Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section C

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Tuesday, October

31, 2023

Morning 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; R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 11:11 a.m.

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

Management Act, to order.

Clause 69 approved.

On clause 70.

L. Doerkson: Good morning, Minister. Thanks again for this time together.

I wanted to ask a few questions on clause 70 with respect to the suggestion that before

taking any action for the purpose of responding…. We talked a little bit about this

yesterday, but this now refers to a "regulated entity." I can guess at a few different

situations where they may be forced to act, but again, there's that question about

that management plan.

I wonder if the minister could maybe expand a little bit on this clause.

Hon. B. Ma:

Section 70, similarly to previous sections, I'd describe as giving relevance to the

emergency management plan. Regulated entities are required to consider emergency management

plans before they take response actions. That ensures that the planning and response

activities that are included in the emergency management plan that they have created

are considered in the event that there's an actual emergency.

Oftentimes in an emergency, actions need to be taken very quickly. Many of those actions

have significant implications for people in communities. So relying on the plans that

have been made, through consultation and with the luxury of time, can lead to substantially

better results. It ensures that all the effort that has gone into creating an emergency

management plan doesn't just sit on the shelf to collect dust. Rather, they have very

real applications during an actual emergency.

[11:15 a.m.]

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. That's exactly, I guess, why I have questions on this one. I

guess I am concerned a little bit about a liability that may be formed, under this

clause, for regulated entities.

I also am concerned about the timelines. In other words, these may be developing disasters

that, potentially, the regulated entity itself doesn't even know about yet. Potentially,

it's something that staff have discovered, and they take action.

I'm just unclear here as to why…. I'm sure that, in many circumstances, staff and

others that work for that entity would know how to divert that emergency. I'm not

suggesting that an emergency plan should sit on the shelf. I'm curious to understand

how that may happen in a case of anything — I mean, pick a pipeline spill or any kind

of a different emergency. The suggestion that we would have to go through these steps….

I'm wondering if the liability has been contemplated, and I'm also wondering if I've

got these steps right.

Hon. B. Ma: Effectively, what this clause says is that when there is an emergency, make sure you

check your emergency management plan before you take action.

In the member's suggestion of an oil spill, it could be as simple as taking a look

at the map or at an area that is included in the emergency management plan to determine

whether or not there are any objects or sites of heritage value that have been identified

in the area of the spill, so that actions are taken in a way that take that into consideration.

The emergency management plan can be very useful in that scenario, to identify whether

there are other entities that the regulated entity should reach out to, and coordinate

actions with, prior to taking them.

Maybe if the member could elaborate a bit more on what he views as potential liabilities,

we can answer that question more specifically or dig down into that concern.

L. Doerkson: Minister, I think what you just said is my concern.

With respect to the sequence of events in reacting, I can appreciate that there is

certainly an importance to better understanding other partners, other neighbours,

those types of things. But the clause is clear. It says "before taking any action,"

and the minister just confirmed that.

In the case of any kind of a regulated entity — or for that matter, a local authority,

although this clause does not talk about local authorities — if they have made a split-second

decision to do something that potentially damages another site, or those actions create

some other problem on the landscape because they did not take the time to fully understand

the emergency plan for that noted emergency, is there a liability there on behalf

of the regulated entity? What may occur if they chose not to?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I'm not sure what more I can offer on this. Certainly it is the case that an entity

that takes an action should consider the consequences of that action. That would apply,

really, in any circumstance, not limited to emergency management.

Perhaps what helps is to know that regulated entities are not required to follow their

plans exactly, because the plans might not actually capture all the nuance of a particular

situation during an actual emergency, especially where flexibility is required. But

it is appropriate, I think, and necessary for an acting entity to think about the

potential consequences of their actions. All of the pre-work that goes into the development

of an emergency management plan facilitates that.

Whether it is physically opening up the plan or a consideration that is made by a

member of the emergency operations centre that already knows the plan very well and

has a sense of what's in it, the regulated entity would have taken the time to put

that emergency management plan together, and it should mean something. It's really

about….

Let's say you have an emergency situation happening. You think about the emergency

management plan that the organization has. The organization has a plan on flooding

and where critical infrastructure flooding might be or where flooding might cause

significant damage to the community. Knowing that, we refer to the plan, check it

out, and then that will inform your actions — the deployment of sandbags on the east

side of a structure versus the west side of a structure or so forth.

The clause does not require that an entity follow their plans exactly. It just requires

that they consider that they have a plan and that they should take a look at it or

know generally what's in it before they take an action.

L. Doerkson: But Minister, that's exactly what this clause says. It says: "Before taking any action

for the purpose of responding to or recovering from an emergency…." We've discussed

that a little bit, with respect to first response for fires and those types of things.

Now, it's a bit of a different example. But in the example that you're referring to,

putting sandbags into place on the west side or the east side and that creating some

sort of an issue…. Had the plan not been contemplated, had decisions been made in

the heat of the moment to respond to something…. I think the minister did touch on

the fact that perhaps these plans would be known in advance or that sort of suggestion.

[11:25 a.m.]

I guess what I'm trying to get at is: is there a liability issue here for a company

that does not follow this timeline, does not respond to an emergency in this manner?

I can appreciate that everybody is somewhat prepared on the landscape, but as we've

discussed at length, there's been obvious history of things that we haven't been ready

for.

In this particular case — and I'm not, certainly, wanting to go to where we got to

yesterday, with aliens and those types of things — I am very concerned about the liability

that a regulated entity might face here. If the minister can confirm to me that there

wouldn't be a liability, I would feel much more comfortable.

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I can confirm that there is not a link between this

section and the offence provisions

of the EDMA, nor does it affect the liability protections that are covered in

section

This provision was largely included as a result of consultations with Indigenous partners

who pointed out that there was a need for a stronger connection between the existence

of a plan and how actions are taken during emergencies. So if there is a plan that

exists, it should be referred to during the actual emergency.

L. Doerkson: Thank you very much, Minister. So I'll take that to understand that there wouldn't

be a liability with respect to that timeline if it occurred in a way different than

the minister lays out in clause 70.

My next question with respect to this clause is: has there been any contemplation

of fines or compliance or anything else outside of the liability that we just talked

about?

Hon. B. Ma: I might want to try again to provide clarity. It is not the case that we're saying

that there's no liability associated with this

section but, rather, that it does not

affect civil liability. So it neither increases it, nor does it absolve the actor

from any liability that they might be subject to as a result of their action.

That being said, the liability protections are included in EDMA. That's covered under

section 154. It's not affected by this section. For further clarity, there's not a

link between this

section and the offence provisions of the EDMA. There's no connection

there.

L. Doerkson: With apologies to the minister, I guess I was clear and now I'm not with respect to

liability. All that I really want to understand is that if a regulated entity does

not follow this sequence….

[11:35 a.m.]

I'm not asking if they have more or less liability. My question really goes to the

point that if they do not follow this sequence, if they act outside of this sequence,

does this clause…? I'm not worried about 154. Does it impose any liability on the

company if it's found that they did not act within this timeline?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I think that, maybe, part of the challenge in my responding to the question was that

I was caught up with the word "liability." If the member means "consequences" — is

there a consequence under the act to not following through on

section 70 in the way

that it is laid out? — well, certainly, we would want all regulated entities to comply

with the law, but there are no fines under offences in the EDMA.

It is possible that a regulation for administrative monetary damages and penalties

could be created against the section. However, the member asked if we have contemplated

that, and we have not considered penalties for this section. Maybe to be more clear,

as well, we would say that no, this

section does not impose any new liabilities. It

also does not absolve, nor change…. It doesn't impose any new liabilities through

this section. Maybe that provides a more clear response.

L. Doerkson: It certainly helps to understand that there are no new liabilities, because that's

really what my focus is.

If a regulated entity in this case has an emergency plan that requires them to complete

an action, in the case of whatever specified emergency there is, and they choose,

for a variety of reasons, to not review that plan in the heat of the moment, and they

act without reviewing that plan, because there was no time…. You know, a number of

different excuses may crop up. That is all that I really want to be just very crystal-clear

on: that there is no liability because they were not able to respond to this timeline.

Hon. B. Ma: Yeah,

section 70 does not impose any new liabilities.

Clause 70 approved.

On clause 71.

L. Doerkson: Just before we get into this division, I just want to clearly understand. The minister

may make orders. I want to get a sense of what types of orders. I can presume, obviously,

states of emergency for the province, but what other orders may be contemplated in

the next number of clauses?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The orders that a minister may make are covered in this division, which runs from

sections 71 to 79.

To provide a

summary of those orders under this

section for now,

section 74 authorizes

the minister to order a person to provide information, to take an emergency measure

or comply with directions of the provincial administrator, a lead minister or a person

within a specified class of persons.

Section 75 allows the minister, by order, to take actions in regards to essential

supplies, equipment, services, property or facilities, as well as authorize or require

a person to provide a service or give assistance during a response to a declared state

of emergency. Maybe some examples. For instance, the minister could identify certain

types of fuel as essential and ration the distribution or sale of diesel to non-essential

uses. This could be involving rationing.

Under

section 76, the minister can create orders to take action or authorize or require

others to take actions that impact land and personal property during a state of provincial

emergency.

Section 77 allows the minister to, by order, require and authorize the evacuation

and removals of people, animals, personal property during a state of provincial emergency.

Section 78 allows the minister to, by order, control or prohibit certain actions related

to travel, business activity or an event, regardless of other existing licences, permits

or authorizations under an enactment.

Section 79 authorizes the minister responsible for the Fire Services Act to assume

control of fire services in B.C. and designate the fire commissioner as having authority

over those services under the EDMA. In this case, the minister responsible for the

Fire Services Act would be Public Safety and Solicitor General.

So that's, at a high level, the types of orders that would be enabled through

section

71. I'm happy to dive into any of those,

section by section, as well.

Clause 71 approved.

Hon. B. Ma: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada