Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Monday, October

23, 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; F. Donnelly in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

On clause 1 (continued) .

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

and Disaster Management Act, to order. We're on clause 1, and I think the member for

Cariboo-Chilcotin is up.

L. Doerkson: It's nice to be in the room together. We do have a few more questions on the

definitions,

clause 1. My colleague from Vancouver-Langara will be joining us, just as notice to

the Chair to kind of keep a watch out there on Zoom.

I'll start with…. I'm going to pass over the term "head," as my colleague does have

a couple of questions on that term. I want to move along to "local knowledge." I want

to get a bit of a better sense of what the term "people" will refer to in that.

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: We have not restricted or limited the definition of "people" in any way. It does carry

its ordinary definition of people — you and I, or the member and I.

For the purposes of providing greater elaboration on the definition of "local knowledge,"

I'll offer that local knowledge is considered to be separate from Indigenous knowledge,

although the two can share similar characteristics. Maybe that's a bit of a helpful

elaboration.

L. Doerkson: As we found out last week, the typical definition of "person" is a little bit more

complicated than we expected as well. I think we'll have a bit more conversation about

that today.

I guess the reason that this is important is that so many individuals, certainly in

ridings like mine or others, have wanted to really be involved with sharing information

— not necessarily just about how a response to a fire or a flood may happen but certainly

with respect to preventative measures as well, which we've talked quite a bit about.

I guess that's why I just wanted to get an understanding of who we might be looking

for, when we might be looking to have that conversation and, certainly, what might

be contemplated as far as a mechanism to chat with them.

Now, we can chat now, or we can chat under clause 2. I think it's clause 2; I can't

remember. But frankly, I know that a lot of people want to weigh in on these conversations,

and I'm just trying to understand exactly what the ministry might be contemplating

when it's talking about this.

I mean, I can presume, I suppose, but I'd love to hear it from the minister that we

would be talking about ranchers and guide-outfitters, people that have a vested interest

in our land. But might that also include other tenure holders? I can appreciate what

people might generally mean, but I want to be clear about what we're referring to

under this definition.

Hon. B. Ma: The short answer is yes, absolutely. Ranchers would be an example of people that might

be involved in providing local knowledge. As an example, farmers sharing their experiences

on seasonal flooding that they've observed over time as they've been farming their

lands.

The point of time at which this kind of local knowledge would be incorporated into

emergency management work will be…. We can discuss that under

section 51, which is

risk assessments. But it kind of gives you a little bit of a prelude that under the

assessment of risk, local knowledge would be one of those areas of expertise that

are incorporated into risk assessments.

L. Doerkson: Yeah, we'll come back to that a little bit as we traverse through the clauses, just

to get a better sense of how that engagement might occur and how that might look.

So we will come back to that.

Just very briefly, "necessities." I get the three necessities that are here, but I

was actually surprised that there wasn't more defined under that term. The bill defines

food, clothing and shelter. I can appreciate that those are all necessities, but was

there anything else contemplated here — medical transportation, all the other things

that we would obviously need in our times of need? And why wouldn't they be listed

here?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: In this case, the definition of "necessities" is an inclusive definition. It includes

the ordinary meaning of necessities and food, clothing, shelter.

Really, it's to provide assurance, for certainty…. Necessities certainly does include

food, clothing and shelter but is not intended to exclude other forms of necessities

that might be defined through the ordinary meaning of the word "necessities."

L. Doerkson: I have one more question on the term "security threats." Then I believe Vancouver-Langara

will be taking us back to the term "head," where he will have a couple of questions

on that as well.

With respect to security threats…. Again, it's pretty clear that this actually refers

to the impairment of government or society. I'm guessing that that would include things

like destruction to infrastructure and things like that. Yes or no would work on that.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: For greater clarity, the term "security threat" could include actions that destroy

infrastructure. However, that destruction of infrastructure would have to severely

impair the functioning of government or society. The mere destruction of infrastructure

in and of itself may not meet the test. But if that destruction of infrastructure

severely impaired functioning of government, then it could.

L. Doerkson: I think we're going to move to Vancouver-Langara now.

M. Lee: I just wanted to turn to a main provision of Bill 31, which is "Indigenous governing

body." Could I ask the minister: what is the government's current

interpretation as

to what an Indigenous governing body is?

Hon. B. Ma: For the sake of not rewriting

definitions that have already been written before, I

want to confirm that our definition in the EDMA of an Indigenous governing body is

the same as in subsection 1(1) of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Act. So it's consistent with the Declaration Act of B.C.

M. Lee: Certainly, as discussed in our committee review to date, this term "Indigenous governing

body" is utilized throughout Bill 31. As we get into

part 3, "Agreements with Indigenous

governing bodies," for example, that is certainly a very important part of the bill,

at least as it relates to First Nations. The "Indigenous governing body" definition

is utilized here. And as the minister confirmed, it's certainly, as you would expect,

consistent with Bill 41, back in 2019, which is now the Declaration on the Rights

of Indigenous Peoples Act.

What I'm asking, though, is: for the purpose of this Bill 31, what constitutes an

Indigenous governing body from the government's perspective? Meaning, what is the

level of governance structure that is expected by government from a First Nation or

another Indigenous nation or community in order to constitute itself as an Indigenous

governing body for the purpose of this act?

[2:55 p.m.]

The Chair: Member, I'll just ask if you want to continue, raise your hand virtually. Let me know

after the minister responds, or just somehow indicate to the Chair. Thanks very much.

Hon. B. Ma: In subsection 1(1) of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, "Indigenous

governing body" means an 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. Consistent with the Declaration Act, we as the B.C. government do not determine

who is or is not an Indigenous governing body. Those authorizations are done by Indigenous

peoples in the communities themselves.

M. Lee: Well, just breaking that down, could I just take the last part of it? What level of

authorization does the government of B.C. need to see from an Indigenous nation or

an Indigenous governing body?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The Declaration Act Secretariat does have a guidance document. It is called the Indigenous Governing Bodies in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Act .

[3:05 p.m.]

That's the guiding document. Within the guiding document, it notes that authorization

should be read as being "pursuant to Indigenous legal processes, traditions and standards

consistent with the UN declaration that are undertaken as part of nations expressing,

rebuilding and implementing their governance systems." So that is the standard that

we would also follow under the EDMA.

M. Lee: In utilizing the guidance provided by the Declaration Act Secretariat, as the minister

just summarized, can I ask: what level of authorization, though, is required in order

to be demonstrated by the First Nation in question, and what form of proof is there

around that level of authorization having been achieved?

The Chair: Member, I'm just going to mention that the minister has mentioned the definition of

an Indigenous governing body, which is the same as it is in another piece of legislation,

the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

If you can how explain to the Chair how this is relevant to Bill 31 — given that you're

asking questions about another act and you've had a few times at it, and I think the

minister has responded — you're welcome to continue. But this is drifting to the other

act. Do you want to explain to the Chair, Member?

M. Lee: Happy to take this opportunity to explain to the Chair.

Mr. Chair, if you look at the definition of "Indigenous governing body" in Bill 31,

it says: "'Indigenous governing body' has the same meaning as in

section 1 (1) of

the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act." That's the reason why I'm

referring to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

It's the reason why the minister, in response, referred to the same act and referred

to the guidance from the Declaration Act Secretariat that's been set up by this government

to implement the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

I hope that helps the Chair.

The Chair: I'll invite the minister to respond. However, this is on

definitions, and the minister

has made it very clear what the definition in this act is. So the minister can respond

if she chooses, but that has been answered.

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you, Chair, for that. If I may, yes.

The EDMA does rely on the

definitions that have been set out by the Declaration Act.

The processes, the procedures that flow from that, we follow. So the EDMA does not

make any changes.

I think that the Chair's point about the questions being really more about the Declaration

Act than this act are valid given that we do not, in this act, make…. I guess a lot

of the questions probably would have been better answered through the Declaration

Act debate, which we are not at right now.

We don't have anything further to add at this point.

M. Lee: In my second reading speech, I referred to the fact that this Bill 31 is significant

land-based legislation, in part, with First Nations. Under the Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which was implemented four years ago, in 2019….

[3:10 p.m.]

This piece of legislation that comes forward by this government is their next step

forward to deal with the shared jurisdictions between First Nations, local authorities,

the government of British Columbia as it pertains to emergency management and disaster

recovery under Bill 31. It's very important to understand, for First Nations and Indigenous

communities, how the definition of Indigenous governing body is being utilized under

Bill 31.

The appropriate place to have the discussion around thresholds of application of that

term as it pertains to Bill 31 throughout the bill is in the definition. Otherwise,

we will be having this discussion every single time "Indigenous governing body" is

utilized in this bill. This is the appropriate juncture to have this discussion.

There are other ways to have this discussion, certainly. But the minister, in bringing

forward this bill, needs to look to her team around her, as I've given indication

of in my second reading speech last week, to ensure that we, at the committee stage

here with the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, the member for Skeena, other members of

our caucus, the Third Party, the Fourth Party and whoever wants to participate in

this committee debate can have a good understanding.

This really does go to the heart of the relationship of the province of British Columbia

with First Nations and Indigenous peoples in our province as it pertains to emergency

management and disaster recovery.

It's important to understand how this government is utilizing the Indigenous governing

bodies definition as it relates to First Nations and Indigenous nations and communities

in our province.

That's the reason why I've asked the question to the minister about how this definition

is being utilized by this government, because there's significant weight put on that

term in this bill. If a First Nation or Indigenous community is not determined to

be an Indigenous governing body, we will have that discussion — other than treaty

or Nisga'a, of course.

But if we're talking about some other First Nation that's not an Indigenous governing

body, I think we need to understand how emergency management will pertain to them

too. But this is an operative term. Because it is there embedded throughout this bill,

it's important to have a thorough understanding as to how this government is utilizing

this term as a gating mechanism — those are my words — for the application of Bill

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I'll try to give this a shot again. I'm hoping that I'll be able to provide further

clarity.

Again, the EDMA relies on the Declaration Act's definition of "Indigenous governing

body." It does not, I guess, deviate from that.

In addition to the Declaration Act guidance that I previously read in, I would just

reaffirm that Indigenous peoples have been governing themselves for thousands of years.

The processes and traditions within them for establishing what might be their IGB

will differ significantly between communities. The

interpretation of the act that

we use, basically, is in deference to their processes and their traditions and the

way that they choose, as peoples and communities, to establish who their IGB might

be.

I think that in most cases, it will be very clear. There may be some situations where

the conversation is less clear. We would then likely go to the Ministry of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation or the Declaration Act for some guidance.

Generally speaking, the B.C. government…. Our government would not be the arbitrators

or the adjudicators of what is and is not an Indigenous governing body that has been

authorized by the community. That's certainly something that we defer to the communities

themselves.

I'm thinking, perhaps, that if the member has further questions on this…. Given that

we would likely take guidance from the Declaration Act Secretariat and the Ministry

of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, I would be happy to make a connection

for the member with the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation to have

a further conversation on this, if that would be helpful to the member.

[3:20 p.m.]

M. Lee: Certainly, I've had the discussions with the minister responsible for Indigenous Relations

and Reconciliation, both the former minister and the current minister, on the record

over the last four years, most recently in recognition of the Haida Nation, for example.

That was the first piece of legislation in the province of B.C. that legislated into

law the recognition of that nation and, obviously, so recognized as an Indigenous

governing body. We've seen other examples, of course, with the Tahltan as they ventured

into a

section 7 agreement under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Act with this government a year or two ago.

Of course, to the minister's point, in terms of the Wet'suwet'en peoples, there is

an ongoing process between hereditary and elected and the community there, with both

the federal government and the provincial government, as to what the governance is

for that nation.

I also know, though, if I can ask the minister…. In terms of specific examples that

would apply to this bill, let me ask this first from a procedural point of view. As

the minister and her ministry address emergency management plans, recovery plans and

the other requirements set out in this bill for an Indigenous governing body, does

the ministry then…? It presumably makes its own determination as to whom they're dealing

with in terms of an Indigenous governing body.

I think the minister is suggesting, of course, that there might be, where necessary,

assistance provided by the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. But

her ministry, though, is equipped to address Indigenous governing bodies. I just want

to confirm that that is the case.

Hon. B. Ma: I was wondering if the member might be able to restate his question, just for clarity.

M. Lee: My question is, really, on the basis of the minister's response previously, to suggest

that I should go speak to the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

My question relates to this ministry when it is, through the course of this Bill 31,

relying on the term "Indigenous governing bodies," that this ministry is equipped

to address Indigenous governing bodies and make that determination and process that

they have set out in this bill and that there is not a need to turn to the Ministry

of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation every time a First Nation comes forward

and presents themselves as an Indigenous governing body.

The Chair: Member, I'll just remind you that we are, I think, drifting into the other act. And

while the Chair completely understands your question, the minister has answered the

question, under

definitions, of what the definition is. I believe, if I'm getting

it correct, Member, that you're looking for a mechanism, to explain the mechanism,

as opposed to the definition. But we'll certainly let the minister respond.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: To the member's question, yes, the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness

is capable of, I guess, establishing relationships with Indigenous governing bodies.

We expect, in the vast majority of cases, that Indigenous peoples, Indigenous communities,

will identify their Indigenous governing bodies. We would certainly take them at face

value. Where there are conflicts or challenges that maybe require a bit more nuanced

navigation, those are the cases where we would go to the Ministry of Indigenous Relations

and Reconciliation or perhaps the Declaration Act Secretariat for guidance. We don't

expect that to be the majority of cases, though.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response. That just addresses how this ministry would deal with the

term "Indigenous governing body." It's what one would expect, at least in terms of

the ministry being able to do this.

That's why the term "Indigenous governing body," even though it's under a different

act, is a definition that needs to be understood by all members of this government,

as the minister just confirmed. That would be the expectation — that when there are

questions around "Indigenous governing body," the questions are not merely referred

to the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, that this Declaration

on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act is of such a broad, sweeping scope that it

cuts across all of government, including the Premier of our province. That direct

nation-to-nation relationship, of course, we know is important and fundamental.

[3:30 p.m.]

That's why, even though this definition…. I mean, quite frankly, the cross-referencing

the cross-referencing that happens in legislative drafting happens. I get that. But

this definition could easily have said the actual definition, which is spelled out

in the act. We would still be having this discussion without having to refer to the

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

Regardless of where it is, by virtue of the fact that it is cross-referenced and incorporated

by reference in this definition…. That's the reason why we're having this discussion.

Having established that, I'd like to ask the minister: when a tribal council presents

itself as an Indigenous governing body under this Bill 31, what…? I presume, by the

way, of course, that even today there are disaster recovery situations where tribal

councils are involved, and there are understandings or agreements relating to that.

Let me reconfirm that first. This can be a fairly straightforward discussion. First

of all, her ministry does have existing arrangements relating to emergency and disaster

recovery with tribal councils. If that's the case, again, if the minister could state

what level of confirmation is typically required for the tribal council to provide

in order to demonstrate that they are an Indigenous governing body.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: EMCR does have relationships and does work with tribal councils in some areas of the

province.

In the case that I'm thinking of, the way that we had determined…. Rather, the way

it was communicated to us that the tribal council would be acting on behalf of a First

Nation was…. We received a letter from the First Nation identifying the tribal council

as the body through which they wanted us to work on a number of issues, X, Y and Z.

I think it's fair to say that the default relationship, really, for our government

is nation to nation, with the individual nation's governing body.

[3:40 p.m.]

In those cases where a nation identifies to us that they would defer to a tribal council

for the purposes of emergency management work and for communicating with us on issues

relating to the Emergency and Disaster Management Act or protocol agreements, or so

forth, then we would take them at face value.

In some of the examples where we do work with tribal councils, we have received letters

from the nations identifying the tribal councils as the body through which they wanted

us to work. So that's an example of, I suppose, an authorization that we've received.

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

Just to continue on from the framework of responses she provided, just to clarify….

The level of engagement with EMCR with a tribal council….

Recognizing the minister's comment and reference, as well, to recognition that the

relationship is with the nations themselves as rights and title holders…. Her ministry

representing this government in terms of their level of involvements with a tribal

council as an Indigenous governing body, as contemplated in this Bill 31, would suggest

that there's….

How does the ministry manage that relationship with the tribal council, as opposed

to the underlying nations that are giving some indication to the minister or the government

that the tribal council is representing them? Are there direct channels of discussion

or relationship or engagement that are also expected under this bill, vis-à-vis a

tribal council?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: So it is possible…. Our obligation as a government is to have a relationship, nation

to nation. There are cases, certainly, and we anticipate there will be cases, where

a nation may indicate that a tribal council or another body is intended to act as

the Indigenous governing body for them for the purposes of emergency management.

However, it is not necessary for a First Nation to cede all of their emergency management

relationship to the Indigenous governing body. They may indicate that some elements

of emergency management they would prefer to keep within the nation, and others might

be deferred over to the Indigenous governing body. It's very case by case.

I'll also acknowledge that, certainly, when leadership changes — so if there's an

election or other transition of leadership — that relationship may change again, and

those protocols may change again.

This is part of the…. We do have several sections later on, on agreements with Indigenous

governing bodies, and we can certainly dive deeper into those kinds of scenarios and

intentions there.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. It's helpful. I just wanted to give the minister one

more opportunity here, because she is getting to the point that I'm really asking

a question about, which is that relationship — government to government, nation to

nation.

Certainly, between the tribal council and the nations that that council represents,

there would be some sort of understanding and arrangement between the tribal council

and the nations. The minister is acknowledging that having said that, there would

still be a recognition of that direct relationship with the nation involved and that

there may well be certain areas of jurisdiction where that nation has not delegated,

so to speak, to the tribal council a level of authority or representation right to

the government of B.C.

I'm just asking the minister…. I appreciate the minister's willingness to discuss

more detailed scenarios, and there are scenarios, certainly. But just by way of principle,

at this juncture, on the definition in terms of how "Indigenous governing bodies"

is utilized here, does the minister…? Is it her view that her ministry would ensure

in those situations that the ministry maintains some sort of direct relationship with

the underlying, so to speak, nations for whom the tribal council is representing?

Is there an approach or a protocol within the ministry that ensures that that is the

case?

[3:50 p.m.]

The Chair: Member, to the question of definition, the minister has answered that. You have asked

a more specific question which the minister has provided a response to, and she has

also indicated that there will be further sections of the bill where your line of

questioning could also be relevant.

However, we'll let the minister respond, if she chooses, to this, and then I'd ask

the member to continue with his line of questioning.

Hon. B. Ma: I'll answer briefly, and then we can get into some of the further discussion later

on in the section.

To the member's question, yes, it is our intention to maintain relationships on a

nation-to-nation level with all nations unless they have indicated that they do not

wish for that relationship to be nation to nation. I'll offer that we have had some

examples where a nation has in fact directed all communications relating to emergency

management to, for instance, a tribal council. We have also seen that guidance from

the nation evolve with different leadership as well.

So the answer is yes.

M. Lee: Thanks to the minister for the response.

At the suggestion of the Chair, I will just move to a more specific question relating

to Indigenous governing body.

In my second reading speech last week and, I think, even in this committee stage,

I referred to the letters written between Métis Nation B.C. and the province of British

Columbia, her counterpart and colleague the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation,

the May 12 and May 30 letters.

I would say that if the minister hasn't seen that letter…. It does clearly indicate

that it's the view of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation that

MNBC, Métis Nation B.C., does not have the status or authority as an Indigenous governing

body under the meaning of the Declaration Act. This is informed by the minister's

understanding that

section 35 rights are held collectively, and therefore, an Indigenous

governing body, under the Declaration Act, must be authorized by the proper rights-holding

collective.

In view of this government's latest position relating to Métis Nation B.C.… The majority

of this bill does not apply to Métis peoples as represented by Métis Nation B.C. Is

that correct?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: There are a few…. I guess I can provide a response to how we're viewing Métis people

and Métis in the context of EDMA. First, the province recognizes that diverse Indigenous

peoples, First Nations, Métis and Inuit, have distinct rights and interests in B.C.

and, at the same time, that our relationship with MNBC varies from our relationship

with First Nations as there are no existing land, water or airbase Métis rights or

associated jurisdiction in B.C. that triggers the same kind of Crown obligations that

are owed to First Nations under

section 35 of the Constitution Act.

That being said, the experiences and needs of Métis people can be considered in the

application of the act, as they are Indigenous peoples. So the definition of intersectional

disadvantage, for instance, includes consideration of Indigenous identity, and this

can include consideration of a person's Métis identity. This provides an opportunity

to consider the ways in which Métis people may be uniquely or disproportionately impacted

by emergencies.

I will also note that Métis Nation B.C. was engaged during the development of the

EDMA as well.

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister's response. And just to clarify, certainly, it is also the

view of this government, as set out in the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation's

letter to MNBC dated May 30, that the province agrees that Métis people in B.C. have

non-site-specific

section 35 rights. So there is recognition by this government of

the non-site-specific

section 35 rights of Métis peoples in British Columbia. But

MNBC, Métis Nation B.C., is not viewed by this government as having the status as

an Indigenous governing body, even with respect to those non-site-specific

section

35 rights.

So that would be my two-part question. One is…. Presumably, the relation between the

government and Métis Nation B.C. is being clarified in the minister's letters. But

as the minister just referred to, MNBC was involved in the consultation process for

this bill. At the time MNBC was being involved and consulted with, were there other

Métis people being consulted with directly, or was this ministry looking to Métis

Nation B.C. as the representative body for Métis peoples in British Columbia?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: We did engage with MNBC through a technical team that represented MNBC, as well as

with regular check-ins with Minister Hooper. In particular, the engagement centred

around conversations on cultural safety, volunteers and intersectional disadvantage.

M. Lee: I'll ask the minister to clarify, in addition to a response to my previous question,

whether there were any other Métis people that were consulted in the context of this

bill, apart from representatives and ministers with Métis Nation B.C. That would be

just a follow-on question.

The second question for the minister to consider a response to: in recognition of

the non-site-specific

section 35 rights of Métis people from British Columbia — I

do appreciate the minister's comment about intersectionality and including any disproportionate

impacts on Métis people in British Columbia, as Métis people — is there a gap, though,

for Métis people when they don't have a recognized Indigenous governing body that's

operative under Bill 31, which was created in the absence of the recognition of Métis

Nation B.C. as an Indigenous governing body?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: To the member's first question, we do not. There were no other individuals, like Métis

individuals, that were specifically targeted for consultation under the act.

To the member's second question, the answer is no. The vast majority of cases where

the term "Indigenous governing body" is used in the act are in relation to the traditional

territories or treaty areas, which do not apply to Métis peoples.

That said, I can clarify that there is nothing in the act that displaces the constitutional

obligations that government has to respect Métis under the

section 35 rights of Métis

people. If, through implementation of the act, something does affect

section 35 rights

for Métis people, they certainly would be consulted.

Chair, perhaps I could request a brief recess, if that's all right — perhaps after

the next question, so that we can allow the member to at least ask us his question.

The Chair: Why don't we take a 10-minute recess, and then we'll come back with Vancouver-Langara's

next question. The committee is in recess till 4:20.

The committee recessed from 4:07 p.m. to 4:31 p.m.

[H. Yao in the chair.]

M. Lee: Just before the break, we were discussing "Indigenous governing body." I have a few

other questions and a similar set of questions for the minister on this definition.

When the ministry recognizes that an Indigenous governing body needs to be determined

by the First Peoples involved, the community, the authorizations that are determined

there, we know that there are a number of examples around our province where governance

discussions and processes are still underway.

As acknowledged previously in this committee stage, I've had discussions with the

current Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation about that, including

as it pertains to the Wet'suwet'en people.

As the federal and provincial governments continue to provide time and space and support

for the governance process that is still underway with the people there, both from

hereditary and elected individuals, what happens with the Wet'suwet'en Indigenous

community while their governance process continues to be sorted through? How do those

Wet'suwet'en people get protection or involvement under this Bill 31?

[4:35 p.m. - 4:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you so much for that question and allowing us the time to deliberate as well.

I think that the member has touched on an example of a situation where we would certainly

need to consult with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

I will say that in terms of the intention of EDMA, it is to formalize the requirement

to actually establish these kinds of agreements and understandings with First Nations.

Who is their Indigenous governing body?

I mean, right now under the Emergency Program Act, there is no obligation to have

those formalized relationships, although we have been establishing them and reaching

out and doing that work in the meantime in order to try to align with DRIPA. So I

will say that not all of those relationships are currently established, and certainly,

this is an example of where we would need to consult with the Ministry of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation in kind of navigating the situation.

What I can offer is what we did this summer. As an example, this summer, when there

were wildfires in the region, I was in direct contact with Chief Maureen Luggi of

the Wet'suwet'en First Nation. That was my contact in the context of this year's wildfire

season, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that will be the practice, moving forward.

Certainly, following when EDMA comes to royal assent and those obligations take hold,

those kinds of conversations will need to happen.

M. Lee: In the backdrop of all of the discussion we've had about Indigenous governing body,

I appreciate the consideration of the minister with that response and also that the

minister did broaden the response to not just focus on the Wet'suwet'en peoples' situation

but also made general reference to other work that's being done with other Indigenous

communities and nations.

[4:45 p.m.]

I will just turn to three other

definitions in clause 1. The next one is "local knowledge."

"Local knowledge" is a definition which obviously can be considered in each provision

of the act where it arises. But just to ask a general question at this stage, in terms

of recognition of Indigenous knowledge of their lands, is there any intention that

this definition would include recognition of Indigenous knowledge?

Hon. B. Ma: This question was actually canvassed by the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin earlier.

So I'll provide the same response now as I did then, which is that for the purposes

of this legislation, local knowledge is considered to be separate from Indigenous

knowledge, although the two can share similar characteristics. So "local knowledge"

being a separate definition from Indigenous knowledge but understanding that they

can have overlap.

M. Lee: I appreciate that you've had to already respond to the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin

about this definition. Just to follow on with the minister's response, within this

Bill 31, though, Indigenous knowledge, from what I'm hearing, is going to be treated

separately from local knowledge, although there's recognition there may be some overlap.

But there's no need to have a separate definition for Indigenous knowledge?

Hon. B. Ma: There isn't a separate definition for Indigenous knowledge in the

definitions list,

largely out of respect for…. Well, it's recognizing that Indigenous knowledge comes

from Indigenous peoples. It is not for us to define what is or is not Indigenous knowledge.

It's not specifically defined in the

definitions section, 1.

M. Lee: I don't have it with me here, but we will perhaps….

Mr. Chair, if you could note for your colleagues, I'd like to come back to this particular

provision in a future committee only because…. Perhaps in the meantime, if the team

around the minister would like to consider it….

My recollection is there may well have been another statute that has referred to Indigenous

knowledge. I'm just trying to recollect, though, whether there was a specific definition.

I'm thinking about the Protected Areas Act. Areas around that that the Minister of

Environment had brought forward in the last year or two is my recollection. I was

looking at that bill for other reasons, but perhaps we can double-back on that.

I'll just park that there for now and move on to another definition, and that is "specified

land." Under sub (

e) of the definition, it refers to "land held under aboriginal title."

Could the minister just elaborate on what is intended there to be captured under sub

(e)?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Land held under Aboriginal title under subsection (

e) of specified land is land that

is subject to an Aboriginal title declaration by the courts such as the Tŝilhqot'in,

or potentially, in the future, established by agreement.

M. Lee: In terms of sub (f), prescribed land would potentially include lands that are under

review by the courts or agreement as the two categories under sub (

e) or under treaty

negotiations. Is that correct? Or are there any other types of prescribed land?

First of all, is that correct in terms of the three types of potential lands that

might be prescribed, again, by agreement, by court decision, declaration or under

treaty process? Is that the intention of what a specified land could capture? If so,

why? Then secondly, what other types of land might be captured here under the definition

of specified land?

Hon. B. Ma: Subsection (f), prescribed land, was really included in recognition of the way that

rights are constantly evolving. So it's intended to capture land that maybe isn't

currently contemplated.

[4:55 p.m.]

In the member's question around agreements and court decision declarations, those

would be captured under subsection (e). Treaty processes –– that would be captured

under subsection (b). Those are not what is intended by subsection (f). Rather, subsection

(

f) is kind of other, I guess.

M. Lee: I appreciate the clarification by the minister. That's, actually, what I was asking.

I was only referring to those other categories as surmising, potentially, that that's

what prescribed land means.

Let me ask, then, directly, the question this way. For lands that are not yet finalized

as part of a treaty, would they fall under a prescribed land, or would they fall outside

of this act?

Hon. B. Ma: The specific example that the member provided using subsection (

f) to, maybe, prescribe

land that is currently under or actively under treaty negotiations but hasn't been

fully resolved there…. That's not what is contemplated for the use of that subsection.

I struggle to…. I mean, this is a bit speculative. What the member is describing almost

sounds as though maybe using regulation to establish an area of land that is under

negotiation but hasn't been resolved yet for treaty. I don't know what circumstance

we would use that under, although we can definitely canvass that further under the

relevant sections — sections 69, 76 and 23 — and in the context of those sections.

[5:00 p.m.]

I think, really, subsection (

f) is about creating the space to allow for the prescription

of land that is not, I guess, under…. Circumstances aren't currently contemplated.

It creates the space to recognize that because rights and title around land are constantly

evolving, especially in the years immediately following the Declaration Act adoption

by the province. Also, what we're seeing in terms of all sorts of groundbreaking declarations

by the court, I think it's really recognizing that this space is so actively evolving

that there may be circumstances that aren't covered by the other subsections. So we

provided a kind of an "other" section. In that specific example that the member provided,

it isn't our intention to use that subsection for that purpose.

L. Doerkson: Just before the member for Vancouver-Langara moves on to another definition, I wanted

clarity to the comments that the minister made with respect to item (e), "land held

under aboriginal title." I think you referred to land in the Tŝilhqot'in territory

as being included in this item. I just wanted clarity around the fact. Is it the Tŝilhqot'in,

or is it the Xeni Gwet'in that you're referring to?

Hon. B. Ma: The declaration, made by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2014, declared that title

was held by the Tŝilhqot'in Nation. That's what we were referring to specifically.

The Tŝilhqot'in Nation holds that.

L. Doerkson: I guess I just want to be very clear on this point, because the title lands are cared

for by the Xeni Gwet'in Nation. They are, of course, Tŝilhqot'in, but there are many

bands that might fall under that Tŝilhqot'in category, and I want to be clear about

the lands that we're referring to. Is it the lands that the Xeni Gwet'in are caring

for, or does it involve all of the Tŝilhqot'in?

Hon. B. Ma: There is a map, attached to the Supreme Court of Canada declaration, outlining the

specific area. The member is correct that it does fall within the caretaker area of

the Xeni Gwet'in. However, the ruling was that the Tŝilhqot'in had title over the

area.

L. Doerkson: I wanted to turn it over to the member for Vancouver-Langara again.

[5:05 p.m.]

M. Lee: I just have one more definition before going on to clause 1(2), and that is the definition

around "traditional territory." Can the minister also elaborate on what's intended

to be meant by a traditional territory of Indigenous peoples? What does that extend

to?

Hon. B. Ma: I guess similar to Indigenous governing bodies, we do rely on First Nations to tell

us what their traditional territories are. But we generally understand them to be

areas First Nations have historically occupied or used or exercised their rights in.

MIRR, the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, does keep track of

areas that have been identified as traditional areas. Those are the same areas that

we would understand them to be.

[5:10 p.m.]

M. Lee: I think that that's an example of a definition that we can come back to, potentially,

as it's utilized in a particular provision of the act.

Let me just move on to subclause 1(2), which refers to consent by an Indigenous governing

body. What is the process for which an Indigenous governing body would be asked for

their consent for an "order or emergency instrument" under the act? Secondly, what

form does that consent take?

Hon. B. Ma: The legislation doesn't set out the specific process for how an Indigenous governing

body would consent. However, that is the purpose of the advance planning and agreements:

that we would set out that process ahead of an emergency. For instance, through a

coordination agreement or any other type of agreement that is enabled through EDMA,

those kinds of processes would be clarified in advance.

[5:15 p.m.]

For the purposes of providing a little bit of colour, I guess, in the types of consent

processes that could take place, they could be very substantial consent processes,

where the circumstances are appropriate for that to take place. If you have enough

time in advance to figure that out, or if you're working on a mitigation plan, then

you could have a more substantial consent process. Also, if you are in the midst of

an actual emergency response with not a lot of time, and time is of the essence, it

could look like even a phone call.

Ideally, the intention is that these kinds of processes would be established up front,

through the agreements. The main answer is that we would establish it up front through

these coordination agreements or other types of agreements enabled by EDMA.

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister's response. Obviously, we're just trying to get a good understanding,

at this juncture, as to how this framework around emergency management disaster recovery

will work with First Nations.

In view of the minister's response, a two-part question again. Because there's waiting

on coordination agreements and other

part 3 agreements or other agreements contemplated

under this bill, is it intended that the ministry will have a process to enter into

agreements with each of the 204 First Nations? Secondly, in the interim period, in

the absence of a particular agreement with a particular nation, how will their consent

process work, if it's not spelled out in an agreement?

Hon. B. Ma: I think that the answer to the member's question is in the clause itself: "An order

or emergency instrument made under this Act does not apply to an Indigenous governing

body unless the Indigenous governing body consents." Thus the default or the interim

provision, prior to an agreement where an Indigenous governing body does consent,

is that the order or the emergency instrument made under the act does not apply to

the Indigenous governing body.

I will, perhaps, provide an example of how this might play out, based on something

that happened during this year's wildfire season, which was around the emergency travel

and accommodations order.

When it became clear that we required an emergency order to restrict travel for the

purposes of using short-term accommodations, I made calls to leadership of each First

Nation with communities within those areas that could be affected by the travel order

and asked them directly whether they wanted to be a part of the travel order or not.

If a First Nation leader had said no, then we would have carved them out of the maps

of the order.

However, in this case, all of the First Nation leaders agreed to be a part of the

order, and that's how they ended up in the order. We would not have included their

communities in the order if they had asked to be carved out of it.

[5:20 p.m.]

Perhaps I should have been more clear. We would not have included the Indigenous community

within the order if we had not received that consent. For instance, there was a time

when I couldn't quite reach all of the First Nations leaders. So the default would

have been to leave them out of the order. But then we did manage to reach them, and

we included them with their consent.

The Chair: I just want to confirm whether the member for Vancouver-Langara is asking that clause

1 be stood down.

M. Lee: No. I mean, it was a more technical point that I just mentioned, on the definition

of "local knowledge." But the bill, as presented, doesn't include a specific definition

of "Indigenous knowledge."

Given that we're not done with the bill, I think if the ministry took a different

view on this after we had more discussion, by virtue of an amendment, I presume they

could still amend a section, if the bill has not been approved yet. If that's the

case, then we don't need to stand down clause 1.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for the answers provided under clause 1.

Moving on to clause 2, under item (1)(c), the bill quotes "foster collaborative approaches

to matters of mutual interest."

I wanted to understand what the mechanisms are for that collaboration, when it would

occur and who it might be referring to.

Hon. B. Ma: One thing to note about this entire

section is that they're intended to demonstrate

broad principles for emergency management. They aren't necessarily meant to be specifically

tied to specific procedures.

But in answer to the member's question, examples of fostering collaborative approaches

to matters of mutual interest might include the use of CEMAs, or collaborative emergency

management agreements, or consultation and cooperation requirements that are discussed

throughout the legislation, consultation and coordination agreements or the use of

MJEMOs, multi-jurisdictional emergency management organizations.

In principle, the intention is to really foster collaboration as much as possible,

whether it is through some of the tools enabled through EDMA or beyond.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for that answer.

In

definitions, we spoke at great length about collaboration and how both communities

and First Nations and, of course, individuals might have an opportunity to be a part

of that, going forward.

[5:25 p.m.]

I guess my concern on this is the broadness. I mean, I think that British Columbians,

no matter what part of British Columbia you might represent, whether you're a rancher

or a forester or whoever, certainly have much to say about emergency management in

this province.

There are, obviously, documents that were provided under our

definitions

section that

led to some of the collaboration. We talked about collaboration with First Nations

a great deal.

I can appreciate that this is a framework. I don't necessarily want to introduce another

question on this topic. I just want to say that this probably the most important thing

that I've heard from all walks of life, from all local governments is that opportunity

to have fair comment with ministries like this one so that they are a part of the

process.

I'll move on to item (2)(b), which is investing in the measures necessary to reduce

the risk of emergency, etc. I want to understand better what that investment is, what

it looks like. I further want to understand how you will enhance the economic situation

in this province through that.

Hon. B. Ma: Elaborating on what I had said earlier about the principles being really just…. The

principles

section is intended to establish or make clear the approach to emergency

management that the government is taking and what we are basing our approach on. It's

reflective of the UN Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction.

Subsection (

b) speaks to priority 3 of the UN Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction.

It effectively says that in order to reduce the risk of disasters before they happen,

to mitigate the impact of disasters before they happen, we need to be investing up

front and doing more of that work.

Now, legislation like this cannot prescribe or dictate the spending of government.

So that's why it's sitting here in the principles section. It doesn't directly relate

to specific dollar amounts, but I can describe some of the investments that have been

made so far that would align with this and, we would hope, would continue into the

future.

[5:30 p.m.]

As an example, the community emergency preparedness fund is investing in disaster

risk reduction. We added…. Sorry. I'm just thinking about the numbers. Earlier this

year we added $180 million to it, for a total of $369 million in the fund. That fund

provides funds directly to local governments and First Nations for a number of emergency

preparedness and mitigation activities.

The most substantial stream under that funding, in terms of dollar amount, would be

the Disaster Risk Reduction–Climate Adaptation stream. It provides 100 percent of

the cost of eligible projects, to a maximum of $5 million, for small-scale structural

activities. Some of the projects that we have seen come out from that stream include….

It could be dike upgrades. It could be erosion control measures. It could be projects

that provide more room for the river to absorb peaks in river flows.

We have seen other projects, like communities in tsunami zones that have created plans

for vertical evacuation structures.

Some of the other projects that have been funded through the community emergency preparedness

fund include projects that improve evacuation planning, that improve planning for

extreme heat events, that provide funding for flood risk assessments and those sorts

of things.

So that's an example of the kind of investment that helps to mitigate the impact of

disasters before they happen, kind of more up front.

L. Doerkson: A bit of a follow-up. That is exactly what I was looking for as far as the answer

was concerned, I guess. I can appreciate that the minister has contemplated many of

these types of things. While I understand that it is a principle, the minister was

clear in explaining a fund of $180 million on a number of other projects.

Is it the intent of the ministry, through Bill 31, to manage many more of those types

of projects? In other words…. I know that we'll get, later, to understanding what

ministries may look after which disasters. But it does sound like the ministry will

take an overarching role with respect to funding projects, for instance, thinning

of forests and those types of things that the minister just outlined.

I'm wondering if we could expect more of that in the future from this ministry.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: I think the principles are really important, and I'm glad that the member is raising

questions around them so that we can kind of talk through them more. I would say that,

to your question, the principles are an expression of government's priorities. And

one of the government's priorities is to do more upfront investment on the preparation

and mitigation side of things, because we know that in emergency management, a dollar

invested up front is worth $10 or more in response and recovery.

The entire structure and framework of the EDMA prioritizes preparation and mitigation

in addition to response and recovery, rather than just focusing on response and recovery.

So the framework is intended to enable the work that then enables the kinds of investments

that we need to make up front.

If you look at the UN Sendai framework on disaster risk reduction, the first priority

of it is to understand the risk — that you can't manage a risk that you don't understand,

that you don't measure. So risk assessments are a big component of the work that is

required under the EDMA of various regulated entities. And once you have understood

this risk, you can develop mitigation plans for them. And when you have mitigation

plans, you're able to inform where investments are.

So through the EDMA, I would say we're creating the entire framework that puts greater

emphasis on that upfront work, and it actually enables it.

Whereas, under the EPA,

because preparation and mitigation aren't considered in the EPA, all of our spending

ends up on response.

That being said, I know that the ministry and other ministries and different agencies

and local governments have certainly been looking more to preparation and mitigation

in recent years. But it's not actually really enabled by the EPA,

whereas it will

be enabled by the EDMA — that kind of thinking.

M. Lee: Turning to another principle that's set out in subclause (2)(

d) relating to cultural

safety, if I could ask the minister to elaborate on what's intended here as a principle

and what it captures, including in respect of the responsibilities and legislation

under the Heritage Conservation Act.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: This principle speaks to the need to consider cultural safety as part of emergency

management plans. "Cultural safety" can be defined as an outcome based on respectful

engagement that recognizes and strives to address power imbalances inherent in the

disaster response system.

Some examples of where I've seen cultural safety integrated as part of emergency management

and response plans are reception centres that have rooms for smudging for Indigenous

Elders and some of the partnerships that we have had, as an example, with Tk'emlúps

te Secwépemc on their evacuee centre. Really, a lot of the work focused on providing

a culturally safe environment for Indigenous peoples. That's what that principle speaks

to.

Perhaps the member could elaborate on this question in terms of the Heritage Conservation

Act. It's not directly linked to the EDMA. So perhaps some clarification on the question

would be helpful.

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister's response, generally speaking. In terms of the Heritage

Conservation Act — to the extent, obviously, that that act deals with cultural artifacts,

archaeological materials important to Indigenous peoples and First Nations as well

— in the context of emergency management and disaster recovery, this principle, then,

does not bring in that other piece of legislation. Is that what I'm hearing the minister

say? Is that correct?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: While this particular principle does not…. It speaks to cultural safety in the way

that my previous answer provided, as opposed to artifacts or heritage sites. The objects

or sites of heritage value are incorporated into the EDMA and are, in fact, found

in the definition of "emergency."

M. Lee: I just wanted to ask the…. I'm just going to ask my next question, but perhaps I could

also ask the minister to clarify the last part of her response to the last question.

If she could just restate it for me so I'm clear on understanding what she means in

terms of the definition of "emergency."

My next question pertains to clause (e), where we're talking about "recognizing that

the inherent right of self-government of Indigenous peoples includes authority to

make laws in relation to emergency management." Those laws that are contemplated in

this principle — I just wanted to have an understanding of the scope. Those laws apply

to whom and to what lands?

Hon. B. Ma: I'll start with the second question first. Again, this principles clause basically

acknowledges that First Nations do have inherent rights to law and have their own

law-making authority. We do not set out the scope or breadth of those laws. They are

their laws, not for us to manage or to dictate or put boundaries around.

However, again, this is a principles clause. So how this principle is reflected throughout

the EDMA is through the mechanisms that we have enabled in the EDMA to work with First

Nations, given the recognition of their ability of their rights to make their own

laws.

For instance, through coordination agreements, recognizing that emergency management

is a shared space. If you've got multiple authorities creating laws around emergency

management, then you could potentially get into situations where you have conflicting

laws on the same land base. The use of coordination agreements is one of the mechanisms

through which we clarify what laws and authorities apply so that we eliminate the

chance of those conflicts from happening during an actual emergency situation. We're

actually working them out ahead of time.

[5:50 p.m.]

Other mechanisms are found throughout the EDMA, through the various types of agreements

that are provided for.

Then for the member's first question, to clarify. Back in

section 1, under the definition

of "emergency," it defines an emergency as a state that, subsection (b), "requires

the prompt coordination of action, or the special regulation of persons or property,

to protect…." And then sub-subsection (ii): "the safety of property or of objects

or sites of heritage value." So it's part of the definition of emergency.

The definition of emergency has two parts. It's the result of any of the following

— blah, blah, blah — and "(

b) requires the prompt coordination of action or the special

regulation of persons or property, to protect," and so forth. One of the things that

you could be protecting is objects or sites of heritage value.

I can go through that again because the "blah, blah, blah" maybe didn't make sense.

It's in the definition there.

M. Lee: I do appreciate both of the minister's responses. I think the first response relating

to the shared space is certainly an area that I know the member from Cariboo-Chilcotin

and myself and others will want to fully explore, because those coordination efforts

and understandings are going to be very important. I recognize what the minister is

saying in terms of this principle, which is the reason why I had asked to at least

give the minister an opportunity to elaborate on it.

I think in terms of the emergency clarification on that, I understand, certainly,

the minister's point in terms of sites of heritage value. I appreciate that perhaps

the minister could just clarify, given that we've already gone through that definition….

Just in view of the response that the minister provided, to what degree, then, because

an emergency is defined as including sites of heritage value….? I was interpreting

this principle as extending to heritage sites in terms of promoting cultural safety,

but the minister is more focused, let's say, on the definition of emergency as really

capturing the Heritage Conservation Act.

How does that act, then, and that piece of legislation get coordinated with Bill 31?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: There isn't a direct tie between the EDMA and the Heritage Conservation Act. The EDMA

doesn't reference the Heritage Conservation Act. But perhaps it would be helpful to

elaborate on what could be considered a site of heritage value. It could be a site

of heritage value as defined under the Heritage Conservation Act, but it could also

be a site of cultural or heritage value that has been identified by a First Nation

and could be contemporary as well.

A First Nation could say that they have a particular arbour that is very important

to them culturally and has heritage value. We have also heard from First Nations who

identify certain natural spaces as having important heritage value as well — traditional

fishing locations, and so forth. So it could be any number of things. But the important

part of all of this work is to identify those sites in advance so that they can inform

emergency management plans, going forward into the future.

M. Lee: I just have one more question at this point but just hoped to say to the minister

that I appreciate the response. And as we look at emergency in the course of emergency

management plans, perhaps we'll come back to the heritage component of it, as we talk

about examples which are helpful to do.

In terms of sub(f), which refers to Indigenous advice, input and stewardship activities,

recognizing that this is a principle, if the minister could just elaborate on the

importance of this principle in the sense that…. Is this a change in approach, in

any sense, that there hasn't been a recognition of Indigenous advice put in stewardship

activities? Does this elevate that level of importance?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The current Emergency Program Act is completely silent on Indigenous peoples and First

Nations, their inherent rights and everything related to Indigenous peoples in emergency

management,

whereas this principle is reflected throughout the EDMA through the recognition

of Indigenous knowledge, the requirements for consultation and cooperation and the

recognition of First Nations as decision-makers in the emergency management context.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

L. Doerkson: Just a couple of quick questions on this clause. Under item (1)(d)(ii), it suggests

that we're going to "restore the safety of property or of objects or sites of heritage

value." I just wanted to get a better understanding of what that would suggest.

Hon. B. Ma:

Section 3 describes the emergency management phases. They are not prescriptive steps

for how each phase is carried out but, rather, descriptions of what would fall into

each phase.

Later on, in the EDMA, as we're going through the sections, where a

section or a clause

might refer to a certain phase…. If there's ever any question of what kinds of activities

would fall under that phase, we could refer to

section 3 for it.

For instance, if there was an activity that was the restoration of property or of

objects or sites of heritage value, according to

section 3, this would come under

the recovery phase of emergency management. If there were questions about spending

under various phases and what kinds of activities would fall under that phase….

Section

3 would describe the kinds of activities that would fall under that phase.

L. Doerkson: Unless I'm misunderstanding…. I can appreciate what the minister is saying, but this

phrase says "restore the safety of property." I'm unclear as to what that means with

reference to what….

How will the minister restore the safety of those properties?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Perhaps some examples might be helpful. As an example, during an emergency…. Let's

say your home is flooded out. It may render the home unsafe to actually return to.

So restoring the safety of that home would be considered part of the recovery phase

of emergency management.

L. Doerkson: If I'm hearing the minister correctly, then this would also involve private property.

Hon. B. Ma: Yes. It describes the kinds of activities which would fall under various phases.

Under the response phase — that is where we are actively responding to an ongoing

emergency, to prevent and reduce the adverse effects of that emergency — it might

be evacuating people from their homes. It might be putting up flood barriers to manage

the floodwaters.

Whereas when it comes to getting people back into their homes and ensuring that their

homes are safe, that would fall under the recovery phase of emergency management.

L. Doerkson: And those are all tasks that this ministry specifically would perform?

Hon. B. Ma: Once again, the

section describes the various emergency management phases, regardless

of who is undertaking those actions.

L. Doerkson: Can I get a better understanding, then, of (iii), which is: the ministry will "increase

resilience to emergency." Can I get a better understanding of that?

Hon. B. Ma: Again, for greater clarity, the activities spoken of under these emergency management

phases are not limited to actions or work that the ministry is doing but by any entity.

Increasing resilience to emergencies during a recovery phase would be…. An example

of it would be "build back better" activities. So if you had a piece of infrastructure,

a roadway or a highway, that has been washed out by a disaster, then in building it

back, it should be also built to a higher standard so that its future resiliency is

improved. Those kinds of activities…. The activity of building back better following

a disaster would also be considered as part of the recovery phase.

L. Doerkson: Does that then suggest that the ministry, through EMCR, will be advocating for that

very thing — that "build back better" opportunity?

Hon. B. Ma: I think it's fair to say that by signalling through the EDMA that we consider that

part of the recovery phase, we do believe that it is an essential part of emergency

management that we be building back better. It is aligned with the UN Sendai framework

for disaster risk reduction, which also emphasizes the need to build back better.

In terms of the activities that the ministry is going through right now to enable

that "build back better" work, an example would be through our post-disaster financial

assistance regulatory engagement that's currently open. We do actually have…. Part

of the engagement is an exploration of what "build back better" means to stakeholders

and partners and how we can facilitate that through that program.

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

Then I guess just going to all of the principles that are outlined here, I just want

to get a real sense of what the purpose is for outlining these four emergency management

phases. What goals does the ministry hope to accomplish with them?

Hon. B. Ma: Throughout the entire EDMA, it is the intention of government to incorporate all four

phases of emergency management into emergency management, being preparation, mitigation,

response and recovery.

[6:10 p.m.]

Under the current Emergency Program Act, that act is very focused on response and

a little bit on recovery. Our government believes, in alignment with the UN Sendai

framework for disaster risk reduction, that a penny of prevention is worth a pound

of cure.

That's the approach we are taking. Now, if we are going to incorporate all four phases

of emergency management into the legislation, it would help for us to be clear about

what kinds of activities are meant to fall under each phase. It's so that when we're

working through the legislation and you see references to the various phases of emergency

management, if there's ever a question about what kinds of activities that phase refers

to, we can refer back to

section 3 and have a clear understanding of that.

L. Doerkson: Then is it safe to say that these four principles will be a guiding light for all

emergencies occurring in our province? Will different agencies, like B.C. Wildfire,

be expected to work by these four principles?

Hon. B. Ma: For clarity,

section 2 outlines the principles. The emergency management principles

are outlined in

section 2,

whereas

section 3 is really about…. I want to say "timing,"

except that emergency management phases can often overlap. It's really about helping

to establish an understanding of what kinds of activities fall under different emergency

management phases. It's in the other sections of the act that we actually put those

phases into practice.

Section 3 is more of an elaborative

section to help clarify what we mean by those

various phases — preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery — when they're referred

to in other sections of the bill.

L. Doerkson: I'm getting an indication this might be the last question for the day.

I want to understand this, because while I misspoke and said "principles," I did mean

the phases. I think that this is an important part of communication between different

ministries and different agencies that may be working on the landscape in the middle

of whatever emergency we may be dealing with.

I guess what I'm trying to understand is: will this be the framework for all of those

agencies that we might be working with, across ministries and across…? When you're

talking to B.C. Wildfire and they say that we are in the response phase, is that going

to make sense to everybody that might be involved, whether that's Ministry of Health,

local governments, etc.? What I'm trying to understand is: will this be the communication

that is used, going forward, for all ministries and all local governments, First Nations,

etc.?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Although the EDMA doesn't automatically update the language and terminology of other

acts, I believe it is fair to say that yes, the four-phase approach is the approach

that government is taking on emergency management. The four-phase approach is well

adopted around the world in emergency management, so it's not new or specific to the

EDMA or the B.C. government.

Certainly in implementing the EDMA through different sections that require risk assessments,

for instance, the agencies required to put together emergency management plans will

be required to do so under the four-phase approach. So I think it is fair to say that

that language will be quite common. It will be common with our partners and other

agencies.

Clauses 3 and 4 approved.

Hon. B. Ma: I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:16 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