Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Wednesday, October

25, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 31 — EMERGENCY AND DISASTER

MANAGEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

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

The committee met at 2:57 p.m.

On clause 33 (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 33.

M. Lee: I just wanted to bring us back to the definition "statutory power agreement." The

minister provided a response to one of my questions in relation to that type of agreement

as contemplated under this Bill 31.

In terms of the reference to

section 1 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act and what's

set out as the definition of "statutory power" there…. We recognize in this bill that,

for example, as we've covered to date, there isn't a requirement that an order or

emergency instrument made under the act apply to an Indigenous governing body unless

the Indigenous governing body consents. Also, that, again, a minister may not make

an order under the

section in relation to the powers and duties of Nisga'a Nation

or treaty First Nations under this act.

There is certainly a level of consent required here for the Indigenous governing body

or treaty nation as to the application of this act, respective of those nations. So

in terms of exercise of statutory powers here, can the minister provide an example

whereby a statutory power agreement would be entered into, as defined, which would

relate to a power under this bill in respect of an Indigenous governing body?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: For greater clarity,

section 1(2) is about requiring consent of an Indigenous governing

body before an order can be made to apply to the Indigenous governing body itself

as an entity,

whereas the statutory power agreements are available in recognition

that there is a broader range of impacts that could affect Indigenous peoples. So

it provides an avenue for First Nations to enter into a full agreement under

section

6 of the Declaration Act, which would require a broader range of decisions to be made

jointly or by consent.

By way of providing a specific example, the province could enter into a consent-based

decision-making agreement with an Indigenous governing body that sets out that the

Indigenous governing body must consent before the minister exercises the power to

prohibit the carrying on of a type of business in a localized area. That's one example.

M. Lee: To have the minister elaborate further on the example…. I appreciate that we're doing

it in the context of the definition. We certainly will have an opportunity again to

walk through this when we get to clause 37. While we have the point here, the minister

is giving an example where, in an Indigenous governing body, the consent of that IGB

would be required in respect of the carrying on of a business. That's obviously in

the case of some sort of emergency or some other mandate by the ministry under this

bill.

Presumably, in an emergency-type situation — where there's an emergency management

plan that has a particular action that needs to be taken by the provincial administrator,

for example — before that provincial administrator exercises the duty or responsibility

contemplated under this bill, the statutory power of agreement would contemplate that

the consent of the Indigenous governing body must be obtained prior to the exercise

of that statutory power by the provincial administrator. Is that correct?

[3:05 p.m. - 3:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: A

section 6 agreement or — I have to make sure I get those two phrases right — statutory

power agreement can involve any statutory power provided within the EDMA.

Clause 33 approved.

On clause 34.

M. Lee: When we were discussing the

definitions under clause 1, we had some discussion utilizing

examples around an Indigenous governing body. As the minister might recall, we had

some discussion, by way of example, of a tribal council that might be recognized by

the government as being an Indigenous governing body — recognizing, again, the minister

clearly indicated that it is up to the nation, Indigenous community, to determine

that.

When it comes to coordination agreements in clause 34 — for example, sub-subclause

34(1)(a)(ii), "the exercise of the inherent right of self-government by the Indigenous

governing body in responding to or recovering from an emergency…."

When we're talking about the Indigenous governing body here entering into a coordination

agreement, and where you have a tribal council representing separate First Nations

which themselves are Indigenous governing bodies, to what degree does this coordination

agreement that the minister would enter into under this clause need to ensure that

there is direct accountability, transparency to those individual First Nations as

represented by the tribal council?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: If a First Nation or a number of First Nations were to identify to us that a certain

tribal council was their Indigenous government body for the purposes of emergency

management or components of emergency management, however they indicate that to us

— it could be through a letter or another format — we would take that at face value.

The relationship, then, between the First Nation and the IGB for those purposes would

be more of an internal matter for the First Nation and their identified Indigenous

governing body. We would not interfere in that relationship.

Having said that, it is entirely possible that in indicating to us that a tribal council

is the Indigenous governing body for a First Nation for the purposes of emergency

management, they may also indicate that they would like to be kept in the loop directly

by us. That's completely available as well. It depends on what the First Nation has

communicated to us is their preferred contact point for the Indigenous governing body.

I'll give an example of something that has happened already, recognizing that the

concept of Indigenous governing body in legislation is new to EDMA. We have had situations

where the First Nation has clearly identified to us that they wish for the tribal

council to be our point of contact for emergency management purposes.

Under certain leadership, they've actually not been interested in speaking directly

with us as a First Nation. Rather, they prefer all communications to go through the

tribal council. But there may also be other First Nations that identify a tribal council

but also indicate that they would like to continue to receive certain types of information

directly. We accommodate both of those scenarios.

M. Lee: Really, the conversation that we've been having in respect of this particular item

and what the minister has responded to just now are certainly consistent with her

previous responses in respect to the

definitions.

It's just an area around governance between tribal councils and First Nations. I appreciate

the respect or sensitivity in terms of the government's view on how First Nations

may indicate their wish that a tribal council represent underlying nations in respect

of emergency management in the course of this bill.

Checks and balances, perhaps, is one way of saying it, in terms of the internal arrangements

between the tribal council. The First Nation will be something, also, to be considered.

That may well be the matter, as the minister suggests, for the individual First Nation

and the tribal council themselves.

I would just say that when we go back to the Indigenous governing body definition

that's brought into this bill, it certainly speaks to the entity that is authorized

to act on behalf of Indigenous peoples that hold rights recognized and affirmed by

section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Generally speaking, that, first and foremost,

would speak to the rights and title holders of nations in our province — the 204 that

are recognized as such.

The role that a tribal council plays may have some authority as designated by those

rights and title holders, as do other governing bodies. The bodies that have been

consulted with in our province, which this ministry has consulted with, for example,

have some level of delegated authority from those rights and title holders. But ultimately,

it's the rights and titleholders themselves, of course, that are the entities that

are authorized to act on behalf of Indigenous peoples that hold the rights.

[3:20 p.m.]

The Indigenous peoples themselves, of course, are members of those individual nations

on a distinct basis. So, as we go forward, and we find ourselves in situations where

members of a First Nation, like the Lytton First Nation, for example, that have expressed

concerns about a lack of involvement or understanding as to what the emergency response

or recovery phase of Lytton has been, this is where the responsibility comes to the

Lytton First Nation as an Indigenous governing body.

Now I appreciate the example the minister provided, which is consistent with the approach

that I've been also trying to take for many items under this bill — to review them

without necessarily talking about specific examples with specific nations in mind.

I think that that is a constructive way of asking and responding to questions.

But I also think, as I indicated on day two of this committee stage…. As the member

from Cariboo Chilcotin asked about at the beginning of our committee stage, what lessons

were learned in Lytton? But also, what lessons were learned from other situations

of wildfires and disasters in our province? It is also helpful to speak about specific

examples, because this is a highly technical framework–type bill.

I do think that given the nature of

part 3, the highly technical

interpretations relating

to the different forms of agreements…. I do think that…. Certainly myself, I hear

from members of First Nations, including in Lytton, about their own concerns to ensure

that their concerns about recovery and response to what happened in Lytton is ongoing.

I believe, certainly, it's the responsibility of the government to ensure that when

it is entering into coordination agreements as proposed by this clause 34, there ought

to be some level of accountability review done. Perhaps that's one way of asking the

question here, which is….

When I look at these provisions that describe what a coordination agreement does,

I don't actually see any levels of reporting or accountability measures back to the

Indigenous peoples on behalf of whom an Indigenous governing body is representing

or acting. When I focus again on the definition of "Indigenous governing body" under

DRIPA, there is a responsibility by an Indigenous governing body to act on behalf

of Indigenous peoples that hold those rights.

It's certainly my view that this government needs to ensure that an Indigenous governing

body is acting responsibly. I appreciate, again, the respect. I appreciate that since

this bill, and I mean DRIPA, was presented four years ago, it was always about, by

this government's

interpretation, that we need to have the First Nation or Indigenous

nation itself define what it means.

But I can tell you that when I'm getting contacted by members of Indigenous communities,

including in Lytton, about a lack of transparency and accountability by the Indigenous

governing body that is representing them, I do think that there need to be components

in this bill, even in a coordination agreement, that have some level of transparency

and accountability to those members.

So again to the minister, why are there no provisions dealing with accountability

measures or transparency measures to Indigenous peoples represented by these Indigenous

governing bodies as part of these coordination agreements?

[3:25 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Off the top, I will note that subsection 34(7) does require that each coordination

agreement be published and any amendments to each agreement be published so that there

is some reporting and, I guess, public sharing of those coordination agreements.

While the EDMA does not legislate duties and obligations on Indigenous governing bodies,

does not include specific reporting or communication requirements between Indigenous

governing bodies and their membership, certainly it is possible for those aspects

to be included in a coordination agreement. During the collaborative development process,

where we worked closely with First Nations partners on the development of EDMA, we

heard a very strong desire that the requirements for agreements not be overly prescriptive

in the EDMA, in order to provide maximum flexibility for how those agreements are

structured.

Certainly, in terms of accountability between the Indigenous governing body, the First

Nation that has assigned them and the membership of the First Nation, it really is

for those community members to decide whether their First Nation or the subsequent

Indigenous governing body that is being appointed to serve as the Indigenous governing

body on behalf of the First Nation in the context of emergency management is communicating

and doing the job that they expect.

It's an important part of self-determination that the Indigenous peoples are able

to identify their own First Nations governments. We would not interfere with that

process.

E. Ross: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

E. Ross: The mayor of Terrace is here today. I did introduce him during question period in

the big House, but the mayor of Terrace has taken an interest in the Emergency and

Disaster Management Act as it relates to municipalities, especially Terrace, in our

region of Skeena.

Would the little House please make welcome the mayor of Terrace.

Debate Continued

M. Lee: I appreciate my colleague the member for Skeena introducing the mayor of Terrace.

Hopefully, the mayor of Terrace has a little more time, because we're going to be

part 3 for a bit here, which does relate to Indigenous governing bodies. Certainly,

to the extent…. As we come into areas around agreements with the Nisga'a Nation or

treaty First Nations, because they're also defined and viewed as a local authority

under this bill, there may be some learnings there of interest to the mayor of Terrace.

I want to just come back to the minister's response, which does suggest that in the

form of coordination agreement, there may be some requirements relating to accountability

and transparency. I'll just park that for a moment.

The minister also indicated, though, that they would be published. So let me just

ask that smaller question first.

The requirements under

section 7 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Act…. At least in the case of decision-making agreements, it does require that an

agreement that is entered into under

section 7 of the Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples Act be published in the Gazette. Is that where the coordination agreement will be published?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The term "publish" is defined in

section 1 in a way that allows greater flexibility

for how these agreements might be published. It could be the Gazette . It could also be an additional website or additional formats.

We are working with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation to determine

the best way to ensure that these coordination agreements are published in a way that

is as accessible as possible.

M. Lee: I see that the definition of "publish," certainly, as the minister points out, is

in accordance with the regulations, which are to be determined.

It's just of interest to me, of course, that in DRIPA…. When this government brought

it forward, it was clearly spelled out that it would be in the Gazette . It's not to be spelled out by regulation.

I think it's just a small example of the lack of clarity in this bill. The definition

of "publish"…. For something as important as a coordination agreement, I…. If we're

talking about how emergency response, provincial response, recovery phase, local authority

response and recovery phase….

Certainly, the mayor of Terrace is here to hear about how coordination agreements

will be entered into. Where does the mayor of Terrace need to go to find these agreements?

Are they buried on some website?

I think, obviously, given the nature of this agreement with an Indigenous governing

body, it should be by way of the Gazette . That was the standard that was set out in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples Act.

Again, why is it that with the standard that was set of high disclosure under the

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, when it comes to entering into

a decision-making agreement with an Indigenous governing body in this province, the

agreement is not published in the Gazette ?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The member might have misspoken. I think I heard the publishing of decision-making

agreements. I assume, given that we're on

section 34, that the member meant coordination

agreements and the publishing of coordination agreements. So that's what we're referring

to right now.

Certainly, I hear the member's feedback on the value of publishing coordination agreements

in the Gazette . We can certainly get there through the regulation. That being said,

part 1 of the

Gazette publishes weekly, and

part 2 of the Gazette publishes biweekly — which, I think, for most purposes, is frequent enough.

[3:45 p.m.]

Most coordination agreements we anticipate being entered into in advance of an emergency

situation. However, it is possible for a coordination agreement to be entered into

during an emergency situation, where weekly or biweekly publishing is actually not

responsive enough for our ability to get coordination agreements out when time is

of the essence.

The use of the term "publish" under subsection 34(7), in reference to the definition

under

section 1, was in relation to that, I guess, scenario that was contemplated

— that there may be situations where a coordination agreement is being entered into

very rapidly. This definition provides greater flexibility around how the primary

publishing mechanism can be.

Having said that, I do hear the member's feedback on the value of the Gazette for most cases.

M. Lee: Just to clarify, I was certainly referring to decision-making agreements as contemplated

under publication requirement under the DRIPA act, the Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples Act, as it might apply as a standard of its disclosure or publication

for coordination agreements under Bill 31.

I appreciate the response from the minister. It just raises another question for me,

which is: what parties or other individuals, community members, in the minister's

view, need to be aware of the terms of a coordination agreement?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: We would consider all decision-makers that have powers, duties or obligations in response

and recovery to emergency management within the geographic area that the coordination

agreement applies as well as all Indigenous and non-Indigenous members of the public

that may be affected.

I guess this also speaks to the value of having greater flexibility around the requirement

to publish, in terms of format and place, given that most members of the public don't

frequent the Gazette . It is a very useful publication, but we anticipate a need to publish more broadly

than that.

M. Lee: In terms of what might be dealt with under a coordination agreement, are there any

funding resources from the government to an Indigenous governing body that might be

contemplated under a coordination agreement?

Hon. B. Ma: As expected, the EDMA itself does not legislate funding or resourcing, as those kinds

of decisions go through the Treasury Board process and the budgeting and estimates

process. However, we are mindful that there may be resource requirements to support

the development of coordination agreements, yes.

M. Lee: The resources that an Indigenous governing body may require in order to develop a

coordination agreement would come with Treasury Board approval. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Ma: Certainly, any kind of provincial spending above and beyond what is already allocated

in our budget would have to go through a Treasury Board process. We have the annual

budget process and the estimates process as well. It would follow that usual process

for obtaining financial resources for government.

M. Lee: Is it the intention with this bill that the ministry would develop a budget allocation

for this ministry in order to enter into coordination agreements with Indigenous governing

bodies in this province? And if that's the case, what would be the approach by the

ministry to determine how many Indigenous governing bodies this ministry would attempt

to enter into these types of coordination agreements with?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: This is a bit of a challenging question for me to answer right now. It would require

me to almost anticipate the outcomes of Treasury Board processes before they have

been confirmed and approved.

[F. Donnelly in the chair.]

What I can say is…. We are acutely aware of what we have been hearing from emergency

management partners, local governments, regional districts and First Nations about

potential resourcing requirements to support the implementation of EDMA. Certainly,

it is our intention to seek financial supports, as appropriate, and to provide that

support to the greatest level possible.

[4:00 p.m.]

We are currently in conversations with several potential Indigenous governing bodies

who have indicated a high level of interest in entering into coordination agreements.

Those kinds of conversations will help inform what kinds of supports might be required

for the development of coordination agreements. That information helps inform the

kinds of requests that we will be making to the treasury.

M. Lee: We obviously haven't gotten to

part 5, "Provincial response and recovery phases,"

but it's contemplated under this clause 34 that there be coordination agreements relating

to "…the exercise of a power or performance of a duty under

Part 5…."

In respect of recovery as contemplated under

part 5, anticipating what a coordination

agreement might pertain to, can the minister give an example as to what we mean when

we say that a coordination agreement would set out, with an Indigenous governing body,

terms that govern the coordination in respect of "the exercise of the inherent right

of self-government by the Indigenous governing body in responding to or recovering

from an emergency"? What would be an example of that?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Coordination agreements are intended to support the coordination of the exercise of

a power or performance of a duty between the province and/or a local authority, and

the exercise of that power or similar power by the Indigenous governing body in order

to try to ensure that there's coordination and no gaps or conflicts.

An example of a response-related power that might be coordinated could be evacuation

orders. Which entity is responsible for issuing evacuation orders within a certain

geographic area?

An example of a recovery power can be found in subsection 89(2), where it states that

"the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, by regulation, prohibit 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."

So a coordination agreement could be created in relation to the exercise of that power

by the province and be coordinated in relation to the exercise of a similar power

by the IGB.

M. Lee: As the minister cites, by way of an example…. Of course, as we've been saying here,

it is helpful to address examples, because it brings these technical frameworks to

light. I appreciate the minister's efforts to do that, because I think they're meaningful

examples to consider.

The second example the minister cited in respect of sub 89(2) is, certainly, a direct

application of a certain power or performance of a duty under "Part 5 — Provincial

Response and Recovery Phases." In terms of that coordination, it would have the exercise

of that power coordinated with the exercise of the inherent right of self-governance

by the Indigenous governing body.

Therefore, I would expect the minister to be saying that it would then harmonize those,

both the power under this act — in terms of limiting or prohibiting entry for the

purpose of, for example, protecting objects or sites of heritage value — as well as

the Indigenous self-governance right of the Indigenous governing body.

[4:10 p.m.]

In that level of coordination, when we're talking about the word "coordination," and

not in the way that we're talking about it in terms of a decision-making agreement

or a statutory power agreement — which is different from a coordination agreement,

as we established before — who has the ultimate decision-making authority here in

determining that exercise of that recovery power? Is it the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council,

or is it the Indigenous governing body?

Hon. B. Ma: The distinction between a coordination agreement is…. What's worth noting about a

coordination agreement is that, unlike a decision-making agreement, a coordination

agreement does not change who the decision-maker is. Rather, it affects how the decision-maker

is making those decisions.

This is different from a decision-making agreement where, under a decision-making

agreement, agreements can be made jointly or by consent. Under a coordination agreement,

it's about…. As an example….

It's probably better to use examples. A coordination agreement may require that a

minister refrain from exercising certain response powers within a geographic area

in order to make space for the Indigenous governing body's inherent right to make

those decisions in that space.

The EDMA does not…. It's about how a local government, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

or a minister exercises our powers. It does not speak to the exercise of an Indigenous

governing body's power. So it's about changing the way that we exercise our powers

to create the space required for the inherent powers of an Indigenous governing body

to take place without creating a conflict.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response.

Certainly, the use of the term "space" by the minister is also consistent with the

responses that the former Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation gave

when we were considering the adoption of DRIPA four years ago in this chamber. So

I appreciate the minister's recognition of the importance of space from a legislative

duty point of view.

I would just say, in considering that…. Does the minister, though…?

[4:15 p.m.]

I do agree again with the minister that it is very helpful to use examples. Just reading

through the language of sub 89(2), when we're talking about protecting objects or

sites of heritage value…. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has responsibility in

the province, under the Heritage Conservation Act, for example, for objects or sites

of heritage value.

What happens when there's overlapping jurisdiction? When the coordination of spaces

actually overlaps in respect of ensuring, in one case, the Indigenous governing body

having the inherent right of self-government, which…. I'm sure an Indigenous governing

body may point to a particular

article of UNDRIP to perhaps demonstrate that — meaning

in respect of objects or sites or heritage value, I mean.

What happens when there's overlap between those two authorities or jurisdictions?

The Chair: The committee will just go into a ten-minute recess.

When we come back, Minister, you can respond to the question.

We'll come back at 4:25.

The committee recessed from 4:16 p.m. to 4:26 p.m.

[F. Donnelly in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, committee. We'll call the meeting back to order.

We're on Bill 31, clause 34. The question has been asked. We will give the minister

time to respond.

Hon. B. Ma: For greater clarity, a coordination agreement under the EDMA would only apply to powers

provided to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council minister or local authority through

the EDMA. So a coordination agreement created under the EDMA would not speak to any

other acts. The Heritage Conservation Act would, therefore, be out of scope for a

coordination agreement.

That being said, it's also worth noting…. When we're talking about protecting objects

or sites of heritage value, it could include contemporary structures as well. An Indigenous

governing body identifies an arbour. It could identify a traditional fishing area.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a person-made structure either.

By way of providing a more specific example of how an agreement could apply to the

exercise of subsection 89(2)…. A coordination agreement could place a requirement

that if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is going to restrict entry onto land to

protect the heritage site, Indigenous guardians can still access the site to maintain

it. That could be an example of an adjustment to how the exercise of that power could

be impacted by a coordination agreement.

M. Lee: I just wanted to turn now to clause 34(2). There's language in this clause that says

that a coordination agreement made with an Indigenous governing body may relate to

all or part of the traditional territory. Then it says the words "or treaty area of

the Indigenous people on whose behalf the Indigenous governing body acts."

"Traditional territory" we certainly did speak to in terms of the

definitions, and

"treaty" we did cover, in part, in talking about Nisga'a and Indigenous governing

body and treaty nations. But in terms of treaty area here…. How is this term "treaty

area" being applied here, alongside of "Indigenous governing body"? Really, when we

look at sub (3), we have language that a person might expect, which is "relates to

an area that is within Nisga'a Lands or treaty lands of a treaty first nation."

Are there treaty areas of Indigenous governing bodies?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The phrase "treaty area" here and throughout the act is used to describe an area that

is broader than treaty lands, where the Indigenous governing body of their treaty

nation may still have treaty rights.

M. Lee: In terms of an Indigenous governing body, there was a distinction made, separate from

Nisga'a and treaty nations. It's not intended that these treaty areas, for example….

These treaty areas, though, are subject to a jurisdiction, let's say, that is not

of a treaty First Nation. Is that correct?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: When we're talking about treaty areas, those are areas of the Nisga'a Nation or of

a treaty First Nation, which are also Indigenous governing bodies.

M. Lee: The distinction that's made here by the minister…. We can review the transcript of

what has been stated before, but I am under the recollection that there was some sort

of division within this bill between an Indigenous governing body and Nisga'a and

treaty First Nations.

I am unclear about how…. The way that this bill is drafted, for example, my understanding

was that the "local authority" definition included the Nisga'a Nation and treaty First

Nation. That is different from how and the reason why there are specific provisions

that deal with Indigenous governing bodies.

Just for the minister to clarify again, for "Indigenous governing body" though, it's

intended, then, when we read that term in this bill, that it also captures and is

meant to include the Nisga'a Nation and treaty First Nations. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Ma: Yes. For the utmost clarity, the Nisga'a Nation or treaty First Nations are IGBs under

this act.

M. Lee: In terms of "treaty area," again, as a term…. Well, is it a term? It is defined in

clause 1: "'treaty area', in relation to the Nisga'a Nation or a treaty first nation,

means a prescribed area."

[4:40 p.m.]

For treaty area here, we have a definition in this bill that only is defined in one

way. That is, if you're talking about Nisga'a Nation or a treaty First Nation, it

means a prescribed area. But if you're not talking about Nisga'a Nation or a treaty

First Nation, it's not defined. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Ma: The term "treaty area" only has application to the Nisga'a Nation and treaty First

Nations. For all other IGBs that are not treaty First Nations or the Nisga'a Nation,

the phrase "traditional territory" applies.

M. Lee: I just wanted to clarify the last part of the minister's response, if she could just

repeat that last part. Is she suggesting that for all other nations, it's traditional

territory? And if that's the case, then why is the wording here "traditional territory

or treaty area"?

Hon. B. Ma: Subsection (2) reads that "a coordination agreement made with an Indigenous governing

body may relate to all or part of the traditional territory or treaty area of the

Indigenous people on whose behalf the Indigenous governing body acts."

[4:45 p.m.]

Recognizing that Indigenous governing bodies include modern treaty nations, like Nisga'a

Nation and treaty First Nations, as well as non-treaty nations or other First Nations,

the phrase "treaty area" would apply in relation to a coordination agreement made

by the Nisga'a Nation or treaty First Nation, and the term "traditional territory"

would apply within a coordination agreement with other Indigenous governing bodies.

M. Lee: I take from the minister's response that the way that this clause is drafted is fairly

broadly to encompass the possibilities that the minister just summarized. I will just

move on from getting clarity on the record as to that provision. I believe, at least

from the minister's perspective, she's provided that clarity.

I would just like to turn to 34(4)(b)(ii). It refers to the minister having to consider

the rights of the Indigenous peoples on whose behalf the Nisga'a Nation or the treaty

First Nation acts. When in the context of entering into a coordination agreement,

the minster needs to consider the rights of the Indigenous peoples. Can the minister

elaborate on what responsibility the minister will have when it talks about considering

the rights. Are we talking about the rights of Indigenous peoples in respect of the

nature of this bill, or are we talking about greater rights than just that?

Hon. B. Ma: Under this clause, we would be referring to their

section 35 rights.

M. Lee: The next clause may be of interest to our guest the mayor from Terrace, just to the

extent that I can point out any particular provision that might be of interest.

It does refer that a coordination agreement may include one or more of the following

as parties to the agreement: a local authority, which is defined as including a municipality

like the city of Terrace; another Indigenous governing body; a participating authority;

This just raises the question around, in both cases…. We did cover yesterday in committee

that, generally speaking, a coordination agreement relates to the exercise of powers

in a traditional territory or geographic area of common interest to avoid the overlapping

exercise of powers in the same area. This is one of the reasons why the coordination

agreement is occurring.

When we're talking about a coordination agreement with one Indigenous governing body

and then having another Indigenous governing body join the coordination agreement,

presumably the circumstances under which another Indigenous governing body would be

invited to enter into that same coordination agreement would suggest that there are

overlapping claims of traditional territories or land entitlements between the two

Indigenous governing bodies. Is that correct?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Yes. A coordination agreement can only be entered into in relation to a traditional

territory or a treaty area — in which case, in order for multiple Indigenous governing

bodies to enter into the same coordination agreement, there would be a territorial

overlap.

M. Lee: There are areas of the province where there is significant territorial overlap, using

the words the minister just utilized, or at least assertions of territorial overlap

between First Nations. For coordination agreements and the effectiveness of the use

of these agreements, particularly when you're a local authority or a participating

authority, what efforts will the ministry be making in order to ensure that the parties

that are needed to be part of this coordination agreement are actually part of the

agreement when it comes to Indigenous governing bodies with overlapping territorial

claims?

Hon. B. Ma: Certainly, we would want these coordination agreements to be as effective as possible.

In order for coordination agreements to be as effective as possible, all of the right

parties would need to be a party to that coordination agreement. It would be our intent

to work with Indigenous governing bodies with overlapping territories and that may

be interested in a coordination agreement, to bring those parties together into a

single agreement.

M. Lee: This may well be a question that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin may want to pursue

— and already has raised in terms of the federal jurisdiction —when we look at coordination

to the coordination agreement. Knowing of the minister's review and looking at the

mechanism, the importance of these coordination agreements, is it not the case that

Well, let's just ask the question this way. How often does the minister expect that

for it to be effective?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Coordination agreements are created to achieve two outcomes, one being the coordination

of the exercise of a power, performance or duty within the EDMA. Those powers are

held either by the provincial government through the minister, Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

or a local authority, and coordinating that with the inherent powers of an IGB.

For that outcome to be effective within a coordination agreement, it is not necessary

for other parties to be a part of it, aside from…. Sorry. It is not necessary for

to achieve that outcome.

Under subsection 34(1)(b), that outcome, which I'll read out, "to harmonize and coordinate

plans, policies and programs in relation to the response and recovery phases…." I

would say that ideally, we would be harmonized across all levels of government, including

the federal government. However, that being said, it is not necessary for the federal

government to be part of a coordination agreement for us to still have a useful agreement

in place.

Clause 34 approved.

On clause 35.

M. Lee: Just looking at sub-subclause 35(2)(e), there's a requirement for "…the Lieutenant

Governor in Council, the minister, a local authority or a participating authority

to consult and cooperate…with an Indigenous governing body that is a party to the

agreement in exercising the power or performing the duty."

Just in terms of the standard that is to be applied here, so that the…. A local authority

like the city of Terrace, for example, would need to know what manner consultation

and cooperation….

I appreciate that it does say "in accordance with the agreement," but as we utilize

the terms "consult and cooperate," what does it mean in the context of this provision

in Bill 31?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Consultation and cooperation requirements do show up in

part 5 and

part 6 of the bill,

and there are specific clauses where consultation and cooperation are identified.

This particular section, subsection 35(2)(e), this particular clause, refers to additional

consultation and cooperation requirements that might be set out in an agreement, in

addition to those that are set out in

part 5 and

part 6.

Because those consultation and cooperation requirements would be set out by agreement,

so would the mechanism or the format of what consultation and cooperation mean for

those elements. It will likely depend on the significance of the thing that is being

put into the agreement around consultation and cooperation.

What consultation and cooperation could look like, really, would fall on the spectrum.

It could be some examples requiring a meeting of technical staff prior to decisions

being made. Or it could be as simple as a government-to-government phone call with

leadership to have a conversation prior to a decision being made.

Clauses 35 and 36 approved.

On clause 37.

M. Lee: We were having a discussion in relation to coordination agreements, about accountability,

transparency and governance. The same question would certainly apply to the entry

into decision-making agreements and statutory power agreements. I'm sure the minister

would give the same response, so I'm just going to note that the minister has responded

in respect of the recognition and respect for Indigenous governing bodies as representative

of Indigenous peoples and what that might look like.

[5:05 p.m.]

I would like to ask, though…. As this government continues to utilize greater arrangements

around decision-making and statutory power agreements in the manner that is set out

in Bill 31 and as we've looked at in the

definitions as well, has the government considered

the level of governance standard and accountability that government may look to for

Indigenous governing bodies in the sense of the types of standards and guidance and

assistance that has been there from organizations like the First Nations Financial

Management Board — which, as I understand it, has helped to guide the government's

processes for Indigenous governing bodies in this province, at least in the case of

80 or more First Nations in British Columbia?

Hon. B. Ma: The answer is yes, government has considered the conditions under which a

section

7 agreement would be authorized to take place. Certainly, in order for a minister

to be authorized to enter into a

section 7 agreement, it would have to be approved

by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

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

The determination around

section 7 agreements….

Section 7 agreements, certainly, both

in the case of a decision-making agreement and the statutory power agreement, involve

the authorization by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

In terms of the considerations as to whether a minister, under this bill, would be

authorized on behalf of government to enter into a

section 7 agreement — meaning,

in this case, a decision-making agreement or statutory power agreement…. What types

of considerations go into that determination as to whether that authorization would

be provided to the minister, pursuant to Bill 31?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I'm going to start off with some clarifying comments to make sure we're on the same

page.

Statutory power agreements are

section 6 agreements,

whereas decision-making agreements

are

section 7 agreements. Both

section 6 and

section 7 agreements will be subject

to the same requirements in terms of authorization for the minister to enter into

them.

The decision to authorize entering into a

section 6 or a

section 7 agreement is a

cabinet decision, so I'm unable to speak to the kinds of factors that would be discussed

around a cabinet table here. Certainly, I can say that it is likely to be highly case-specific

and fact-dependent.

We would be conferring with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

as well as the Declaration Act Secretariat prior to seeking a cabinet mandate. Those

conversations would most certainly include conversations around transparency and accountability.

[5:15 p.m.]

M. Lee: This clarifies…. I appreciate the response in terms of the substantive area of the

response.

In terms of the continued discussion around

section 6 and

section 7 agreements, my

only point is that when you look at statutory power agreements, they effectively bring

in all the terms of

section 7 of DRIPA. That's still a discussion we've had back and

forth.

With that, I have no further questions on clause 37.

Clause 37 approved.

On clause 38.

M. Lee: In terms of the language in sub 38(b), there's a distinction being drawn here between

statutory power of decision versus statutory power. In each case, it refers to

section

1 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

Can the minister just walk us through the distinction that's being drawn here, in

respect of a statutory power versus a statutory power of decision?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I was wondering if the member could maybe clarify his question. Is he asking for the

definition of statutory power of decision versus statutory power? Or is he asking

whether or not a distinction is being made between the two within this clause?

M. Lee: It's really why this language is here. What's the purpose of clause 38?

Hon. B. Ma: Subsection 38(

b) is an

interpretation clause to ensure that the agreements are effective

in the context of the statute.

Clause 38 approved.

On clause 39.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for that engagement. We appreciate it. I definitely want to understand a

little bit better. The province currently has a comprehensive emergency plan, and

of course, in 39, we talk about the development of that. I'm wondering how 39 is going

to change the scope of what we currently have in this province for a plan.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: As we may have discussed before around comprehensive emergency management plans,

section

39 introduces a streamlined concept of a comprehensive emergency management plan for

British Columbia. It is a plan that includes the emergency management plans of lead

ministers and clarifies that the responsibility to lead the implementation of the

comprehensive emergency management plan lies with Emergency Management and Climate

Readiness.

The EDMA, overall, takes a more holistic approach to the development of emergency

management plans that encompass all four phases: preparation, mitigation, response

and recovery. That information is provided in sections 40 and 41 of the legislation.

In compiling all of those different plans from different ministries, which are all

more holistic, with four phases, we end up with a comprehensive emergency management

plan that is also more holistic and takes a four-phase approach.

That would be, I guess, the update that is provided by the EDMA.

L. Doerkson: I can appreciate the complexities of what the new plan might look like, particularly

when we bring all of this information together under this act, from hundreds of communities,

regional districts, First Nations and everything else.

How often will this plan have to be reviewed?

[S. Chant in the chair.]

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: To reiterate clarification that we had provided around the comprehensive emergency

management plan during our conversations in

section 1 of the legislation, the comprehensive

emergency management plan is a compilation of all of the lead ministries' emergency

management plans. It does not include the hundreds of local governments and First

Nations and other organizations — just for clarity.

That being said, to the member's question around how often the comprehensive emergency

management plan will be updated, as per

section 39, it will be determined by regulation.

It hasn't been set out yet. However, I can share that one of the factors that we would

certainly consider is the fact that emergency management plans really have to be iterative.

They can't be created once and sit on a shelf for 30 years, especially given the realities

of climate change and how quickly that is changing the circumstances around various

hazards.

The review of each lead ministry's emergency management plan may be a continuous effort,

depending on the hazard. So it really is hazard-dependent. That being said, I will

also offer that in the public engagement for local government, local authorities regulation

that is happening right now, one of the questions that we ask local authorities is

their opinion on a regular update cycle. And certainly what we hear back from that

public consultation will no doubt inform the kind of cycle that might be put upon

the comprehensive emergency management plan required by the province of itself.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for the clarity around that.

I guess, then, that really creates one more question, and that is: why wouldn't those

plans be a part of it? I mean, there's so much effort, I think, going to be involved

in this. And the minister mentioned change. No question that the change that we've

seen on the landscape, frankly, in even the last month or two has been incredible.

I guess that's really the reason for my question. It just seems that we should have

clarity around whether it's a yearly check-in or whether it's a monthly check-in.

I just think that things are changing so quickly.

I guess two questions. Again, why wouldn't this be a compilation of everything else,

or why wouldn't that be included in the plan? And then secondly, is there any indication

of a timeline for review? I mean, I can appreciate that that may be at the minister's

discretion, and if that's the case, then I'd like to hear that.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The comprehensive emergency management plan is really a provincial emergency management

plan, which is why it includes only provincial-level emergency management plans.

Whereas

for local authorities their plans will be focused on actions taken by a local authority

at a more local level.

That being said,

section 40 does require for the provincial administrator to consult

and coordinate with local authorities in a prescribed class of local authorities and

consider any comments received from a local authority consulted in accordance to paragraph

1 when developing a comprehensive emergency management plan. So even if we're not

actively collecting every single emergency management plan, we are certainly incorporating

their feedback, their comments, in the development of the emergency management plan.

I apologize. I forgot the second part of your question. To answer the second part

of your question, it will be a similar answer to the response I provided earlier,

that the regulation hasn't been set yet for the cycle in which the comprehensive emergency

management plan would need to be updated. However, we would consider a number of factors

that we had outlined before.

In terms of the cycle for local government, local authority emergency management plans,

it's one of the active questions within our public engagement with local authorities

on the development of the regulation.

Clause 39 approved.

section 40.

[5:40 p.m.]

L. Doerkson: Thanks for the answer that the minister just provided with respect to clause 39.

I don't recall ever talking about the timeline for that. I can appreciate that the

regulation is coming. I think I've noted my concern about that.

Under clause 40, just one quick question. I can appreciate that this consultation

is referring to ongoing work and that type of thing. My question around this is….

I think the minister may have heard this. Some of the RDs and certainly the local

governments have expressed some frustration around this topic, just the consultation

piece in general. I'm wondering, I guess, if the minister has, perhaps, heard those

same comments. If the minister has, are there any thoughts or anything being contemplated

to improve that communication process?

Hon. B. Ma: If I can clarify. Is the question related specifically to the development of a comprehensive

emergency management plan, or is that a broader question around communications?

L. Doerkson: Just in general terms. We've talked a lot about this in earlier clauses. It just struck

me that I have had a few regional districts, frankly, that feel like they've been

kind of disconnected from the process.

Now, I can appreciate that this is talking about building things as we go forward

and that type of thing. I'm just wondering if the ministry has noted the same concerns

that have been conveyed to me. If the ministry has, is there any conversation around

improvements in the communications with these local governments, which will be imperative,

of course, going forward?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Members of the committee, a division has been called in the main House. We will recess

until six o'clock. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 5:42 p.m. to 6 p.m.

[S. Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee to order. We are on clause 40.

Hon. B. Ma: Certainly, we do recognize the importance of engaging with local authorities, local

governments and regional districts, particularly given the types of regulations that

we are working on developing. For the purposes of describing our engagement process

moving forward, we have launched an engagement process on regulations for local authorities'

post-emergency financial assistance, as the member knows.

Two discussion papers, one on each, have been developed and released, with specific

questions for regional districts as well as for local governments. The discussion

papers, as well as invitations to virtual sessions, have been sent to regional district

chairs and mayors, as well as to staff. We're very hopeful that they'll participate

in those virtual sessions and provide feedback by the end of the year.

In regard to the legislation, I will note that

section 40 is designed to facilitate

communications with local authorities. It is our intention to always be improving

in terms of how we engage with and communicate with local authorities.

L. Doerkson: I'll just make, maybe, one last plea. It's not a question but just a plea. You know,

this is such an important topic. Local governments, all of them, really want a piece

of this and to be involved in a big way. Anyhow, thank you very much for that.

Clause 40 approved.

On clause 41.

[6:05 p.m.]

M. Lee: The reference here…. I'm not going to necessarily take this in order just yet, but

just jump to sub 41(1)(d). It says that in the case of an emergency management plan,

the provincial administrator must make reasonable efforts to reach agreement respecting

areas to be described in the plan for the purposes of

section 90.

The reasonable effort standard. The question to the minister is: if the provincial

administrator is not…? I appreciate that the obligation is to use reasonable efforts,

but in the instance where an agreement is not reached, what happens then?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Subsection 41(

d) relates to

section 90, which refers to provincial obligations to

consult and coordinate when exercising specific response and recovery powers. If agreement

is not reached under subsection (

d) respecting areas to be described in the plan for

the purposes of

section 90, we would effectively be in the same situation that we

are in right now. The way we currently operate is that we still attempt to consult,

coordinate and communicate with the First Nations that we believe will be affected

by the exercise of a response recovery power.

An example of how this is carried out…. We'll go back to the travel restriction order,

the travel order restricting non-essential travel for the purposes of occupying temporary

accommodations order. Prior to the issuance of that order, I personally called the

leadership of each First Nation who had communities within the areas we were contemplating

for the order, to ask them whether they wanted to be a part of that order or not.

We do attempt to consult, cooperate, communicate with First Nations now, but with

the provisions and duties and obligations introduced in the EDMA, we hope to be able

to establish the understanding of the affected areas ahead of time so that we're not

guessing. I think that is an important improvement.

M. Lee: The specifics of the agreement, the nature of it, we can address further when we get

to clause 90 of this bill.

Just coming back to the term "Indigenous knowledge" in sub 41(1)(c). When we're talking

about incorporating into the plan Indigenous knowledge, if available…. When we're

talking about "if available," those two words at the tail end of that clause suggest

if it's made available by, presumably, the Indigenous governing body. Is that correct?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Yes. If available being if it's been provided by be it an Indigenous governing body

or a First Nation or Indigenous peoples.

M. Lee: Clause 160 of this bill certainly contemplates the confidentiality restrictions around

Indigenous knowledge, but it also does have the usual carve-out for confidentiality

restrictions as it pertains to confidential information or knowledge not just specific

even to Indigenous knowledge. That is without restriction if the Indigenous knowledge

is publicly available.

In the case of this provision, if that Indigenous knowledge is already publicly available,

then, presumably, there is no restriction on the ability of the plan — that is, in

the preparation of the comprehensive emergency management plan or emergency management

plan under

section 39. That Indigenous knowledge would be incorporated as part of

that plan. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Ma: That is correct. There is no restriction on the use of publicly available Indigenous

knowledge, although we would endeavour to reach out to the First Nation or Indigenous

governing body to consult with them on its use and relevance to the comprehensive

emergency management plan and make sure that, I guess, there are no issues with incorporating

that information into the plan.

M. Lee: In the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge into an emergency management plan as

contemplated under

section 39…. Depending on the type of Indigenous knowledge that

we're talking about, in many cases, let's say, it's entirely possible, of course,

that that Indigenous knowledge is confidential to the nation itself. Is the incorporation

of Indigenous knowledge, though, meant to help shape the emergency management plan

in a way that…?

[6:20 p.m.]

In terms of transparency to local authorities or other local bodies that have interest

in how the emergency management plan is shaping, is the minister comfortable in terms

of how Indigenous knowledge of a confidential basis will potentially constrain the

development or the transparency around the management plan itself?

Hon. B. Ma: Yes. We are confident in the protection of that confidential information, given the

provisions of

section 160.

Further to the member's point, I think…. I definitely do acknowledge that Indigenous

knowledge may come in the form of identifying specific sites of importance to First

Nations or Indigenous governing bodies that they do not want to have publicly known.

I can contemplate a number of ways that we can continue to incorporate that kind of

information into emergency management plans.

One example is, perhaps, the identification of a broader area within which there may

be a site of importance. Therefore, it acts as a flag for emergency managers that

prior to taking an action within that area, they should reach out to the affected

First Nation to consult and cooperate.

[6:25 p.m.]

We could also contemplate being told where specific sites are and having that influence

the emergency management plan without necessarily disclosing what the specific Indigenous

knowledge that informed that aspect of the emergency management plan is.

We would certainly look to Indigenous governing bodies and First Nations on how best

to share or not to share that information. We would take guidance from them on that.

The alternative would be for that kind of information to not be shared, and then it

wouldn't be incorporated into the emergency management plan. It would have no utility.

I think the short answer is yes. We are confident in our ability to incorporate that

kind of information without breaking confidentiality of the manner in which the information

is being provided to us.

L. Doerkson: The minister just touched on something that tweaked my mind to a question as well

with respect to archaeology information. I know that we're having some challenges

on the land base because some of that is being kept private and, frankly, with the

suggestion that we're trying to protect those areas from people that might choose

to just cause some destruction. My fear is what happens if we don't know that information

and what may happen to a site accidentally, if you will.

I wonder how the government may manage that or how you might approach that because

I would hate to see a cat making a fireguard through something that would be noted

as a sensitive area. I can appreciate completely the sensitivity around this, but

I want to understand, if you wouldn't mind, a bit more clearly how that might be protected.

Hon. B. Ma: I think the member's question speaks to my previous answer on this, which is that

by receiving that kind of Indigenous knowledge about sensitive areas, even if that

information is kept confidential in a number of ways, we can still find ways to incorporate

that information into our emergency management plan.

As an example, if the Indigenous governing body or the First Nation chooses to keep

a site of archaeological importance private, they may provide us with a generic area

within which they have areas that are sensitive. That would indicate to us, the province

or B.C. Wildfire Service, that consultation needs to happen before we create a firebreak

in the area. At that point, when we're actually in an emergency situation, then I

think the conversations may evolve to suit the circumstances.

For instance, an Indigenous governing body or a First Nation may not wish to disclose

the exact location generally for an emergency management plan. But during an actual

emergency, when a firebreak is actually being planned and may actually take place,

those conversations may change.

Clauses 41 and 42 approved.

On clause 43.

L. Doerkson: This is along the same lines. I just have one question on this

section and that is

simply: who will have access to these continuity plans?

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The act does not require the publishing of business continuity plans, largely in recognition

of the fact that not all aspects of a business continuity plan or not all business

continuity plans you want to make public. It may constitute a security risk. Within

the organizations that would have access to business continuity plans, it would be

up to the organization to manage access within their own organization.

L. Doerkson: That's exactly what I was sort of getting at. But are we confusing the continuity

plan that the government will put together for the continuity of government with other

business continuity plans? The reason I'm asking that is that I do have the same question,

and if the minister chose to answer that now, we won't have to ask it later.

That really is my concern: the security that the minister just mentioned. But also,

with respect to business continuity plans for some of those critical infrastructure

owners, they may not want to share some of these details, just for competitive reasons

and other reasons. I also think that they do kind of expose themselves in a number

of ways.

I can appreciate that the minister may say, "Let's discuss that when we get there,"

but we won't have to if we answer it now.

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Yes, I can confirm that the response I provided under

section 43 does apply to other

business continuity plans as well, although I will note that under

section 50, there

is a provision that allows the provincial administrator to specifically request a

copy of critical infrastructure owners' risk assessments, emergency management plans

and business continuity plans. But generally speaking, there's no requirement to publish

publicly those plans.

For greater assurance to the member, I'll note that

section 167 speaks to sensitive

information of the nature that the member has raised. We can also work on that when

we get there.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for that. I'll pay a little more attention to 160 in a moment.

I can appreciate that the minister is in a position not to publish it. Is there an

example of who might request this information or why the minister might…?

Maybe that's the question. Why might the minister share this information, and who

might it be shared with — under both, by the way: the government and also the business

plans?

Hon. B. Ma: I believe the question was: under what circumstances might a business continuity plan

be shared by the minister, or otherwise, publicly? I think an example might be through

an FOI request, although there are, of course, provisions under a separate act that

would protect sensitive information of any information that we were releasing.

Clauses 43 to 46 inclusive approved.

On clause 47.

L. Doerkson: I know we've discussed this situation much under

definitions, and I know we've talked

about it quite a bit. I have a couple of questions around timelines.

In 47(2), it does suggest that subject to regulations, "a local authority must," and

then, of course, it defines a couple of things that local authorities must do.

[6:40 p.m.]

One of the concerns that I've had — the minister, I'm sure, is clear on that by now

— is about the regulations and the development of them. I guess what I'm trying to

understand better in this clause is: on what sort of a timeline would the ministry

expect to see these regulations developed? What would be the timeline for developing

a plan — either (

a) or (b), for instance — after those regulations are created?

Hon. B. Ma: In the discussion paper for the development of local authority regulations, it identifies

an intention to complete the regulation in 2024. In terms of the timelines for bringing

local authorities into compliance to that regulation, that's one of the areas that

we are actively consulting on right now.

All this said, I certainly did hear, from opposition members and the critic himself,

a desire for greater line of sight into the development of regulations, given that

there's so much that is being developed outside of this particular debate process.

We anticipate developing what-we-heard reports following the engagement session, not

only for the development of a local authorities regulation but also for the post-disaster

financial assistance regulation.

We'd be happy to set up a dedicated engagement for opposition members to support the

development of that regulation through conversation. If the member believes that that

would be helpful, we'd be happy to put that together, likely in early 2024, although

the timelines will be based on, basically, when the what-we-heard report is developed.

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

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:45 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