Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Wednesday, October

18, 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

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 31; R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 2:55 p.m.

On clause 1.

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

Management Act, to order.

L. Doerkson: I had hoped that we might be able to ask a few general questions before we got underway.

We'll, of course, have a number of questions under clause 1, as well, but I had expected

that the minister may want to make some opening remarks. I'm not sure if that's the

case or not. Under the circumstances, with she and staff in different rooms, I'm not

sure if she would like that opportunity.

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you to my critic there. Opening remarks will be very simple. We are joined virtually

by staff in a different room.

You won't be able to see them, but I have Grant Holly with me, Keith Preston, Katie

Olthuis, Madeline Maley, Monica Cox, Jeffrey Yuen from the Attorney General's office,

Darlene Leavitt from the Attorney General's office and Rhea Wilson from the Attorney

General's office supporting me today as well.

I also want to thank the Hansard team for making this possible, for making it possible

for me to carry legislation through virtually today. I'm really grateful for those

efforts and looking forward to the committee stage debate.

L. Doerkson: I do want to start with some general questions.

I, too, Minister, am thankful to all of those individuals that are taking

part in

this process.

My first question, really, would be with respect to an understanding that there was

much work completed on this bill up to around 2017. My question is…. It's taken some

time to, obviously, bring Bill 31 to the Legislature, of course. My question, really,

is around the conversation that we've had in the past with respect to ongoing consultation

periods, ongoing committee work, as well, that we're seeing throughout the province.

My question is: is the bill ready to be brought to the floor, and should it have perhaps

waited until that work was done?

Hon. B. Ma: I want to thank the member opposite….

The Chair: Minister, just a reminder to put up your hand so I can recognize you.

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you so much, Chair. I'm grateful to you for that reminder.

I want to acknowledge that yes, this piece of legislation has been developed over

many, many years. A lot of work was done, in particular, around 2019 and 2020, though

it was paused. The work was paused for the pandemic and then the subsequent challenges

that we faced in 2021.

The province has definitely faced a lot of disasters in recent years that have caused

government to re-evaluate their active priorities at that time. However, this is a

very important piece of legislation that we refocused on in 2022-2023, working with

First Nations through the development process, as laid out by the Declaration Act

Secretariat. We're confident that the framework is complete.

[3:00 p.m.]

I do want to clarify that there are some active consultations going on around the

province, but it is not on the act as a whole. They are on discrete pieces of work,

targeted pieces of work — in particular, development of post-disaster financial assistance

regulations, and local government regulations as well.

L. Doerkson: Well, thank you very much for that. The work that's happening with the committee is

certainly part of that.

I have had some calls from frustrated regional districts that feel as though they've

somewhat been removed from the process. Now, they have confirmed to me that they do

have an opportunity to comment, of course, in the public commenting period to the

end of the year. I did want to understand better what that process looks like. Now,

I can appreciate that we'll get to it much further down the road, with respect to

cabinet introducing regulation, etc.

What does that commenting period look like for the individuals that do want to participate

in this process?

Hon. B. Ma: I assume that the question relates to the regulatory consultations that are happening

right now. We are currently seeking feedback on two specific pieces of regulation,

one being the post-emergency financial-assistance regulation. That would be, basically,

the revised version of the disaster financial assistance program that we have right

now.

We are also looking for comments on the local authority regulation. That would be

the regulation that would regulate what local authorities will be responsible for

in the context of this legislation. We're currently accepting written submissions

through to the end of the year.

There are two discussion papers posted online on our engagement website that outline

the purpose of the consultation, the regulations, some of the principles and concepts

that would be beneficial to receive feedback and comment on.

Some specific sessions for local authorities are also going to be held — some engagement

sessions in the month of November. That has been listed on our engagement website

publicly.

[3:05 p.m.]

I will note also that in terms of consultations with local governments and local authorities,

we did work closely with the UBCM flood and wildfire advisory committee in years past,

and we continue to work with the UBCM community safety committee as well.

L. Doerkson: I guess I'll go back to the original question. The minister should know that I do

have that engagement release in front of me. I appreciate that.

I guess my original question was — I'm not sure how to articulate this: Is the cart

before the horse? I mean, the point is that we have much consultation still going

on. I'm just wondering how that might affect this bill at a later stage. It, obviously,

has many pages where the minister or the cabinet may add regulations.

I'm wondering if it's not just too early for this bill to be debated. We have had

healthy debate. The minister has suggested that that debate was fulsome, in a good

way. I just wonder. There seems to be much conversation and, certainly, a debate still

going on about this bill, as we begin committee on it.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I'm hoping that I'm interpreting the question correctly. Maybe the member can clarify

if I don't.

I will note that the legislation provides an enabling framework for the delivery of

post-disaster financial assistance. It creates an enabling framework for the development

of regulations for regulating local authorities in the emergency management context.

It is not a prescriptive legislation, and that allows for the delivery of those kinds

of regulations to basically be managed by regulation.

There are a number of benefits to this, of course, one being that regulations are

much more nimble. They're more agile. They can be evolved with a changing context

more quickly than legislation can. But the legislation itself is incredibly important

to create that framework that allows us to actually deliver on the intentions of the

legislation, which largely, in this case, with the EDMA, is to be more proactive than

we have in the past.

The current Emergency Program Act is very response focused. It doesn't allow us to

create regulations around the preparation of mitigation activities that we really

need communities to be able to take on — not just communities but agencies and ministries

and other emergency management partners as well. Without that framework and without

that legislation, the regulations aren't able to be focused on those kinds of proactive

elements.

Now, there are transition provisions in

part 12 of the bill that help carry us through

a phased implementation of the legislation, so while we are developing the regulations,

there may be a gap after the bill reaches royal assent where we don't have these new

regulations in force yet. The bulk of the act does come into force, but if you take

a look at

section 209 — I know we're not there yet —

section 209 actually lays out

kind of the commencement table as to how the legislation comes into force.

Any concepts or regulations that are required to support the legislation in advance

of the new regulations being made are addressed in

part 12 of the bill. So there are

transition procedures in place to make sure that we're not creating gaps as a result

of bringing in the new legislation, repealing the old one and not having regulations

fully developed yet.

L. Doerkson: Yes, I'm aware of the transition portion of the bill, and I'm certainly aware of probably

both the good and bad that the regulation may bring to us. But I guess that's my question.

We do have consultation happening in the province, and I know that regional districts

and, certainly, people like Margo Wagner definitely want to be a part of this bill

and shaping it to be the best it absolutely can be. I do know other RDs are very passionate

about the bill. Of course, it has affected all British Columbians, really, in massive

ways, so there's no question that everybody wants to have some input on it.

While I know that there will be a transition period and a mechanism to transition

us to whatever might be around the corner, I guess there is some concern about what

those regulations may look like after commencement and, certainly, after the period

of comment that will go all the way to the end of this year. I can appreciate the

conversation that we're having with respect to what might come forward, and I know

that might be difficult to answer, so perhaps I'll just move on a little bit to the

consultation process itself.

What I mean by that is that, of course, we've had a period of time pre-COVID where

there was much consultation and conversation in the province about how this bill might

be framed and how it might be created and what it might look like. Of course, now

we're seeing the bill before the House in 2023.

I want to just get a bit of a sense of what that consultation looked like pre-COVID

and what that consultation looked like…. I guess we had a bit of a break, or we stopped

working on the bill for a while, so how current is the consultation that has affected

the creation of this bill, and how much of it may have been pre-COVID?

[3:15 p.m.]

[K. Greene in the chair.]

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you so much for your patience, and the member's patience as well, as I try to

navigate this new digital world here.

[3:20 p.m.]

We held a public consultation or public engagement, targeted partner and stakeholder

engagements, from October 2019 to September 2020. Approximately 236 written submissions

were received; 167 meetings, webinars and teleconferences with the public, partners

and stakeholders were held during that time; and five regional Indigenous engagement

sessions reflecting the perspectives of approximately 80 Indigenous participants from

61 First Nations.

The team also worked closely with the UBCM flood and wildfire advisory committee.

They were a key contact point with local government elected officials and senior staff

from municipalities, regional districts throughout.

A what-we-heard report was released in August 2020. Partners were then invited to

provide their feedback on the report. That

summary was then released later on that

year, in September. Then there was a pause for the pandemic, as previously noted.

Starting early 2022 through to now, there will have been extensive collaborative development

efforts with First Nations.

Starting from early 2022, we began engagement with other First Nations rights and

title holders and Indigenous partners. Well over 111 meetings and workshops were held

during that time. That was the primary focus over the last couple of years. It was

that cooperative development with First Nations, although the team continued to engage

with local governments through the UBCM committees.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for that, Minister.

I wonder if the minister may expand on that engagement with local governments. I can

appreciate that…. The minister mentioned meetings at UBCM. I think that is what she

referenced, and I just want to better understand that.

I hope that wasn't those 15-minute meetings that we routinely enjoy. I'm hoping there

was other engagement. If she could just expand on that.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Since I provided more details around the engagements from prior to 2021, I'll focus

on elaborating, sort of, that engagement with local governments, regional districts

post-2021, when we were really focused on that collaborative development with First

Nations and Indigenous partners.

In 2022, the development team hosted two-hour meetings with the UBCM flood and fire

advisory committee approximately every two months between 2022 and 2023. They're not

15-minute meetings. They were fulsome two-hour meetings every couple of months.

A workshop was also hosted at the UBCM Convention of 2022.

The development team also engaged with local governments and regional districts and

stakeholders at the emergency planning and business continuity conference, as well

as hosting workshops with IPREM and REMP. IPREM is the — let me just remind myself

— integrated partnership for regional emergency management, consisting of practitioners

and providing that multi-jurisdictional emergency management lens in the greater Vancouver

area.

They also hosted workshops with REMP, which is the regional emergency management partnership.

That's with practitioners and with a regional lens on emergency management.

[3:30 p.m.]

In the capital regional district, there were also several targeted meetings with regional

districts and local authorities during that time as well.

L. Doerkson: Thank you very much, Minister, for the answer to that question. I wondered if we

could just drill down on some of the specifics around what the minister just referred

to as far as "targeted." Clearly, in late '21 and, of course, to date, we've had a

number of very significant…

[The bells were rung.]

L. Doerkson: Just for the minister, we've got a bell going here, if you can hear it.

The Chair: We will be having a recess until we finish the division vote, and we'll see you all

shortly.

The committee recessed from 3:31 p.m. to 3:48 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 1.

L. Doerkson: Before the break, we were speaking about potentially targeted specific events around

disasters since 2021. I think the minister had suggested that there was conversation

with a number of RDs and mentioned a number of opportunities that may have happened

at UBCM. I'm appreciative of that answer.

Of course, since 2021, our province, sadly, has been exposed to much disaster. So

I'm just wondering if there have been specific communities or specific regional districts

that the minister has engaged with in a fulsome way.

[3:50 p.m. - 3:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you so much to the member for the question.

I think the most substantial and very important engagement that happened during the

last couple of years, following the 2021 wildfires, would have been with the UBCM

flood and wildfire advisory committee, which, I will note, was created directly following

a request by the province after receiving the Abbott-Chapman report.

[H. Yao in the chair.]

We also requested that the body function as, basically, a committee to advise on the

modernization of the Emergency Program Act on behalf of local governments, regional

districts, municipalities. We relied on this committee to provide input on behalf

of that level of government. It does include elected officials and practitioners from

regional districts. Some of the regional districts that would have been well represented

on that committee include the Cariboo regional district, Fraser–Fort George regional

district, Kootenay Boundary regional district, Peace River regional district, Fraser

Valley regional district as well.

Those were the really substantial, two-hour, every-couple-of-months kinds of workshop

engagements.

We also did aim to be transparent with local authorities and other partners while

we were developing the legislation. For instance, in the fall of 2022, the ministry

posted details of the legislation on its website and sent to all local authorities,

municipalities and regional districts. More recently the ministry put out a technical

paper. We always welcome feedback from local governments, and local governments will

write letters.

I do want to emphasize that the learnings, over the last several years, were not done

at discrete points in time. I mean, the workshops are, obviously, very important and

helpful. But the vast majority of our learning happens as we go through these hazard

seasons, as we're learning, in real time, where the challenges are and getting that

feedback.

Throughout the 2023 wildfire season, as an example, I kept in very close contact with

chairs, mayors and chiefs. They were providing feedback in real time to us as well.

All of those kinds of learnings were also incorporated into the work that went into

the development of the EDMA.

The Chair: Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome to the room.

I appreciate the minister's answer. I think it was the minister that used the word

"targeted" earlier. I guess that's what I was really looking for. Certainly, I'm not

looking for a list of 200 communities or anything like that.

Were there communities that the ministry sought out to better understand the situation

in their community? Really, the reason for that question is…. We've seen unique events,

like the atmospheric river and all of the flooding that happened, of course. I shouldn't

say that flooding is unique, but certainly, that event itself was unique.

I'm wondering if there has been any specific conversation where the ministry has actually

sought out information from those communities.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I would say that, certainly, during this year's hazard season and previous years….

I haven't always been in this role. I've been in this role for just under a year now.

But certainly, throughout the last 11 months, we've been very open and maintained

those open channels of communication with regional districts and local governments.

What I've found by doing that is that they are not shy about bringing issues to me

and seeking out and providing feedback when they have it. So when the member asks

if there were communities where we sought out feedback from them on the development

of the legislation, most of our outreach and engagement activities have already been

outlined through the discussion paper, the public engagement and asking UBCM to put

together this committee to serve as an engagement point for us in the development

of the EDMA.

When it came to those targeted sessions that were referred to earlier, those most

often refer to communities who reach out to EMCR on their own, saying: "Hey, we would

like to talk to you about the development of emergency management legislation," "Hey,

we have feedback on what's happening on the ground," "Hey, we want to do a workshop

with you," "We want a presentation."

So a lot of that is in response to reaching out to local governments and regional

districts, who haven't been shy about coming to us when they have concerns, especially

if they've been hard hit. It's difficult to think of a community who has faced substantial

challenges over the last several years through some kind of disaster who has not reached

out to us when they didn't feel like their needs were being met or if they had feedback

to provide to us for better responses in the future.

On the part of the ministry's outreach, it's through the channels and through the

activities that I've already described. And then in terms of those targeted sessions,

a lot of those sessions are in response to individual communities also requesting

additional engagement points, which we have provided.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for that, Minister.

I would absolutely agree. Certainly, communities are not shy, typically, of reaching

out. I would definitely agree with the minister on that, for certain. Many communities

have reached out to myself as well, and I find myself, like the minister, in a bit

of a new role with respect to EMCR, but it's certainly always been a passion of mine.

I am concerned about that sort of opportunity of engagement for specific communities.

Certainly, when we think about the losses that have happened in places like Barriere

and Clearwater…. I mean, I could list all kinds of places, including the Cariboo-Chilcotin,

over the years prior to 2021. Then we seem to go through this incredibly challenging

period again with respect not just to fire but certainly flood as well. I can appreciate

that there have been engagement sessions through different mechanisms that the minister

has explained here today.

I wonder if there's been any conversation directly — if the ministry has reached out

to a community, for instance, like Lytton, that has obviously had some extremely challenging

situations put before them.

[4:05 p.m.]

I think that there were — if I could quote the word that the minister used earlier

— "learnings" that might be very valuable from the situation that has happened there.

I'd be very interested to know if the ministry has had any conversation with a community

like Lytton, which would have helped in some of the development of this bill.

Hon. B. Ma: The member asked specifically about communications with the village of Lytton.

I can confirm and assure the member that EMCR is in constant communication with the

village of Lytton. They speak and meet on a regular basis. We're not talking about

every few months. We're talking weekly, sometimes daily, depending on the circumstances.

We have been in contact with the village of Lytton since the terrible tragedy that

fell on their community in 2021.

Going back to one of my earlier comments around that constant learning. I mean, as

the response and the aftermath and the recovery work of the village of Lytton played

out in real time, there was a constant view, from the learnings of that, on what this

legislation might be able to support and facilitate.

For instance, the Emergency and Disaster Management Act introduces the concept of

a recovery period. How would that have supported the village of Lytton in their recovery

efforts if they didn't have to stay in a state of local emergency for the entire two

years in order to manage access to the site but, rather, transitioned into a recovery

period?

That probably would have facilitated at least a sense of progress and reduced the

heightened anxiety around such a lengthy state of emergency when there wasn't actually….

Sadly, the village is still in the state that it is, but it was no longer facing an

imminent new threat.

I will also say that a lot of the conversations, not only with the village of Lytton

but also with any community that has faced disaster…. Oftentimes the feedback and

the…. Those conversations are framed around the context of how things happened on

the ground, how the operations did or did not work for the community on the ground.

[4:10 p.m.]

A lot of that kind of feedback will be fed directly into other levels of work that

EMCR does. For instance, do we need to be updating certain guidelines, policies? We

can do that very, very quickly, and we have done that.

One of the fastest policy and guideline updates I saw was about 24 hours, starting

from a Sunday to a Monday, because of feedback that we got from a community. It was

around emergency support services, actually, and feedback we had received from a First

Nation around cultural sensitivity. Then there's a lot of feedback that is fed into,

for instance, the Premier's task force, which is very operational.

But through all of that, there's a lens on what barriers the current Emergency Program

Act puts up for us in terms of improving our response, our recovery. Predominantly,

the focus, as I said, in terms of the Emergency Disaster Management Act and what we're

trying to achieve, is that proactive work, the mitigation and preparation work.

L. Doerkson: Maybe I'll ask the question again, in a different way.

I think the minister just suggested that there were a number of learnings from Lytton,

and conversations. I can appreciate that there would likely be weekly and perhaps

even daily conversations with Lytton. That really wasn't my question.

My question was…. I think the minister alluded to this. There have been learnings.

There have been many conversations. Lytton wouldn't be the only one, although Lytton

certainly is the community that has been most significantly impacted. But we've seen

things, certainly, in Barriere and Clearwater and Fort Mac and other communities,

that that period, which we'll get to a little ways down the road — the 90-day period

for recovery — simply doesn't really fit.

Noting that the horrific events that happened in Lytton happened more than 380 days

ago, I believe, I'm just wondering if there was any conversation or any of the learnings

that the minister referred to that have impacted the development of this bill specifically.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I want to be very transparent with the member about his question around whether the

village of Lytton…. I think this is maybe part of the question: whether we targeted

the village of Lytton for consultations around the development of the Emergency and

Disaster Management Act. For full transparency, no, we did not.

We are in constant communication with them, but we're also trying to be mindful of

the draw that we place on these elected leaders, particularly in a community like

Lytton, where their focus really is on the immediate crisis at hand — the immediate

rebuild. Their capacity to manage that is already very challenged.

There wasn't a specific workshop with the village of Lytton around this legislation

and the legalese and going through it line by line or anything like that, but that

doesn't mean that those communications don't inform the development of this legislation,

as communication with every community does.

We know, through our conversations and through the exploration of the challenges that

they have faced, that a lot of what we hear and what we learn from them validates

the work that it's doing in EDMA. It validates the need for a recovery period. It

validates the need for emergency management plans to incorporate all four phases.

Keep in mind, again, that the EDMA is a framework and, once again, a lot of the operational

challenges that communities face won't be directly written in. They're not prescribed.

Solutions are not necessarily prescribed in EDMA but, rather, facilitated and enabled

by EDMA.

I am also hearing, maybe, some concerns around the duration of time around the length

of a recovery period or some of those other details. I would be very happy to canvass

that

section in detail with the member when we get there. I believe it's

section 98.

Yeah. Happy to dive into that, at that point.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister, again, for the answer.

We'll definitely canvass the recovery period. The minister sort of touched on where

I was going with the question. I think, if I heard the answer right, it was simply

that while there have been likely, I'm sure, hundreds of conversations with Lytton,

the community was not targeted for learnings.

However, I think I heard the minister say that there were learnings that happened

from Lytton — and, of course, spoke about the recovery period. Frankly, when we do

get there, I'll definitely ask why it was only 90 days.

I may just leave this here, but the question really has been: what specific learnings

have happened with conversation with the community of Lytton that may have helped

to mould or to develop this bill? If it's just recovery periods that have come out

of those conversations, frankly, I'd be a little bit shocked at that.

Every community, of course, is very unique. Fort Mac will have its own challenges.

Certainly, Williams Lake and Quesnel. When we were evacuated in 2017, to see a movement

of people that really stretched along 300 or 400 kilometres of road…. Trust me, we

learned a lot of things.

[4:20 p.m.]

I guess the reason that I'm very interested in understanding specifically around Lytton

is because it has been a very unique situation in that community. After 840 days or

whatever it's been now, surely to goodness, there have been learnings that may have

impacted this bill outside of just simply recovery times or recovery periods.

I'll try one more time, Minister, if you don't mind. I would really like to understand.

in a fulsome way, just what those conversations may have looked like and how they

may have molded this bill.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The member referred to targeted learnings with the village of Lytton. I can assure

the member that we have learned a lot from what the village of Lytton has brought

forward.

My reference to there not being a targeted session with the village of Lytton was

in reference to, specifically, the development of EDMA. We did not sit down with them

and speak directly to the development of the legislation, given their necessary and

understandable focus on recovery. That's the targeted piece that did not happen.

The village of Lytton is a major point of learning for our government and for the

emergency management field. I'll say that when an emergency happens, there are many

different types of lessons learned. Some of them are legislative and might inform

an act like the EDMA, but a lot of it is operational and how we do business, which

may not need to be reflected in legislation that enables the spectrum of solutions

that might be formed as a result of those learnings.

For instance, we learned a lot around the use of alerting as a tool for communicating

with residents about hazards in the area. We learned a lot from the 2021wildfire season

about the need to modernize the emergency support services.

It compelled us to move to an e-transfer system, as an alternative to the voucher

system, for a lot of the reasons that members in the House have raised. Stories about

families being given vouchers that they have to use in one go at a grocery store but

they're staying in a hotel without a fridge to hold all those groceries. That's why

the e-transfer system is superior to the voucher system. Many communities have already

transitioned to the e-transfer system through the evacuee registration and assistance

tool, but there are more communities that we want to transition to there as well.

We've learned a lot about the importance of consultation with Indigenous governing

bodies. The village of Lytton is certainly, I guess, a right example of the importance

of those kinds of relationships and consultation and cooperation requirements, especially

given that it was built on an ancient Indigenous village and burial ground.

I think part of the challenge with being able to answer your question directly is….

The question implies that there are lessons learned that are specific to Lytton and

to Lytton alone. In reality, many of the lessons and learnings that were incorporated

into the development of the EDMA came from multiple sources, reinforced by multiple

sources, be it the Abbott-Chapman report or learnings reinforced by conversations

with Lytton.

We learned it from all over the place. It would be almost unfair to tie it directly

to Lytton. With the EDMA in place, however…. What it will allow us to do is to respond

differently and to prepare differently for the situations that faced Lytton.

[4:30 p.m.]

Some of the sections that the member might be interested in canvassing us further

on are

section 51, risk assessments that take into account climate change, that take

into account, basically, all the hazards that face a community, and

section 52, emergency

management plans that, again, take into account all four phases of emergency management.

There are,

section 55, requirements for consultation and cooperation. I think

section

52 also speaks to a requirement that the plans have to describe procedures for engaging

emergency systems, for instance. So that speaks to learnings around alerting for community

members. The emphasis on consultation and cooperation with Indigenous communities

is very, very relevant to communities in situations like Lytton and more.

I just want to apologize for now if I sound really out of breath. It's because I am.

It's challenging for me to speak for longer periods of time now without getting out

of breath. I hope that's not too distracting.

L. Doerkson: Thanks, Minister. No, that's completely appropriate. I understand the lack of breath,

and I'm grateful that you are spending this time with us. I can appreciate the challenges,

also not feeling very well today.

I said I was going to ask only once more about Lytton, but I have to ask again. The

reason that I'm asking about Lytton, frankly, is because it's a very unique situation.

I could give another example. In an area of my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin, we had

a situation a few years ago where the Ulkatcho First Nation found themselves cut off

because of wildfire on both sides of Highway 20.

We've had communities cut off before, for certain, and that is obviously a horrifying

situation. But in that case, the individuals were actually airlifted from that community.

They were airlifted with, I believe, a series of military helicopters and certainly

other helicopters that removed them from the community because their exposure on the

landscape was very frightening, very challenging. Of course, that fire was absolutely

bearing down on their community. So that is a unique situation.

I would expect from something like that…. I know that we have had the use of helicopters

and other equipment used during the floods. I guess that would have been 2021, in

the fall. So again, they're kind of unique situations.

With respect to the minister's comments, it wasn't me that was suggesting that the

ministry had learned a lot. It was the minister that said that they had learned a

lot. So I can appreciate the other sections, and we'll definitely canvass those when

we get there.

I guess maybe the question that I'm asking is too vague. Maybe I'll try… I would hate

to promise, but I'll say I'll try one more time. Could the minister list the top three

things that they have learned from the Lytton situation that may have impacted the

development of Bill 31?

The Chair: Minister, I assume you're not ready. Can you put your hand down?

[4:35 p.m. - 4:40 p.m.]

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Before we start, I just want to express my gratitude for you

being here, and please answer questions at your level of comfort. We thank you for

your taking time with us. If you do need a recess, please let us know.

Go ahead, Minister.

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you so much, Chair.

In response to the member's question, when I refer to there being a lot of lessons

learned from the experience that the village of Lytton has had in the recovery process

— and what happened during the wildfire, as well, it's true — a lot of those lessons

will be reflected at different levels of operations.

When I'm referring to the lessons that have informed EDMA, I'm targeting those higher-level

lessons, which, as I said earlier in my previous response, are not necessarily learnings

that are unique to Lytton and Lytton alone. So those lessons that reach the level

of changes in legislation are not necessarily unique to Lytton.

The example that the member had provided around airlifting people out is highly operational.

There's nothing in the EDMA that says that in a situation where a community is cut

off on all sides and people are stranded, residents should be airlifted out, instead

of taken out by boat or by truck. Those kinds of operational decisions and actions

are not prescribed in EDMA.

That's why I haven't been referring to that level of lessons learned and rather focusing….

That being said, I would say that what happened to the village of Lytton is unique

in our province, in a number of ways. For instance, when I think about what causes

so many challenges in the recovery efforts of the village of Lytton, it comes down

to three overlapping factors.

One is that the loss experienced by the village of Lytton was so complete. It wasn't

just residences. I say "just," as though it's not bad enough that all residences were

lost. All public facilities and infrastructure, like the town hall, were lost. The

bylaws, the records and the ability for the village of Lytton to effectively govern

were lost. It all burned up in the fire. That was one challenge.

Another challenge was that the environmental contamination was extreme. The fire burned

so hot that witnesses to the aftermath of the fire described car batteries boiling

into the ground — imagine that across the entire municipality; with extreme levels

of environmental contamination that created hazards, not only to the ecosystem but

also to human health.

Then the third complicating factor was the fact that the village of Lytton had been

built on top of an ancient Indigenous village and burial ground. The archaeological

work that has been underway so far is uncovering an incredibly rich, well-preserved

heritage. Now, that sentence probably didn't make sense. It is uncovering a very rich

history, through very well-preserved artifacts that are very important to the Indigenous

people in the area.

[4:45 p.m.]

Over 7,000 artifacts have so far been uncovered, some of which date back to 7,500

years ago, and multiple ancestral remains are being uncovered as well.

Now, all those things make the village of Lytton's situation quite unique in British

Columbia. However, environmental remediation is managed not through EDMA but through

the Environmental Management Act — for which, I'll note, an update to it is also in

second reading right now, going through the House.

In terms of archaeological findings, that is governed by the Heritage Conservation

Act through the Ministry of Forests, so it's also a separate act from the EDMA.

Then there's the impact in terms of their ability to govern. A lot of that work comes

out of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Those lessons might not directly show up

in the EDMA, but their experiences are reflected by the changes in EDMA.

For instance, when it comes to the environment, the exposure of Lytton to climate

risk is addressed in our legislation. When it comes to archaeological significance

and sites of heritage value and the dialogue that has to happen with Indigenous communities

as part of emergency management planning, that is addressed in the legislation. And

when it comes to impact on governance, with the requirement for business continuity

plans, that is addressed in the legislation.

I will also note that because, unfortunately, the fire itself was so fast — it was

a matter of minutes, really — the response was quite short, but the recovery period

has been extremely long.

Most of our relationship with the village of Lytton is around recovery, and most of

our conversation is around recovery process. So the new post-disaster financial assistance

regulation will be very relevant to them. There will be targeted engagement with Lytton

around that, because it's so impactful on their ability to deal with recovery on an

operational level.

Overall, what impacted the development of the legislation were a number of higher-level

things — for instance, the incorporation of international best practice for emergency

management through the United Nations Sendai framework on disaster risk reduction,

alignment with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the Declaration

on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, and of course, broad learnings from all of

the hazards that we have faced over the last several years, from atmospheric rivers

to COVID as a pandemic to Lytton as well.

Lots of broad learnings and then, also, the relevance to specific situations. I hope

I've managed to draw a bit more, I guess, of a connection there.

L. Doerkson: Thank you very much, Minister. Yeah, that is really what I was looking for.

When I suggested the situation that happened at Ulkatcho in Cariboo-Chilcotin, I wasn't

expecting that this ministry would fly helicopters to them, but there may be other

pieces, of course, in the legislation, like the recovery period that we have talked

so much about.

I guess the reason why…. With reference to the questions around Lytton, whether it's

Ulkatcho or wherever it is, it doesn't really matter. The damage to our landscape

has been incredible, and residents have really found themselves in challenging situations

throughout the entire province.

I guess that's the real question, right? We hear often that we've learned a lot. I

guess with reference to Bill 31, the real, obvious question is: what will change in

this legislation that will improve it for British Columbians?

We will touch on that, of course, as we canvass the bill and go through. It is significant

to note that with these learnings that that we've talked about here for a little bit

now, they definitely need to impact.

[4:50 p.m.]

I think the minister referenced the ability to change this bill or to improve it.

I know that it, of course, does have a five-year review plan, but it's one of the

things that potentially, I think, could be good about the bill — the fact that we

can change it with collaboration, as long as that collaboration is happening and as

long as we are actually noting the learnings from places like Lytton.

The only reason that I have specified Lytton is because the challenges there have

just been so unique. I mean, it would be the only community in our province, I think,

that has not been rebuilt. In fact, the First Nations have been rebuilt, and some

of the stories there…. I'm sure I don't need to tell the minister, but I have stood

in downtown Lytton, and frankly, it's eerie. It's a moonscape.

Frankly, in the situation of Lytton, we've had, actually, children that were bused

to the school that remains there, right past all of this damage and all of this loss.

I can't even imagine how that has impacted children.

There are so many little pieces of information that could make bills like 31 and other

bills that are before the House so much better for the people of British Columbia.

I appreciate the latitude that you've given me to ask about that and ask how it has

impacted the bill. We'll continue on that under a number of different sections.

I just want to go to a number of final questions about consultations that have happened

throughout the province, of course. I want to talk a little bit about the First Nations

engagement that we would see in the development of this bill.

The minister earlier referenced speaking with, I believe…. I'll certainly stand corrected

if I've quoted the minister in an incorrect way, but I believe the minister could

have been quoted as saying they had spoken with around 80 individuals from First Nations

communities, numbering in around the number of 60. I wanted to confirm that number,

I guess, first.

Then secondly, I wanted to get a bit of a better understanding of what that consultation

process looked like and where it may have happened. Was it locally and in communities

that may have been affected?

Then I think my colleague from Vancouver-Langara will also have a number of questions

on this topic, if that's all right with the minister.

[4:55 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The numbers I previously cited, the 80 Indigenous participants in 61 First Nations

— those were a part of the earlier consultation period, before we released the what-we-heard

report. Those are our consultations with Indigenous partners between October 2019

to September 2020.

The effort to cooperatively and collaboratively develop the EDMA under the interim

approach laid out by the Declaration Act Secretariat began in earnest in early 2022.

In addition to those numbers I previously provided, over 100 meetings and workshops

have been held with Indigenous partners around that collaborative development effort

since early 2022.

Those meetings and workshops were held with First Nations rights and title holders,

including modern treaty nations. In addition to that, we worked closely with the First

Nations Leadership Council's technical teams as well — First Nations Leadership Council

consisting, of course, of First Nations Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and

the B.C. Assembly of First Nations.

I will note that every time, through this collaborative development process, that

we had an update, every rights and title holder received a communication about the

changes or consultation drafts or summaries of the legislation. Many First Nations

entered into confidentiality agreements in order to see the consultation drafts themselves.

But where First Nations did not, we endeavoured to provide descriptions of what was

in the draft and what the changes were, through every iteration of those drafts.

There were regional sessions with rights and title holders that included sharing and

discussing consultation drafts. There were the ongoing meetings with technical tables

from organizations like the First Nations Leadership Council and the Alliance of B.C.

Modern Treaty Nations.

There were also engagements with other Indigenous organizations and service providers,

such as First Nations Health Authority, First Nations emergency management society,

Métis Nation British Columbia, the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres.

There were virtual sessions held on policy in the spring of 2022, virtual sessions

in January 2023, more virtual sessions in April 2023 as well.

[5:05 p.m.]

I don't know if that maybe covers the member's question. I'm happy to continue if

he wants me to dive in a little further. I'll leave that to the member.

L. Doerkson: I was going to turn it over to my colleague, but I just had one quick question that

may lead to two. I think the minister referred to every rights and title owner receiving

documents with respect to this bill. I just wondered what mechanism was used for those

partners to receive it.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Maybe I'll start with what we would send out.

Rights and title holders would receive updates on where we were in the process and

details, in an email, about the high-level changes that have occurred since the last

communication, as well as invitations to receive a consultation draft under a confidentiality

agreement. They would also be invited to participate in related events.

Those emails would be sent to First Nations leadership, all 200-plus First Nations

leaders, a Chief or a First Nations contact for the First Nations government, as well

as emergency management partners within those First Nations too.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Vancouver-Langara.

M. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to join the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin

on this bill.

I know that the minister and her team would recognize that I'm here primarily as the

shadow minister for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and because there are

significant provisions to address the necessary relationship with First Nations, in

terms of emergency and disaster management in our province, and the good work that

the minister is commenting on.

I would note that many of the approach questions and perspectives that I will be taking,

including the next number of questions here, were outlined in my second reading speech.

I know the ministry is very busy with a lot of different items, but to the extent

that anyone on her team wants to have a sense as to where I'm heading with my questions

over the next period of time, with the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, they can get

that sense.

Just to continue on…. My colleague has opened up one area that I want to explore in

terms of consultation.

If the minister could just clarify. In terms of the second round, let's say, the phase

of consultation, which was 2022, how many additional First Nation rights and title

holders have been consulted beyond the original 61 First Nations? In respect of the

communication process the minister has outlined here, how many First Nations did respond

to the invitation to receive the consultation draft and enter into NDAs?

[5:15 p.m. - 5:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you for your patience, Member, and for the question. I just had a whole bunch

of numbers thrown at me. I was trying to decipher which ones were actually useful

to you.

I think most directly answering your question, we had 129 individual representatives

of rights and title holders or representatives of Indigenous organizations like First

Nations Leadership Council receive consultation drafts. The communications that we

sent out, which I described previously, were sent out to all 200-plus First Nations

leadership and representatives.

But in kind of talking through all of the numbers that were being thrown at me, it

occurs to me that it might actually be more valuable for us to offer a briefing to

the member on, kind of, the consultation process — how it aligned with the interim

process that was laid out by the Declaration Act Secretariat.

I got a whole lot of numbers thrown at me that I don't know are actually useful to

the member, or more useful to the member than what we could offer through a technical

briefing. We could certainly do that if the member was interested.

M. Lee: I appreciate the offer, and perhaps…. I know that in committee processes on bills

that I've been involved with, and other estimates-type processes, there may be an

opportunity for these sorts of, as the minister describes, technical reviews.

I would suggest, perhaps, that what can also be done is that her team could table

with the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin and myself a basic

summary of the numbers that

we're looking at and asking about. That could be just a document that could be provided

to us as we go on to other sections of this bill. If we had further questions, we

could come back to that on that level of detail. If needed, certainly I'd take the

opportunity for a briefing.

I will say that at the beginning of my questions about consultation and the overall

approach with First Nations to Bill 31, the reason why it's important to understand

what the level of consultation and involvement has been is because of how significant

Bill 31 is. I don't mean just in terms of emergency and disaster management; I mean

in terms of the relationship with First Nations in our province.

As I said in my second reading speech, in my understanding, this bill is the first

bill that this government has brought forward which involves land management of some

sort — here we're talking emergency and disaster management — and how government is

proceeding in meeting obligations under DRIPA, which I will turn to in a moment.

It's important to understand because there are many provisions, as we will cover in

detail, about the relationship under various collaboration, coordination, decision-making

— statutory or otherwise — consultation, invitations to comment…. There are many different

provisions on many different types of levels of government, but also in terms of First

Nations that are involved here.

I do think it's important, of course, that First Nations were provided a detailed

opportunity to respond, because it's a highly technical legislative framework, despite

the fact that much of the bill and the legislative framework will be spelled out in

regulation, as the minister has already responded to the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

With that in mind, I just wanted to ask this further question in terms of…. Well,

first of all, hopefully the minister would agree when she responds that her team can

put together a basic

summary of the questions that we're asking about consultation

with First Nations. I hope it's clear enough as to what we're asking, so hopefully

that can be done.

Then secondly, just to ask a question then…. The minister has referred to, a few times

now, the interim approach under DRIPA, as set out by the Declaration Secretariat.

Could the minister take a moment to describe what that interim approach is in respect

of Bill 31?

[5:25 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: First off, yes, we are happy to provide a consultation

summary and table that in the

House. Our team will get to work on that right away for the member.

The second part of the member's question was around a description of the interim approach

to implement the requirements of

section 3 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples Act. It's laid out by the Declaration Act Secretariat.

In describing the process, I do have to maybe…. There might be a correction. Certainly,

it is a clarification. I think it's good for transparency to note that the framework

for the interim approach was actually released in October 2022 by the Declaration

Act Secretariat,

whereas our work, in earnest, to collaboratively develop the EDMA

with First Nations began in early 2022.

Our work was a little ahead of the framework that was released by the Declaration

Act Secretariat, but it did track to that process as closely as possible. We believe

that despite our work starting before the interim approach was formally tabled, our

process lines up well with these stages.

The interim approach lays out five stages for the development of legislation under

section 3 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. I'll go through

the stages and describe how EMCR's work lines up with each stage.

The five stages. Stage 1, initiate policy exploration and establish consultation and

cooperation plan. Stage 2, develop request for decision. That involves a cabinet process.

Stage 3, develop a request for legislation. Stage 4, legislative drafting. Stage 5,

introduction of bill in the parliamentary process.

Under stage 1, which is initiate policy exploration and establish consultation and

cooperation plan, government released a discussion paper on modernizing its emergency

management legislation back in 2019. After this paper was launched, we held a focus

group with Indigenous emergency managers, followed by five regional sessions for First

Nations.

I'm going to keep it pretty high level. Then we'll also add further details in the

consultation

summary, which we will table for the member as well.

Stage 2, development of request for decision. This is where we developed and submitted

a request for decision for the modernized legislation in 2019. That request was guided

by early consultation with First Nations and stakeholders and policy analysis, including

a review of other jurisdictions as well.

Stage 3, development of request for legislation. In 2021, we made an initial request

for legislation that was based on the early consultation and cooperation process.

That request for legislation was approved by cabinet, but there was direction to return

after further work with Indigenous peoples on legislative development.

Stage 4 was the legislative drafting piece. That drafting of legislation took place

through a process of sharing consultation drafts with Indigenous peoples, jointly

reviewing those drafts and proposing changes to the legislation based on that consultation

and cooperation. A lot of those meetings and engagements I had referenced earlier

on in questions from the critic.

[5:35 p.m.]

Then stage 5 is introduction of the bill. That's the Emergency and Disaster Management

Act being introduced on October 3. As the bill proceeds through this legislative process,

we continue to engage with Indigenous peoples and partners around the process and

to answer questions that might arise.

Once more, we will table that consultation

summary, as well, for the member's review.

M. Lee: I appreciate the fullness of the response from the minister.

I appreciate that, under the circumstances, you're making every effort to respond

in a comprehensive way.

I appreciate that the minister recognized, in part, what I was addressing in terms

of the sequence and the timing around what I was hearing, in terms of the level and

the timing of consultations with First Nations when this interim approach was provided

by the secretariat.

Thank you for the minister's offer to provide that document to myself and the member

for Cariboo-Chilcotin. I look forward to reviewing that.

Perhaps, Mr. Chair, we can come back, after we've had a chance to review that document,

when it's tabled, to ask some further questions, despite whatever

section in the bill

we might be on.

Just on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. This is a question

I commonly do ask in terms of legislation. The minister did touch on it earlier, in

terms of alignment, of course, with UNDRIP.

Could the minister identify which specific articles under UNDRIP Bill 31 has particularly

focused on, in terms of the alignment of laws with UNDRIP?

Hon. B. Ma: I hope the member will be patient with me. I will cover off this question as much

as I can here.

The EDMA recognizes that the Indigenous inherent right of self-government includes

the authority to make laws in relation to emergency management. This aligns with the

UN declaration articles 3, 4 and 5, which speak to the right to self-determination,

the right to autonomy or self-government and the right to maintain distinct institutions

while participating, to their desired degree, in the life of the state, respectively.

The legislation also uses the core concept of Indigenous governing bodies, as defined

in the Declaration Act. That also promotes alignment with the UN declaration articles

3, 4 and 5.

The UN declaration articles 3, 4 and 5 are also supported by the inclusion of the

modern treaty nations, with the rights, powers, duties and obligations of local authorities

in line with their treaty settlement legislation, while simultaneously carving them

out of key oversight rules and obligations that apply to local governments in relation

to emergency management. This satisfies the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples

article 37, which assures the observance and enforcement of treaties.

The EDMA agreements framework also aligns with the UN declaration articles 3, 4 and

5. Further, the agreements framework supports alignment with the UN declaration

article

[5:40 p.m.]

We provide a framework that includes express references to the Declaration Act,

section

6 and

section 7, to authorize joint or consent-based decision-making agreements with

Indigenous governing bodies for the exercise of statutory powers or statutory powers

of decision, as well as the ability to enter into other types of agreements. We call

them coordination agreements. You can refer to them as collaborative emergency management

agreements as well.

The EDMA work will require regulated entities to consult and cooperate with Indigenous

governing bodies when developing emergency management plans and risk assessments —

and, in the case of the province and local authorities, also prior to taking certain

land-based response or recovery actions.

That approach aligns with the UN declaration, articles 3 and 18, both of which speak

to rights concerning self-determination and participation in decision-making. Consultation

and cooperation, prior to issuing evacuation orders in the response phase, further

supports alignment with the UN declaration,

article 10, which provides that Indigenous

peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories.

When assessing risks and developing emergency management plans, regulated entities

must also consider impacts on people who may experience intersectional disadvantage.

That is also in the EDMA. That aligns with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples,

article 22, which calls for special attention to be paid to Elders, women,

youth, children and persons with disabilities.

Finally, management plans must also include measures to promote cultural safety and

incorporate Indigenous knowledge. That supports UN declaration articles 11, 24 and

31. Those are the ones that refer to the rights of Indigenous peoples to practise

cultural traditions; to have their traditional medicines; to maintain their health

practices; to access, without discrimination, all social and health services; and

to maintain control of, protect and develop their cultural heritage.

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for that very comprehensive response. I appreciate that

she took the time to outline in great detail those articles of UNDRIP that Bill 31

speaks to, in terms of alignment. I would now just turn to some approach-type questions.

Apart from consultation and involvement with First Nation rights and title holders,

the minister did refer to some of the other bodies, certainly the Union of B.C. Indian

Chiefs, the BCAFN, the First Nations Summit and the leadership council overall. I

look at, and attend on occasion as an observer, some of their gatherings, one of which

is going on here in Victoria right now — which I can't participate in, because we're

here in committee.

In any event, I noted, for example — there may be other resolutions, and there are

many resolutions that these bodies consider, pass and feed up — that there is a resolution

the minister may be aware of, which was considered at the annual general meeting for

the AFN from September 19 to 21, 2023. In the document, it makes reference to things

that I know the minister is certainly aware of. She has referred to, of course — including

in her second reading speech, I believe — the United Nations Sendai framework for

disaster risk reduction. There's certainly recognition of that.

The document that has been there under a previous resolution — which, I believe, dates

back to 2021 for the AFN — was the recognition of the need of a B.C. First Nations

regional action plan for disaster risk reduction. This is the point that I'm going

to make, recognizing the importance of First Nations' full and equal participation

in emergency management decision-making and implementation processes in their territories.

[5:45 p.m.]

Stopping there for a moment, just from an approach point of view, I know that the

minister…. Even in listing what alignment is necessary with UNDRIP, there are certainly

a number of detailed provisions around arrangements and agreements.

Is the minister of the view that, even to the BCAFN, when they see the importance

of full and equal participation…? Is that the approach that has been utilized by this

government and this ministry in terms of emergency management and disaster recovery

under this Bill 31?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Yes, we consider, or our government considers, emergency management as kind of a co-managed

space in that First Nations are truly decision-makers of emergency management in the

same way that the province and local authorities are and that they need to be full,

equal partners in emergency management across all four phases, as recommended in the

Abbott-Chapman report and as outlined in my mandate letter as well.

M. Lee: Thank you for the response. I would say as well, then, in terms of the rest of this

resolution I'm referring to, back in September, it refers to what….

The First Nations Leadership Council and the First Nations Emergency Services Society,

FNESS, had engaged an independent contractor for directions management services to

prepare a draft action plan for disaster risk reduction by First Nations in B.C. It's

a seven-year plan going out from 2023 to 2030.

Just in terms of understanding this Bill 31 and the nature of the consultations that

have occurred, which the minister has outlined to us, I would just ask: how does that

framework that the First Nations Leadership Council and FNESS, as well as the Assembly

of First Nations and the other parties are considering fit within the remaining consultation

on Bill 31 up until the end of December? Perhaps the minister can comment on what

remaining steps there are with First Nations in this period between now and the end

of December.

Then, secondly, in terms of this additional document, which I have a copy of, which

does actually talk about a timeline that takes this out from September 2023 until

summer of 2024…. This document, which is the recommendation by the contractor for

directions management services, contemplates multilateral discussions — including

with the federal government, which I'll come back to in a supplemental question —

which this timeline is proposing from, again, September 2023 until summer 2024.

Again, on the second part of my question, how does that fit within Bill 31 contemplation?

What is the approach of the ministry to what is being looked at in terms of the importance

of the action plan for disaster risk reduction by First Nations?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The member's question included a number of aspects that I think I should probably

take a moment to clarify.

First off, there are no ongoing consultations on this act right now. The process,

I guess, for passing this act is this debate that is happening right now. The legislation

is complete. It has been tabled. It is going through our legislative process.

The public consultations that are open until the end of the calendar year are on two

discrete pieces of regulatory development work, one being the post-disaster financial

assistance regulation that will replace the disaster financial assistance program

that we currently have, and the second one being a local government regulation. That's

the regulation that will regulate local governments' role in emergency management

and what their obligations will be under the act.

I just wanted to be clear on that. Those consultations are what is open. There is

not a general consultation on this act.

I'll also say that the EDMA overall, as a piece of legislation, incorporates the concept

of disaster risk reduction: that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

It is a critical part of the UN Sendai framework on disaster risk reduction. It is

outlined in our principal section,

section 2, which I hope we'll be able to get to

at some point. We refer directly there to disaster risk reduction and the importance

of that.

We are aware of the development of the regional action plan. We received a draft copy

of the plan last week. We understand that it was based on the same First Nations reports

that EDMA was developed from as well — reports such as the Tŝilhqot'in, Secwépemc

and Tk'emlúps reports. EDMA aligns with the same reports that the regional action

plan is meant to be based on.

M. Lee: Thank you for the clarification, to the minister, and the understanding in terms of

the approach vis-à-vis this report.

In terms of the elements around…. The report itself, dated July of 2023 — which the

minister mentioned she has seen a copy of — refers to the collaboration model towards

a multilateral emergency management agreement in British Columbia. There are elements

of the bill, of course, that provide for this.

At the outset of our review of this bill, I just wanted to ask the minister if she

could just make a comment on…. The way that this report is expressed, certainly, there's

recognition that the federal government plays a role with respect to First Nations,

band councils and band formation on reserves under the Indian Act, for example, under

the current regime.

[6:00 p.m.]

Can the minister make a comment, in terms of…? Apart from DFA, which is obviously

referred to — and which, I know, my colleague will cover in great detail, under Bill

31 — what are the federal components that have been considered for Bill 31 in terms

of jurisdiction, including in respect of First Nations?

Hon. B. Ma: The federal government does have fiduciary responsibilities to support First Nations

in emergency management, but what we're trying to do through the EDMA is to enable

the building of partnerships that support First Nations decision-making in what is

effectively a shared, co-managed space.

If the provincial government and local authorities and First Nations all have emergency

management decision-making powers on the same land base, then it is entirely possible

that we have conflicting decisions being made on the same land.

[6:05 p.m.]

In order to coordinate that, the EDMA emphasizes the need for consultation and collaboration

ahead of wildfire seasons and the development of relationships and agreements that

prevent that kind of conflict from happening in real time.

I will also say, for transparency's sake, in terms of the regional action plan that

the member referenced, I have not personally seen a copy, but our team did receive

a preliminary draft copy just last week through the working relationships that we

have with Indigenous partners. We are just starting to review it.

M. Lee: I appreciate that in the absence of specificity and going through specific sections,

it's hard to fully consider the federal jurisdiction as it might apply. But I will

note that it would be helpful as we go through with my colleague, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin,

various provisions of this bill that we have the opportunity to have that discussion

and have the minister address that as well.

I just wanted to make one other set of inquiries here. The minister mentioned, in

her list of Indigenous organizations that have been consulted with, the Métis Nation

B.C. With that reference in mind, I had intended to ask some questions in respect

of "Indigenous governing body" as it's defined under clause 1 of the bill. I still

may do that in respect of me Métis Nation B.C.

Just to ask the question this way. When Métis Nation B.C. was being consulted with

in the time periods that the minister outlined…. Has there been further consultation

with Métis Nation B.C. after May 12, 2023, or May 30, 2023, when her colleague, the

Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, had communication in writing

with Métis Nation B.C. in respect of the fundamental relationship — the government-to-government

relationship — between Métis Nation B.C. or Métis peoples in B.C.

Let me just clarify that. On May 12, 2023, the minister wrote that the province of

British Columbia recognizes Métis Nation B.C. as a representative government of Métis

peoples in British Columbia and that the province looks forward to continuing to strengthen

that government-to-government relationship. I'm sure the ministry staff and the team

around the minister is aware of this letter, as I'm sure every member of cabinet would

be. But that position was effectively reversed on May 30.

I would say, of course, there were significant concerns expressed by the leadership

of various First Nation organizations, including the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

I'm not intending to get into the details of why that is. I'm only commenting on process

here in terms of the level of consultation.

Clearly, under the second letter dated May 30, for example, the view of the government

is that there's still work to be done, that Métis Nation B.C. does not have status

or authority as an Indigenous governing body within the meeting of the Declaration

Act.

Without getting into that definition right now, I'm just asking, in terms of the consultation

periods, it seems to me that starting in 2019, 2020 and into early 2022, there was

a shift in position twice by this government in the span of two weeks.

I wonder whether Métis Nation B.C. had the understandings of their legal status, let's

say — the government-to-government relationship that they thought they might have

with this government, as was clarified in these two letters I'm referring to.

Did that change the character of consultation that Métis Nation B.C. might have had

on this bill? Again, that's the first question. Secondly, has there been further consultation

with Métis Nation B.C. on Bill 31 since the government clarified its position on May

30 2023?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: So to the member's question, we have always taken a distinctions-based approach on

our efforts to develop this legislation collaboratively with First Nations, and that

includes consulting with First Nations and engaging with Métis Nation.

There has been no change in our approach between 2022 and 2023, before or after the

date that the member provided.

M. Lee: I do appreciate that the government did reiterate the distinctions-based approach.

I will say, of course, that the government articulated the distinctions-based approach

in its DRIPA action plan, which was tabled 18 months ago.

There's a feature on page 3 of the action plan that is highlighted, about the importance

of…. The province's dealings with First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples are conducted

in a manner that acknowledges the specific rights, interests, priorities and concerns

of each.

[6:15 p.m.]

That distinctions-based approach that the minister just cited certainly was cited

specifically in the short, four-paragraph letter from Minister Rankin to Métis Nation

B.C. president Lissa Dawn Smith on May 12, 2023.

When I look at the letter on May 30, 2023, and the importance of this is because….

Certainly as we look at the approach of this Bill 31, I said actually in my second

reading speech, there is a focus as we look at emergency management, and I'm sure,

again, my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin, when he gets the opportunity, will have

a full review of the definition of emergency.

Of course, we know that emergency is not defined only as land-based. I, in my second

reading speech, went over that a little quickly. Let's put it that way. I did, in

my second part of the speech, adjust that to say, well, of course, in respect of Métis

peoples, even though the government has the view that Métis people in B.C. have non-site-specific

section 35 rights, that even in non-site-specific

section 35 rights, Métis peoples

are still considered having some rights under

section 35.

This is where I believe the province is saying to Métis Nation B.C. that there still

needs to be work done to determine the nature and content of Métis

section 35 rights

in B.C.

So I appreciate the minister's response about distinctions-based approach. It's consistent

with what the government has been saying for the last 18 months, but I question this

minister and this government about how it's approaching Métis peoples in this province

at this time.

I question it because of these letters, and in the context of this bill, which is

significant. We're talking about the relationship, the continued importance of relationship

with Indigenous peoples as defined under DRIPA, in which the Métis people are clearly

recognized, because there's a distinctions-based approach the province has set out.

The definition of Indigenous governing body is fundamental to the understanding of

this Bill 31 in respect of First Nations in this province, because not every Indigenous

community, not every community of Indigenous peoples, including Métis peoples, is

recognized as an Indigenous governing body. We will get into that as we get into

section

1 definition.

But in terms of approach, all I'm asking to the minister again…. I'd just like to

ask her to, again, clarify and supplement her response, because I think it's important.

It's important for Métis Nation B.C., I know, to understand what the government's

view is because, as far as I see it, even though I think they can recognize the importance

of the distinction-based approach, the government has gone further now.

Government has gone further to clarify its position, which is something I know that

Métis Nation B.C. has been looking for, for some time, even in the area of the Indigenous

self-government and care for children, which is a bill that I debated at length with

my colleague, the former critic for MCFD, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

We, a year ago, were in this chamber, in this House, debating the bill recognizing

the importance of Indigenous peoples and nations taking back care for their children.

In that bill, of course, despite repeated questioning by myself specifically, the

government did not see the need to define Métis child. Even though they were defining

every other category of Indigenous child, for some reason, this government chose not

to define Métis child. Nisga'a they defined. Métis child they did not define.

I do not need to replay that debate here, but this is the reason why there's a history

to this discussion. In the course of this bill, again, I'd ask the minister…. The

way I read this letter…. When you read them side by side, clearly there was a change

in position by this government between May 12 and May 30.

[6:20 p.m.]

I think that puts this government in a position of saying: "Well, on what basis were

the consultations being made on Bill 31 with Métis Nation B.C. before May12, 2023,

and now after May 30, 2023?" There clearly has been a change in position.

Does the minister not agree that there has been a change in position by this government

as to how it sees Métis Nation B.C. in terms of the fact that it is not viewed to

be an Indigenous governing body under the Declaration Act and that there still is

a process to determine the nature and content of Métis

section 35 rights in B.C. for

MNBC?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I think that the member is asking a larger question, which I don't know that I am

the best minister to answer in full. That being said, I can respond in the context

of this piece of the legislation, which is to confirm….

Again, we do take a distinctions-based approach on our engagements with Indigenous

peoples. We have since the beginning. We do so in the context of emergency management.

We consult with First Nations, and we have engaged with Métis Nation.

I can confirm that there has been no change in our approach on this over the last

couple of years.

M. Lee: I think I understand the minister's response. At one level, in terms of consultation….

The minister now has responded twice. I do understand what she's communicating. I

think that we can…. The importance of what I had mentioned…. We can pick up, certainly

around the definition of Indigenous governing body, as I also outlined in my second

reading speech. There's more to come there.

Perhaps I could just ask one technical point, though, at this occasion. Again, just

speaking with my colleague here, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin…. There are other

opportunities to ask the question. Just when I have the opportunity on this particular

topic…. This will be my last question here before turning it back to my colleague.

It's just in terms of the emergency task force or the expert task force on emergencies,

which has been stood up.

My colleague has asked other questions of the minister already here at the outset.

Can I ask the minister? I understand that Métis Nation B.C. has written directly to

the Premier on October 10 expressing, well, first, their congratulations about the

tabling of this bill but, secondly and more importantly, I would suggest, for them

at least, their disappointment at not being included as part of the expert task force

on emergencies.

Was it considered, by the ministry and the minister, to include Métis Nation B.C.?

Given the distinctions-based approach, given the 24,000 registered citizens in over

31 different communities in this province, was there a recognition of this distinct

Indigenous peoples in the province? We know and we recognize the government's distinctions-based

approach for First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. It seems like, certainly from

MNBC's perspective, they've been excluded. They're very disappointed that they've

been excluded from this expert task force.

Would the minister please respond about the exclusion of MNBC? Is that something that

can be reconsidered? Will this government reconsider this and actually include a member

and representative from MNBC on that expert task force?

[6:30 p.m. - 6:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The task force is an operational table. It includes people with decision-making and

response experience relevant to the latest wildfire season that we just saw. They've

been tasked to develop actionable recommendations that can be implemented ahead of

the next wildfire season on specific areas that have been outlined by the Premier.

It is an operational task force. It is not a task force directly relevant to the legislative

debate.

We are aware of the letter from Métis Nation, and I understand a response to them

is being developed.

L. Doerkson: I wanted to talk a little bit with the minister about just the hierarchy. There's

obviously about to be an incredible amount of information gathered. We've talked earlier

about the potential learnings that have come from specific situations throughout the

province.

I want to understand fully…. I guess the reason that this is so important is that

it'll really help to form the questions that I'll have going forward tomorrow. I want

to understand what the hierarchy is and where this ministry will fit into that.

So the ministry will spend a number of hours tomorrow, I would think, going through

definitions. What I want to understand is that…. The

definitions that are being set

out, the task force that is happening, all of those learnings that are being collected

here in this ministry — how will that play out to the other ministries? Will EMCR

ultimately, through Bill 31, assume sort of that position above other ministries responding

to emergencies throughout our province?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Interestingly, this question is laid out in

section 12 of the bill. If we're fortunate

enough to get there at some point, it lays out the general purposes.

"The purposes of the provincial emergency management organization are as follows:

(

a) to provide, throughout British Columbia, oversight, leadership and coordination

of activities with respect to each phase of emergency management; (

b) to make recommendations

to the minister respecting emergency management; (

c) to participate on behalf of the

government, if required by the minister, in initiatives that foster mutual aid between

the government and any other person, organization or entity; (

d) to fulfill other

prescribed purposes."

I don't know if that answers the member's question, though. We'll pass it back to

him.

L. Doerkson: Yeah, I'm aware of that clause, for certain. We'll definitely canvass that when we

get to it. I guess really what I was trying to understand is that, of course, we have

different groups, such as B.C. Wildfire, that might respond. While that sits in a

different ministry, I'm wondering, when it comes to certain information that's being

collected under this bill — information about critical infrastructure and all of those

things that this ministry will, of course, manage — how that cross-pollination will

work through to B.C. Wildfire.

I wonder if the minister will be working directly with them. Would she have the power

to make decisions at that level, or will she be working through another minister?

I know that we will also talk about different tragedies that are occurring and about

those

definitions as well.

I can appreciate that there is, obviously, a way to communicate here. But if somebody

says we ought or ought not to be doing this, will this ministry take the lead with

respect to any of those events on the landscape? Will it have the ability to direct,

for instance, B.C. Wildfire?

[6:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Emergency Management and Climate Readiness, as a ministry, was created to serve as

kind of a coordinating entity across government. There are many different hazards

that government tracks and pays attention to, and there are different ministries that

are assigned as lead ministries for those hazards. As an example, the Ministry of

Forests is currently the lead ministry for wildfires.

That said, operationally, as a ministry, we work very closely with all ministries,

across all hazards, providing that coordinating role and, in many cases, providing

very tactical feedback and coordination. We saw that during this year's wildfire season.

There were very, very few conversations around the response to wildfire that happened

in isolation, with just one ministry on their own. EMCR was involved, right across

all the responding ministries, throughout the wildfire season.

As minister, I made myself available to all mayors, chairs, chiefs of local governments

and First Nations throughout the hazard season. I welcomed their contacting me on

any matters related to emergencies, whether or not our ministry was directly responsible

or had direct authority over the concern that they had or to address the concern that

they had.

[6:50 p.m.]

In doing so, it allowed for me to reach out to colleagues in other ministries and

ensure that those kinds of concerns were escalated.

That's the kind of role that EMCR plays. There are provisions in the EDMA, in different

sections, about requiring actions and so forth in later sections. We can certainly

canvass them in more detail when we get to those sections.

L. Doerkson: I just wanted to thank the minister today. We will canvass those sections as we go

forward. But I want to thank the minister and staff for the time today. I appreciate,

under the circumstances, the fulsome conversation that we've had this afternoon.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:51 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