Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Thursday, October

26, 2023

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; J. Routledge in the chair.

The committee met at 1:07 p.m.

On clause 51 (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 51.

L. Doerkson: Before the break for lunch, we were discussing a number of things. The definition

of "vulnerable" — I was getting clarity around that. I do want to spend, as I said

before lunch, a little bit of time here, because the next couple of clauses are where

so much of the challenge lies. I think I said that before the break.

In 51(3), we discussed vulnerable. Actually, before we get to this portion, I wanted

to ask one question around that. I believe it was in 2017 or past years, we made use

of…. And this goes back to critical infrastructure and all the risk assessment plans,

when we talked about people that might be unhoused and things like that.

I'm asking for a specific example. I'll give it to you. Would something like the school

district, where we made use of their buses…? Would they be expected to provide that,

or would that fall under the local authority's reach to include that plan?

I mean, I guess it could be defined as critical infrastructure, frankly. But the notion

that we would use that…. Who would be responsible to include that portion in the plan

and then, of course, make sure that all of those services would be available? In other

words, if it was the community of Williams Lake that was going to use the school district

27 buses, whose responsibility is it to make sure all of that lines up?

[F. Donnelly in the chair.]

Hon. B. Ma: Just to clarify on the question, in the example, could the member maybe provide an

example of what the buses are being used for?

[1:10 p.m.]

L. Doerkson: I appreciate that. Absolutely, Minister. We used them for evacuation purposes for

people that did not have transportation.

That's where I was going before the break. I was trying to understand how those pieces

of our infrastructure may fit in, who would be responsible for the reporting. Would

it be the local authority? Then, of course, could…? That's where I was going before

the break, when I was referring to RCMP and other authorities that might be local.

I know that in the past, for instance — I think the minister touched on this a few

days ago — we used critical infrastructure, meaning our schools, for evacuation purposes,

potentially lodging for either residents or for fire crews. We've used that for ESS

purposes. Obviously, that'll form part of the plan. I'm just wondering who that responsibility

falls to.

Hon. B. Ma: In the example or in situations where a local authority might rely on resources that

are provided by another entity…. That seems to be the scenario. In the specific example,

perhaps the local authority is conducting an evacuation and requires the use of a

bus from the school board in order to support the transportation of those evacuations.

Under

section 52, it identifies evacuation planning as a duty of the local authority,

so anything related to supporting that evacuation planning would be the responsibility

of the local authority.

In the specific example, the local authority might identify that they could use school

buses to support evacuations. It would then be their responsibility to talk with the

school boards and make sure that that is understood, that they have agreement and

that the processes are in place so that if they need to execute on that part of their

emergency management plan, it's already understood.

L. Doerkson: That's helpful, for certain.

I just want to now talk a little bit or ask a few questions with respect to what these

plans under risk assessment are specifically.

Part 3, of course, says that a risk

assessment must "identify all reasonably foreseeable hazards." While I can appreciate

that some of the obvious ones may be there, and we have talked a little bit about

that, I'm just wondering if the minister could expand on this definition and just

clearly explain what the ministry might be looking for here.

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The kinds of hazards that we're talking about are hazards that most communities are

already familiar with: wildfires, flooding, extreme heat, extreme cold, earthquakes,

landslides. What hazards are most relevant to communities will depend on the community.

For instance, for the city of Abbotsford, certainly flooding is a top priority for

them in terms of hazards. For a community like Osoyoos, drought and wildfire would

be the hazards of most concern. In a community like Merritt, I would imagine flooding

and wildfires would be the hazards of most concern.

Some communities…. For instance, I know the city of Burnaby is very concerned about

industrial explosions from the Trans Mountain pipeline refinery. Now, they would not

be responsible for Trans Mountain's emergency plan, but they may prioritize risk assessments

around what might happen to the rest of the community if there was an incident there.

Most communities already know what the hazards they're most at risk for are. This

section is about building risk assessments for those hazards.

concerns around security breaches and all of those types of items. Would you expect

that those would be part of these plans as well, these risk assessments?

Hon. B. Ma: I believe the question is whether security threats might be considered a hazard that

a local government would have to build risk assessments around. It would depend largely

on the local government and what they foresee as likely to happen in terms of hazards

that they face.

[1:20 p.m.]

Very small communities may feel that they are not at risk of a major security threat,

whereas other municipalities, such as Victoria, being the seat of government for the

province, may view that as a higher risk. A community that hosts a lot of international

events, with a high density of population, may view that as a potential risk that

they would want to assess.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for that. I want to just get clarity around 51(3)(a)(ii). That is the potential

scale and scope of each emergency. I just want to get a sense of…. I guess the notion

that the San Jose River flooded the river valley trails….

I keep going to Cariboo-Chilcotin because it's what I know best. You'll know the region

well by the time we're done. There was $15 million or $20 million worth of damage

done in our river valley trail, lost bridges — happily, no homes or anything. Then,

of course, the potential loss of Highway 97 in a flooding event with Borland Creek

or others.

I guess what I'm trying…. This will help with the rest of my questions on this clause.

I'm trying to understand what the minister is trying to identify in these risk assessments.

I can appreciate that it would be flooding or fire or whatever, but to what degree

would they be expected?

Hon. B. Ma: I think the example that the member provided is a good example of what it means to

identify the potential scale and scope of each emergency identified under subsection

(1). Not all floods are catastrophic, not all floods result in structural loss, and

not all floods that result in structural loss create circumstances that strand entire

communities.

I think a little bit about the work that the city of Merritt has been doing in terms

of assessing their flood risk. Following the 2021 atmospheric river events, it was

made very clear that the flooding of the Coldwater there…. The flow levels that their

infrastructure had been designed to, many, many years ago, were quite out of date

as a result of climate change. They worked with engineering companies to establish

a new flow rate for 50-year, 100-year, 200-year flood events and then, from that,

were able to identify the extent of flooding that might occur if those levels were

to rise.

That level of flooding could be anything from localized flooding around a waterway

to, potentially, flooding of the entire town, depending on the flow rates that are

being used. That kind of work is part of the risk assessment process — to understand,

if an emergency happened, what is the likely scope and scale of that emergency. Are

we looking at hundreds of homes underwater, or are we looking at a street that's underwater?

So yes, I think that the member's example is a good one.

[1:25 p.m.]

L. Doerkson: I presumed that that would be a good example. I guess what I was trying to get was

a better understanding of how small the incident might be that they may be required

to provide a risk assessment for. Maybe I'll just leave that for a moment.

I want to read into the record what item (4), with respect to "A risk assessment must

be based on all of the following: (

a) studies and surveys."

Frankly, Minister, I know I've said it a number of times, but this is some of the

stuff, some of the content of this bill that local authorities are extremely afraid

of, and I'm going to attempt to get some clarity around what they mean.

"(

a) studies and surveys; (

b) Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge, if available;

(

c) changes in the local climate or extreme weather events that can reasonably be

expected to result from a changing global climate; (

d) other relevant information

that is reasonably available for prescribed sources of information or any other source;"

and then, of course: "(

e) the results of the actions required under

section 54…."

I guess my overarching question is: how much detail is the minister expecting? I mean,

when we talk about studies and surveys, or even just gathering the Indigenous knowledge

is just a massive…. The province, of course, during these events or prior and after,

will have engagement with First Nations as well, but it just seems like an incredible

amount of information.

I want to get a better sense of what some of these items mean. Perhaps we could just

start with studies and surveys. What would the minister be expecting?

Hon. B. Ma: I know the member had zeroed in on subsection (a), but he had also kind of explained

his overall question earlier, so maybe I'll attempt to answer the broader question.

When it comes to the details about what will be required, I'll note that there are

regulation and guidance documents that will be developed for this section. And the

expectation is that this kind of information would be gathered over time if the community

did not already have it.

[1:30 p.m.]

That's the second part to my response to the question, which is that when you're looking

at a lot of this information, a lot of communities already have land surveys. They've

already done studies around flood risks. Some of them may not have, for sure, but

it's not our intention to have communities gather all of this information from scratch.

They can use information that's already available and certainly incorporate….

That's the intention of having the province take on investments in lidar, the elevation

data, and take on the work of developing the disaster and climate risk and resiliency

assessment: so that we're doing a lot of that work that communities can then pull

into their own plans and supplement as required.

In terms of how detailed the information is needed…. I would say, pragmatically, it

would need to be as detailed as the community requires it to be in order for the risk

assessment to be useful.

In some communities, the difference between one metre of water and two metres of water

might not actually make that much of a difference in terms of what the impact is,

because their communities have significant changes in elevation, and it's not really

that significant for them. But in other communities that might be flatter, the difference

between a one-metre flood and a two-metre flood could be the difference between localized

flooding and the entire town under water.

The level of precision that might be required for the latter community may be a little

bit higher than the former community in order for it to be an effective risk assessment

for them. The communities themselves will likely want to determine whether the data

they have is useful to them or not.

Re-emphasizing my first response, though, there will be a regulation that is developed

to this and guidance documents that will support this kind of decision-making as communities

are making their risk assessments.

L. Doerkson: I guess yesterday or perhaps earlier today — I can't remember now — the minister offered

an opportunity to potentially be involved as information is collected. I definitely

hope that that is possible, because this is probably, like I say, the area of most

concern. Well, it's certainly one of the areas of most concern.

The idea that — I think the minister just said — there will be regulation and there

will be timing that comes down…. That's exactly the problem. It's not really clear,

and I've read it a lot of times. It's just not clear what might be expected.

With respect to changes in local climate or extreme weather…. I mean, we're asking

communities that really would not have, typically, the resources that might be required

to do that. Now, I can appreciate that the minister has said earlier that there might

be an opportunity for some work together, from the ministry back to communities. But

what might be expected here as far as predicting drought and things like that? I'm

certain much of this we have not seen before.

Hon. B. Ma: Going back to the disaster and climate risk and resiliency assessment that the province

is doing, that assessment is intended to, I guess, layer on to British Columbia's

hazards the impact of climate change over time. The province is doing that work right

now at a provincial level. That work is expected to be released in 2024, and then

in subsequent years, we will be releasing that information at a regional level.

We do know, of course, that this information takes time. We certainly wouldn't expect

local governments to be moving so much faster than the province is able to move in

terms of kind of incorporating that data.

In terms of changes in local climate, aside from the data, supportive information

that will be provided by the province, what this subsection really speaks to is that

risk assessments need to acknowledge that climate change exists. If communities are

relying on data from 50 years ago, it's not going to be relevant.

[1:35 p.m.]

Now we're going into the future, and many communities have local knowledge of how

they're seeing the impacts of climate change play out. We hear a lot from ranchers

and farmers: "You know, every spring we used to have this much rainfall, and lately,

in the last few years, we've seen that steadily drop."

That's the kind of local knowledge that basically is, effectively, the incorporation

of climate change: recognizing that things are speeding up, that we can't solely rely

on data from the past and that when we're looking forward into the future, we unfortunately

have to expect that things are going to get worse and worse. So it's really an acknowledgment

that the conditions are not stagnant and that we need to make sure that we're up to

date in how we're assessing risks.

L. Doerkson: I guess, maybe, I would throw it back to EMCR. Perhaps I could get an example of some

of the predictions that perhaps the province has made.

Did the province predict drought? Did it predict the heat dome? Did it predict an

atmospheric river? Was there a plan in place for that?

Hon. B. Ma: I don't know that I could say that the province predicted the 2021 atmospheric river

event. Certainly, if it had, the response may have been different. The wildfire season

of 2023 — I don't know that we could have predicted how extreme it has been.

I think these kinds of emergency seasons that have caused such catastrophic damage

and were outside of what governments at any level might have considered the norm are

examples of why incorporating climate change into our risk assessments is necessary.

They're examples of how the changes in climate are creating extreme weather conditions

that are more severe, longer-lasting, happening more frequently than they have in

the past. Therefore, the old way, relying on past risk assessments, is no longer sufficient.

[1:40 p.m.]

When it comes to risk assessments that incorporate changes in climate and extreme

weather, that's work that the province also has to do, which is why we are doing the

disaster and climate risk and resiliency assessment right now, why we're investing

in the gathering of that provincial data that can help support the development of

risk assessments at the provincial and local level.

I will say that there are also tools that do exist now but that, I would say, would

probably still need to be iteratively updated. An example of a tool that exists right

now is that the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change actually released a preliminary

strategic climate risk assessment for British Columbia in 2019. So that is there.

However, again, even in the last few years, we're seeing all around the world that

the previous predictions or previous forecasts of the impact of climate change have

been proving to be maybe too optimistic in terms of how much time we have to adapt

and address those escalating impacts. So we all have a lot of work to do indeed.

L. Doerkson: Thank you. Just a quick follow-up on that. I heard about no prediction with respect

to wildfires and certainly the atmospheric river, or that that may have changed any

plans that may have included a response in the province. So today, now, in 2023, does

the province have a more robust plan around these three items?

I guess I didn't get a clear answer on whether or not there was a prediction of the

heat dome. I mean, we knew it was coming, but I guess I'd be interested in knowing

when the government knew it was coming, how it might have been predicted. And the

same thing for drought. I mean, I've lived in the Cariboo for almost 30 years, and

I can appreciate we've had dry summers, but what this bill says in item 4(

c) is that

changes in the local climate or extreme weather events need to be, well, reasonably

expected to be predicted.

I don't know how or, for instance, what might be ahead of us. And, honestly, I never

saw an atmospheric river like we had happening in our province, right? I mean, I can

appreciate the damage, but I also hope that the ministry appreciates the challenge

that might be in a clause like this for a local community.

I can appreciate also that it says "reasonably expected." But if the province didn't

have the tools to predict the atmospheric river or the heat dome, what is the ministry

asking of local governments in this clause?

Hon. B. Ma: We all have to be better at incorporating climate change into our risk assessments,

and that has been proven out in recent years. The reality is, whether we do so or

not, those hazards and risks still remain. The necessity of ensuring that all emergency

management plans and risk assessments across all emergency management partnerships,

whether they're local governments or the province or ministries…. Basically, whether

we….

Climate change isn't waiting for us. That's basically, I guess, what I'm saying. We

know that it is additional effort that is required on the part of the province and

required on the part of the local authorities. And we're committed to working with

local authorities, with them, to upgrade their risk assessments and ensure that we're

all as prepared as possible.

In terms of the member's questions around predictions around the heat dome, I'll say….

We get a lot of our extreme weather forecasts…. We rely on Environment and Climate

Change Canada.

[1:45 p.m.]

Meteorological forecasts, however, are really accurate…. In terms of what's coming

in the days ahead, it's really only accurate within a few days, three to seven days,

so we do rely…. We receive a lot of that, I guess, forecasting data from Environment

and Climate Change Canada. It informs the modelling work at the river forecast centre.

In terms of drought, I will say that we did know that the province was going to be

in a drought condition in 2023 back in the late fall, early winter of 2022. We were

able to see that coming. Because we ended the calendar year or ended the warmer season

in a drought condition, it meant that when the grounds froze in areas of the province,

those grounds would no longer be able to absorb precipitation and water, and they

would be relying on the snow cap and the snow on the mountain in order to supplement,

to provide continued water into the water streams.

We did know that we were starting off 2023 in a bit of a drought condition, and it

worsened through the spring when we had a period of high temperatures that resulted

in rapid snow melt, so a strong freshet season. We saw some flooding there. It also

meant that it melted, I guess, the water that would normally be contained in the snow

and the glaciers more quickly, which meant that there wasn't as much of it going into

the later spring and the summer.

We did see that drought was coming, certainly. We did know that it was possible that

we would get into extreme drought conditions if we did not see the precipitation that

we would need to stay out of those extreme drought conditions.

I guess I'm having trouble describing it because, at the same time, I'm kind of thinking

about the drought maps in my head. We had signalled very early on that, yes, we were

going into a drought and it could be very bad if we didn't get rain, and we didn't

end up getting rain. But we wouldn't have been able to predict that, yes, we're definitely

not going to get rain. It was more that if we do not get the rain — and it doesn't

look like we are because the long-term forecasts are not looking that great — then

we will be in an extreme drought situation. And that did play out.

It was also entirely possible that we would get rain because forecasts are not always

accurate. But the important

part in terms of a risk assessment is recognizing the

level of drought the province could face. We would need to understand what that risk

and what those impacts might be if we were to get there.

The risk assessments are not so much about predicting what might happen. But in terms

of the range of what the impacts might be, we should have an understanding of that

and then be able to plan towards it.

L. Doerkson: I think that that's exactly what this clause or phrase suggests — changes in local

climate or extreme weather events. Now, I stand to be corrected, and I'll try to sort

of gently move away from that, but it is definitely a concern.

I guess with respect to those three items — droughts, heat domes and atmospheric rivers

— the province will, not just by regulation but by this legislation, expect that to

be a part of a risk assessment from any local authority. Does the province have a

risk assessment plan with respect to these items?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The answer is yes. Different ministries are leads on different hazards, and they are

responsible for developing risk assessments and emergency management plans that flow

from those risk assessments.

I'll also clarify that, again, the risk assessments are not about predicting specific

events. They're not about predicting that there will be an atmospheric river event

in October of 2025 and it will cause XYZ. They're about identifying that flooding

is a hazard and a certain level of flooding will create these kinds of impacts in

the community.

We're not asking local authorities to be weather forecasters or extreme weather forecasters

but to, rather, identify the hazards that are a risk to their community and understand

the scope and scale at which those kinds of hazards could cause significant damage

and impacts on their communities.

I'll also add that we do have additional tools that…. I was reminded that we have

an additional tool to help incorporate climate change into the data that is available.

Through the climate preparedness and adaptation strategy, the province actually funds

the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium. They actually make tools that local governments

can use as well.

L. Doerkson: Thank you very much for that. Just one last question on that, with respect to those

risk assessment plans. With respect to the risk assessment plans, are they available

to the public? Where would I find those plans?

Let me just clarify. These are no longer predictions, right? The idea of a heat dome,

an atmospheric river, a drought — those are no longer predictions. They've happened.

I think the minister suggested that there were risk assessment plans now that exist

for these and that they would potentially be with different lead ministers. I'm just

wondering where I might find the risk assessments for these three.

Hon. B. Ma: There are so many tools that I forgot to also read into the record. Finishing up my

last response first, climatereadybc.gov.bc.ca is also a tool that is available for

local governments to refer to in supporting their emergency management work. The community

emergency preparedness fund is also available to local authorities. They include streams

that support work around risk assessments for climate data, for flood risk assessments,

for extreme heat, extreme cold. There is some funding that currently is flowing to

communities through those funds.

[1:55 p.m.]

In terms of where to access risk assessments right now, the current Emergency Program

Act does not require risk assessments. It's the EDMA that will require risk assessments

that will need to incorporate climate change data, from which emergency management

plans will flow.

Having said that, the provincial emergency management plans can be accessed online.

We will get the member that URL.

L. Doerkson: Thanks for the clarification.

I thought that the minister had said that there were risk assessments done for these

items. Likely the final question on this: when would the minister expect that these

plans would be done? I can appreciate that this act may go into effect fairly soon,

but from those ministries, when would they be expected to be complete?

Hon. B. Ma: The regulation for the ministries is expected to be deposited in spring 2024. That

regulation will identify the timeline for ministries to complete their work.

I will say, generally speaking…. I think what I said earlier certainly does apply

to the provincial government: that climate change is not waiting for us. It is our

hope, our expectation, our intent to push forward on completing those risk assessments

and updated emergency management plans as quickly as possible, from the provincial

perspective.

M. Lee: In subclause 51(3)(b), what is the term "heritage value"? How is it defined?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The phrase "heritage value" is not explicitly defined in the EDMA but could include

the historical, cultural, aesthetic, scientific or educational worth or usefulness

of a site or object. It's worth noting that we will be developing a guidance document,

based on consultation and cooperation with Indigenous communities, to be able to provide

some more detailed examples through that process.

M. Lee: The minister referred to the definition of "heritage value" under the Heritage Conservation

Act as it currently is in force. When the minister said it could include the items

around historical, cultural, aesthetic, scientific or educational worth or usefulness

of a site or object, is it intended that the minister, under Bill 31, will expand

the definition of "heritage value" beyond what is currently contemplated or defined

under the Heritage Conservation Act?

Hon. B. Ma: The use of the term "heritage value" in the EDMA is not expressly tied to the definition

of "heritage value" under the Heritage Conservation Act, although the member is correct

that those terms and phrases and the definition…. The examples I've offered are drawn

from the Heritage Conservation Act. However, for clarity, it is not intended to be

directly tied to the definition of "heritage value" under the Heritage Conservation

Act.

It is possible that through consultation and cooperation, if Indigenous communities

identified other sites or objects that they deem to be of heritage value that, for

whatever reason, did not fall into the categories that I have listed previously, the

guidance document would include that.

[2:05 p.m.]

M. Lee: When it comes to protecting the heritage value of objects or sites of heritage value

under clause 51(3)(b), I'm hearing the minister suggest that this could be an expansive

definition under EDMA, beyond what is currently protected under the Heritage Conservation

Act. Why is that?

Hon. B. Ma: So for greater clarity, this act is not about the protection of heritage sites. This

particular section, going down to this particular section, is about risk assessment

— identifying the potential risk to objects or sites of heritage value.

As an example, an Indigenous governing body may identify for a developer of a risk

assessment that there is a site of heritage value in this approximate location. In

doing the risk assessment, it may be identified that a 100-level flood could reach

that site but that a one-in-50-years-level flood might not reach the site. That's

the intention around the use of "objects or sites of heritage value" in sub-subsection

(

b) of (3).

M. Lee: So the obligation that we've covered under clause 47 is that the local authority must

prepare and maintain a risk assessment. The obligation is not on the Indigenous governing

body of the First Nation to identify what might be a potential consequence to a site

or object of heritage value. Keeping that in mind, what is the purpose, then, of this

requirement on a local authority to identify potential consequences on objects or

sites of heritage value, if it's not about concern over conservation of the heritage

value of those objects or sites?

Hon. B. Ma: Let's say that we have a…. Keeping in mind that risk assessments are not limited just

to local authorities but that risk assessments must also be produced by government

agencies, public sector agencies, and so forth, let's say that we have B.C. Wildfire

Service creating a risk assessment for the province. Part of their obligation in developing

the risk assessment is they must incorporate Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge

and consult and cooperate, reach out to Indigenous communities for their input as

well.

[2:10 p.m.]

An Indigenous community has identified a site of heritage value in an area within

which the B.C. Wildfire Service is developing their risk assessment, and it would

identify that if there was a fire in that area, it could impact this site of heritage

value. That signals to the B.C. Wildfire Service that there are objects or sites in

that area that need to be carefully considered and understood when a wildfire might

be threatening that area.

From that risk assessment, when they're developing their emergency management plan,

it may also inform them, if they are going to be putting a firebreak through that

area, that there's a site of heritage value in the area and that they need to reach

out to an Indigenous governing body about that before they implement that firebreak.

Maybe that helps. I'll see if the member has a clarifying question.

M. Lee: The questions I'm asking are following on from the questions that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin

asked in respect of the obligations for risk assessments, under clause 51, on local

authorities.

I appreciate the point that the minister makes around government ministries, but of

course, government ministries have far more capacity and resources in order to assess

and formulate what would be in a risk assessment. Keeping that in mind, that's the

reason why I'm focused on local authorities, because they have the same obligations

under clause 47.

In terms of assessing…. As the lead-in to sub 51(3) says: "…a risk assessment must

identify all reasonably foreseeable hazards and assess…." I'm just going to focus

on the word "assess."

A risk assessment must assess the potential consequences for objects or sites of heritage

value. How will a local authority make that assessment?

Hon. B. Ma: Maybe I'll start by giving a crack at my previous response.

The member is right that this

section does apply to local authorities as well. But

it is also the case that local authorities may have, within the boundaries of their

jurisdiction, sites of heritage value that may be identified by Indigenous governing

bodies.

[2:15 p.m.]

Another example of how this might work…. Actually, I'll combine this with the member's

question around foreseeable hazards and assessing the extent of the risk that each

hazard presents and the potential consequences for persons of property.

Let's say you have a local authority. They've got their municipal or regional district

boundaries, and they are assessing and collecting information on flood hazards. As

they're creating their risk assessment, in consultation and cooperation with the local

First Nations, the First Nations identify an object or site of heritage value at X

location. They indicate that if that site is flooded, they would sustain a moderate

level of damage if it got a little bit of water, and it would be completely destroyed

if it was flooded.

While the community is doing the risk assessment, the local authority is doing the

risk assessment, with the help of elevation data and flow rate data for the local

stream system…. This is all very hypothetical. I'm sorry. I'm doing my best to create

a create a scenario here.

They say: "You have a stream system." They've identified that at a one-in-50-year

flow level, they will see flooding at about one metre above the banks of the river.

At one-metre flooding — that's a one-in-50-year flood level — it will not reach that

site of heritage value. However, a one-in-100-year flood will cause the banks to overflow

a certain amount of water. That one-in-100-year flood will reach the site of heritage

value.

That's, I guess, a rough and hypothetical scenario where the kind of assessment might

take place. Again, I'm sorry. I'm trying to use some hypothetical scenarios here to

try to illustrate what we're talking about.

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister's efforts to use and formulate examples as to the scope,

potentially. We will….

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Member for Vancouver-Langara, the bells are ringing.

Sorry. If I can just interrupt and put the committee in recess, we'll resume after

the vote.

The committee is now in recess.

The committee recessed from 2:18 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 31, the Emergency and Disaster Management Act.

We are on clause 51, and I believe we're going back to the Member for Vancouver-Langara,

who has a question.

M. Lee: Just before the break for the division vote, I was just about to say, in reference

to consultation and cooperation with Indigenous governing bodies or Nisga'a or treaty

First Nations…. We'll see more of that discussion when we get to clause 55, but just

coming back to clause 51, if a risk management plan does not properly assess all of

the potential consequences for objects or sites of heritage value, what is the consequence

of that if the risk assessment fails to do so?

Hon. B. Ma: If a risk assessment did not identify all…. I think the member was referring to potential

consequences for persons or properties or for objects or sites of heritage value.

Is that correct? Maybe a nod from the member. Yes. If a risk assessment did not identify

all of those, then the consequence would be potentially unforeseen impacts to those

sites during an emergency.

M. Lee: The nature of the assessment of the potential consequences for objects or sites of

heritage value…. The assessment itself is different from the minister's previous responses.

Is that a different type of assessment than what is contemplated under the Heritage

Conservation Act, in terms of the types of investigations and identifications that

are contemplated under that act?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The Heritage Conservation Act has its own policy objectives and intents. Those are

outside of my portfolio as the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness

and, certainly, outside of this act.

The intention around risk assessments here, in the EDMA, is to….

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: We are going to recess. Get back in here as soon as you can.

The committee recessed from 2:46 p.m. to 3:16 p.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

The Chair: I will call Committee of the Whole on Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act.

We're on clause 51, and I believe the minister is ready to answer.

Hon. B. Ma: To the member for Vancouver-Langara's last question, the risk assessments in the EDMA

are not connected to whatever risk assessments or assessments might be referred to

in the Heritage Conservation Act. The risk assessments referred to in the EDMA are

in reference to emergency management, and they can be described as a systematic way

of looking at how hazards will affect the things that we care about. That is, effectively,

what the risk assessments are

L. Doerkson: Before we leave this clause, I had asked, outside of this meeting, that we might stand

this clause down until the member for Vancouver-Langara gets back. But I do just want

to note the concerns. I mean, I know I've said them a number of times, but I just

am very worried about how this will play out at the local level.

Anyhow, if it pleases the Chair, we'd like to stand this clause down until the member

for Vancouver-Langara can join us again.

The Chair: Is there agreement? Okay. Thank you.

Clause 51 stood down.

On clause 52.

L. Doerkson: I have similar questions, of course, about this clause that we had with respect to

51. And that is simply….

I'll read parts of the clause. The emergency management plan must be prepared in accordance

with this

section and, of course, the regulations that will come later. Again, I mean,

it's a very long clause, including "measures that are necessary or advisable for the

purposes of each phase" — which we know there are now four phases; we don't need to

get into that — the roles, the powers, the duties of persons identified in the plan

by name, the title, the position; requirements of emergency resources, etc.

It is clear by these two clauses that both of these are…. I know that we've had some

conversation around this, but it just seems to me that they are very highly detailed

plans down to we're naming people that may or may not be involved. Of course, we have

talked a little bit about the need to review.

[3:20 p.m.]

Again, if I could just, under emergency management plans, get a clear understanding

of…. I know that's hard. I'm pressing this because I am desperately trying to understand

what regional governments that have reached out as late as last night and this morning

with concerns about this clause…. I'm begging, under this clause, if we could get

clarity about the detail that will be expected.

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you, Chair. I'm told that we are moving Houses.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: The motion is carried. The committee stands adjourned, and this

section is now moving

over into the House.

The committee rose at 3:21 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