Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Thursday, October

26, 2023

Morning Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

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; S. Chant in the chair.

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

On clause 47 (continued) .

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

Management Act.

L. Doerkson: Yesterday we were beginning to talk a little bit about the emergency management planning

by local authorities. I know that we have discussed this a little bit under

definitions,

but I do want to get a few points clarified, starting with a point that we were chatting

about yesterday, which was timelines. I just want to clarify that.

[11:05 a.m.]

What I heard was that we would expect to see a what-we-heard report in early spring

of 2024 with respect to the public commenting period of the next couple of months

and that we might see regulation coming by the end of 2024.

Then, beyond that, I was interested in the timeline for local authorities to produce

their plans and be ready to respond to the government.

Hon. B. Ma: I don't know that I had specified spring or fall, end of 2024 or so forth, but a timeline

of the type that the member has described is, I would say, generally reasonable. In

early 2024, we expect to issue a what-we-heard report. At that point, we would connect

with opposition members for an engagement, as I committed to yesterday.

The intention is to deposit a completed regulation within the calendar year of 2024.

We haven't been quite that specific. It depends a lot on our development process and

the speed at which we are able to work with First Nations on various collaborative

development processes as well, because we will be working with First Nations on that.

In terms of the timelines for local governments to come into compliance with that

regulation once it is deposited, that is also dependent on what we hear from local

governments through the consultation period.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. There could be some time passing between completion of those

reports — certainly, completion of the regulation. Will there be any requirements

for any of these plans in the interim?

Hon. B. Ma: The current Emergency Program Act already requires the local authorities to have emergency

management plans. In the interim, those emergency management plans would continue

to apply, as per the transitional provisions of the act.

L. Doerkson: That's exactly where I intended to go to this morning. I want to understand, in a

more fulsome way, how these new plans will be improved.

I want to introduce some numbers. I had a number of calls last night with respect

to a few different regional districts. In 2017, the Cariboo regional district had

one person in emergency management; in 2023, they had five.

Their fear is that because of what may or may not…. We're not clear 100 percent yet

what will be expected for regional reporting and different types of emergency management

plans or, in this case, risk assessments. That's their biggest concern. They're not

sure how many more people might be required to do this work.

I guess the real question is: how will the new plans differ, and how will they be

better?

Hon. B. Ma: Emergency management plans under the Emergency Program Act are primarily focused on

the response aspect of emergency management,

whereas the new emergency management

plans that will be required under the EDMA will focus on all four phases: preparation,

mitigation, response and recovery. It does include risk assessments as well.

[11:10 a.m.]

I will note that we're getting quite close to the sections that provide detail on

what is required in them. In sections 51 and 52 — we're very close — we can go through

those in detail when we get there as well.

L. Doerkson: Yes, we'll certainly get there, as well, for sure.

Just one last question, and then I think my colleague will have a question or two

on this clause. We talked a little bit about funding yesterday. That's why I was outlining

those numbers, because honestly, regional districts, local authorities are not in

a position to simply increase their budgets. That is, at the end of the day, their

biggest concern.

The minister mentioned a couple of different funding opportunities that have been

introduced. I just want to ask one more time: is there anything else contemplated

to help not just our local authorities but First Nations as well, which really do

not have the resources?

Before the minister answers that, there's also concern around the skill set required

and actually finding people. I know that we've talked a little bit about potential

compliance and those types of things, and we'll get into that. But there is a general

sense that the ask just may be too much for many of these authorities to complete

this work.

So one, funding. What else might be contemplated outside of funds? Two, what would

the minister suggest with respect to filling these positions, to do what will be,

clearly, an abundant amount of work?

Hon. B. Ma: With the caveat I provided yesterday that I'm unable to provide funding commitments

during debate on EDMA, given I would not be able to precede Treasury Board processes

and other financial processes of government in the House, I can say that the Ministry

of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness, speaking on behalf of the B.C. government

on our approach to emergency management, recognizes it's far more cost-effective for

us to be investing in the preparation and mitigation phases and the development of

good, strong, emergency management plans ahead of time than to only be focused on

response.

In the absence of the efforts to support local governments and First Nations in preparing

and mitigating that work and doing the work to put together risk assessments and supporting

strong emergency management plans, we end up paying for the response to emergencies

on the back end anyway.

Right now the way that emergency management is funded in British Columbia, aside from

the funds that I indicated yesterday and some of the other financial supports that

we provide along the way, is that during an actual emergency response, the province

opens up its wallet and basically pays for all of the incremental and additional costs

that local governments and First Nations incur during an actual emergency. That cost

can be an order of magnitude more than if we were to invest up front.

So we recognize the value of providing that kind of support up front in order to reduce

the cost and resource draw for all levels of government, including local governments,

during an actual emergency. I guess I want to state for the record that that is the

principle that we are operating under, and while I cannot commit dollar values today,

it's certainly our intention to make that case.

I would also offer that we are taking a look at what kind of provincial supports can

be provided that are non-monetary. How much can the province provide that would actually

help local governments in their own risk assessments more locally and in the development

of their emergency management plans?

That means the development of provincial guidance that local governments can draw

upon to adjust for their more specific purposes. It includes the development of the

disaster and climate resiliency risk assessment that will effectively draw upon all

of the technical data that is already available, largely, on how climate change is

going to interact with various hazards and apply them to British Columbia in a way

that is more accessible and understandable to a greater variety of people.

[11:15 a.m.]

We're hoping to be able to interpret it so that it's more useful, basically, so that

you don't need an entire team of engineers to understand what you're reading. We're

hoping for the first iteration of that work to be released in the spring of 2024 and

then for more regional information to be available in 2025. If we're doing that groundwork

as a province, then it reduces how much further local governments will need to go

to apply it to their own specific municipal circumstances.

We are also investing in lidar, as I mentioned before: high-quality elevation data

that can be used to support flood risk assessments and other hazard assessments. That

information will be public. We are looking at doing much of that centralized or provincewide

work, which then can be used to feed into communities' emergency plans.

To the member's last point around skill sets…. It's a very good point. It is something

that we are aware of as well. The reality is that there are very few people who are

trained in emergency management. I'm aware of a specific program at Royal Roads University

that really trains in emergency management, but largely, our emergency management

professionals fall into the role through other pathways.

It's a relatively new field to have so many professionals required in it. It is something

that the ministry is turning its head towards, thinking about what kind of training

would be helpful, not only to local government employees but also to provincial employees.

We're seeing extreme climate events resulting in emergencies far more frequently now

than before. Certainly, there's an intention to try to build up competency overall.

So I think that that's a really good point that has been raised by the member and

that we're also alive to.

L. Doerkson: I'm glad that the minister has at least contemplated the idea of funding or support

staff. This brings up a question — I don't know that it was fully answered from previous

days: what is contemplated as far as staffing levels in this ministry?

It would be amazing if the province is able to help local governments in that way.

Of course, there are a few local governments out there. So I'd be very interested

in getting a bit of clarity around what may or may not happen within the ministry

as far as staffing levels in the coming couple of years.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I'm unable to predict the outcome of Treasury Board deliberations, so unable to predict

the future. However, what I can offer is how we have been growing over the last year,

since the ministry was created, and where our priorities would be in terms of growth

in the future.

In terms of incremental needs and growth in the future, we would certainly be taking

a look at…. As the implementation of the EDMA comes in, which will be phased in over

time, for local authorities and the province as well, we would be taking a look at

that and seeing where those additional resource requirements are. I would say that

we would have an early emphasis on the consultation and coordination pieces and the

Indigenous agreements aspects of the EDMA.

In terms of growth over the past year, in the last fiscal budget, EMCR was able to

secure an additional $85 million over three years to expand the foundational capacity

for the ministry to provide better and higher-level service to local authorities and

First Nations. We also created a new disaster risk management division. That division

is largely responsible for some of the risk assessment work that I had described earlier.

[11:25 a.m.]

We have expanded the permanent complement in our recovery team, the post-disaster

recovery team. That team was previously largely funded out of a statutory appropriation,

which meant that the staff members would be temporary. We would hire them for a specific

emergency, and then we would have to let them go afterwards, when the statutory appropriation

authority ended.

That, of course, is not good human resources and doesn't help the province build competency

and institutional memory over time. It wasn't a very effective way to support communities

that are struggling to recover themselves.

We also expanded our strategic partnerships branch. That is the branch primarily responsible

for Indigenous partnerships. Over the last year, since the Ministry of Emergency Management

was created — with the mandate to become more adept at supporting communities through

all four phases of emergency management, and based on our mandate to recognize First

Nations as equal partners in emergency management — the areas of growth were our disaster

risk reduction division, our recovery team, our strategic partnerships branch, overall

staffing to provide a higher level of service to First Nations and local authorities.

We added additional staffing to the disaster financial assistance branch to support

that recovery process as well.

L. Doerkson: Just a quick follow-up on that. Did the minister say $85 million to be split over

three years, or is the funding $85 million per year?

Hon. B. Ma: The budget is usually presented in three-year increments, so it's $85 million over

three years total.

L. Doerkson: Just a quick follow-up question on a comment that the minister just made a few moments

ago with respect to lidar. I think the minister said that we are currently investing

in lidar. I just wondered who "we" is. Is that the ministry? Is that the province?

Hon. B. Ma: To confirm, the provincial government is making that investment. What I'm currently

unsure of is which ministry the money flowed from. But yes, it is the provincial government.

L. Doerkson: Just in light of time, would it be appropriate to ask for clarity about which ministry

that's going to fall into? Maybe it could be a written response later, if that's all

right, which ministry it's going to fall into and how much of the province might be

affected by that lidar.

I did know that that work was going on, but I didn't understand whether it was happening

in this ministry. You're saying it is not.

Hon. B. Ma: We have confirmed that the investment was made out of the Ministry of Water, Land

and Resource Stewardship. The intention is to obtain lidar data for the entire province,

although it will take a number of years to complete.

L. Doerkson: Perfect. Thank you, Minister.

I have one more question. This is just basically a better understanding of the term

"local authority." I should have asked this earlier in

definitions, but I did not.

I just want make sure that we're talking about the same thing when we talk about local

authorities that will be made to complete certain tasks.

[11:30 a.m.]

Is there anything outside of regional governments that we would commonly expect to

share that same common definition? By outside of local governments, I'm referring

to other authorities, perhaps ambulance or RCMP or Interior Health or any of our health

authorities. Would they be expected…?

I can appreciate that some of that would fall under critical infrastructure, I would

assume. But I'm just wondering who else might fit that definition.

Hon. B. Ma: In the legislation, the term "local authority" applies to municipal governments, regional

districts, modern treaty nations, such as the Nisga'a Nation, and treaty First Nations.

However, the Nisga'a Nation and treaty First Nations are carved out under subsection

(5) of 47.

The other organizations that the member has listed mostly fall under public sector

agencies, which are covered under

section 46. They are asked to do similar things

as local government authorities, but they are categorized differently.

M. Lee: Just on clause 47. In reference to a response to my colleague here, the minister made

reference to a further consultation process with First Nations and Indigenous governing

bodies in respect of the regulations.

As we noted between committee sessions, the original listing of the consultation process,

who was consulted with, from the first day of committee stage…. The minister's team

is still working on it. I look forward to seeing that.

Just in terms of the consultation process, in respect of regulations to come…. The

minister referred to that and, certainly, to needing to get the input of First Nations

in terms of the process under which those regulations would be considered.

Can I ask the minister: what is the expectation that the minister has in terms of

the timing around that consultation process with First Nations?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: All regulations will be developed in consultation and cooperation with First Nations.

The process for regulation development will follow the interim approach set out by

the Declaration Act Secretariat. The timing for regulation development is still being

determined, although we do anticipate our priority regulations to be developed over

the next year or so.

We have already began discussions on how that process and that engagement will take

place with First Nations. As an example, we're preparing to hold workshops on the

local authority and post-disaster financial assistance regulation with First Nations

in November and December. We would then return to rights and title holders with a

consultation draft shortly thereafter and go forward from there.

M. Lee: I appreciate the overview by the minister as an indication. Is it the expectation,

as well, by the minister that those rights and title holders, First Nations, that

did not participate, in the 2022-2023 period, in that second stage of consultation,

principal consultation, on Bill 31…?

Will the ministry be picking up additional engagement, let's say, with those First

Nations that may not have been parties to the consultation draft in that first or

that second period?

Hon. B. Ma: It's hard to speak on behalf of First Nations as to which First Nations will want

to participate. But invitations are issued to all First Nations regardless of whether

or not they participated in consultations around the EDMA itself.

M. Lee: Just in terms of the language around 47(5), it provides that the minister may request

that the Nisga'a Nation or treaty First Nation do what is set out in subsections (2),

(3) and (4) of clause 47. Under what circumstances would the minister make this request?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: This clause is in

section 47. The opportunity to request the Nisga'a Nation or a treaty

First Nation to generate risk assessments or emergency management plans…. Having the

clause in here respects the government-to-government relationship, but it can provide

consistency if needed. That's why the clause is in there.

An example of where this clause might be used is if there was a regional plan being

developed and we required an emergency plan from a modern treaty nation in order to

be integrated into the regional plan to avoid gaps.

That being said, our understanding is that the modern treaty nations already have

emergency management plans in place. But that could be contemplated as an example

of when that clause might be used.

M. Lee: Was there, in terms of the drafting of this bill, then…? In terms of 47(5), was it

considered to have alternative wording that would have provided, if a treaty First

Nation has a risk assessment or emergency management plan in place, that that be shared

with the local authority or with the ministry?

Hon. B. Ma: Certainly, if a modern treaty nation had risk assessments or emergency management

plans that they willingly wish to share, there's no obstruction to that in the EDMA.

This particular clause is consistent with…. This particular clause around the ability

to request but not necessarily require a modern treaty nation to provide these…. Pardon

me, it actually doesn't say to provide the plans but rather to "do one or more of

the things" described under

section 47. It's consistent with what was agreed upon

with modern treaty nations during our co-development process.

Clauses 47 to 50 inclusive approved.

On clause 51.

L. Doerkson: I just want to start here. I do want to spend a little time on this clause, just understanding

what might be before — I think we just talked a little bit about this under 47— regional

districts and local authorities, etc., that will obviously have to provide quite a

bit of information.

But I wanted to start with the term "vulnerable." If I could just get a better understanding

of what the minister would describe. Now, I can appreciate that it does talk about

individuals, animals. I'm guessing that there are certain categories that the minister

would identify as being vulnerable.

I guess a bit of a second question to that point is: would there be…? Would that be

noted as sort of a plan over and above this? In other words, if it was, for instance,

unhoused people in our communities, would there be expectation that there would be

a plan for that group of people specifically?

Could "vulnerable" also be seniors' lodging or housing, or people that don't have

transportation? I just want to understand that term and what might be expected.

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I think that there are two concepts that are relevant to the member's question: one

being the vulnerable person, animal, place, thing or so forth; and then there's the

concept of intersectional disadvantage.

Under subsection (1), when we're referring to "vulnerable," we're primarily here referring

to geographic proximity to a threat. So you're more vulnerable if you're closer to

the wildfire or the interface than someone else.

Under subsection (b), it does open up the opportunity for prescribed characteristics,

which means that regulations could be made to add to this definition in the future.

However, without that regulation, it's really right now about physical, geographic

location.

Then the concept of intersectional disadvantage would be characteristics. I think

the member probably knows what it means, but examples could be people who are Indigenous,

people who are homeless, people who have a disability. It could be seniors with a

disability or so forth.

In answer to the member's question around whether or not a separate plan would have

to be made, the answer is no. Rather, it is required for a plan-maker to consider

these aspects in the development of their plan.

As an example, if a community knew that they had a high proportion of people with

disabilities who use wheelchairs or seniors who use wheelchairs, then taking that

into account in the development of their emergency management plan might look like

ensuring that their emergency service reception centre had a ramp for wheelchair users.

That's the kind of consideration that that would need to happen.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:50 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