Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section C

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Monday, October

30, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 31 — EMERGENCY AND DISASTER

MANAGEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

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

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

On clause 55 (continued) .

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

Management Act, to order.

M. Lee: I wanted to come back to our discussion. As we were going through — in the case of

the requirement that a local authority must consult and cooperate with each Indigenous

governing body — I believe I had asked the minister the question. I don't think she

had the opportunity to reply, but I think this is where we left off.

If an Indigenous governing body chooses not to be involved — that is, to cooperate

with that discussion — what happens then?

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

Hon. B. Ma: The member is correct that there is not a requirement for Indigenous governing bodies

to participate in the act. That said, we know that First Nations are eager to exercise

their inherent rights and abilities as equal partners in emergency management.

We believe that good-faith attempts to consult and cooperate will yield the development

of good relationships as well, but if an Indigenous governing body were to choose

not to cooperate with the local authority, the local authority would not necessarily

be considered in non-compliance with the act, as they would have taken the action

of consulting and cooperating.

If the local authority, in good faith, does attempt to consult and cooperate and don't

receive any feedback from the Indigenous governing body, then they don't have feedback

to consider in accordance with subsection 55(1)(b)(i). That said, the local authority

would still need to consider the rights of Indigenous peoples as per subsection 55(1)(b)(ii).

"Little-two" — is that how you refer to it? I usually say "i-i."

They'll incorporate, into the risk assessment or emergency management plan, any Indigenous

knowledge, if available, and do their level best to complete the consultation and

cooperation requirements of this act.

M. Lee: Certainly, in my years in law, I always refer to two "i's" as "little two." So the

minister is correct, certainly, at least from my viewpoint.

The risk assessment and emergency management plan. I appreciate that we've spent a

considerable amount of time using local authorities as examples. When we talk about

the lead minister or the public sector agency, we could easily talk, of course, as

the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin has also explored with the minister, of the critical

infrastructure owner.

Whether it's the local authority or the critical infrastructure owner, they have a

limited amount of resources to go through what is, as we are exploring here at committee

stage, a complex matrix of regulatory requirements for the legislative Bill 31 that's

presented — even before the regulations that are to come.

I think it's important that we spend the time, as we have been, walking through what

is expected of a local authority or a critical infrastructure owner, because they

must do this, as the minister just expressed: consult and cooperate with "(

i) each

Indigenous governing body that acts on behalf of Indigenous peoples…in an area that

may be affected by a hazard that is required to be included in the risk assessment,

or (

B) an area to which the emergency management plan applies." That is what is set out, of course, in subsection 55(1)(a)(i).

Just to reiterate and break this down a little more, the minister can reconfirm that

a risk assessment and emergency plan can be structured, presented and prepared without

the input of an Indigenous governing body that's representing Indigenous peoples whose

territory, traditional, treaty or otherwise, is affected by a potential hazard.

For a risk assessment or emergency plan to meet the requirements under 55, the local

authority and critical infrastructure owner needs to make the attempt to consult and

cooperate, but if that cooperation and response is not reciprocated, the local authority

can still meet their requirements and obligations under

section 55 without that due

consultation and cooperation from an Indigenous governing body.

I just want the minister to confirm that.

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

Hon. B. Ma: The simple answer to the member's question is yes, provided the local authorities

made reasonable efforts to consult and cooperate with Indigenous governing bodies

under

section 55 and that they continue to incorporate Indigenous knowledge if available

and consider the rights of Indigenous peoples on whose behalf the Indigenous governing

body acts on. It is technically correct, provided they have attempted those, that

they would not be in non-compliance with the act.

That being said, I would say that, certainly, we would encourage local authorities

who were having difficulties with their relationships with local Indigenous governing

bodies and access and difficulties with communication there that they should reach

out to EMCR. We would do our utmost to try to facilitate development of that relationship,

which we believe is incredibly important in the context of emergency management and

incredibly important to ensure that emergency management response is well coordinated.

The last piece I will add is that there is a bit of a backstop that is built into

the legislation. I'll reference subsection 41(3), which is, effectively, that if a

local authority were unsuccessful in reaching agreement respecting areas to be described

in their plans for the purposes of

section 120, the province still has an obligation

to attempt to reach that agreement. If the local authority did not reach agreement,

the province would attempt to reach that agreement. When agreement was reached, it

could also serve as agreement for the local authority as well. There is a bit of a

backstop built into the act in that way.

M. Lee: Just before…. I think it's good to understand the so-called backstop that the minister

referred to under subsection 41(3), but in the minister's response, I want to clarify….

The minister used the words "reasonable efforts." I do not see that qualifying language

in 55(1)(a), which is where we're focusing on the requirement that local authorities

have to consult and cooperate.

I see reasonable efforts used in this provision in sub (

e) when it comes to reaching

an agreement, respecting an area for the purposes of

section 120, which does refer

to another page and a half of consultation and cooperation provisions to deal with

specific actions. But can the minister clarify where she's reading in "reasonable

efforts" to qualify the requirement on local authorities to ensure consultation and

cooperation with Indigenous governing bodies?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The member is correct. The phrase "reasonable efforts" does not show up in subsection

55(1)(a). Those are my words in response to the example that he was giving to describe

what good-faith actions and a good-faith attempt to consult and cooperate might look

like.

That being said, we do expect to provide, in our guidance documents, which are being

developed for this, guidelines or guidance for local authorities on how they can achieve

their obligations under this act and under this section.

It is important to note that a local authority cannot, I guess, absolve themselves

of the obligation to consult and cooperate simply by sending a single email and then

saying: "Well, we didn't get a response, and now we give up." I mean, there does need

to be a good-faith, honest attempt to share information, to reach out and to develop

relationships in order for the important work of making First Nations equal partners

in emergency management work.

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister's response and how the minister is sharing what is likely

going to shape the guidance that's going to be provided to local authorities. That

does invite the question I was going to ask further.

When we talk about consult and cooperate in the lead-in to 55 sub (a)…. What standard

is the ministry expecting from local authorities when it comes to consultation? Is

it the standard that one would find, of course, in the seminal decision in Haida?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Not necessarily. I would say that the requirements or the standard would be context

specific. Certainly, this is a specific legislated obligation; the legislation itself

sets out what is required. For instance, it notes:

"(

b) consider (

i) any comments received from the Nisga'a Nation, a treaty first nation

or an Indigenous governing body…." Consider "(ii) the rights of the Indigenous peoples

on whose behalf the Nisga'a Nation, treaty first nation or Indigenous governing body

referred to in subparagraph (

i) acts;

"(

c) incorporate into the risk assessment or emergency management plan Indigenous

knowledge, if available;

"(

d) in the case of an emergency management plan, coordinate the plan with the plans,

if any, of the Nisga'a Nation or a treaty first nation or an Indigenous governing

body consulted in accordance with" the previous paragraph "to ensure that the plans

can be implemented, and emergency measures taken under them, in an integrated manner."

It is very context specific, but we also lay out, in

section 55, what the expectations

are.

M. Lee: That's a helpful clarification from the minister. It explains, of course, why these

sections relating to consultation and cooperation, including

section 41 — the minister

mentioned

section 55,

section 90,

section 120 of the bill, all dealing with consultation

and cooperation with First Nations, or engagement, in the case of

section 90 to come

— are spelled out in a certain manner.

I think it's an important context to understand, with the relationship with First

Nations. When government is passing legislation, we have a clear understanding as

to what the legislation means in the context of the relationship and partnership with

First Nations in our province.

As we saw recently with the Gitxaała and Ehattesaht challenge to the Mineral Tenure

Act, based on specific provisions of DRIPA…. The government took the view that DRIPA

is illustrative and that it is forward-looking. That is now under appeal. At least,

the Gitxaała Nation has filed a notice of appeal.

When we're talking about consultation here, in this bill, keeping in mind the example

I just gave…. This is why, at committee stage, it's important to have a clear understanding

from government on the record. Even when we went through DRIPA, over five days of

committee review, until…. There were concerns expressed, let's say, about the length

of the review we were taking. It's important to understand from the beginning so that

there are not further misunderstandings, as we continue to see, even in the Mineral

Tenure Act, how DRIPA applies to the Mineral Tenure Act.

Here, when we're talking about consultation and cooperation…. The minister has said

now, on the record, that it is not the duty to consult level of standard as expressed

in the 2004 Haida Supreme Court of Canada decision.

[3:10 p.m.]

I just want the minister to be clear on the point that First Nations or Indigenous

governing bodies, as they're looking for the level of consultation and cooperation,

as layered through this Bill 31…. The requirement is not on local authorities and

critical infrastructure owners, for example, alongside of lead ministers and public

sector agencies, to have the level of standard of consultation with First Nations,

Indigenous governing bodies, as referred to here, and the level that's contemplated

under Haida.

The level, actually, is prescriptive and is spelled out in the legislation itself.

Whatever the courts have decided around consultation and — we didn't get to this yet

— accommodation, the standard is what is explicitly set out in the bill itself and

not what could be viewed as the higher standards set out in Haida.

To the minister, can I just ask her to confirm my understanding is correct?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: To be clear, the Haida case law does not necessarily have direct application to the

EDMA, but it does not mean that the case law doesn't offer useful guidance on how

consultation and cooperation can be achieved. However [audio interrupted] applying

the Haida case to this requirement of the EDMA under

section 55. The EDMA sets out

that consultation and cooperation must include the actions set out in sub 55(1)(b),

(c), (

d) and (e).

[3:20 p.m.]

However, it's also worth noting that the purpose of the legislation is to achieve

good risk assessments and emergency management plans that take into account the realities

of the shared management space that is emergency management.

We also do need to acknowledge that every nation will be different in how they participate

in consultation and cooperation in the emergency management context based on their

own experiences, particularly through recent years. So we will be developing guidance

documents to support local authorities in navigating their consultation and cooperation

obligations under this act.

M. Lee: Just while we're clarifying the likely framework of the guidance, can I ask if the

minister and the team at the ministry see, as well, that there are any specific requirements

under DRIPA that would apply here, in terms of how consultation and cooperation should

be met or conducted?

Hon. B. Ma: The consultation and cooperation requirement was included to help achieve alignment

of the EDMA with the Declaration Act, in general.

But if the member has any clauses under the Declaration Act that he wanted to explore

further, we'd be happy to do so, in the context of this legislation, of course.

[3:25 p.m.]

M. Lee: I can ask the question this way. Does the minister agree with the government's position,

which was effectively tabled in the Gitxaała Ehattesaht challenge to the Mineral Tenure

Act, that DRIPA is for illustrative purposes only and is not, as the court found,

providing for any specific, separate legal right that can be authorized by the court?

Hon. B. Ma: I believe that the litigation the member is referring to is still active and will

be put before the court, so it's not something that I can comment on here. But we

would be happy to take another question on

section 55 of the EDMA if the member has

any.

M. Lee: Is it expected by the minister that when the guidance is formulated for the purpose

of guiding local authorities as to how they need to consult and cooperate with Indigenous

governing bodies under Bill 31, specific provisions or articles of DRIPA will form

part of that guidance?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The guidance document will provide advice to regulated entities on the implementation

of consultation and cooperation obligations under the EDMA. It's really more of an

operational document for practitioners rather than a legal or academic text.

Hopefully, that provides some clarification on what the guidance document will look

like.

M. Lee: I think it demonstrates, the minister's responses, that it's unclear what the guidance

is going to look like, in terms of the obligations that were set out under DRIPA.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that in the circumstances we find ourselves for

the last 18 months, under Mineral Tenure Act review under the DRIPA action plan….

The next 18 months are contemplated by that court decision. It's just, by way of example,

when we're talking about land-based considerations for First Nations in this province,

that there's a real lack of clarity here.

The fact that the minister is not prepared to answer questions relating to how DRIPA

may apply or not apply to this bill and the test around consultation and cooperation

and what is required of a local authority or critical infrastructure owner is clearly

very concerning, because it results in a situation where, with First Nations in our

province, we may find ourselves again in the courts.

We need to be clear. This government needs to be clear when we're talking about legislation

that affects the relationship that we have with First Nations — the expectations that

were set under DRIPA. When they're not clear, we end up in the courts. The government's

position was very clear in 2019 when DRIPA was passed, yet in the dealings with First

Nations, in the relationship with First Nations, government has been less and less

clear. That's why we end up in the courts.

I will note my concern about these consultation and cooperation provisions. We've

talked about

section 41,

section 55. We can talk about

section 90, to come, and

section

[3:35 p.m.]

When we go to

section 120, because it is referred to in this sub-subclause, 55(1)(e),

it does make the reference to reasonable efforts. So here we do have the term "reasonable

efforts" to qualify what is required by a local authority to reach agreement "respecting

areas described in the plan for the purposes of

section 120…with each Indigenous governing

body that acts on behalf of Indigenous peoples whose traditional territory or treaty

area includes an area that is within the jurisdiction of the local authority."

That's for the purpose of

section 120, which is a cross-reference to another two pages

and a half of legislative provisions around consultation, engagement and cooperation

with Indigenous peoples.

So we have clause 55, which now refers us to clause 120. We have what the minister

has referred to as operational guidance that is to come to local authorities.

I'm very challenged. I don't know how government explains any of this to a First Nation

or a local authority as to what is happening here. What is the expectation on consultation

and cooperation? That guidance, that detail is not here.

The minister does refer to specific provisions that talk about comments received and

what happens when you receive a comment and what's supposed to happen with a comment.

You're supposed to consider it.

Haida doesn't go to that level. Well, you can just receive the comment. You can just

consider it. Doesn't matter from there.

I would suggest to the minister that that's not the kind of expectation and standard

that is set in Haida . I think we need to be clear with First Nations as to what the level is. There is

a real lack of clarity here.

When we talk about reasonable efforts, again, to be exercised by the local authority,

the local authority needs to make reasonable efforts. In the context of this provision

and

section 120 to come, which…. Again, for the construction of this bill, we have

this bill which is very complex in nature referring to other provisions inside an

already complex provision in clause 55.

With respect to the members who are sitting around this committee table, I am only

engaged in a discussion around the technical nature of this bill. If there are members

at this committee table who find this tedious, the fact of the matter is that when

you're talking about emergency management and risk assessment, we need to be clear

because it needs to work.

I question how workable this is with First Nations. That's my concern. So the minister

needs to answer these questions, and they haven't been wholly satisfactory to date.

Let me ask: what is the test here about reasonable efforts? How will the ministry

determine whether a local authority has made reasonable efforts to reach an agreement

with respect to a specific action contemplated under

section 120?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I appreciate the member's feedback about being dissatisfied with my answers, and perhaps

part of the challenge is that I'm not understanding the member's questions clearly

enough. For instance, the member referred to the application of the Declaration Act

to the EDMA. I had explained that the EDMA includes consultation and cooperation provisions

in order to align the legislation to the Declaration Act and that the guidance documents

would provide some operational guidance to local authorities as to how to navigate

their obligations there.

The member then asked how clauses of the Declaration Act would be incorporated into

the guidance document. But the Declaration Act is not a prescriptive or operational

document. So it's possible that I'm simply not understanding the member's question.

I had responded in that way, that the guidance document would be much more operational

rather than, I guess, more legal or academic.

So perhaps if there are clauses in the Declaration Act that the member is thinking

should be incorporated into the guidance document, I'd be happy to receive that specific

feedback, and maybe it would help my understanding of where the question is intended

to go.

[3:45 p.m.]

The latter part of the member's last question was about the test about reasonable

efforts. So I would say reasonable efforts is very context-specific. It's not specifically

defined in the EDMA, so it does carry its ordinary meaning.

In terms of efforts to reach agreement with nations, I mean, certainly, nations would

have to talk with and work with local governments about what taking reasonable efforts

to reach agreement looks like for them. I would say that so long as there is open

dialogue and communication, there's an ongoing effort to attempt to reach that agreement.

M. Lee: The minister wants clarity on my question with respect to DRIPA. The minister, on

the first day of committee, made reference to specific articles of DRIPA. I would

suggest to the minister and her team around her, that in looking at what specific

provisions…. The minister has answered this question on the first day of committee,

when asked the question: which provisions of DRIPA, in particular, is Bill 31 speaking

to?

That, for example, as the minister has also incorporated in some of her responses,

relates to

article 3. "Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By

virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue

their economic, social and cultural development."

Article 4 relates to Indigenous peoples, in exercising the right to self-determination

of the right to autonomy or self-governing matters relating to internal and local

affairs, as well as a way and means for financing their autonomous functions.

There are two examples of specific articles in DRIPA, which my recollection is the

minister would have cited at the outset of this bill review. All I'm asking is confirmation

from the minister as to whether or not the specific articles of UNDRIP attached to

DRIPA, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, will be forming any

basis for the guidance that is to come — again, guidance that we don't have here.

Again, the minister has said that the duty to consult and cooperate is not at the

level of the duty to consult and accommodate under the Haida decision. It's spelled

out in the act. That just leads to the question: what else…? If it's not spelled out

in the act, what else will come in the guidance?

Again, does the minister agree with the government's position, and I'm asking for

confirmation, that this continues to be the approach of this government that DRIPA

and the articles of DRIPA are illustrative only? That's what the Minister of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation, the former minister, said back in 2019.

I'm asking the minister again. Does she agree that DRIPA continues and the articles

of DRIPA continue to be illustrative only, and will any articles of DRIPA, the UN

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, form any specific references within

the guidance to come?

Hon. B. Ma: I appreciate the member providing a bit more clarity as to where he was headed with

the questions and the articles that he's referring to.

It is the case that in the beginning of earlier stages of committee stage, I had cited

several articles under the Declaration Act and the UN declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples that informed the development of the EDMA in order to bring our

emergency management approach in British Columbia in alignment with the Declaration

Act.

The member's question is around guidance documents though. Guidance documents are

very operational. They provide guidance to local governments as to how they actually

achieve their consultation and cooperation requirements.

[3:50 p.m.]

We have the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples that has informed the

development of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act that was passed

here in British Columbia. That has informed the development of the EDMA in order for

us to bring our emergency management approach into alignment.

The member, also, in observing the way that

section 55 was written, rightly noted

that it does not provide operational guidance that might be needed and required —

what it actually means to achieve the consultation and cooperation requirements as

they're actually implementing it. So the guidance document provides some implementation

guidance from it.

It all flows…. The guidance document flows from the EDMA, which flows from our obligations

under the Declaration Act, which is informed by the UN declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples.

If the member's recommendation is that we cite specific articles in our guidance document

in order to draw regulated entities' attention to the fundamental purpose of the work

that they're doing under that guidance document, I think that's good feedback. We're

happy to take that back.

M. Lee: The response of the minister, up until the last reference to inclusion of specific

articles of UNDRIP in the guidance, is, I think, demonstrating that this minister

and government have a somewhat consistent understanding as to their position in respect

of DRIPA and the application to legislation, including legislation they are tabling

in this House, going forward.

To be clear, I have been asking questions about the government's approach and position.

I'm not in a position to make recommendations to government as to how they should

set out in the guidelines because I'm not involved with the ministry that is responsible

for this bill. All I'm asking for is clarity on the government's approach and position.

By no means do I want the minister to take anything I'm saying in my questions to

be suggestions or recommendations.

Having said all that, I wanted to just turn now to subclause 55(2). The minister did

make reference, by way of example, to subclause 41(3) as a backstop — those were the

minister's words — in terms of emergency management plans. Here, in sub 41(3), it

makes reference to the provincial administrator who enters into an agreement with

an Indigenous governing body — that that would be provided to the local authority

with the description of the area that that agreement is specified and pertains to.

The equivalent provision in sub 55(2) is not the same provision, I would observe.

It refers to the local authority. If the local authority enters into an agreement,

then the local authority provides it to the provincial administrator. It's the mirror

image, let's say, of what's set out in sub 41(3).

When the minister suggests that sub 41(3) is a backstop, it is only pertaining, on

my quick read, to an emergency management plan, and not to risk assessments. So part

one of this question is: is there a backstop for risk assessments under clause 55,

in the same way that the minister is suggesting sub 41(3) is a backstop for risk assessments?

[3:55 p.m.]

Secondly, why is the provision in subclause 55(2) written this way? Is it intended

to be…? There is no backstop there. There is no provincial administrator intervention,

let's say, because they have an agreement with an Indigenous governing body, so why

isn't there a specific backstop written the other way, in the same way that sub 41(3)

is set out?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The backstop I had referenced is really specifically about subsection 55(1)(e). It

references that the purposes of these agreements respecting areas to be described

in the plan are relevant to

section 120. I know that we're a bit away from 120. We

can certainly talk about 120 in more detail when we get there, but for now, I'll provide

some general context for the purposes of

section

Section 120 will basically discuss how these agreements are important in terms of

response and recovery actions. While I would say that response and recovery actions

can really directly impact Indigenous lands in real time in a way that plans and risk

assessments may not, it is important that we are planning and preparing risk assessments

as fulsomely as possible. But there may not be an immediate impact in the same way

as in response and recovery phases during an actual emergency. So consultation and

cooperation, under

section 120, are engaged.

In order for

section 120 to be properly engaged, there would be either an agreement

with the local authority under subsection 55(1)(

e) or with the province under subsection

41(3). Then that would generate an agreement that describes basically who in what

area would need to be consulted with and cooperated with during response and recovery.

That's during an actual emergency and in the recovery phase, as well, following an

actual emergency.

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister's response. In terms of subclause 41(3) — because it relates

to subclause 55(1)(e), which also relates to clause 120 of the bill — we have three

clauses, then, that the minister is relating in response to this area of discussion,

but only clause 120 is referred to in this clause 55.

So for clarity purposes for this bill — for anyone trying to make sense and to understand

the obligations and the flow of the consultation and cooperation, the agreements that

are entered into in respect to emergency management plans — at a minimum, does the

minister not see the need to have the bill, in subclause 55(1)(e), make specific reference

to this backstop in subclause 41(3)?

The Chair: Members, we'll keep that question.

Minister, you can keep that question in mind, but the committee will take a short

recess.

We'll be back at 4:20, Members.

The committee recessed from 4:05 p.m. to 4:21 p.m.

[F. Donnelly in the chair.]

The Chair: All right. We'll call the meeting back to order. This is just my practice run after

we're back here.

We had the question. Minister, do you need…? You're ready to go. Look at that.

Hon. B. Ma: What we've been referring to as the backstop — just to be clear, it's not in the EDMA

but rather my words — it's articulated in

section 120(2)(b)(iii). In

section 120(2)(b)(iii),

it references sections 55(1)(

e) and

section 39(1)(b).

Section 41(3), which is the

section that I referred to earlier, is about information-sharing with the local authority

about the agreement we have reached with Indigenous governing bodies about an area

within the jurisdiction of a local authority.

That would be developed in the context of the province developing emergency management

plans under

section 39(1)(b), so that's the connection there. That's what effectively

forms that backstop that supports local authorities in cases where a local agreement

cannot be reached under

section 55(1)(e).

M. Lee: The way this bill is constructed, then, is that it's referring in clause 55 to clause

120, which then takes the reader of this bill into clause 120 to look for a reference

back to clause 39 — is what the minister is indicating.

When we get to clause 39, it does make one reference to clause 41(1)(d). So we get

close to clause 41(3). Okay. I can see that once you get to clause 39, on a quick

read…. But it does suggest, though, in terms of how clause 55 is operating….

[4:25 p.m.]

It's an indirect reference, I guess, just to say the least, because you have to go

to 120 in order to figure out that you've got to go back to clause 39, which takes

you to clause 41.

There are about three steps there to get to a qualification as to what happens in

the case where you, meaning the local authority, do not reach an agreement — that

the local authority may still be subject to the agreement that the provincial administrator

entered into with the Indigenous governing body as it pertains to an emergency management

plan.

That, I would suggest to the minister, is convoluted at best and hard to address.

But I'm sure that the guidance document will have to explain in a roadmap how these

sections are all connected together. Perhaps that is something that's already being

considered.

Back, though, in terms of sub 55(2) — why is there not an equivalent? I appreciate,

again, this is not statutory language. It's not in the bill, for sure. But the way

that the minister is conceptualizing the bill by using the term "backstop," which

I do appreciate and understand — why is there no backstop provision to subclause 55(1)(ii),

when it relates to what's contemplated here?

Hon. B. Ma: I'm wondering whether the member might be able to repeat or rephrase his question,

because sub 55(2) simply references sub 55(1)(e), which is the clause that we had

just discussed in the previous question. I'm wondering if maybe the reference to the

clause was misspoken or if you could maybe rephrase this question.

M. Lee: Maybe I can just ask the question this way, then. What's the purpose of subclause

55(2)?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Subsection 55(2) is, effectively, an information-sharing clause that allows for the

provincial administrator to use the same agreed-upon area that was achieved by the

local authority for the province's purposes as well. If a local authority reaches

an agreement on an agreed-upon area with the Indigenous governing body, the province

can be notified and use that same area.

Clause 55 approved.

The Chair: Members, clause 56 has already passed last week, so we're going to move on to clause

Clause 57 approved.

On clause 58.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for the opportunity to spend this time together, Minister. I do appreciate

it. I appreciate the time that we've been granted to ask questions here today.

Under clause 58, the very first statement and sentence is: "The minister may, by order,

require a person who is not a regulated entity to provide to the provincial administrator

or a lead minister any of the information referred to in

section 56 (2)."

I just want to get clarity as to who this might be referring to.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair.

To the member's question, it could be anybody really. It could be an individual person.

For greater clarity, the order would be, under the circumstances laid out under subsection

(3): The person engages in an activity that is or may create a hazard, the person

uses a process or property in a manner that is or may create a hazard, a condition

that is or may create a hazard exists or may exist on land that the person owns or

occupies, or the person provides or may be able to provide emergency resources or

the use of land.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for that, Minister.

That's exactly why I was asking the question. I'm trying to better understand…. We

had much debate and many queries, under

definitions, with respect to critical infrastructure

and other things. I guess this really comes back to that.

[4:35 p.m.]

I'm trying to get a better understanding of what those determinations around those

items might be. The typical definition of "a person," which we've been speaking about

for a few days now, actually, in this case, may refer to a person: just one single

human being. The person, as you know — we've discussed that at great length — would

be an entity or whatever.

So in this case, might a rancher, for instance, under the category of 3, fall under

this law and be in a position to be actually forced to produce the things that that

are being referred to in clause 2, which are the risk assessment, implement an emergency

plan, maintain a business continuity plan? I want to just clearly understand that

that might be asked of a rancher.

Hon. B. Ma: This

section can apply to any person, including a rancher. I do want to acknowledge

that it is a significant measure. It provides government with an important tool in

cases where a significant risk to public safety may occur without action.

Like in previous sections, where we've canvassed the use of orders…. Orders are really

a last resort. We would certainly seek to achieve voluntary compliance or voluntary

measures prior to using that. Orders are really a hammer that you use when you don't

have any other options left.

L. Doerkson: Yeah, I agree. I worry about the order portion of what might be lurking in this clause.

So I want to understand better: what might create a need for this clause to be enacted?

[4:40 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I appreciate the critic's questions on this. I agree that it's important for us to

think through and understand what these various provisions will allow and why the

Emergency and Disaster Management Act, like the Emergency Program Act, like other

emergency acts, are powerful legislative tools. I think it's right and appropriate

for us to be canvassing these questions, so I want to thank the critic for doing so.

I was working with the team to try to come up with some examples of where we might

use this, and it took a little while, largely because we anticipate the use of this

provision to be, like I said earlier, only when necessary. Usually the approach, prior

to considering emergency orders, would be to explore what other legislative tools

already exist. For a lot of scenarios that might fall under subsection 58(3), there

are likely other legislative tools, other legislative compliance measures that we

can pursue, in addition to voluntary compliance before an order needs to be issued.

That being said, we did come up with a real-life example. Earlier this summer, there

was a significant party. It was a non-permitted party, a rave in a regional district

that had somewhere between 500 to 1,000 people in attendance. Because it was a non-permitted

party, the organizers did not have an emergency plan, and that area actually went

under evacuation order during the wildfire season. Working with the regional district,

EMCR had to go in to evacuate the party and brought in buses in case of intoxicated

patrons that might not be able to drive out on their own.

Now, we don't have to rehash exactly what happened during that evacuation, but suffice

it to say, it was a significant number of people to be at a non-permitted event and

to not have an emergency plan. This clause could have allowed us, in recognizing that

they were planning to have this party, to actually order them to prepare, maintain

and implement an emergency management plan.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister, for that definition.

I'll take it maybe just one step a little bit further, because I can appreciate in

that circumstance exactly why the minister may require some of these things to be

done. Might this clause affect individuals that perhaps have logging residue and those

types of things on their private property or potentially overgrazed rangeland or private

property that might pose some other risk during drought? Might those two examples

have this clause enacted?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I think that the use of this power would certainly be very context specific. That

being said, it is possible for this power to be used in the scenario that the critic

has described, although it is more likely if the property posed a fire risk or a risk

to the broader public than if it only posed a risk to the property itself. The intention

really is about protecting the broader public and managing public risk.

Also, I think it's worth to keep in mind that this

section wouldn't allow an order

to force a specific action on the property but only require the entity to do one or

more of the following under subsection 58(2). So that's: "(

a) prepare and maintain

a risk assessment; (

b) prepare, maintain and implement an emergency management plan;

(

c) prepare and maintain a business continuity plan." It could require a property

owner to do that.

L. Doerkson: The minister anticipated my next question, which is…. I can appreciate that the ministry

may require one of those three items, but in those three items, it may, obviously,

get a little bit more complex as to what the ministry may expect.

The reason why I asked about, for instance, logging on private property, or residue,

is because that could actually create two different changes on the landscape that

may affect other people with respect to either wildfire risk or potentially any kind

of hydrology risk as well. I guess, then, my question is: what might be included in

that risk assessment in either of those two examples?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Under subsection 4, it notes that: "If the minister makes an order under this section,

the minister may include in the order a requirement that a person comply with one

or more provisions, with or without modifications, of this Part or a regulation made

in relation to this Part, as if the person were a regulated entity."

Effectively, we would be able to issue an order that treated this — it could be an

individual, could also be a group, or so forth — person, in the definition of a person,

as though it were a regulated entity.

It also allows for some modifications to be written out in the order itself, if needed.

L. Doerkson: I noted the minister's definition there — "person" yet again. I am enjoying the frustration

also, Minister, or perhaps a laugh or two about that definition. But in this case,

we're clear. We know that we're talking about pretty much everybody on the landscape.

With respect to what might be in an order from the ministry…. The reason that I went

to logging is that I do know that many people will buy private property to take some

logs, generate some revenue and that that type of thing. My fear is that when we get

into things like hydrology reports and those types of things that might be asked of

the person, whoever that might be, some of those are very expensive.

We did talk a little bit about potential funding opportunities for other people that

would fit under this category of a person. Certainly there might be funding opportunities

for local authorities and those types of things. Would the minister suggest, or has

the ministry contemplated at all, funding that might be available for individuals,

specifically, in this case?

We've already talked about local authorities, and I think we've talked quite a bit

about regulated entities. But Average Joe — would there be any funding or any help

financially to navigate some of those challenging circumstances with serious expense

attached to them?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The EDMA doesn't speak to compensation or funding one way or another.

I think it would be fair to say that contemplating funding of any kind, under this

context, would be very context specific. By the time we actually reached a point of

using this kind of order on a non-regulated entity, it would likely indicate that

attempts to reach voluntary compliance have failed and that there are significant

risks to the public that are not being managed by the property owner.

We would need to be careful not to create an incentive for non-compliance in the hopes

that funding would be attached to an order. So I can't commit to that here. But certainly

what we can say is that all of this would be very context-specific and dependent on

the situation that we were facing.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. Maybe one or two last questions on this clause. The last one

is: who will actually carry out the enforcement? How will you arrive at that point?

Once you've determined there's some sort of an infraction on the landscape, how will

that proceed from that point?

Hon. B. Ma: The member asked a question in two different ways, and I'll try to answer it in two

different ways. One was about enforcement measures for contraventions under

section

58, and another was around how this would come about.

[5:05 p.m.]

Starting with the latter, operationally, I think at the early stages, it would likely

begin as conversations from a regional EMCR staff member — somebody approaching the

persons to discuss the challenges and initiate that conversation.

If the situation progressed to the point where an order was actually issued and we

were still seeing non-compliance, in order for enforcement measures to be put in place….

So that's the scenario for the next part of my answer, which is that the EDMA itself

does not automatically set out enforcement measures for contraventions under

section

58. Following passing the EDMA, a regulation would need to be created to set out contraventions

under

section 58, and it could make enforcement measures such as administrative monetary

penalties available.

But that ability does not currently…. There are not enforcement provisions currently

set out in the EDMA for

section 58. We would have to create a regulation to enable

them.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister, for answering both of those questions.

Again, you've anticipated, maybe, my final question on this section. I do know that

under section, I think, 153 or so, there are some fairly significant compliance fines

and even jail terms and such. I'm wondering what's been contemplated here. Now, I

can appreciate that that's regulation, but I suppose the minister has sort of explained

that this would not be for small infractions. This is something that has gone well

beyond asking, and now the ministry is going to tell.

I just wonder if the minister could give me any direction on what might be anticipated

here with respect to fines or compliance charges?

Hon. B. Ma: For greater clarity, penalties like jail time are only available for offences, so

those laid out in

section 150. Non-compliance with

section 58 is not something that

could be charged as an offence, so jail time or penalties articulated in

section 153

would not apply to

section 58.

It is more likely to be an administrative monetary penalty, but I would say it's too

early to anticipate what amount those administrative monetary penalties would be at

this time, prior to regulatory development.

L. Doerkson: Just a question on, basically, what we heard documented with respect to this clause.

Is there a reason that it has been put into the act? Have regional districts or local

authorities pursued this, or what's the reason for this clause?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I think it's really about ensuring that we have, or that government has, the tools

available to address gaps in the broader legislative framework, especially where public

safety as a result of possible emergencies is involved.

Having

section 58 allows for government to ensure that possible or known hazards related

to a non-regulated entity can be considered and included in risk assessments, emergency

management plans and business continuity plans as appropriate.

Like, for instance, with the rave example. That was an example of where there was

a gap in the overlapping legislative frameworks that we were working with and an area

where a tool like this would have been very helpful in reducing the risks associated

to people during this year's wildfire season.

Clauses 58 and 59 approved.

On clause 60.

L.: Doerkson : Thanks, minister. I appreciate that.

With respect to clause 60, I'm just wondering how the ministry arrived at 28 days.

Hon. B. Ma: Currently the Emergency Program Act allows for provincial state of emergency extensions

of 14 days. An analysis was done looking at the lengths of previous provincial states

of emergency, and it indicated that states of provincial emergency are increasing

in time.

[5:15 p.m.]

Declarations of states provincial emergency have lasted for months, and that's largely

in response to increasing scope and scale of emergencies. By lengthening the provincial

state of emergency period from 14 days to 28 days, it allows for us to largely reduce

administrative burden. However, there did need to be consideration for balance and

a measure of moderation to ensure that there are appropriate — I would call them —

checks and balances on a declaration of the state of emergency.

I think that it is appropriate for government to continuously and regularly assess

whether a provincial state of emergency is necessary or appropriate to continue on,

given the extraordinary powers that a provincial state of emergency can unlock. Government

has to be very prudent and only use provincial states of emergency when they really

need to. That's where the length was increased from 14 days to 28 days.

L. Doerkson: Thank you very much, Minister.

I just wanted to better understand, too, how this might play into local states of

emergency. I can appreciate the move toward less burden, particularly during what

might be a pretty dramatic time.

I'm asking specifically.... I know that the minister is very aware of what's happening

at Terra Ridge. This is an emergency that may stay in place for quite some time. I

just wanted to get a better understanding of why longer dates weren't picked — you

know, 60 days or…. Why wasn't that considered?

Hon. B. Ma: Sorry, I'm hoping the member might be able to clarify his question. Is the question

around local states of emergency and that timeline, which is covered in a different

section? Or is the question about provincial states of emergency and why renewal periods

were not considered for 60 days, rather than 28 days?

L. Doerkson: We could cover the local states when we get there, if the minister chooses. But just

in general terms, I wondered why, perhaps, longer timelines weren't considered.

I absolutely appreciate what the minister is saying with respect to the burden, certainly

during serious situations that may be developing and a definite desire not to be filling

out paperwork during those times. I'm just wondering why it wasn't 60 days for provincial

— why maybe it wasn't even longer than that, noting what has been happening in the

province.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Longer states of provincial emergency are beneficial from an administrative perspective.

But in the same way that a declaration of a provincial state of emergency must be

carefully considered and well justified, so does keeping a provincial state of emergency

active, because the tension on the other side is civil rights and liberties.

Provincial states of emergency allow the province to restrict the rights and freedoms

of individuals. So it's a very serious measure that grants government and, in particular,

the minister extraordinary powers. During a provincial state of emergency, and this

happened during this summer as well, additional powers and tools became available

to me as the minister to restrict travel through the province for the purposes of

staying in temporary accommodations.

Freedom of movement through the country…. Freedom of movement is considered an essential

right and freedom for Canadian citizens. One must ensure that the measures that they

put in place using these extraordinary powers are justifiable. As long as a provincial

state of emergency is activated, it grants the minister those kinds of powers. So

it's very, very important that provincial states of emergency are implemented and

last for only as long as absolutely necessary.

Now, that being said, the EDMA does introduce a new concept known as the recovery

period, which still allows for authorities to exercise some of those powers that would

have been available under a provincial state of emergency, or a state of emergency,

but outside that state of emergency — for instance, being able to keep people out

of accessing dangerous areas. That can be done through a recovery period under the

EDMA now. It does not necessarily require a state of emergency to maintain that restriction.

Clauses 60 and 61 approved.

On clause 62.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister, for the answer on that.

Similar questions under this clause. I worry that the 90 days that we're talking about

in this clause just are not adequate for so many situations, like Terra Ridge, like

Lytton, like all the ones that you and I have talked about both during this committee

and outside of this committee room.

I guess I want to get a better understanding of what the minister means by recovery

period in this and also get a better understanding of why 90 days in this case.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I think it would be valuable to provide a few contexts or clarifications for context,

one being that a community can be in a recovery phase without necessarily being in

a recovery period — so recognizing that recovery phases for a community can last years

and years.

A recovery period specifically speaks to a declaration of a recovery period that allows

for an authority — a local authority or the province, in this case — under

section

62 to access a subset of emergency powers. Just like there is a formal declaration

of a state of emergency, there can now be a formal declaration on a recovery period

that allows access to some of the extraordinary powers that would be available to

the province or the local authority under a state of emergency. Usually, the subset

of those powers are the ones that are most likely to be used during a recovery period.

That being said, the recovery period can be extended as many times as needed. So it

is not a single 90-day period. Every three months it can be renewed. I think that

renewal process is a prudent measure, as well, because it gives authorities and the

province a chance, a reminder really, to take stock of where things are at and to

ensure that those kinds of extraordinary powers that are available under the recovery

period are being used appropriately and not left for years and years without review.

In terms of where the 90 days came from, the recovery period that we have introduced

here in the EDMA came from a concept known as the transition period. It came out of

New Zealand. But the transition period that New Zealand had was 30 days. We have determined

that that was likely too short. So we have gone with 90 days for the B.C. context,

given what we've observed of recovery in communities so far.

The Chair: We're going to take a five-minute recess, if that's okay.

The committee recessed from 5:29 p.m. to 5:40 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: We'll call

Section C back to order.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Chair. I think we were waiting for some clarity, but perhaps…. The minister

had referred to the 90 days with respect to disasters, and I was trying to get, I

guess, a bit of a better understanding about places like Terra Ridge. That's the one

that you and I both know. Hopefully, it's all right if I use that one. That is clearly

not a disaster that's going to go away over the next 90 days.

I can appreciate that there are things like ESS and those types of things that will

need to be used, but even in that situation, I would assume that that recovery period

could go on for a very long time. Again, I just wanted to get a better understanding

of why we wouldn't have extended periods for something like that.

Hon. B. Ma: In cases where an emergency or a recovery period is particularly extended, those periods

can be renewed. I think it's important — for the reasons that I explained earlier,

about the tension with civil liberties, civil rights and the rights and freedoms of

individuals — that the use of states of emergency and even recovery periods, because

they do provide access to a subset of extraordinary powers that are provided to authorities

under a state of emergency, are used only as necessary.

While there are cases that may call for longer states of emergency and recovery periods,

the regular renewal of those periods allows for those states to be extended.

L. Doerkson: One last question on this, Minister, just with respect to…. I think you mentioned

special powers. We've talked a little bit about that under declaration of provincial

emergencies and such. Under this category, could you give me an example of some of

the special powers that the ministry might have?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: For greater clarity, the powers during a provincial recovery period are powers of

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. They're cabinet powers as opposed to powers that

I as minister am able to sign off on my own. They do require cabinet approval.

It allows for orders to be made under

section 75, which is essential matters; 76,

land and other property; 78, general restrictions. It also allows regulations to be

made under

section 83, modifying enactments and authorizations;

section 84, modifying

time periods;

section 86, enforcement of modified enactments and authorizations.

By way of providing an example, it could include continuing the use or control of

land for the purposes of staging or storing emergency resources or continuing to restrict

travel on highways that are damaged by an emergency that now require repairs.

There's also a particular power…. There's reference in

section 89 — I know we'll get

there, but I'll pull it up for the purposes of this conversation — which is an additional

recovery power, which is, by regulation, prohibiting " the entry into any structure

or onto any land, by any person and for any purpose related to (

a) protecting the

health, safety or well-being of persons, or the safety of property or of objects or

sites of heritage value, or (

b) taking emergency measures to recover from the emergency."

Basically, if there's a property that is deemed unsafe for entry, then the recovery

powers would also allow that.

Clauses 62 to 64 inclusive approved.

On clause 65.

L. Doerkson: Under 65, is a person include…. Everything that we've talked about, including a person.

I struggle with this, and I know the minister has too.

In this clause, we're talking about, potentially, regulated entities, local authorities,

etc. But could this also refer to just one individual?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I don't want to be too cute about my answer, but technically the word "person" could

apply more broadly. However, under this division, which is division 3, "General Powers

and Duties," that runs between sections 65 to 70, only certain persons are granted

powers and duties. That's the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the minister and provincial

administrator.

Even if you were to apply "person" more broadly, if you read the other sections of

this division, they're not provided any duties or powers under this division. We're

really talking about the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the minister and provincial

administrator.

L. Doerkson: I appreciate that answer, Minister.

With the way we've been discussing and using the term "person" throughout this bill,

to me, this is very confusing. If it's suggesting that, frankly, it should probably

say that. In this case, it says: "must perform a duty." Could I get clarity as to

what that means with respect to "must perform"? I just need clarity on what that term

means.

Hon. B. Ma: The clause says: "A person may exercise a power and must perform a duty under this

Division whether or not a declaration of a state of provincial emergency or a declaration

of a state of local emergency has been made." The clause is saying that regardless

of whether a formal declaration of an emergency is made, the next several sections

apply. Those are sections 65 through to 70.

As an example, under

section 66, it reads: "Before taking any action for the purpose

of responding to or recovering from an emergency, the minister must consider the comprehensive

emergency management plan and any applicable emergency management plans prepared by

the provincial administrator." In this case,

section 66 applies a duty on the minister

that the minister must consider the comprehensive emergency management plan.

What

section 65 says is that that duty of the minister, under

section 66, applies

whether or not a provincial emergency or a state of local emergency has been declared.

In sections 66, 67, 68, 69 and 70, it outlines what person we're talking about and

what duties and what powers apply to them.

Clause 65 approved.

On clause 66.

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

I guess, just the way that we've…. I can appreciate exactly what the minister is saying,

but it is certainly confusing, particularly with the conversation that we've had around

that term.

So under 66 — when it does say, "Before taking any action for the purpose of responding

to or recovering from…" and, of course, the rest of the clause — I wanted to understand

better what sort of timelines we might be looking at here and get a better understanding.

We've talked a little bit about risk assessments and different things that might have

to be created during what might be a stressful time. I just want to get a better understanding

of what this clause intends.

Hon. B. Ma: The way I see

section 66 is that it gives relevance to the comprehensive emergency

management plan. It is not a plan that simply gets put together and sits on a shelf.

It is something that the minister must take into account, by considering prior to

taking action, during the response or recovery phases of an emergency.

[5:55 p.m.]

It gives the comprehensive emergency management plan relevance and importance in the

actual response to and recovery from an emergency.

L. Doerkson: Is this referring just to the provincial plan?

Hon. B. Ma: Yes, correct, the emergency management plan being defined as the provincial plan that

is compiled, keeping in mind that the minister is responsible for provincial actions

on emergencies. Local authorities are responsible for their actions at a local level

and the duties of a local authority.

Maybe that was a longer answer than required. The answer is yes.

L. Doerkson: I can appreciate it. I want to just explain to the minister where I'm going on this.

One of the debates is around fire, whether it's being managed or whether it's being

put out and those types of things. I do know that there are events, obviously — I

mean, we've discussed that quite a bit — that may not exist yet, things that we haven't

contemplated and those types of emergencies that may actually just sneak up on us.

I mean, we've discussed that with respect to security threats and other items. I'm

just wondering, if that doesn't exist, then what does this clause entail, as far as

a response from the province?

Hon. B. Ma: I heard the member's question in two different ways, and I'll try to answer both ways,

hoping that I've got one of them right.

One way that I heard the question was: what is the provincial government's obligation

if there is not a comprehensive emergency management plan created yet under the EDMA?

The answer is that under the transition provisions of the EDMA, the current plans

we have would carry through until a refreshed comprehensive emergency management plan

was developed.

The other way I heard the question was let's say we have this comprehensive emergency

management plan, and the minister refers to it during an emergency, and the particular

hazard that is happening was not contemplated. There is no

section of the comprehensive

emergency management plan that applies to this hazard — let's say, an alien invasion.

We weren't anticipating it, and we don't have a plan for it.

In that case, certainly, we would have to do the best we could do under the circumstances,

but there's also a provincial all-hazards plan that would inform a substantial element

of our provincial response, regardless of the hazard that was taking place.

There are, I guess, foundational plans that the province could lean back on, but certainly,

emergencies being very context-specific, there will have to be a lot of response work

on the fly, as well, if the hazard or the emergency were truly unanticipated.

[6:00 p.m.]

L. Doerkson: Just a quick comment. I enjoyed the comment about the aliens. I did want to say to

the minister…. We did discuss, in very serious terms, the fact that we were caught

off guard with things like heat domes and atmospheric rivers.

While I can appreciate the minister's comment about aliens, there are certainly things

out there that we may not even know to be prepared for, right? I mean, the damage

that we saw with respect to the atmospheric river…. It's still just shocking to me

when I drive over Jackass Mountain and other areas in the province. We're still under

that challenge.

Anyhow, I did appreciate the comment. No more questions on that.

Clauses 66 and 67 approved.

On clause 68.

L. Doerkson: Minister, I want to understand here.

The minister may make orders under this

section — we have talked a little bit about

this, but I do want to get, maybe, final clarity on this — against a regulated entity

other than a government minister and the Nis g a'a Nation.

The reason that I'm asking about this is…. Back in question 55, I thought I heard

you make a comment that, potentially, First Nations may not be necessarily affected

by these types of orders. You may not be able to levy these types of orders against

First Nations. I see the distinction for the Nis g a'a Nation, of course, and I understand why that is.

How are First Nations affected by this clause?

Hon. B. Ma: Indigenous governing bodies are not captured under the definition of a regulated entity,

which is why they're not carved out under subsection 68(2)(a). The order already does

not apply to them. They are not a regulated entity.

Clause 68 approved.

On clause 69.

L. Doerkson: I want to better understand…. If we could just start by the minister defining this

definition of "specified authority."

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The term "specified authority" is defined, under subsection 69(1), to be "a local

authority, other than the Nisga'a Nation or a treaty first nation," and "a participating

authority."

"Participating authority" is defined, in

section 1, as "a person that, under an emergency

measures agreement, may exercise one or more powers, and agrees to perform one or

more duties, of a local authority under this Act." A participating authority is an

entity that has entered into an emergency measures agreement, under division 4 of

this act, and "may exercise one or more powers, and agrees to perform one or more

duties, of a local authority under this Act."

It's worth noting that there are currently no participating authorities that have

entered into emergency measures agreements with the province. This definition provides

some flexibility to allow for providing additional entities to take on the powers

and duties of a local authority under the act, where no local authority has jurisdiction.

An example of a likely participating authority is a superintendent of a national park,

where they would agree to take on the powers and duties of a local authority through

an emergency measures agreement. A participating authority could also include an entity

like the Stikine improvement district, or a similar entity in the Stikine Region,

where there's no local authority who currently holds jurisdiction for the purposes

of emergency management.

L. Doerkson: Thanks, Minister.

In No. 3, it says: "The minister may, by order, require a specified authority to take

an action…." The reason I'm asking about this, and we've touched on this a little

bit, is the hierarchy that we've talked about.

I think we refer to them as MJEMOs, if I remember right, multiple jurisdictional emergency

agreements. If we've got those in place…. So you may have a First Nation working with

a regional district. Again, I guess, I come back to the hierarchy.

Now, I can appreciate that you would hope…. We've talked a little bit about the minister's

hope that we don't have to use certain things. We don't have to levy fines, and we

don't have to do that.

As you know, there may be disagreements, of course. So I guess I want to understand,

at this juncture, if the minister is referring to a specified authority and requiring

them to do something. Is the minister, then, going to take a leadership role in that

situation, where we've got a multi-jurisdictional partnership building?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I appreciate the member's question and the interest in MJEMOs. In this section, however,

whether a local authority is part of a MJEMO or not is probably not relevant.

What this

section is about, certainly under subsections (3) and (4), is providing

the power to the minister to order a specified authority to basically…. Well, it says

to take an action in another person's jurisdiction or another specified authority's

jurisdiction or within their own jurisdiction. It's really about requiring specified

authorities to help another jurisdiction.

As an example, an authority could be required or requested to provide support in another

jurisdiction, such as providing volunteers, heavy machinery or equipment to a neighbouring,

supporting jurisdiction. A more real…. I guess not real as in "it happened," but something

understandable is….

Let's say you have two neighbouring jurisdictions. You have one jurisdiction that

is really struggling to hold back structural fires as a result of a wildfire. The

neighbouring jurisdiction that has available fire trucks and structural firefighters

is refusing to help that jurisdiction. The minister could order that neighbouring

jurisdiction to help the jurisdiction that needs help.

Another example under subsection (4) is an authority could be required or requested

to provide support within their own jurisdiction to assist another jurisdiction. In

that case, it could be ordering a community to accept evacuees from neighbouring jurisdictions.

Now, as we saw through the 2023 wildfire season, communities are very, very open and

willing to voluntarily support one another by accepting evacuees, by sending their

municipal firefighters. We saw municipal fire departments from all over the province

respond to the request from the Central Okanagan for structural firefighting resources.

Largely, we see enormous cooperation and collaboration across the province. But if

we came to a situation where a call was being made on behalf of…. If there was a situation,

using the example of the Central Okanagan, and the call had been made to neighbouring

jurisdictions to send municipal firefighters and nobody responded, then this power

would allow the minister to order those jurisdictions to send help.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:15 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