Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Thursday, October

19, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 31 — EMERGENCY AND DISASTER

MANAGEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 31; K. Greene in the chair.

The committee met at 1:11 p.m.

On clause 1 (continued) .

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

Management Act, to order. We are on clause 1.

L. Doerkson: I look forward to our engagement this afternoon. I just wanted to, if it pleases the

Chair, let the minister and staff know that the member for Vancouver-Langara will

be joining us at around three or so. If there's a need, I hope that they would consider

potentially standing down clause 1, if we don't get through that by that time. But

I do have a number of questions on it, so we may avert that problem.

I wanted to pick up where we left off yesterday. We talked a little bit about the

ministry and what it might mean to other ministries and cross-pollination and that

kind of thing and who might take up the lead. While I know it's certainly mentioned

in other clauses — I think it's 12 — and we'll get there, what I did want to get is

a bit of a better picture of what will happen in the ministry because of Bill 31.

I guess what I'm referring to is that there seems…. While we don't have that completely

clear yet, I thought it might be appropriate to ask if there is a prediction of much

more staff because we're collecting so much information, or at least, it appears to

me at the outset that we are. I'll just leave that with the minister.

[1:15 p.m.]

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

It's interesting timing. We have a new piece of legislation, the Emergency and Disaster

Management Act. The ministry itself is also quite new, created in December 2022. Over

the last year, we have been working to increase the ministry's capacity to be able

to better deliver on the intentions of the creation of the ministry, which is to act

as a coordinating entity, across government, to provide more substantial provincial

support to local governments and regional districts and to be more proactive in terms

of how we do emergency management here in British Columbia.

The Emergency and Disaster Management Act mirrors a lot of these priorities. It mirrors

the intention to ensure that British Columbia as a whole, as well as the ministry

— it's across all partnerships or all emergency management partners, whether it's

the ministry or other partners — would be more proactive, that we'd do more of that

front-end work on risk assessments, on preparation, on mitigation of impacts before

they happen. That's the overall change to the way that the ministry and government

will do business as a result of the EDMA.

[1:20 p.m.]

More specifically, though, I would say there are additional accountabilities that

will be applied to this ministry through the EDMA, the most significant of which are

the consultation and cooperation requirements. They would be new to the province,

although I will say that the ministry has already started that work even before the

tabling of this legislation because we know it's work that needs to happen.

The ministry could also be party to Indigenous agreements, like

section 6,

section

7 agreements or coordination agreements that are enabled through the EDMA.

There are additional risk assessment and planning requirements, as well as additional

accountability provisions and reporting requirements that come from the use of a provincial

state of emergency and the powers that are enabled through that declaration.

I believe the member asked about resource changes. I would say that the Ministry of

Emergency Management and Climate Readiness would have to deliver these accountabilities

and these requirements within the resources that are allotted to us. Any additional

resource requirements that might require an incremental increase in financial resources

would be requested through the Treasury Board process, as any other kind of incremental

financial resources would be.

L. Doerkson: Thanks for the answer to that, Minister. I think you went to exactly where I think

we'll get to a little bit later when we canvass just exactly what the timelines mean

and all of those things.

I suppose what I'm trying to get an understanding of…. You just listed so many tasks

that are before the ministry. Certainly, many of them will not be completed in this

fiscal year. So I guess maybe…. We're so close to getting to the much-desired clause

I really wanted to get a sense of what the ministry anticipates as far as information

collection and all of the tasks that the minister just listed and how that might play

out as far as resources in the coming year. I can appreciate that you would need extraordinary

permission or approvals, etc., for this year. But it does seem — and I think the minister

just confirmed that — that there is a lot of work to be done here.

I'm wondering how that is going to affect the number of employees in the ministry,

if there has been any anticipation or any clear understanding of how that might affect

the ministry.

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I don't know that I will be able to answer the member's question in terms of hard

numbers, if that's what he's looking for. But I will say that absolutely, the emergency

management approach that is being brought in through the EDMA is much more substantial

across all four phases of emergency management than the current approach — the current

approach being very response-focused. When a bad disaster happens, you spring into

action, and you try to manage it after the fact.

The EDMA approach is, like I said, much more proactive — so more focus and more effort

on the preparation and mitigation stages of emergency management.

That being said, we know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure when

it comes to emergency management. That putting more effort onto the areas, onto the

stages, where we're preparing for and mitigating the impacts of disasters before they

happen will save us on resources —human resources, financial resources, time and all

the different kinds of resources that are required to manage an emergency post-disaster.

In an emergency management context, it's well understood that a dollar of investment

on the front end can save $10 or more on the back end. And money isn't just money

of course. It's also human resources. It's equipment. It's all of the things that

money affords us to be able to do.

What we're looking to do through the EDMA, really, is to…. I mean, if you kind of

think about how we spend our resources when we're only focused on response, it's about

pulling some of those resources up to the front end and doing that work in advance

and, hopefully, reducing what it will take on the back end of things.

[1:30 p.m.]

I will also say in terms of that kind of work, like the risk assessment work that

needs to happen, which is the first principle under the UN Sendai framework for disaster

risk reduction, that you can't manage what you don't measure. We have to have a better

understanding of risks and hazards, especially as they relate to climate change throughout

the province.

That work is likely to be iterative and done over multiple years. It's not something

that we can do once and leave, especially because climate change is constantly changing

things. Emergency management plans aren't something that you create once and that

then just kind of sit on the shelf. They're plans that have to be continuously updated

and refreshed, right?

In terms of the EDMA and the risk assessment accountability that will be brought in

for the ministry, that will be established through a regulation that has not yet been

developed or brought in. That being said, we are already doing a lot of work around

risk assessments, which will continue over the next several years. For instance, we

have already announced investments to collect lidar data.

What does lidar stand for?

Interjection.

Hon. B. Ma: I'll figure it out, then.

Basically, it's high-definition landscape elevation data throughout the province that's

being collected over a number of years.

We also are working with the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy on

the development of a disaster and climate risk and resiliency assessment. That is

a program that we hope to be able to release the first iteration of in the spring

of next year.

Basically, it takes all of the scientific data that is already out there in the world,

brings it together and interprets it in a way that is more useful for government agencies,

ministries, local governments, and so forth, so that people can have a better understanding

of what climate change risks actually mean from a provincial perspective and, eventually,

from a regional perspective through time.

We are also already funding hazard risk assessments that are being delivered by local

governments through the community emergency preparedness fund. That's the fund that

we added an additional $180 million to earlier this year, for a total of $369 million.

Many, many flood risk assessments, extreme heat planning projects, and so forth have

been funded through that fund.

While the EMDA does add in accountability around activities like risk assessments,

we're not waiting for the EMDA to begin that work. That work is already happening,

and the work that is underway is already resourced.

L. Doerkson: I appreciate the answer. I think that for all of the reasons that you just mentioned,

that is definitely…. Perhaps a "concern" is not the right word. It's just something

I think we need to be aware of.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but as we go through the bill, I think we'll find that the amount

of information that is being suggested in the EDMA is very significant. I just feel

with not so much the collection of it but the consumption of it by the ministry and

then, of course, how that information will be shared out certainly poses some challenges

for staffing, etc. That's all good. We'll maybe come back to that throughout the bill,

and perhaps I can sort of prove my point as we go through.

I do have one last question, just on a comment that the minister made yesterday. With

respect to…. I hope that I'm not misquoting, but I think I heard the minister say

yesterday that there was a fiduciary responsibility for the federal government to

protect First Nations communities in our country and certainly in the province. I

just wonder where those responsibilities lie with the province as well. How is the

province affected by that?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Yes, in terms of what I said yesterday, the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility

for supporting emergency management for First Nations, but specifically for First

Nations communities on reserve lands.

That being said, the province does have operational agreements with the federal government

to support the delivery of services across the province, including on reserve lands.

I will say that there is a strong desire, both from First Nations partners and the

province, to turn that agreement, which is currently a bilateral agreement between

multilateral agreement that actually involves First Nations themselves as part of

the development of that agreement.

[2:40 p.m.]

We believe that the bilateral agreement doesn't align with the Declaration Act. First

Nations should be a part of that agreement as well. That being said, we also know

that First Nations communities don't only reside on reserve, and we know that First

Nations have inherent rights as a result of traditional territories and the land base.

So that extends beyond reserve areas.

First Nations have rights out on the land base that can be affected by the exercise

of powers that are in the EDMA, which is why we have built in those consultation and

cooperation requirements and the ability to enter into agreements with First Nations

to coordinate the exercise of those powers. So the EDMA is based on the principle

that First Nations have a right to self-determination in their territories.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. I guess the reason I asked that question is…. Maybe one more

question on that topic, and this is, I guess, fairly simple. How does that right or

that responsibility differ to communities that are non-First Nations? So other communities,

regional districts, etc. Is there a difference between those two and that responsibility?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: First Nations have constitutional rights and inherent powers as a result of their

historic presence on the land that predates colonialism, predates the province of

relationship and an obligation to engage with First Nations on a government-to-government

basis.

You'll note that in the EDMA, we do not have any sections that imply that the powers

of First Nations are drawn from the province. Rather, we treat those powers as inherent

to the First Nations, not something that we have legislated but something that simply

exists. And that is in recognition of their constitutional rights, their treaty rights

and also is in alignment with our commitment to the UN declaration.

[1:50 p.m.]

That being said, emergency management is all about partnerships. In order for emergency

management to be effective on the land base, in this shared, co-managed space, we've

got to consult and cooperate and coordinate with each other. That includes with local

governments, like municipalities and regional districts as well.

Happy to canvass those requirements in more detail when we get to those sections.

L. Doerkson: One final question, and we'll move on to

definitions.

The minister had also mentioned federal collaboration on different levels of other

things. I wondered: has there been any federal collaboration with respect to Bill

31 and the development of that?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Committee, we will be taking a brief recess to accommodate the vote, and we'll be

back shortly. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 1:53 p.m. to 2:11 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: I think the minister has her hand up. She was going to respond before we were called

away for the vote.

Hon. B. Ma: In response to the member's question, there has been engagement with the federal government.

Interjections.

The Chair: Can members please keep their voices down.

Hon. B. Ma: I forgot what I just said now.

There has been engagement with the federal government to share status updates on the

legislation and talk through relevant sections and intentions of the legislation.

In particular, several staff-level meetings were held with ISC, which is Indigenous

Services Canada, and CIRNAC, which is the Ministry of Crown-Indigenous Relations Canada,

as well as Public Safety Canada.

L. Doerkson: Thank you very much, Minister, for that answer.

We'll turn our eyes and thoughts now to some of the

definitions in clause 1. I'm sure

that will make everyone happy.

I do want to just explain to the minister that I am aware that these

definitions may

be defined in different parts of the act or whatever, but I want to understand them

a little bit better before we actually get to the point of asking questions. So I

certainly hope that we can move through a few of them.

The first one is the business continuity plan. While I understand that there is certainly

some definition under 53, I just want to get clarity on who might have to actually

complete these plans. Will it be mandatory in any way?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Business continuity plans, as defined here, are plans that describe the measures to

be taken to ensure the continued delivery of leadership and services necessary for

the effective functioning of a regulated entity, such as a government minister, public

sector agency, local authority or critical infrastructure owner, in the case of an

emergency.

There are requirements around the development of business continuity plans. They are

described in more detail in sections 44 through 49. We can certainly dive into that

when we get to those sections as well.

L. Doerkson: That's going to be the challenge, I think, as we go through the

definitions. I'm sure

that we will touch on them in greater detail later. But thank you for that answer.

I could see how, of course, "business continuity plan" was directly connected to "critical

infrastructure," which we'll come to again.

I think the reason that I want to so much better understand these terms is that, frankly,

they're the ones that…. I'm sure the minister has referred to contact from a number

of different agencies, groups, governments, etc. I've had the same or probably similar

contact, I would think. Frankly, these are the terms that many of these folks are

concerned about.

I do wonder about "comprehensive emergency management plan." I wonder if I could get

a better understanding of, I guess, what the emergency plan might look like — again,

who might be doing it. But more than anything, what does "comprehensive" mean?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The comprehensive emergency management plan. It's described in

section 31. But for

the purposes of responding to the question now…. Then we can provide more details

and dive into it later on, in

section 39.

It is basically an all-hazards plan. It is put together by the Ministry of Emergency

Management and Climate Readiness, or whatever the ministry might be called in the

future — basically the Emergency Management Ministry.

It is effectively a plan that includes all of the other emergency plans provided by

lead ministers under

section 44. The Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate

Readiness is not the lead ministry on all of the hazards that government responds

to. There are other ministries that provide emergency management plans. But a comprehensive

emergency management plan is held by EMCR that basically includes all of the plans

for all of the hazards. That comprehensive emergency management plan will apply throughout

B.C.

Again, we can get into the details of that in

section 39.

L. Doerkson: Yes, we'll for sure get into the details.

I just want to confirm what I heard. First off, I asked who might be required to complete

these plans. If I heard the minister correctly, these plans would be then completed

by other ministries in our province, not necessarily by other levels of government.

Secondly, I just wanted to better understand, because I didn't hear an answer to the

definition. In the minister's mind, what is the definition of "comprehensive"? In

the very next definition, under "critical incident," we're talking about single incidents.

So I'm guessing that these plans will try to anticipate different emergencies in the

province. I just want to understand the complexity of what sorts of plans these ministries

might be putting together and just how comprehensive that might be expected.

It looks like maybe the minister has got an answer already.

Hon. B. Ma: Just to clarify my previous response, there are emergency management plans that are

required by various entities. The question earlier was around the definition of "comprehensive

emergency management plan." The comprehensive emergency management plan is the one

that is held by the provincial administrator responsible for preparing, maintaining

and implementing that plan. In that case, it would be the Ministry of Emergency Management

and Climate Readiness.

[2:25 p.m.]

The difference between a comprehensive emergency management plan and other emergency

management plans is that the comprehensive emergency management plan basically is

a plan that includes all of the government emergency management plans provided by

lead ministers.

I don't know if that provided more clarity, but the specific term "comprehensive emergency

management plan" refers to a plan that is held by EMCR that consists of all of the

other government emergency management plans together.

L. Doerkson: Minister, you're right. You might have confused me there.

I think originally when we were asking about this, it was sort of left to the ministries,

different ministries, to build these plans or whatever. But I think I now understand

that this will be, really, a compilation of plans that are coming in from other groups,

other levels of government, which is exactly the concern.

I'm seeing yes and no on the screen. Anyhow, perhaps I'll just leave that with you

to explain that.

Further to that, maybe we could just sort of leave "emergency management plan" out

of the equation. What I'm really trying to understand is what the word "comprehensive"

might represent to the minister. I'm just trying to get a sense of how detailed these

plans might be.

Hon. B. Ma: I'm sorry for causing confusion — my head-shaking and my nodding.

To be clear, what I had described previously is correct. A comprehensive emergency

management plan is a plan that is effectively a compilation of all of the government

emergency management plans provided by lead ministers on their hazards that they lead.

However, it does not include emergency management plans from other organizations and

entities. So that's where the head-shaking came in.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

It includes all other government emergency management plans but not other agencies,

critical infrastructure owners –– not those plans. And the term "comprehensive" is

used in this definition to get at that particular type of plan, which is effectively

an all-hazards plan held by government within the EMCR.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. I guess we'll, for a moment, step away from "comprehensive."

When we see a term like "comprehensive," or certainly when a regional district or

a local government may see that term, I think the reason that there's so much concern

is that they're just unclear themselves what might be expected from them.

If I heard correctly, while we've gone back and forth a little bit on this, I think

I'm now clear that different levels of government will be expected, of course, to

make those plans and that there will be this compilation of plans coming together

at the ministry level. I might come back to "comprehensive" in a moment.

[2:30 p.m.]

I think probably asking under "critical incident" may sort of fill the minister in

as to where I'm going. I asked about it in the

preamble a little bit just to get a

better sense of what workload may be ahead of us or what challenges we may see with

respect to accumulating all this information, understanding the information and then

how it moves around to different ministries.

When we say comprehensive, and then the next term is "critical incident." If you look

in that sentence, it says "a single incident." I want to get a better sense of what

that means. I think that in the province at one time last year we had more than 300

fires burning. I know that in Cariboo, we've had as many as 65 at one time. Would

we expect to see plans of this nature?

I guess that's why I'm hung up on the term "comprehensive." Would we expect to see

plans of this nature for every incident that would occur in our province? And then,

secondly, what sort of a timeline would we expect for these? Would we be anticipating

emergencies in our province, or would these be completed at the time of the incident

or at the time of the emergency?

I'm just not clear how that might play out. If the minister could provide that info,

that would be great.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: So the term "critical incident" is defined in the EDMA, because it introduces a new

concept that doesn't currently exist in the Emergency Program Act. It distinguishes

an emergency event from another type of event that a volunteer under the act would

respond to. So a critical incident is considered a one-off event. Some examples might

be a lost hiker or a localized flood or landslide.

I will say that a critical incident can have overlaps with overall emergencies, but

they are not always emergencies. So you almost have different levels of incidents

here. You can have a critical incident which is a one-off, and like I said, a lost

hiker could be a critical incident. You need to send volunteers to respond to that

critical incident. A localized landslide could be a critical incident. However, they

can also grow to become emergencies as well.

Once you have a declared state of emergency, the definition of critical incident is

no longer relevant. You're now in the definition of an emergency or a declared state

of emergency.

A critical incident does not require…. Like, we do not require emergency management

plans in EDMA for every critical incident. Emergency management plans are required

for various hazards. It is possible that various hazards can result in critical incidents.

As an example, you could have an emergency management plan around landslides, and

a single landslide for one property could be considered a critical incident. But you're

planning for the hazard, not for the critical incident.

Going back, again, to the term "comprehensive," I think one thing to clarify is that

we do not define the term "comprehensive" in the EDMA. What we are defining is the

term "comprehensive emergency management plan." That phrase is defined as we described

earlier.

L. Doerkson: We'll come back to "comprehensive" as we kind of go through the bill, because I think

that one word, actually, is the one word that does concern a lot of people. I think

it just really goes to the reporting that might be expected.

I heard a number of things in that answer, and I just want to clarify. I heard both

one-off, and I heard hazard. I'm guessing….

To the question about anticipating any kind of incident that there may be, of course,

that emergency plan is required in advance. I asked that earlier, if we would be doing

these plans in advance, or would we be doing them during the event? I can appreciate

that this may be a single incident. I'm guessing that there would be reporting around

that already. So a lost hiker or any kind of example that the minister may have just

expressed.

Again, it goes back to the emergency management plan. Are they expected? So would

the Cariboo regional district be expected to provide some sort of a framework for

forest fires in the Cariboo, and how might they possibly anticipate what that might

look like?

[2:40 p.m. - 2:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: A few things here.

I know we keep going back to the phrase "comprehensive." Just in hearing some of the

member's comments and concerns around…. What does "comprehensive" mean to regional

districts, local authorities, and so forth?

I do want to underscore that, again, we don't define "comprehensive" as a singular

word. Rather, the term "comprehensive emergency management plan" is used in the

definitions

as a reference to a plan of the province, not a plan of local or regional districts.

Really, it's a phrase used for an accountability that we apply to ourselves, not to

local or regional districts.

To the member's other question about emergency management plans as they relate to

disasters and emergencies as they're happening…. Emergency management plans, generally

speaking, are done in advance of disasters and emergencies happening. They are not

plans that you develop as an emergency is happening. Once the emergency is actually

happening, you're into implementation of whatever plan you have in place.

In terms of the timing for when those plans would have to be in place…. That would

be set out through regulation, which, as the member knows, is currently open for public

consultation until the end of the calendar year.

I will also note that emergency management plans are already a requirement of local

governments and regional districts under the current Emergency Program Act. Local

governments and regional districts are already required to have emergency management

plans. Through the transition provisions of the EDMA, those plans would be their plan

until the new plan is required.

What that new plan looks like and the updates in those timelines would be set out

through regulation. Until that regulation sets out those new timelines, their current

plans will remain in place, and those will be the plans that they use during an emergency.

The last piece I should probably clarify is…. When it comes to wildfires, the example

that was provided…. B.C. Wildfire Service has the responsibility for dealing with

wildfire response, provided B.C. Wildfire Service continues to be. I'm not saying

that anything is going to change, but I don't know what the future holds for anybody.

As long as B.C. Wildfire Service continues to have that responsibility, they will

be responsible for developing their wildfire response plans.

When it comes to the emergency plans that the communities are responsible for, it

would be more around understanding the risks in the area and developing plans around

evacuation risk reduction. Maybe the delivery of support services or how business

continuity will happen in various scenarios.

Really, the emergency management plans that regional districts and local governments

are responsible for are plans for the delivery of the services and the aspects of

emergency management that they are responsible for.

L. Doerkson: Thanks, Minister. This is exactly, I guess, why I enjoy the process of what we're

reviewing here right now. It does help to clarify a few things.

One thing that the minister just touched on was the anticipation of events. I am aware

of very broad plans to do certain things or actions that might be carried out by communities.

Things like, for instance, landslides and those types of things…. What might any community,

really, anticipate in the coming year with respect to things that have been, frankly,

kind of new? I mean atmospheric rivers and things like that. We're facing drought

in the Cariboo — well, the entire province, frankly.

Is the minister in receipt of comprehensive emergency plans with respect to items

such as drought and landslide for the communities throughout this province?

[2:50 p.m. - 2:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: To the member's question, absolutely, a lot of the hazards that British Columbia and

communities are facing are relatively new in their extreme nature and severity. We're

seeing a lot of changes as a result of climate change, which speaks to the importance

of having greater focus on and effort on risk assessments and preplanning ahead of

different emergencies.

To the member's question about whether we're collecting plans for drought and other

hazards, yes, EMCR does collect the emergency management plans for hazards from other

lead ministries. Examples would be the provincial drought response plan that is developed

by the Ministry of Forests and the extreme heat response plan that is developed by

the Ministry of Health.

All of those kinds of plans that exist in government — we do collect them. However,

we don't, under the Emergency Program Act, require local authorities to hand over

their plans to us, nor do we do so under the EDMA. So we don't oblige them to automatically

provide all of their emergency management plans to us. It is a requirement that they

have them, but we're not the keeper of all of that.

That being said,

section 42 does allow us to request those emergency management plans.

We can go into more detail there under

section 42, about the various types of requests

that we can make.

L. Doerkson: Minister, surely you could appreciate that probably for many people listening, this

is definitely complex and a little bit confusing.

I thought moments ago that we had talked about a requirement for local authorities,

local governments, etc., to have these plans. I guess I thought I understood that

the ministry would have a compilation of all those plans together. But now what I'm

hearing is that while those plans are required to exist, the ministry is not putting

all those plans together to be a comprehensive plan for each different event.

Hon. B. Ma: I'll repeat my earlier clarification, which is that the comprehensive emergency management

plan held by EMCR consists of a compilation of all other…. When I say government emergency

management plans, we're talking about provincial government emergency management plans.

That's probably where the confusion came from.

We are collecting plans, provided by lead ministers, of various hazards within the

provincial level. However, that comprehensive emergency management plan does not include

emergency management plans from local authorities.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister, for the clarification. I appreciate that.

I want to move on to the two

definitions of "critical infrastructure" and then "critical

infrastructure owner." The reason that I want to do that is that, of course, in

section

48, while this is defined, it's a very far-reaching, broad definition.

[3:00 p.m.]

What I mean by that is…. For instance, (2)(

b) in 48 refers to "necessary to protect,

maintain or restore one or more of the following: (

i) the health, safety or well-being

of persons; (ii) the environment; (iii) the economy; (iv) the security of the province;

(

v) the effective functioning of any branch of government," etc. I won't go through

them all.

I do want to spend a little time here, because I need to really understand, first

and foremost, I guess, what could be deemed critical infrastructure. You'll see as

we sort of canvass this topic a little bit what I'm trying to get at. There is much

concern — and I'm sure the minister has heard from RDs; at least, that's what I've

been told — with respect to what might be expected from smaller communities throughout

the province and what their role in this might be.

Now, I do recognize that the definition of "infrastructure owner," of course, does

speak to "a person who possesses, occupies, controls the use of or has the right to

control the use of critical infrastructure." That's why I'm asking about these together.

I can expect that, for instance, a company like Telus might be…. I'm not sure about

regulation around Telus, but I can appreciate that a company like Telus may be expected

to do some sort of a plan to explain the continuity. Although, I have questions about

that as well, because in 2017, we lost power. We lost telephones. We lost a lot of

things in Cariboo-Chilcotin and certainly in other parts of the province.

I'm not sure whether that continuity plan comes into critical infrastructure and how

that might be presented, I guess, to the ministry, because I can appreciate the complexity

around that too. But this definitely needs to be understood. I guess maybe I'll just

leave it there and let the minister try to explain what might be inferred by these

two terms.

The Chair: We're going to take a five-minute recess, and then we will come back after that.

Minister, you take the time you need to do your deliberations. But for the people

in the room, a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:02 p.m. to 3:11 p.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

The Chair: We are going to resume from our break.

Hon. B. Ma: The member described examples of what's happened in this community in terms of the

impact of the loss of telecommunications, the impact of the loss of power and water.

There are numerous examples of how the loss of critical infrastructure deeply, deeply

impacts and negatively affects communities and people, especially during an emergency.

I think it really outlines exactly why critical infrastructure is so important to

regulate in the emergency management context and so important to be brought into the

EDMA as a regulated entity.

Our Emergency Program Act right now in the province of British Columbia does not currently

have a legislative regulatory framework that allows us to outline the rules and responsibilities

of critical infrastructure owners and operators in an emergency. And that omission

creates a very significant gap in terms of emergency management planning, reporting,

engagement, and more importantly, you can see the impacts of that on the ground.

[3:15 p.m.]

The EDMA will require critical infrastructure owners, once prescribed — so it is brought

in through regulation — to prepare and maintain risk assessments, emergency management

plans and business continuity plans. These are all outlined in

section 49, so we can

dive into it there.

The member asked the difference, I think, between "critical infrastructure" and "critical

infrastructure owner," as defined in

section 1. Basically, the term critical infrastructure

is the infrastructure itself. Critical infrastructure owner describes who is in charge

of that infrastructure.

Now, it should be noted that our intention is to phase in regulations on critical

infrastructure owners gradually over time. It isn't the case that, once the EDMA is

passed, all of a sudden anyone with a bridge or anyone with a water system that multiple

people rely on or so forth are suddenly obliged to produce the risk assessments, emergency

management plans or business continuity plans.

Rather, those would be brought in by regulation, and our intention is to bring that

into regulation for kind of categories at a time, over time.

L. Doerkson: The member, just for the minister's knowledge…. I'm sure she sees the member for Vancouver-Langara

has joined us. I believe he's on a school tour or something like that, but he's going

to be asking some questions in a little while. So we'll just alert him to that.

I had no question about the differences between those two items, critical infrastructure

and critical infrastructure owner. Just to, maybe, clarify.

What I was really trying to drill down to, and the minister touched on it in the last

paragraph or so, was that we would not expect for, all of a sudden tomorrow, everybody

that owns a bridge may be part of that critical infrastructure. That is precisely

my concern with this term or these two terms. That really is what people are very

worried about.

I can give an example. Again, I refer to my riding because it's the one I know best,

of course. But just last week, in fact, B.C. Wildfire — probably last week or the

week before, I suppose — had occasion to go to the Hell Raving Creek fire, which is

on and near the Foster's ranch in the Middle Lake area and Twist Lake area.

Of course, some of the very first things that B.C. Wildfire wanted to make use of,

and I guess we could call this critical infrastructure, was all of the power that

was there and all of the irrigation systems that were there that, frankly, in the

end, ended up melting, honestly. The fire was that severe.

Along with the infrastructure that's been created by that rancher on the landscape

that might be counted on in an emergency, smaller communities like Tatla or Anahim

would also be concerned about their responsibility when it comes to critical infrastructure.

Again, because the minister touched on the word "bridge," of course we have a number

of…. While they don't fall under — well, I suppose that's up for argument — regulated

entities, which is, I believe, what the act will refer to, there's much concern with

respect to our partners on the landscape that they may require care for roads, bridges

and those types of things that different agencies and groups might have to use as

access to an emergency of any kind — flooding or fire or anything.

That's why I really have to get a clear understanding of what it would be, what critical

infrastructure is, and what the owner would be. Again, I asked for sort of some examples.

Myself, I thought utilities for certain, potentially companies like Telus, potentially

companies like Fortis or pipelines — those types of things, but could we assume that

major forestry companies might be part of this critical infrastructure?

[3:20 p.m.]

We have FSRs throughout the province that the province doesn't typically maintain

but might need to be used in the case of — well, for instance, a rescue operation

in the mountains above Canim Lake for a snowmobiler that was injured quite seriously

a year ago. Might it be the responsibility of that forest company to maintain those

roads, make sure that they're accessible?

I guess a little more clarity just around who might be an owner of critical infrastructure

and what that infrastructure might look like.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I'm thinking maybe the most useful way for me to answer this question is to refer

to maybe what we might consider critical infrastructure sectors, which is actually

the next defined term on the list — so "critical infrastructure sector" being a prescribed

sector, one identified through regulation, and again, the intention is to kind of

phase in these requirements on sectors through regulation.

So it's a prescribed sector "necessary to protect, maintain or restore one or more

of the matters referred to in

section 48" — which is what I believe the member had

referred to in kind of defining what critical infrastructure was.

So being infrastructure that is required for the health and safety or well being of

the population, environment, economy, security of the province, effective functioning

of any branch of government, provision of emergency resources or any other matter

that might be included within the regulation.

Some of these critical infrastructure sectors would include energy and utilities.

As the member had noted, it would include communications, or could include transportation,

water, health, public safety, government, food, finance and manufacturing. So those

are examples of critical infrastructure sectors that could be prescribed through regulation

to perform what I had identified before.

Some of those tasks that we could prescribe them to carry out is to prepare and maintain

a risk assessment; to prepare, maintain and implement an emergency management plan;

and to prepare and maintain a business continuity plan.

I heard the member kind of refer to things like maintenance of roadways, and so forth.

I should note that what we are prescribing is the requirement to maintain these risk

assessments, emergency management plans, business continuity plans as opposed to….

Like, the EDMA is not contemplating prescribing regulations around their maintenance

activities or normal operations outside of those risk assessments, emergency management

plans or business continuity plans.

I hope that's helpful.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. I think, really, that last paragraph about prescribed or that

the minister may prescribe is sort of the question around this topic, right? I just

don't know that there's clarity in the act as to who actually may fall into this category

as we go forward. I think, frankly, in my opinion, that's a big stumbling block.

Again, I suggested in the beginning of this question that, of course, not only is

it vague, but it's very…. The scope is ginormous, right? I mean, when you look at

the items under 48(2)(b)…. I guess maybe, specifically, I'll just pull one out. What

may the minister contemplate with respect to item 48(2)(b)(iii) the economy? So what

businesses or what entities may be prescribed through regulation with reference to

the economy?

Hon. B. Ma: If I may, the question is quite specific to

section 48. I wonder if we might be able

to canvass that question when we reach

section 48.

[3:30 p.m.]

L. Doerkson: Absolutely. I would enjoy that, Minister.

I think the member for Vancouver-Langara has a couple of questions on this topic as

well.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver-Langara.

M. Lee: Thank you, Madam Chair. Hopefully you can hear me okay.

When I look at the definition of "critical infrastructure owner," as my colleague

was just going through with the minister, I focus on the words "a person who possesses,

occupies, controls." Of course, that raises the question as to whether that would

include First Nation, Indigenous nation….

I see the definition of "person," and I would say…. I appreciate that we're likely

going through these

definitions in order, but they do interplay, of course, to the

extent that

definitions use other

definitions in the same section.

When I look at the term "person," it is not an usual formulation of person, meaning

under the Business Corporations Act or other legislation…. I haven't had the opportunity

to check other legislation, but my general sense is that is not a customary definition.

Perhaps I could just ask first: why is the definition of "person" formulated in this

manner?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I definitely appreciate the member's question around definition of "person" and its

use and definition as it exists in EDMA. I'll do my best to try to clarify that for

the member.

As the member likely knows, there's a principle in law and legislative writing that

unless a word is specifically defined in the enactment where it's used or in the

Interpretation

Act, a word is to be given its ordinary grammatical meaning. In this case, the term

"person" comes with what can be referred to as an inclusive definition, established

both through the

Interpretation Act and through

section 1 of the EDMA. That means

that in addition to having its ordinary grammatical meaning, these two pieces of legislation

add to that ordinary meeting.

Because

section 29 of the

Interpretation Act refers to persons, references to persons

must also be read as including entities like corporations. I agree that that EDMA

section 1 definition can be a bit confusing, but there is a good reason for that.

EDMA uses the concept of Indigenous governing bodies, and these are entities that

are recognized to act on behalf of Indigenous peoples that hold rights recognized

and affirmed by

section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Some Indigenous governing bodies may be "persons" in the eyes of the law. For example,

if an Indigenous governing body is incorporated as a society, it's a corporation,

and

section 29 of the

Interpretation Act makes it clear that it is a person.

But some Indigenous governing bodies may lack that kind of legal personality, depending

on their structure, and that's okay, and it's why EDMA's definition of "person" allows

for regulations to be made so that any provision of EDMA that uses the word "person"

can be made to either apply or not apply to an Indigenous governing body.

You can think of this as a bit of a safety feature. We are not aware of any references

in EDMA where references to a person would lead to unintended consequences or unintended

outcomes for Indigenous governing bodies. But structuring the definition in this way

allows for regulations to be made if any problematic references are ever encountered.

In such a case, a regulation could be made so that we ensure Indigenous governing

bodies are treated equally, regardless of whether they have legal personality or not,

for the purposes of any provision in the act.

[3:40 p.m.]

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

Is the minister's response suggesting, then, that where an Indigenous governing body…?

Well, I will say that it does, then, get us into the definition of "Indigenous governing

body," of course. I think I will just ask the question this way, without getting into

the definition of "Indigenous governing body" just yet…. I think it's a more fulsome

discussion, as the minister would recognize.

In situations where, under EDMA, an Indigenous body is not a "person" under

section

29 of the

Interpretation Act…. All I'm trying to get to here is….

I think I'm hearing the minister say this. Maybe she can just correct my understanding

here. Is it intended that, under regulation, an Indigenous nation or, let's say, tribal

council, which is not a legal person under

section 29 of the

Interpretation Act…?

We're dealing with two different

definitions here, in the

Interpretation Act, at the

same time.

Let me just try this one more time. Can an Indigenous body, then, not be a person

under

section 29 of the

Interpretation Act and still be viewed as a person for the

purpose of EDMA? That is going to be done by regulation.

Again, to rephrase…. To use a specific example, a tribal council in a region of our

province is not a person under

section 29 of the

Interpretation Act because that tribal

council is not a corporation, let's say, or anything else that's considered under

that definition but can be deemed to be a person under this act because the view of

government is that a tribal council is an Indigenous governing body.

Is that the case, that there will be designation by regulation?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you, Member. The short answer is yes. An Indigenous governing body could be

viewed as a person for the purposes of EDMA, even if they are not considered persons

under

section 29 of the

Interpretation Act, and the opposite is true as well.

M. Lee: The opposite being true, then, is presumably sub (

b) of the definition of "person."

In this instance, it's contemplated that a person — a tribal council, let's say —

that is a person under

section 29 of the

Interpretation Act may be deemed not to be

a person under this act, even if it was viewed by government to be an Indigenous governing

body. If that's the case, obviously, if that was operative that way by designation,

it would mean that anywhere the term "person" is used would not apply to that.

I say "tribal council" here just by way of example. Is that the purpose of sub (

b) of this definition, and if so, why is that?

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

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you to the member for his patience as I try to wrap my response around this.

I'll try to be not as confusing as possible.

Yes, for the purposes of EDMA, the definition of "person" allows for Indigenous governing

bodies to be considered persons under certain provisions and not persons under other

provisions. That's despite the

Interpretation Act. It is the case that it is possible

for an Indigenous governing body to not be considered a person under the

Interpretation

Act and a person under the EDMA or a person under the

Interpretation Act and not a

person under EDMA.

If you refer to subsection 1(2) of EDMA, it establishes that "an order or emergency

instrument made under this Act," or under an agreement made under this act, "does

not apply to an Indigenous governing body unless the Indigenous governing body consents."

That's what these

definitions are trying to get at.

There are clauses in the EDMA that place responsibilities and allow government to

regulate certain entities that may be considered persons. However, respecting their

right to self-determination and the fact that they have inherent law-making authorities

and inherent rights that do not flow from government, we do not presume to regulate

Indigenous governing bodies. So in those provisions, we may exclude Indigenous governing

bodies from the regulations or the obligations that we are trying to apply to other

persons.

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister's response.

I think there's something there, of course, in the last part of the minister's response,

that needs to be thought through or discussed, because it does get to some of the

purpose for this clause. That sounded like respect, certainly, of Indigenous laws

and self-governance. I think we'd have to, obviously, walk through areas of this bill

where that might be applicable. So I think we should note that. I mentioned that to

my colleague the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin as an area to have further discussion

about.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

I intended to say this yesterday. I'm not sure if the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin

said it today, but my sense is that, of course, as much as we've been talking about

consultation and the process in which this bill has been reviewed and discussed, I

am struck by the exchanges between the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin and the minister,

even on specific examples, including Lytton.

The member has also referenced other examples of wildfires, floods and other emergencies

or disasters. Certainly, because this bill is highly technical in nature, even as

a legislative framework with regulations to come, the examples that are informing

the application of these

definitions and these provisions are helpful to have.

[4:00 p.m.]

The reason why I say that is whether we refer to specific examples or not, as I am

right now when I refer to a tribal council, I think there are two levels of discussion

there. One is just in conceptual terms. I am aware of situations where this actually

does apply in the way that I'm describing it.

But then, of course, we can get into specifics about those kinds of examples. I know,

at that point, that government and the minister may have a more detailed or slightly

different response, in the sense that now we're talking about a specific example,

and there may be different interplay between government and local nations, for example.

I think also, of course, as I mentioned at the outset, "Indigenous governing body"

— the "person" definition does utilize that term — is a fundamental term that is fundamental

to the application of this bill. I think the definition of "person," certainly as

we're discussing this now, is an example of that. Of course, we know the significance

of this as it applies to First Nations, Indigenous communities.

I would just ask, in terms of what the minister just summarized in terms of the application

of paragraph A and B of the definition of person…. I still understand this to be a

designation of a specific Indigenous body as opposed to a blanket determination by

way of regulation. So we're talking about a specific Indigenous body, i.e. a tribal

council, that is going to be designated as a person or not a person for the purpose

of this act.

If that's still the case, to be clear, then when will that determination be made?

When and how was that determination made?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I'm starting to think that maybe I should have gone to law school instead of engineering.

I hope that I interpret the member for Vancouver-Langara's question correctly. I'll

try my best to respond, and perhaps if I misinterpreted the question, the member can

clarify.

It is intended for it to be the case that if an IGB, an Indigenous governing body,

is considered a person for a provision, it would apply to all Indigenous governing

bodies for that provision. If an Indigenous governing body is not a person for a provision,

it would also apply to all Indigenous governing bodies for that provision. The intention

is for it to be consistent throughout rather than there being a process of picking

and choosing between different Indigenous governing bodies.

That being said, the ability to prescribe those instances, the development of that

regulation, will be codeveloped with First Nations under the interim approach as laid

out by the Declaration Act Secretariat.

I hope I've answered the question, but maybe we'll see.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, just please keep it down a little bit. It's a little bit difficult to hear

on the screen.

[4:10 p.m.]

M. Lee: I'm sure the minister would have had much fun going to UBC law school apart from UBC

engineering.

I say thank you for the response. I think that is a good and helpful clarification.

Probably, when we look back at the Hansard transcript, there probably is a slight adjustment in the response and clarification,

then, which means if this two-part definition of "person" is to be applied across

Indigenous governing bodies, it brings it back to the emphasis, presumably, on the

provision of the act that is being looked at.

I will ask one more question before turning it back to the member from Cariboo-Chilcotin.

This was the last part of the previous response that I noted.

If this person definition is being applied across the board, so to speak, it suggests

that one of the main reasons for that, the one that the minister at least identified,

is that there may be areas of the bill which, through the interim approach in consultation,

will have an understanding that really, in effect…. Where the term "person" is used

in this act, like "critical infrastructure owner," which is the reason why we jumped

into this definition of "person," it's not intended, for some reason, by government

that Indigenous governing body would be captured within the term "person" as it's

used in that section.

If that's the case, we can certainly, as we look at the use of the word person throughout

the various provisions of this act, this bill, have that conversation.

But it does just still raise one question for the minister, which is: when is this

determination being made? Presumably the minister is suggesting that, through the

interim approach, there will be a clause-by-clause review of some sort. There will

be some determination made that in this clause of the bill, there should not be application

to Indigenous governing bodies by the use of the word person. Is that correct?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you to the member for Vancouver-Langara for his patience as I again try to wrap

my head around what I probably could have learned in law school. I don't think I would

have gotten in; I'm going to be honest with you.

In terms of the timing for regulations, it is our intention…. We will be talking with

First Nations about their priorities for the development of regulations following

the passing of this act. Those conversations will happen immediately following.

[4:20 p.m.]

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister.

I am glad that we have discussed this specific word, "person." I have a couple more

concerns, and I hope that we can discuss it a little bit further. Frankly, I see this

clause as being challenging. I think the minister referred, in her answers to the

member for Vancouver-Langara, to using words like "intention" and, of course: "We'll

sort it out by regulation."

My fear is that the…. So (

a) and (b), absolutely, when I read this, simply make no

sense. I mean, you're going to include, on one hand, in (a), an Indigenous governing

body. Now, had you referred to something other than an Indigenous governing body in

the second phrase, under (b), then I could appreciate the difference. What I'm having

a serious challenge understanding is how they can be included in (

a) and excluded

in (b).

Now, the minister, in her first answer, had referenced something other than, I think,

an Indigenous governing body. So I wanted clarity around that. I would certainly enjoy

an example of how this clause might affect people, how a governing body could be included

and also excluded in the same bill. Again, I can appreciate the word "intention" or

"what we intend," but to me, that leaves an awful lot of room for challenges later.

I think that we've discussed this particular clause, certainly outside of this conversation

that we're having today, at great length. It seems very confusing. Frankly, I think

we're going to need a better understanding of that particular reference, "person."

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The member asked for examples. I think that's a useful way to try to explain the reason

why "person" can include Indigenous governing bodies in some provisions and not include

Indigenous governing bodies in other provisions.

Generally speaking, I will say…. The legislation includes Indigenous governing bodies

as persons, regardless of whether or not they are considered persons under the

Interpretation

Act, when there is a clear benefit to Indigenous governing bodies that is being provided

by the EDMA. We do not include Indigenous governing bodies, regardless of how they're

interpreted under the

Interpretation Act, when it is an obligation that we are applying

to persons.

Once more, that is due to the inherent rights of Indigenous governing bodies and First

Nations to their own law-making and having their own authorities that do not flow

from provincial legislation.

Examples of each. The first example would be an Indigenous governing body that is

included as a person under the

Interpretation Act but excluded as a person under EDMA.

You can find that example in subsection 1(2), which basically says that emergency

orders may apply to persons but do not apply to Indigenous governing bodies — again,

recognizing that they are their own government with self-governance, with the right

to self-government and inherent rights as Indigenous governing bodies.

On the flip side, an example of where an Indigenous governing body might not be included

as a person under the

Interpretation Act but is included as a person in EDMA can be

found in subsection 154(1). In

section 154 is protection against legal proceedings.

Under subsection (1), it expressly states that "person," under that section, under

that provision, does include Indigenous governing bodies. So that provides legal protections

for Indigenous governing bodies as persons under there.

L. Doerkson: Thanks to the minister for that. I can appreciate the complexity in this phrase, as

we've had a number of questions around that. That does help somewhat.

When you refer to a person as some sort of a company, or something like that, that

may be asked to do something under this act…. I think what the minister is suggesting

is that that same ask or request or demand by the province simply may not apply to

that Indigenous governing body.

[4:30 p.m.]

I guess why I'm confused is…. Simply put, it is confusing to suggest that they would

be both included and excluded. What would the benefit for that be?

I can appreciate what the minister said with respect to legal proceedings, potentially,

against a company or something else that might fall under that category, but frankly,

if you're asking a utility or some sort of entity under this act to do something,

wouldn't it be most beneficial to the First Nation to be a part of that or to be involved

in that request or that demand by the province?

I can appreciate that the province might not demand something of that First Nation,

but it would seem to me that the confusion around that really is about collaboration.

I mean, if there's a reason for any other person under this act to be responsive and

doing something in an area of emergency, whatever that emergency might be, it would

seem to me that we certainly should be working with that First Nation that's involved.

I can appreciate what the minister is saying, again, about the legal suggestion, but

frankly, to be included and not included in a moment of emergency just seems very

confusing to me. Again, the words that we're talking about here are what's intended.

I just don't know, even after half an hour of discussing this, if those intentions

are clear.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: So the answer is yes. We absolutely do want Indigenous governing bodies to be involved

as full partners in emergency management. That is why consultation and cooperation

requirements with Indigenous governing bodies are a key theme throughout the Emergency

and Disaster Management Act.

I think that it's worthwhile to note that we use the term "Indigenous governing bodies"

to identify where Indigenous governing bodies are to be involved and need to be involved.

In those cases, we use the term "Indigenous governing bodies" for clarity, as opposed

to just the generic term "persons."

You're right. If we just use the term "persons" to identify any entity throughout

the legislation, it would be very, very confusing. That's why we have other

definitions

that provide greater clarity. When we're going through the legislation, we'll be able

to point out each one and talk through them in more detail.

L. Doerkson: I just think the definition itself is certainly confusing. I can appreciate that it

might be confusing to an engineer, but it's confusing to me also. Noting that, I think

we may take an opportunity to come back to that definition.

I guess, maybe, I would just ask one question before we move past there. Does the

minister have any concern about this definition? It just seems so contradictory. I

can appreciate that there's a team on the other end here, trying to answer these questions.

But again, just with respect to the legal implications that the minister noted earlier,

I would appreciate how that would be a benefit.

But just for the life of me, I can't understand how you could include in (

a) and then

exclude in (b). It just simply makes no sense to me.

I guess, maybe, just one more question on that. Does the minister have any concerns

about this definition?

Hon. B. Ma: I think that maybe part of the challenge that we're trying to get at and address with

the definition of persons that's been provided in EDMA is the fact that

section 29

of the

Interpretation Act and its definition of person does not provide the level

of ability to address what we had previously been discussing on its own.

There are cases where

section 29 of the

Interpretation Act may identify an Indigenous

governing body as a person, where a provision in EDMA does not intend for it to apply

in that way, or vice versa. Some Indigenous governing bodies may lack the kind of

legal personality that is required under

section 29 of the

Interpretation Act, depending

on their structure.

EDMA seeks to treat all Indigenous governing bodies consistently. So in order to overcome,

maybe, that legal personality requirement of

section 29 of the

Interpretation Act,

the EDMA allows for the definition of person to both include or not include.

[4:40 p.m.]

Throughout the legislation, you will see clauses where we have provided

definitions

or provisions, making clear whether an Indigenous governing body is a person or is

not. So the example that I provided to you previously around subsection 154(1)…. If

you flip to that

section of the bill, you'll see very clearly that for this provision,

"Indigenous governing body" is included in the definition of "person."

All of that being said, there is a bit of a safety feature. We're not aware of any

references in EDMA where references to a person could lead to unintended outcomes

for Indigenous governing bodies. But there is a bit of a safety feature in that we're

able to structure a definition in a way that allows for regulations to be made if

any problematic references are ever encountered.

Going through the EDMA…. When we're working with First Nations partners, if First

Nations partners wish to prioritize the development of regulations to address any

of these unintended consequences, if any are identified, the EDMA does allow for that

to happen.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. I think we'll probably touch on this throughout the committee

stage of this bill, for sure. Frankly, I think there are probably a few people listening

that are confused by this particular definition. I know I'm one of them. We'll certainly

come back to it at different places and certainly, perhaps, through those specific

examples, we'll see a little bit more clarity coming by way of that.

Obviously, we digress. Going back to critical infrastructure, I guess one final question

on this. Again, I'm sure we'll have more questions about this as we go through the

bill.

Just to understand that when we're referring to a person, clearly we are referring

to a First Nation — potentially. Potentially, we could be including or excluding them

from this critical infrastructure. I wonder what sorts of critical infrastructure

might be expected from First Nations. I know that they have, potentially, no different

than in the example I used earlier, irrigation and different things.

What might you see as being critical infrastructure that might fall under First Nation

jurisdiction?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I think providing, maybe, some examples might be helpful. Examples of critical infrastructure

that might be owned by a First Nation might include energy generation projects or

systems, like run-of-river power generation or solar power. Those are examples that

I can think of, of what might be considered critical infrastructure that could be

owned by First Nations.

L. Doerkson: That's very helpful, Minister. That certainly ties into, I guess, a question that

I asked earlier. We were trying to understand who may fall under this category, and

I can appreciate that we've talked about, in the next definition, "critical infrastructure

sector."

I guess there would be a combination there of a First Nation with somebody, like run

of river or whoever. I'm not certain right off the top of my head of other partnerships

that we may see throughout the province, between communities and that sort of same

sector. I guess it would be safe to say that if a community does have a partnership

with any one of these, obviously that becomes part of the infrastructure.

I'm thinking that of course, with that responsibility will also come all of the rest

of it to those communities — liability and everything else. Would that be correct

and safe to say?

Hon. B. Ma: I was wondering if the member might be able to rephrase his question. I don't think

I've quite understood the question.

L. Doerkson: Yeah, I'd be happy to. The minister just referred to those partnerships that may occur

between First Nations and, certainly, other persons that would fall under the critical

infrastructure sector. I can appreciate that that may be deemed, of course, as critical

infrastructure with respect to First Nations. I'm sure that that, then, would define

it simply for communities that may have partnerships with those same individuals in

that sector.

In other words, if whatever — Chilliwack — had a partnership with run of river, those

liabilities and expectations would of course extend to the community of Chilliwack

or to the community of Williams Lake as well because of that partnership with those

sector individuals that are explained under the definition of "critical infrastructure

sector."

Madam Chair, I'm not sure if I'm still maybe…. I just noted, perhaps, question marks.

I guess what I'm trying to convey to the minister is: would there be anything different

between a community in the province that would have a partnership with run of river

for what the ministry has determined as critical infrastructure?

There is, obviously, a requirement for that infrastructure to work, and for continuity

plans and everything else. I am assuming that those requirements that would be subject

to the First Nations would simply be subject to any community that had that same partnership.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I'm going to take a crack at this. It's quite hypothetical as a question.

At this time, we would have to…. In order for the requirement for critical infrastructure

owners to prepare and maintain risk assessments, emergency management plans and business

continuity plans — and critical infrastructure owners of various sectors or what type

of critical infrastructure owners might need to maintain those plans…. Those would

be developed through regulations that don't currently exist.

It might be a little early to determine what kind of infrastructure, specifically,

or what kinds of partnerships would have what kinds of obligations on them. Rather,

the EDMA enables the ability to develop regulations around risk assessments, emergency

management plans and business continuity plans for various critical infrastructure

owners. We wouldn't be able to describe right now exactly what those regulations would

look like, to that level of detail, I think.

L. Doerkson: Well, Minister, I was actually referring to your example of a First Nation that may

have a partnership with run of river. Would that be different? I can appreciate the

regulation, but as we've discussed under business continuity, under a comprehensive

emergency plan, those expectations that may fall under those

definitions would, in

your example, fall either to the ministry or to run of river, because you've determined

it to be critical infrastructure.

My question is, I guess…. I'm certainly not trying to confuse the minister with my

question, but it's really a fairly simple question, and that is: is it the same for

a community that may have a partnership with one of those suppliers or one of those

people that falls under that example of a critical infrastructure sector? Is it any

different in any way?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: To provide clarity off the bat, my examples from previous responses around solar panel

projects or run-of-river generation projects…. Those are types of technologies. They

don't necessarily relate to partnerships or different ownership. They're independent

of the type of ownership of that project. They're technologies.

But what I'm hearing from the member is questions around maybe partnerships where

multiple entities could be considered critical infrastructure owners together. So

if a piece of infrastructure is defined as critical infrastructure, then the owner

or owners of that infrastructure become the critical infrastructure owners, whether

they are a single entity or multiple entities.

EDMA does provide regulation-making authority to determine who, whether it is single

or multiple entities — one major partner or a combination of partners, and so forth

— has obligations under the act. There are regulation-making authorities under EDMA

to determine who, in those kinds of partnerships, would have obligations under the

act.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. That explanation does help, actually. I'm going to just assume

that those partnerships will be the same, no matter whether it's a First Nation and

a company or a community and a company or one of those providers.

I'd like to move along just to Crown land. Just very simply, does Crown land…? Is

that definition…? It does, of course, refer to whether it's covered with water or

not. But my question, really, is: does it exclude any lands in our province?

[5:00 p.m.]

What I mean specifically is: would it exclude, for instance, lands in tidal areas?

Would it exclude any lands? I know, on a number of occasions throughout the act, we

refer to the Nisga'a Nation. I'm wondering about treaty lands and those types of things.

Would they be excluded from this definition of Crown land?

The reason I ask that specifically is with respect to the Xeni Gwet'in territory in

my riding. I know that there is a bunch of transition happening there. I know that

some tenure holders have received letters from a few years ago from Deputy Minister

Paul Rasmussen, of course, that ended that tenure.

I'm just not sure where land like that fits within this definition. And the reason

that I ask it is because in that letter — which I cannot seem to produce right now,

but I can for the minister if she'd like it — it referred to the lands in the Xeni

Gwet'in being owned in a way similar to fee simple. It's a very big territory, and

I'm curious to know if any lands in British Columbia, including treaty, title lands,

etc., might be excluded from this definition.

Hon. B. Ma: Yes, I can confirm that the definition of Crown land within EDMA is consistent with

definitions used within other provincial legislation and does not include treaty settlement

land, declared Aboriginal title areas or privately held lands.

L. Doerkson: Thank you very much for that, Minister.

I just want to move down to a couple of terms under "emergency." I just, very briefly,

wanted to understand a little bit more what the minister might mean by "rioting" and

also "security threat." Now I can obviously sort of conjure up my own thoughts on

that, but I did definitely want clarification from the minister on those two items.

[5:05 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you. For a moment there, I forgot that you were referring to me.

"Security threat" actually does have its own definition under

section 1, further down:

"'Security threats' means actions that severely impair the functioning of a government

or society, including actions relating to overthrowing a government." So it's quite

a high bar there.

Whereas riding is not defined in

section 1, so it's basically its

the EDMA.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister.

I just want to skip to "emergency instrument," if we could. I have read about this

one, of course, but I wondered if the minister could just briefly explain that one

to me.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: An emergency instrument is a legally enforceable declaration order, bylaw, resolution

or law that can be made by a local authority as part of a declaration of a state of

local emergency or recovery period or in relation to the use of a response or recovery

power. An example might be that a local authority could use an emergency instrument

to both declare and cancel a local state of emergency. An emergency instrument could

also be used to exercise emergency response powers under

section 107.

Going to the definition in the legislation, it says that an emergency instrument means

the following. If made by an individual, it is an order, and if made by a person or

entity other than an individual, it is a bylaw, resolution, law or other type of legal

instrument by which the person or entity may lawfully exercise statutory powers or

perform statutory duties.

For subsection (a), an individual might be the head of a local authority, like a chair

or mayor. Under subsection (b), a person or entity other than an individual…. An example

of that might be a council, like a municipal council.

L. Doerkson: It sounds like the Chair might grant me one more question. I just wanted to understand

why we have "comprehensive emergency management plan." Of course, that is referring

section 39. Then, of course, following up on that, we have "emergency management

plan," separate, with

section 52. What's the distinction between those two?

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

Emergency management plans are plans prepared in accordance with

section 52, which

we can dive into in more detail. But for the purposes of bringing up some of that

information for this question here, an emergency management plan is produced by a

provincial ministry. It can be produced by local authorities. Again, we can go into

details under

section 52, but that emergency management plan is a plan that includes

measures relevant to each phase of emergency management — preparedness, mitigation,

response and recovery.

[5:15 p.m.]

It includes information like the identification of persons who are responsible for

functions in the plan; requirements for emergency resources; instructions on how to

engage emergency systems; emergency management training and exercises; information

around actions to limit negative impacts of an emergency or disaster on persons, animals,

places or things who may be at disproportionate risk; measures to promote cultural

safety; and other prescribed measures.

That's kind of what an emergency management plan will include. And then a comprehensive

emergency management plan is the plan that is held by the provincial administrator.

Or rather, in more simple terms, it is held by EMCR. That is a compilation of all

of the provincial government emergency management plans from other ministries.

So the emergency management plan –– that's the term we use for the plans that are

created based on hazards that are created by local authorities and ministries and

other regulated entities. And the term "comprehensive emergency management plan" is

a specific plan held by EMCR that is a compilation of all of the different ministries'

provincial government emergency plans.

L. Doerkson: I just have an opportunity to thank the minister for today's engagement and certainly

the staff. I appreciate the conversation today and look forward to continuing next

week.

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

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:17 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