offences listed under

section 150, which

does not include

section 5.

But again, when we get to

part 8, we'll be able to go through each of the clauses

and provide more clarity as to how, I guess, the various penalties apply to the various

clauses before them.

Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.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