Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I now call second reading debate on Bill 31, the Emergency and Disaster Management Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 31 — EMERGENCY AND DISASTER
MANAGEMENT ACT

Deputy Speaker: We will get started shortly, just waiting for the minister. I’ll ask for a brief recess, and we will start again momentarily.

The House recessed from 2:54 p.m. to 2:55 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: We will come back into session. We have moved Bill 31, I believe, and I will be recognizing, momentarily, the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you so much, hon. Speaker.

I move that Bill 31 be read a second time now.

The bill before us is called the Emergency and Disaster Management Act. Because it is all about emergencies, it would be difficult to speak about the Emergency and Disaster Management Act without recognizing the disaster season and disaster year that we have had this year. It started long before the wildfire season, actually.

I mean, if you remember back to the very early days of the year, or maybe even just slightly before the year 2023, we had ice storms in the Lower Mainland and into the Fraser Valley that required for us to communicate to the public that they should avoid driving on the roads and on the highways. Following the ice storms, we had a season of deadly avalanches — one of the deadliest ever seen in British Columbia’s history.

After the avalanche season started to wane, we went right into the freshet season, which is where the ice caps and snow melt start to accelerate with the warming temperatures, and we saw some catastrophic flooding in smaller communities in British Columbia. Almost immediately after the freshet season, we were into wildfires and droughts.

You can see that when it comes to extreme weather hazards, here in British Columbia, it’s no longer just a hazard…. We used to describe it as a hazard season that was just in the summer, when the wildfires came by, but it’s no longer just a season. It’s really year-round, and the impacts have been devastating.

Looking at the wildfire season on its own, we saw tens of thousands of people forced from their homes — evacuated as a result of the wildfires. At the peak of the season, we had nearly 70,000 British Colombians either on evacuation order or alert at any given time, really quite devastating. Some of the worst, most anxiety-ridden moments of a family’s experience.

Hundreds of structures were lost. We saw really incredible impacts to the agricultural sector, to ranchers and farmers. The tourism sector was hit really, really strongly. Forestry communities worried about their marketable timber being lost to fire.

Of course, we saw the loss of six of our province’s heroes. I just want to acknowledge the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin for his statement earlier today, a very moving statement to honour these six heroes: Devyn Gale, Zak Muise, Kenneth Patrick, Blain Sonnenberg, Jaxon Billyboy and one more who has yet to be publicly named. They were wildland firefighters fighting on the front line, lost either on the front lines or coming home from fighting fires working with the B.C. Wildfire Service, which has been just tirelessly fighting fires throughout this summer.

I think that it’s important to recognize those very real impacts of these disasters and these very real impacts of extreme weather events when we’re talking about emergencies. We’re going to be talking through this bill, and we’re going to go through second reading. Then we’re going to go through committee stage debate, where we’ll go clause by clause and talk about what the legalese of the Emergency and Disaster Management Act is about.

[3:00 p.m.]

What it’s really about are those impacts on the ground — those impacts to our communities, our environment, our economy and our people. I do also want to acknowledge that through all of this devastation and through all of these challenges, the spirit of British Columbians really shone through. We saw incredible acts of generosity: neighbours that reached out to neighbours, businesses that opened their doors, businesses that went out of their way to help their communities, volunteers stepping up in all sorts of ways.

I want to thank the hard-working staff at the local governments, First Nations, regional districts and their local leaders who picked up the phone when I called. Sometimes I would call them at ten o’clock at night on a Saturday, and they would pick up the phone. I was calling them because I could see that they were issuing these evacuation orders, and I knew that they were going to be awake and working and that they were going to have sleepless nights worrying about what was happening in their communities.

They, of course, didn’t do it alone either. We had great support throughout the province from the RCMP, from search and rescue volunteers. Search and rescue volunteers delivered tens of thousands of evacuation orders door to door, by foot.

We saw municipal firefighters deployed from the Lower Mainland and other areas of the province into the Interior to support structural firefighting efforts there. Really, a whole-of-society approach.

To kind of close off this section of my remarks, I do want to also acknowledge, of course, the incredible efforts of the staff members of my ministry, who I owe so much to, led by Deputy Minister Tara Richards, Associate Deputy Minister Teresa Dobmeier and Assistant Deputy Minister Madeline Maley. They have tons of staff working underneath them as well. I remember those nights and those weekends communicating with senior staff well past midnight, taking, maybe, a five-hour break to get some rest and picking it up again the next morning. Everyone in that ministry just was so incredibly committed.

It wasn’t just them. It was all the staff at the local governments, First Nations, regional district — everyone working around the clock, recognizing that this emergency situation would not wait.

There were TEAMS members. It’s a program that we have in government where we actually second and borrow staff from all over government. We had people coming in from other ministries, other agencies into the provincial emergency centres to supplement and surge up staff in order to support communities with partners from the First Nations Health Authority, the First Nations Emergency Support Services, federal partners and international firefighters supplementing the incredible work of the B.C. Wildfire Service and their tireless efforts.

Of course, a personal shout-out to my own minister’s office staff: Andrew Barrett, Mack McCorkindale and my amazing chief of staff, Melanie Sanderson who, again, worked every hour that she was awake right through the season.

That brings us again back to Bill 31, the Emergency and Disaster Management Act.

Over the next several weeks, when we debate this act, a lot of the language will be very technical. It will be very high level, about the legalese. But the real work, the real effort that has to follow the development of this legislation is how this legislation plays out operationally on the ground.

A lot of those questions aren’t going to be answered through the debate because the legislation is the legislation. It’s the emergency management framework. We’ve got regulations to develop. We’ve got policies to develop. We’ve got partnerships to build. We’ve got to actually demonstrate how this will work on the ground for people. That work is still to come.

The Emergency and Disaster Management Act — which I may shorten to EDMA, moving forward — is based on broad engagement with partners in emergency management. I want to, again, acknowledge with gratitude their contributions to this specific act. It is the first land-based legislation to be developed under the declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. It was an honour to develop this legislation with two very dedicated technical tables representing First Nations organizations and with many, many First Nations rights and title holders.

I would like to acknowledge, with the deepest of gratitude, the invaluable contributions to the creation of this legislation. Over 111 meetings and workshops were held between our legislative development team and Indigenous partners over the last year and a half alone.

[3:05 p.m.]

Their strategic inputs during legislative development have made this act stronger. I look forward to continuing to work with them to modernize B.C.’s approach to emergency management.

This act represents a comprehensive modernization of British Columbia’s emergency management legislation. It provides a framework for all phases of emergency management from mitigation and preparedness to response and recovery. The intent of the Emergency and Disaster Management Act is to increase our collective readiness in the face of increasingly frequent climate and disaster risks.

The last time the current Emergency Program Act was significantly updated was 1993. At that time, a global pandemic was decades away. The Internet was an emerging technological advancement, and the occurrence of natural hazards and extreme weather was relatively rare. Many people were only vaguely aware of the concept of climate change.

Today we live in a different world. Even five years ago climate change was usually spoken of as something that needed to be addressed to avoid leaving the consequences to our children, or our children’s children. But as we can plainly see from the 2023 wildfire season, this year’s historic drought, the ice storms of 2022, the heat dome, the wildfire season and atmospheric river events of 2021 and more, we can no longer afford to think of climate change as something that will create impacts in the far future.

Instead, it is here now. Its impacts are being felt by people, communities, our ecosystems and our economies today. And as greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels continue to be added to our atmosphere globally, we also know that those impacts will, sadly, grow and worsen with time.

The current Emergency Program Act is almost exclusively focused on responding to and recovering from emergencies. But with the realities of climate change upon our province and extreme weather events becoming more and more common, frequent, intense, we know that it is no longer good enough to just be focused on responding to emergencies.

In addition to doing the work that we must do to drive down greenhouse gas emissions here in B.C. through our CleanBC strategy and all over the world, we must also be better prepared to do the work that we must do to mitigate the impacts of the disasters that are already here before they happen. International best practices for effective and cooperative emergency management demonstrate that emergency management needs to be proactive, not just reactive.

This modernized legislation has been developed over many years, and I want to acknowledge the leadership of the current Solicitor General and Minister of Public Safety for his role in initiating this work when emergency management B.C. existed within his ministry.

I also want to acknowledge the current Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Health, who previously served as Parliamentary Secretary for Emergency Preparedness, for her role in shepherding this work along. Her passion for emergency management served our province well.

Through their leadership, government saw the need for a more holistic view of emergency management, particularly in the wake of the Abbott-Chapman report, which was commissioned in December 2017. The new Emergency and Disaster Management Act aligns with three key themes in the Abbott-Chapman report on the 2017 wildfire and flood season.

First, Abbott-Chapman recognized that partnerships between and among governments, local and First Nations communities, regional districts, organizations, stakeholders and others are vital to more effectively and quickly respond to events. This act introduces new requirements and tools to focus on enhancing partnerships and promoting dialogue and coordination between different levels of government. This includes enabling multi-jurisdictional emergency management organizations to be created, requiring consultation and cooperation with Indigenous governing bodies and enabling agreements between the provincial government and Indigenous governing bodies.

Secondly, there was an emphasis in the report about the importance of local and Indigenous knowledge and the value of tapping into that knowledge to inform decision-making. This act includes a direct response to this by requiring lead ministries, local authorities, critical infrastructure owners and public sector agencies to integrate available Indigenous and local knowledge into risk assessments and emergency management plans, allowing us to collectively respond more effectively.

[3:10 p.m.]

Third, Abbott-Chapman focused on the importance of a proactive investment to achieve meaningful change. This is reflected in the principal section of the act, and I’ll speak to this again later in my remarks.

Our government has taken a thorough approach to modernizing the legislation, creating the most comprehensive and forward-looking emergency management framework in Canada.

The United Nations adopted the Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction in 2015, and in October 2018, British Columbia became the first Canadian province to adopt the framework. The UN Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction emphasizes four priorities for emergency management. “Priority 1, understanding disaster risk.” I’m reading the section now. This is from the UN.

“Priority 1: understanding disaster risk. Disaster risk management should be based on an understanding of disaster risk in all its dimensions of vulnerability, capacity, exposure of persons and assets, hazard characteristics and the environment. Such knowledge can be used for risk assessment prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response.”

In alignment with this priority, this legislation includes clearer hazard-focused risk assessment and planning requirements. This includes requiring that risk assessments are based on climate considerations and that those risk assessments and emergency management plans address the needs of groups that may be disproportionately impacted by emergency events.

We also see this priority spoken to in the section 2 principles clauses of the bill, which reinforces that effective emergency management involves practising emergency and disaster risk reduction through proactive work.

Going back to the UN Sendai framework: “Priority 2, strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk. Disaster risk governance at the national, regional and global levels is very important for prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation. It fosters collaboration and partnership.”

I would say that the introduction of the Emergency and Disaster Management Act is particularly important in fulfilling this priority of Sendai, as the legislation establishes a governance framework to manage disaster risk. This priority emphasizes the need to incorporate an all-of-society approach, and new entities are being included within the legislative framework, including Indigenous governing bodies and critical infrastructure owners.

The concept of an all-of-society approach is also something where we see strong alignment between the Abbott-Chapman report, with its call for the use of local and Indigenous knowledge, and the Sendai framework, which also calls on government to ensure the use of traditional Indigenous and local knowledge and practices to complement scientific approaches and risk assessments and the development of plans. That’s exactly what the Emergency and Disaster Management Act does.

This legislation also enables a framework for different kinds of agreements with Indigenous governing bodies, closing a significant gap from the Emergency Program Act, where the role of Indigenous peoples as decision-makers was not acknowledged or properly accommodated.

This is reflected in modernized legislation, as it authorizes collaborative emergency management agreements, which can be used to create structures for collaboration and to accomplish other objectives, such as promoting cultural safety or formalizing plans to work together to achieve shared goals and objectives.

Reading now again from the UN Sendai framework: “Priority 3, investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience. Public and private investment in disaster risk prevention and reduction through structural and non-structural measures are essential to enhance the economic, social, health and cultural resilience of persons, communities, countries and their assets as well as the environment.”

Now, spending commitments by government aren’t built into legislation like this and are more a matter for the budget cycle and deliberations through other government processes like those that involve the Treasury Board and the Ministry of Finance. But we do reflect this third priority in the principles section of the legislation, highlighting the importance of investment in disaster risk reduction.

Reading again now from the fourth and last UN Sendai principle: “Priority 4, enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to ‘Build Back Better’ in recovery, rehabilitation, reconstruction. The growth of disaster risk means there is a need to strengthen disaster preparedness for response, take action in anticipation of events and ensure capacities are in place for effective response and recovery at all levels. The recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction phase is a critical opportunity to build back better, including through integrating disaster risk reduction into development measures.”

[3:15 p.m.]

Like all of Sendai framework’s priorities, this really speaks to taking a holistic approach that addresses all four phases of emergency management: mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. The introduction of a recovery period in the legislation and authorization of financial assistance in relation to losses from emergency events will support this as well, though a significant piece of the “build back better” part of this priority will be addressed through the development of a new post-emergency financial assistance regulation, which is currently open for public engagement as we speak.

I’d like to speak now about how this bill moves our province’s approach to emergency management towards far better alignment with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. One of the principles in section 2 of the bill recognizes that the inherent right of self-government includes the right to make laws in relation to emergency management. That’s the inherent right of Indigenous peoples, and self-government includes the right to make laws in relationship to emergency management.

This is our status quo. It is an inherent right that’s always existed and recognized by the courts. But it’s never been recognized in B.C.’s emergency management legislation. So doing this recognizes that the good work First Nations leaders have been doing to protect their communities in times of emergency is valid and rooted in inherent rights.

Across the province, we’ve seen First Nations taking measures to protect their communities from hazards like COVID-19, wildfires and floods. This bill formally recognizes the rights of First Nations as decision-makers in emergency management, which is an incredibly important step in aligning B.C.’s approach to the UN’s declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and our obligations as partners in reconciliation with Indigenous peoples here in British Columbia.

First Nations do not derive their authority from this emergency management legislation. I want to make that clear. They’re not regulated by this legislation. But the Emergency and Disaster Management Act strives to build a respectful way for provincial and local authority decision-makers to coexist with First Nations decision-makers.

The act uses the concept of Indigenous governing bodies introduced in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act to respect the rights of Indigenous people to determine who is authorized to act on their behalf. Consistent with their treaties, modern treaty nations are recognized as local authorities under this legislation. But, again, out of respect for their unique status and our government-to-government relationship, they are recognized as self-governing when it comes to emergency management.

The Emergency and Disaster Management Act takes steps to improve the way in which decision-makers in the provincial government and in local governments coordinate their actions through various requirements and through agreements across the four phases with decisions and actions taken by First Nations. The Emergency and Disaster Management Act includes a series of principles, which, broadly speaking, aim to foster collaboration, coordination and relationship-building. These principles outline a series of common goals towards reducing risk, promoting resiliency and recognizing the importance of Indigenous advice, input and stewardship.

One of the principles explicitly acknowledges the inherent right of self-government of Indigenous peoples, including the authority to make laws in relation to emergency management. As such, the legislation was drafted to recognize decision-making roles of Indigenous peoples and will require work with Indigenous governing bodies to give this effect. Indigenous governing bodies, as first reflected in the Declaration Act, are entities authorized by Indigenous peoples to act on their behalf.

This reaffirms the province’s commitment to supporting Indigenous self-determination. First Nations are wholly responsible for deciding which Indigenous governing bodies they authorize to act on their behalf in the areas that they live in, in the emergency management sphere.

I might have said this already, but I’ll read it for clarity. The new legislation recognizes the concurrent and overlapping roles of decision-makers within the provincial government, local authorities and Indigenous governing bodies and will promote co-management. It focuses on the government-to-government relationship between the province and Indigenous governing bodies.

[3:20 p.m.]

Consistent with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, this modernized legislation provides authority for agreements with Indigenous governing bodies for joint and consent-based decision-making, which means that where the conditions are right for all parties, Indigenous governing bodies may enter into agreements with the province to jointly exercise emergency powers or to require the consent of an Indigenous governing body before a power is exercised.

The act also creates the ability for the province and Indigenous governing bodies, along with local authorities, as appropriate, to enter into coordination agreements designed to coordinate the provincial or local exercise of statutory powers with the emergency management procedures and decisions of First Nations peoples. Importantly, the legislation also proposes an annual review of agreements that the province makes with Indigenous governing bodies. This helps to ensure that the agreements are serving their intended purpose and promoting public safety.

The Emergency and Disaster Management Act establishes consultation and cooperation agreements with Indigenous governing bodies, and this means that provincial ministries, public sector agencies, local authorities and critical infrastructure owners must consult and cooperate when developing risk assessments and emergency management plans.

In the response and recovery phases, the minister and local authorities must consult and cooperate with Indigenous governing bodies prior to taking certain land-based actions. Consistent with the guiding principles, this consultation and cooperation process is intended to build and strengthen relationships as well as incorporate Indigenous knowledge to help inform emergency plans and responses while respecting the cultural safety and traditional knowledge of First Nations communities.

Importantly, it also respects the rights recognized through the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. This legislation also respects the unique roles of the modern treaty nations and recognizes our government-to-government relationships. The powers and authorities that the modern treaty nations possess under this legislation are aligned with their final agreements and are broadly equivalent to the powers and authorities of municipalities and regional districts.

The Emergency and Disaster Management Act provides a range of options for agreements. Here we see protocol agreements, which will outline consultation areas and potentially other protocols; collaborative emergency management agreements, which can provide pathways for cooperation in meeting mutual emergency management objectives; coordination agreements, which can affect the way provincial or local authority decision-makers exercise their response and recovery powers under the act; and shared decision-making agreements, which can require that statutory powers or statutory powers of decision be exercised either jointly or with the consent of an Indigenous governing body. These are often referred to as section 6, section 7 agreements under the DRIPA act, the declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

The Emergency and Disaster Management Act encourages dialogue between decision-makers. In developing this legislation, we’ve been talking about emergency management as a co-managed environment, in which you have, again, various decision-makers with overlapping jurisdiction. It recognizes that the best way of avoiding confusion or conflict in that kind of environment is to engage in frequent communication and to engage in that communication up front.

In this bill, you will see references to two things that are quite similar to each other but that are somewhat different. First, there is “consultation and cooperation.” This is language used in UNDRIP, and we’ve used it in the Emergency and Disaster Management Act to describe the actions that the province, local authorities and other regulated entities, such as critical infrastructure owners, need to take in relation to Indigenous governing bodies representing First Nations peoples.

While the term “Indigenous” includes Métis and Inuit peoples, First Nations are the only Indigenous peoples with land-based rights recognized here in B.C. This legislation will require consultation with those First Nations peoples represented by Indigenous governing bodies when risk assessments and emergency management plans are developed or revised during emergencies and also during the recovery phase. This is key to aligning this legislation with UNDRIP.

[3:25 p.m.]

In addition to consultation, there’s a requirement for cooperation. This requires true consideration of both the input and rights of First Nations peoples. The first I referred to was…. There are consultation and cooperation. Those are the two pieces.

Now, secondly, there’s also consultation and coordination. These are obligations between regulated entities and local authorities. So this can mean conversations between government ministries and local authorities, between neighbouring local authorities or between critical infrastructure owners and local authorities. This consultation and coordination needs to happen when risk assessments and emergency management plans are being made as well as when local authorities are conducting evacuations or re-entry to evacuated areas.

In this bill, you will also see references to the establishment of multi-jurisdictional emergency management organizations, or, as our policy team fondly refers to them, MJEMOs. This bill formally recognizes a type of collaborative agreement that is already in place in various regions of the province. An example includes IPREM, the integrated partnership for regional emergency management in Metro Vancouver. IPREM is an intergovernmental partnership between the province of British Columbia and Metro Vancouver on behalf of its 23 local authorities, formed to coordinate regional emergency management planning activities.

There is also REMP, the regional emergency management partnership. It, too, is an intergovernmental partnership between the province of British Columbia and the capital regional district, on behalf of its 13 member municipalities and three electoral areas.

I mentioned these partnerships not because they are automatically jurisdictional emergency management organizations under this legislation, but because they’re great examples of the kind of cooperation we’re trying to promote with this MJEMO concept. Becoming an MJEMO is entirely optional, but there are a lot of upsides to moving in this direction.

Creating a formal framework for these kinds of organizations allows for these groups to meet their statutory obligations and-or actions as a collective. This is extremely valuable on a number of levels, particularly seeing as how hazards don’t tend to care very much about municipal or regional boundaries. Flood waters don’t stop because their city boundary ends, and earthquakes don’t care very much about jurisdiction. Tackling these hazards as a collective allows jurisdictions to pool resources, find operational efficiencies in delivery and build collective capacity to manage emergencies together.

The Emergency and Disaster Management Act recognizes also that systemic issues that create disadvantage under ordinary circumstances can be exacerbated in times of emergency. It aims to reduce the traumatic effects that this can have on people.

It is useful to highlight some concepts and definitions in the act. For instance, the term “cultural safety” is used by the legislation to get at the need to respect diversity, to be able to treat people with dignity and to understand and try to meet their distinct cultural needs in all phases of emergency management. One of the section 2 principles speaks to the value of promoting cultural safety.

The term “intersectional disadvantage” is also in the legislation, and it is used to describe intersecting or overlapping factors that can lead to discrimination or disadvantage. The legislation requires that it be considered by the province, local authority and others when they are preparing risk assessments and emergency management plans.

The Emergency and Disaster Management Act signals a shift to a more comprehensive approach of proactively managing disaster risk, emphasizes growing climate-related risks, implements a better framework for recovery and addresses key gaps and challenges in the existing legislation. Therefore, our new legislation will introduce requirements for the completion of climate-informed risk assessments by provincial ministries, local authorities, critical infrastructure owners and public sector agencies. This will result in better understanding of hazards that communities face and how emergencies affect equity-denied groups.

New emergency management planning requirements will build on risk assessments and include measures to reduce disproportionate impacts on equity-denied groups and promote cultural safety.

Hon. Speaker, I don’t think I’ll use the whole time, but I am designated speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Our government understands that it will take time for local governments, Indigenous governing bodies and others to become acquainted with the Emergency and Disaster Management Act and to produce those updated risk assessments and emergency plans, so we’ll be providing time to do that. These types of planning requirements will be phased in through regulations, and we’re consulting with communities and others on their time and capacity needs.

As you can see, this bill does many things. I do want to also address a fundamental change that the bill proposes to the definition of “emergency.” This includes updating the definition of emergency to reflect some very real threats that weren’t included in 1993’s Emergency Program Act.

The definition of emergency is fundamental to the legislation because a state of emergency cannot be declared unless the circumstances fit the definition, and the powers under the legislation can’t be used without a state of emergency.

I should clarify. Some of the powers can be used without a state of emergency, but there are powers in the legislation that cannot be used without a state of emergency.

The Emergency and Disaster Management Act retains the same basic structure and content of the Emergency Program Act definition of emergency. But there are three key changes.

First, the definition will now incorporate some circumstances that weren’t covered in the old legislation. For example, human-driven phenomena like security threats, riots and terrorism.

Secondly, it can be quickly expanded by order-in-council to meet unforeseen circumstances.

Lastly, it will now also speak to the safety of objects or sites of heritage value, which is an example of a change that came out of legislative development with First Nations.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Just looking back through my notes now, I should also flag that transmissible diseases are now considered as part of the definition.

I’ll note, though, that a threat to the safety of objects or sites isn’t, on its own, sufficient enough to qualify as an emergency. That threat still has to come from one of the other causes described in the definition, whether fire, forces of nature or one of the new threats that I described.

The current Emergency Program Act already provided a wide range of response powers. What I’ll say about the Emergency and Disaster Management Act, in terms of the powers that it provides, is that it is comparable. However, there are a few practical changes that reflect current real­ities.

For instance, this act provides for longer states of emergency if declared by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or by a local authority as compared to what we have currently under the Emergency Program Act. This is a significant win for local authorities, in particular, because it means they have two weeks instead of one week before they need to go through the administrative process of extending a state of emergency.

Another new policy introduced by this legislation is the concept of a recovery period. These are 90-day periods that can be ended early or extended, if necessary. They provide the province or local authorities, whoever declares the recovery period, with continued access to certain powers in cases where some extraordinary measures remain necessary to promote a safe and healthy recovery after an emergency.

Moving to a recovery period can help reduce the mental fatigue that comes with long states of emergency. It preserves the gravity of states of emergency and helps signal to the public that we’re moving into a new phase.

Accountability and transparency are also being enhanced in this legislation with new required reporting to provide the Legislative Assembly and, ultimately, the public with a clear understanding of when and how emergency powers were exercised.

The act has a couple of themes to promote transparency: new reporting requirements and a legislative commitment to a five-year review. Under the Emergency Program Act, there are no reporting requirements tied to states of emergency or the use of powers. With the new reporting requirements, the EDMA, the Emergency and Disaster Management Act, will create an official record which promotes accountability.

The five-year review recognizes that we’re implementing some significant policy shifts in this legislation in an era where we’re living with frequent severe emergencies and where we are doing some very important work to recognize the decision-making roles of First Nations peoples. With this degree of change, we recognize that the legislation will need assessment and may need to adapt.

[3:35 p.m.]

This bill provides the foundation for a comprehensive modernization of emergency management in British Columbia. The legislation adopts the proactive holistic approach from the UN Sendai framework, recognizes First Nations as decision-makers and promotes self-determination in emergency management and incorporates lessons learned from the challenging years we’ve experienced.

Before I conclude my remarks about this timely and important bill that’s ready to make a difference for all British Columbians, I also want to acknowledge a group of very important people that I didn’t thank directly in the beginning of my remarks, and that is all the members of this House, on both sides of the House, in all four parties. During an emergency, what I’ve noticed is that this House comes together.

Of course, there are criticisms, and I accept that. There’s always room for improvement and room to do better. But I do want to acknowledge members of opposition parties who took my call during emergencies, who picked up the phone and called me when they saw things that were going on in their communities that needed to be addressed. Their on-the-ground insights into what was going on were absolutely invaluable. It helped us adapt and move more quickly than if that dialogue wasn’t there.

I’m grateful to each and every one who serves fire-affected communities, who has served communities affected by floods and other disasters, whose industries were impacted, whose communities were impacted in all sorts of ways.

I hope that going forward, we can continue that open dialogue and work together to make sure that British Columbians are safe from emergencies well into the future.

L. Doerkson: I want to, maybe, start where the minister left off with her kind words as far as working across party lines. In that moment of need, Minister, I’m grateful that you answered your phone call from me and from others.

There’s no question…. Before I start my speech, I just want to, maybe, make a few comments on what the minister referred to with respect to ice storms and fires and floods and everything that’s happening.

Today as we sit here, I’m receiving notice that Hell Raving Creek fire is flaring up again. This is a fire that sat, I believe, on August 27 at 500 hectares and, of course, as the minister would know, ballooned to, I think, 11,000 almost overnight, a fire that burned so hot last week that it melted aluminum irrigation equipment, irrigation pipes that were full of water. There’s no question that the damage on the landscape is incredible.

The minister would also know that as we speak right now, Terra Ridge residents are getting ready for a meeting at about five or six o’clock this evening. Four units of 80 have succumbed to a landslide that has been moving for a lot of years. Those four units that have seniors living in them….

I want to be clear, because I’ll come back to that a little bit later. These are condominiums that seniors have lived in for years and, frankly, found out last Monday, I think, at nine o’clock in the morning, that they would have to leave those units within about eight hours or so and not return. The likelihood is that those units will actually be demolished at some point. I will clarify later that there are many units that are still very sound in that facility.

But you’re quite right, Minister. The damage that is happening on the landscape — frankly, the horror that so many people are living right now — is staggering. I will speak a little bit about that as I go through my speech this afternoon.

[3:40 p.m.]

I wanted to also thank you for your words with respect to my statement earlier. I actually meant to refer to that unnamed hero that I was unable to name because that name has never been released.

I don’t think we’ve ever had a year when we’ve had six individuals perish while, obviously, fulfilling their tasks to protect us all. So it has certainly been an incredible year.

While I’ll expand on this a little later, in 2017, Cariboo–Chilcotin was on evacuation alert. Frankly, everything really, from Cache Creek and Ashcroft all the way to Quesnel, was on evacuation order. At that time, that was one of the largest movements of people in Canadian history. I would suspect this year we’ve certainly passed that.

I noted that the minister did talk a little bit about collaboration, and I want to say that while we’re still in the room together. She did refer to the fact that this is a bill, and the bill does refer to a whole-society approach. This afternoon I’m going to try to demonstrate just how badly people want to help. They really want to help.

I can assure the minister that our caucus absolutely wants to help. We want to collaborate. I really, sincerely hope that as we do go to committee stage on this bill, that potentially, we could introduce amendments and things, that we might be able to help strengthen the bill.

It has been a long time coming, the bill. Frankly, there was work done as far back as 2017. I know that there was a delay because of COVID and other things, but people have waited for this bill for a long time, and I think British Columbians are owed it, frankly. I think that they’re owed the absolute best legislation that we can put forward.

I do have concerns, and I’ll get into those a little bit further down the speech. When we talk about legislation, and we see so much of the bill that just simply says the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting certain things — volunteers, emergency management, different things — frankly, to me, it feels as though the legislation itself is just not complete. I will explain that further, but the idea that I would simply say this looks okay…. We’re going to have many questions about this because it seems to me to be very open-ended. We’ll get to that in a minute.

I did want to just suggest that I certainly heard the minister when she referenced the fact that it is a whole-of-society approach, and I hope that going forward, we’ll have that opportunity.

I also wanted to…. The minister spoke a little bit about First Nations, and I can’t say enough about the fact that we’ve got the framework here to have a fantastic relationship with our First Nations and a fantastic opportunity to have partnerships with the First Nations that could introduce so much into this conversation with respect to cultural burning. Again, I’ll talk a little bit about that more into the speech. Certainly, it is amazing that we have that opportunity to build that relationship.

Nations in my riding like Esk’etemc, Tŝilhqot’in, certainly Williams Lake First Nation have all seen and witnessed fire in their areas. In fact, with reference to First Nations that have seen some staggering results with respect to fire and access, the Ulkatcho First Nation actually found themselves in the spot where we had to airlift their Elders out of their community because they were actually blocked in on both sides of Highway 20.

[3:45 p.m.]

They have incredible knowledge, so I know that this bill will absolutely focus on that knowledge. But we have to extract that information, and we have to improve the use of that knowledge, because frankly, in areas like Canim Lake, Ulkatcho, Canoe Creek — all of those areas — the First Nations are extremely involved in caretaking of those lands.

In places like Twist Creek, and the fire that I was just talking about at Hell Raving Creek, the country there is so dry. I know that we’ll talk a lot about fire here today, but frankly, everything that follows fire — floods, landslides — is so much. So I know that while I focus on wildfire today — and I think, so did the minister — there are so many things. You mentioned ice storms, and I had forgot about the ice storm. Anyhow, we’ll bounce around a little bit on that.

I wanted to just talk a little bit about local authorities, and I’ll get into that as well. Again, just in response to what you were referencing, I think that there’s a lot of fear, frankly. I’m sure the minister has had much conversation with regional districts and smaller communities that really have lived through what has been an unbelievable time over the last decade or so. I think that they’re very concerned. Again, I’ll expand on that.

I think they’re very concerned with reference to how they will manage what this bill looks like, how they will supply the reports that the bill is asking for, how they will manage that with respect to people power and other things. I know that I’ve talked to a number of regional districts that are very concerned about that.

I think that co-management…. Of course, this bill does talk about co-management. I think that some of that is happening now, but one of the things that I’ll expand on a little bit later are the silos that seem to be kind of created out there. I really hope that EMCR ends up sort of taking a leading role in all of the management of disaster.

Hopefully, the Speaker will grant me a little bit of latitude as I make my comments to explain some of the stories that I’ve lived myself and some of the reasons that I think we need that leadership.

Also, the minister touched on the definitions that change. Frankly, this is why I think we will spend a lot of time in committee — because certainly the definitions have changed a lot. Not only have they changed; there are certainly a number of additional things. The minister touched on a few today — transmissible disease, security threats like riots, etc. Some of those seem to me to be a little bit vague.

The reason I say that is that, obviously, we have seen parades and different things that have turned into something else. I would like, certainly in committee stage, the opportunity to discuss that a little bit further. I certainly wouldn’t want to see it encroach too much onto people’s rights, etc.

The recovery period that the minister mentioned, of course, has been expanded to 90 days in Bill 31. I just don’t know that it’s enough, frankly, if we look at communities. Again, I’ll expand on that, as well, later.

I just don’t know that the 90 days is enough, when you look at different things — like Terra Ridge, for instance, communities like Lytton, other communities that have had very serious challenges, of course, and ESS and all those incredible services that we have. Frankly, two weeks at a time is just, in my mind, simply not enough. The folks at Terra Ridge that have been involved, the four separate units that have been condemned — they are condemned forever.

[3:50 p.m.]

They will likely be taken down. So for those seniors that find themselves, at 85 years old, losing their asset that might be a $400,000 or $500,000 asset, I would say that that is, frankly, pretty shocking to those folks.

Right now they’re held up, really, in hotels, and they don’t have their furniture. They don’t have anything, right? I really think that we need to consider those recovery periods. I will talk a lot today about disaster financial assistance because I just don’t know that that program is accomplishing what it is intended to accomplish or what we hope that it would accomplish. I’ll explain those things as I go along here today.

Then just the final point that I’ll make, with respect to the minister’s comments, is on the ability to adapt. I know that this legislation will have a five-year review period. I don’t know that that’s soon enough, frankly. I guess we’ll question that in committee stage, but it just seems to me that, again, the legislation is a little bit undone in my mind. It does need to be very adaptive, and I think it needs to be able to change a little bit on the run.

With reference — I’ll come back to this too — to the idea that we are obviously going to enter into debate on Bill 31 and go through a committee stage, I can appreciate that we are going to have to vote on this bill, but frankly, there is an engagement session still open on this bill until December 31. It just seems to me that we’ve got a little bit of the cart before the horse, if you will.

We’ve got now a number of recommendations, which I’ll get into, from the Ombudsperson. It just seems to me like there is a lot going on here. Outside of what Bill 31 is, I think that there’s an opportunity, frankly, to improve it and certainly adapt to some of the things. For instance, with the Ombudsperson’s report, there are many recommendations that I’m not certain have all been addressed in this legislation.

There’s no question in my mind that we need to move a little bit slowly. Certainly, we need to make this bill the absolute best that we can for everyone that, sadly, has been affected by so much disaster over the last little while.

With all that said, I definitely want to thank the minister for presenting this today and bringing it before this House. I want to thank all the staff that have been a part of bringing this forward, and I certainly will look forward to the debate. I should warn that many of our colleagues — and, I hope, members from all sides of this House — will participate in the debate, because I am certainly interested as critic or shadow minister in this ministry.

I am very interested in hearing both about successes and failures. I don’t want to use that word in an argumentative way. We can’t fix what we don’t know about. So we need fulsome conversation; we need fulsome debate on this bill. I really hope that members will step up and participate, because frankly, I can’t think of an area in our province that has not had significant change.\

The ferocity of fire today: we’re looking at fires that are 600,000 and 700,000 hectares in size. In 2021 when the Flat Lake fire was 70,000 hectares, I thought that was massive. That was a fire that stretched, really, from 70 Mile all the way to the 108.

[3:55 p.m.]

It had put our communities of 108 and 100 Mile and definitely 70 Mile, all of those areas, into a pretty serious situation, not to mention the Cunningham family, which again, I’ll also talk about a little bit more at length as well.

I think there’s a framework here, provided we can move forward with some serious debate, with some great information to add and the ability to adapt — and, potentially, for the minister or the ministry to even hear potential amendments in committee stage. I would certainly hope for that. I would hope that if there were one thing in this House that we could collaborate on, it would be this bill. It just affects so many millions of people in so many different ways.

With that, I’ll, I guess, begin my speech.

Again, thank you very much to the minister. I will certainly hold all of those comments close and….

Interjection.

L. Doerkson: No, I haven’t, actually. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll be designated speaker.

I’ve done my preamble and comments to the minister. Like the minister, I’m not sure that I’ll need the entire time, but I definitely have a number of things to say and a number of stories to convey. Those stories, of course, are my own lived experience.

The minister has done a great job of outlining it, but there are a few things that I would like to also bring note to. The bill does repeal and replace the Emergency Program Act, of course, which has not seen, really, any provisions for a very long time. I want to say it’s something that members of the B.C. United caucus have been calling for, for some time, and I’m certainly glad that the government has taken notice of that. As I’ve said in my response to the minister’s comments, the fact is that it is extremely serious for so many people.

I did, as I’ve noted, have significant concerns about the legislation, in terms of the pressure it puts on communities and property owners but, as well, on areas of the legislation that may not go far enough to address significant problems facing our province — and that, as I’ve indicated, we will definitely dig into, with greater detail, at committee stage. Of course, we will hear very many speeches from individuals, as I said, on both sides, I hope.

We do welcome the inclusion of part 3 of this legislation, specifically when it comes to Indigenous governing bodies. That is very significant, for all the reasons that I just spoke about. I think it is incredibly important that we will be able to collaborate in a more fulsome way with all of our nations. There is so much work that they are doing outside of what we even recognize.

I will talk a little bit about cultural burning later. Many of our First Nations do this as a routine part of their maintenance, their care and maintenance of land. For instance, the Williams Lake First Nation routinely cleans up their fields every spring, and I know so many others do.

I think that in many areas on our Crown, we have gotten away from that, frankly. I’ll mention Guy Burdikin a little bit later, but I know that even the Forest Practices Board now is really looking for that kind of action. I’ve seen now, with my own eyes, examples of where this has protected forests on our landscape. Frankly, it’s incredible how successful this can be. I’ll expand on that a little bit later.

I mentioned this. We have concerns about burdens that this may place on critical infrastructure owners. The reason that I have concerns about that, frankly, is because even in the briefing, which I’m grateful for, I couldn’t get quite clear on what that meant.

[4:00 p.m.]

Let me just briefly explain. When it comes to critical infrastructure, who owns that? The questions that I’ll have as we go forward will be: will a forest service road, a logging road and those types of things fall under that infrastructure? How might a forest company be responsible for that? Could they be responsible for maintenance and those types of things?

I’ll speak a little bit about ranchers as we go forward as well, but my concern is what will be expected from those folks that do own parts of our infrastructure. Maybe own is not entirely the exact, right word, but many of those…. Much of that ownership would be sort of a lease situation or a tenure.

I am definitely concerned a little bit about that. Frankly, it’s unclear, and I’ve read it a number of times. It’s unclear to me exactly how far that will go and what that ownership might look like. You know, could a guide-outfitter somehow be affected by these rules? Again, we’ll find that out in the committee stage, but certainly it’s very concerning.

I mean, there are areas that have been impacted by other bills, for instance. What I mean by that is…. I can’t remember which bill, but Bill 23, Bill 28 actually talks about the deactivation of logging roads. I don’t know how those two cross over and how that might impact a fire response, for instance, if some of those roads have been deactivated.

It just seems to me that there’s much more that needs to be answered with respect to how those individuals will be affected. Local authorities are already very stretched. I just briefly touched on this. I’ve talked to regional districts who are actually losing staff now because they just….

To the minister’s point earlier, disaster season is no longer a season. It’s a year-round commitment, and so much of the work already falls to our regional districts and our communities to manage all of the things that are disaster, and that might be everything from evacuation to road closures to all kinds of different things. I think that regional districts are extremely afraid and definitely want an opportunity to be a part of moulding this bill and having a significant opportunity to comment.

I know that also, of course, public engagement is important. The minister spoke today about that engagement, but that engagement is not over. It actually does continue until December 31 of this year. That, too, is a little bit concerning to me. I would hate for this House to make a very serious decision on something like this, only to find a few incredibly great ideas that come from that public engagement.

Not only will the public, of course, be obviously active in that engagement as we go forward to the end of the year, but certainly, I think you will see regional districts, as this bill becomes a little more public and gets a little more scrutiny from not just us but the rest of the members in this House and the rest of the people and governments of British Columbia.

I certainly do have questions about the bill coming to the floor at this time. The timeline to act, of course…. The government’s own website indicates that the phased implementation will be starting as late as 2023. That really goes back to my point. We have got a public engagement open until the end of 2023, but we want to actually start….

Sorry, not we. I won’t take credit for that. The government wants to obviously start to implement some of this legislation this year. Don’t get me wrong at all. I think that we have to move just slow enough to get this bill right.

[4:05 p.m.]

I also think that we have to move fast enough that we obviously can enjoy the benefits of this legislation as it moves forward.

I think we’ve got a bit of a crash course there where we’re not going to have all of the information that we need to make a final decision and to make this bill what it could be. I just really want to make that clear that I think that we need to slow down and hear what people have to say on this.

The bill has already been delayed three years, as I said earlier. I mean, there was a part of this bill that was ready to go, I think, in 2017. I think that we’ve taken the time. It’s been delayed. It was promised by the government in 2020, and here we are in 2023. To wait just a little bit longer to get this right just seems extremely important to me.

That bill was originally drafted by our party. There’s no question that we have a vested interest in making this incredibly good for the people of British Columbia. We certainly don’t need to wait another two years. I don’t want to say that we want to move at a turtle’s pace. But I do think we need to have a little bit of caution as we go forward.

Bill 31 certainly reveals, in my mind, that we haven’t learned from some of the things that we’ve had happen in the past. I want to talk a little bit about disaster financial assistance. I’ll talk, certainly, more about that, as well, as we go forward. But we have had conversation many times about disaster financial assistance.

For those that don’t know, this is a program that would allow for up to $300,000 in the event of a sudden loss.

Interjection.

L. Doerkson: Oh, $400,000. I’ve been corrected. Thank you very much. That’s even better yet for the residents of Terra Ridge that I’ll certainly advocate for where I can.

I think it’s important to know that, personally, I have tried to encourage that program to activate in certain situations in my own riding, in fact. We did that through the Ministry of Public Safety. Frankly, I warned constituents that were involved in that process that we would likely fail.

The stress that I put on the Cutnick family, for instance, in my mind, was sad. But they lost their home. They were a young family, and I wanted to put them through that process — with their permission, I might add — to prove a point that that program does not always work the way that we hoped it would or the way that it needs to work, frankly. In their situation, it was a landslide situation as well.

I think that we need to address that. We need to address that as a Legislature. It comes up too often. It’s coming up not just with respect to landslides, but it’s coming up with respect to communities that are also in need of that funding. I just think that we have to really debate that strongly and focus on what that program is supposed to be.

I want to suggest that the MLA from Kamloops has certainly introduced a number of suggestions in a private member’s bill that reflected the need to overhaul this exact program.

It’s also been presented that areas that…. Insurance has been a challenge to get for residents for a number of different reasons — I mean, for reasons of past events and past floods and past fire. I’ll explain the effect of that a little bit later. Some folks on the landscape are unable to get insurance. It’s not that they wouldn’t get it if they could, but they, frankly, can’t. I think that that changes the outcome of what we would hope a resident’s actions would be.

[4:10 p.m.]

What I mean by that is that if you have no insurance and you have a raging fire that is two or three kilometres away from your home, you may make different decisions than you might have, had that home been insured. I think that there are things that we could do to improve that.

I know that the minister…. Well, certainly, past ministers have been critical of that, but we need to understand why some people are making that choice. And I think this is a very significant part of what this Bill 31 could address — or at least that we could have that conversation. We need to streamline all of those processes, frankly, in my mind. And I think that we are at the absolute perfect time that we can do that.

Extending application deadlines to 120 days was a suggestion that was made. Certainly, with respect to some of the new numbers that we’re looking at — 28 days from a provincial state of emergency, 14 at a local level — that certainly helps, in a few ways. But again, I don’t know that those numbers are right. And the 90 days that we see for any kind of a recovery…. Frankly, I’m concerned it’s not long enough.

I want to just talk a little bit about the Ombudsperson report. Again, it really points out to me that I think the government has agreed that many of these points do need to be accepted and need to be dealt with. I think we’re at a perfect time to perhaps add a number of these recommendations. I think we need to take a pause and really understand that it’s not just the people of British Columbia that are very concerned here.

I mean, the Ombudsperson’s report, and I’m going to go through a little bit of it, has some very serious concerns, and I think that it’s a concern, as I said, to British Columbians but certainly right now to people in the Shuswap, Kelowna, Lytton.

Lytton has been, in my mind, one of the most unbelievable stories in our province’s recent history, and my heart goes out to those people. You know, the idea that that community has not been rebuilt is just beyond recognition for me.

The report does note a number of problems and certainly notes a number of suggestions. I’ll go as far as just maybe breaking some of those down. But this investigation is pretty significant, and it has some incredible suggestions for improvement, I suppose, with respect to what’s happening on our landscape and with our different programs that we have.

The demand for ESS supports in 2021 was much greater than the previous year, of course. This demand has seen a 6,000 percent increase in ESS payments to suppliers.

On long-term displacement. We spoke a little bit about that in opening remarks, but the report finds that the need to support such individuals and families over a long term is an increasing reality in the context of a rising cost of living, a housing affordability crisis. Certainly, they heard in our investigation that the availability of affordable and appropriate alternate accommodations is felt acutely in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland.

Well, I can assure you that that is exactly what’s happening, with respect to the residents of Terra Ridge. Some of the residents there obviously do lack the ability to just simply go out and buy another home. But the type of living that these condominiums have provided, in the case of 80 structures that are there….

[4:15 p.m.]

Everything is on one floor. They do have a basement for when the company comes, and that kind of thing. Frankly, there’s nothing else, really, in the community that fits that description. Rental accessibility is simply non-existent. So there is definitely a need for some sort of a rethink on long-term support.

Again, as I mentioned earlier in my comments, these residents are not leaving for two weeks from a fire zone. They are leaving for their lives. Right now ESS — and I’ll mention Dave Dickson probably a few times — is an amazing program, and I’m grateful for what it’s doing for these residents, but I really think that it could do so much more.

In the case of the residents, frankly, they are not going home — period. They are not going to go home. They might be able to get some of their belongings out of these buildings, but even that’s a question right now. So I think that we need to, very much so, as the Ombudsperson has suggested, consider support that would obviously be much longer term than three days or seven days or whatever we may arrive at.

On disaster financial assistance, as I’ve said…. I’ve spoken about it a number of times. The Ombudsperson feels that we definitely need to improve in that case as well. Recommendations with respect to the 20 that the Ombudsperson is talking about…. I would like to read a few of them.

One, we need to “support community-led ESS with timely and effective surge support for large-scale disasters, integrated professional mental health care and a reliable communications hub for evacuees.”

You know, the fact that mental health has come up…. I was so pleased to see that, because I know that people are suffering from PTSD from events that they have lived through. I can assure you right now….

I can tell you a story about a senior citizen who is involved at Terra Ridge, who actually found themselves lost in their own community the other night. That senior had gone back, for whatever reason, to turn his heat down. He went back to the wrong hotel. Then at that point, he realized that he was missing his wife and didn’t know he was at the wrong hotel. That’s what people are dealing with.

So there’s no question that there is a need to accommodate our residents that are really in incredible situations. For those people — and I’m one of them that has been there, has been evacuated — it’s, frankly, shocking when you think about the impact that it has on all of us, and these residents are no different.

Two is to “ensure reception centres are accessible.” I’m going to read a few of the comments that the Ombudsperson had, in just a moment, with respect to our reception centres. When I do get there, I’ll read them obviously with a note that so many of our reception centres are managed just by volunteers that do an incredible job. I can appreciate that people have had challenges there, but I’ve worked in some of those volunteer reception centres and certainly tried to do my best as well.

Again, this is not to be completely harsh. It’s to understand where we need to improve, and I’m glad to see the minister somewhat agreeing with that. I’m really pleased about that.

Three was to “develop a plan to support people experiencing long-term displacement and consult broadly in doing so.” I’ll skip over a few here.

“Identify ways to better communicate about DFA with people who have applied or might need it.” It’s not a simple process, and I think that we could certainly do a little better with respect to helping people to navigate that whole application process. Bill 31 is a perfect place to do that.

I do want to read some of the quotes from the report, because as much as some of them are a little bit tough to hear…. As I said, probably there are people in this room that have had an opportunity to volunteer in some of these centres.

[4:20 p.m.]

I’ll start with a quote. “I walked out of the reception centre in tears because they were so cold and uncaring.” Now, I think that maybe that points to a suggestion that there are overwhelming moments in these centres. We’ve talked about that. We’ve talked about that at our local staff levels. We’ve talked about how overwhelming this could be for anybody. Again, these are not my comments. They come from the Ombudsperson’s report.

“No matter where we went, the hours for support were too short, the lineups were way too long.”

“People were staying in their cars for days.”

I can tell you that in 2017…. I’ll talk a little bit about looting and all of those types of things. But my family actually got separated. The reason we got separated was because the fire just north of Williams Lake had burned across…. That, really, was what encouraged our local governments to call the evacuation order.

By the way, in the end, it took almost eight hours to get to Kamloops because you had virtually 25,000 or 30,000 people evacuating that area. My daughter had left earlier. She was going to likely stay in her car. To add a point of just how stressful this is, her car, that evening, was broken into, and her personal belongings, of course, were stolen. So there’s no question that the stress that is on all of the people in these situations could be vastly reduced by some of the work we could do here in the coming weeks.

These folks were waiting in their car or staying in their car: “After having to register in three different towns and being turned away and our paperwork forgotten about, we were stuck in the car for almost 20 hours and told to be prepared to sleep in it.”

“Due to mobility and financial difficulties, I could not get to an ESS centre, and I could not wait hours in the freezing cold to gain such services.”

“Registration was a real problem for us because my wife is in a wheelchair, and the long lineups, the time involved, including access to washrooms, was all a challenge.”

“My husband had severe dementia and Alzheimer’s and did not cope well with all of the changes and the uncertainty. He was frail, and it was hard for him to stand in line.”

“I have two children with mental health problems, and it was very difficult for us to stay in two rooms in a hotel. We are a family of seven. My autistic son needed more space, but it was not available.”

I guess the reason I’m reading these, and I’m sure I’m not introducing anything new to the minister at all…. I appreciate the complexity of what’s happening on our landscape. I appreciate the complexity that families are being faced with in this moment of need, particularly when they’ve had to leave on such incredibly short notice.

You virtually have…. I know in our home, now, we pack in about March or April. We pack a sort of emergency bag and put it at the back door. I never thought that we would be living like that. But frankly, when you think about what you’re going to fit into your vehicle and then realize that you may end up five hours away from your home, it’s an unbelievable process. This is the opportunity to improve some of this.

“I needed socks and winter boots for my kids. We had five minutes at 11 o’clock at night to get out of the house. We didn’t get vouchers for these.”

“My husband was in the final phase of his life with bowel cancer. He was in serious pain and desperate toilet issues. He was constantly uncomfortable. We lived in our 20-foot motorhome and surfed from parking lot to parking lot. No offer of help, no help, no communication of anybody available.”

I am certain there are success stories also. I’ve heard them all and, certainly, I can speak about some of those at a later point. I’ve got to tell you…. As I said, Dave Dickson, Eva Navrot, Liz Jones — they do an incredible job in Cariboo-Chilcotin. I know that those people will be replicated throughout the entire province with respect to the good work that they do in ESS centres.

[4:25 p.m.]

As I’ve said, I’ve been to one or two of those as a recipient and also as a volunteer. But again, I think there are things that we could do.

We have put forth a number of suggestions. I hope to bring this up in committee stage and discuss some of this, because while I can appreciate that B.C. Wildfire is in a different ministry, this is, of course, emergency management. I think that some of the content that we’ve introduced recently needs to be heard, and I think it needs to be considered.

Certainly, I think that this ministry can have a hand in trying to improve all of our emergency response. I think the bill will actually try to identify more clearly what emergencies will fall into what ministries as well. That is certainly part of it. We’ll try to better understand where an earthquake would be dealt with, where wildfire would be dealt with. There’s so much crossover with respect to all of it, but at the end of the day, I believe, as I said in my very opening remarks, there’s an opportunity for this ministry to advocate across different channels and across different ministries.

One of them is that we want to introduce a modernized firefighting service — establishing a modern full-time firefighting service with more front-line personnel, an expanded provincial aircraft fleet and cutting-edge fire suppression technology to protect homes and infrastructure.

We want to leverage local expertise. We’ve talked a little bit about that with respect to the First Nations. Again, I can’t say enough about the firefighters at Esk’etemc who, frankly, along with West Fraser and Tolko task teams, probably stopped the fire at Canim Lake in 2021, which was a very significant fire. Along with the First Nations that were working on that fire, many local contractors. We have to continue to work on that.

I’m going to introduce a suggestion about a few contractors that are shocked this year, this past year, that…. With fires raging two or three hours from their home, how is it that their cat is still sitting there not used, or other pieces of equipment? We really have to figure out ways to promote the use of local contractors, local First Nations and other people that are on the landscape — ranchers and guide-outfitters and everybody.

As I said and as the minister mentioned in her opening remarks, this is a whole-of-society approach. We have to do this. We have to do it. It’s not just B.C. Wildfire. It’s not just wildfire. It is everything else along with that.

We’ve heard from individuals that have seen infrastructure that has been blown out because of flooding that has occurred after wildfires. The notion that we’re not fixing that, we’re not doing preventative maintenance, we’re not doing other things that we could be doing because we can’t find people…. I can assure you there are tons of people that want to be involved and help in these efforts.

Empowering local response teams, equipping and empowering local volunteer fire response teams, including First Nations, of course — we definitely want to do that. I’m going to talk a little bit about Greeny Lake fire department in a moment or two.

The work that our rural fire departments do is absolutely amazing. It’s absolutely amazing. I guess I’ll discuss that in a more fulsome way here in a moment but, frankly, the problem for them is also funding. If you look at a fire department like Greeny Lake fire department…. Frankly, they are really struggling to keep their head above water, and they are not the only one. I talk about them as being the little fire department that could, but I’ll explain in a moment just how serious that situation is.

Swift support for evacuees, pledging that we want an automatic financial support for evacuees during the first 72 hours, alongside efficient aid through streamlined emergency social services for people in their communities.

[4:30 p.m.]

Forest management and prevention. Aggressively overhauling forestry management practices, emphasizing swift responses to fires and reducing wildfire risk through selective harvesting, expedited permits, regulatory changes and financial incentives.

I want to just chat a little bit about a tour that many of us in Williams Lake just had with respect to forest areas in the area of Chimney Lake and, certainly, the area of Bond Lake. The work that’s been there is nothing short of amazing. It is amazing. Not only has the forest floor been completely cleaned up, but in the case of the Williams Lake First Nation, it would be more comparable, frankly, to gardening than anything else. They have been able to not only log an area that a layperson like myself would walk into and think: “This is just absolutely beautiful forest….” This is after they have departed the scene.

The interesting thing is they have been able to create areas of protection for animals. They’ve been able to plant species, like blueberries or saskatoons or things like that, in such a way that their elders can actually have great access to all those berry-picking areas. Frankly, so will I.

The point is that there is, certainly, a better way to do some of the things that we’re doing. We would be very encouraging with some second thoughts on some of that.

I also want to mention in the Bond Lake situation, it was amazing that…. Well, it was sad, but the result was amazing. In the Bond Lake area of Williams Lake that we toured with the representative from FESBC, in that case, three or four days before we arrived at that scene….

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Welcome.

Before we toured it, there was actually a lightning strike to the forest floor. While we don’t have props here today, I could certainly show the minister, later, photos of how little this fire actually burned. It couldn’t get into the trees. It couldn’t do the damage that you would expect, even in a very dry time.

So there are certainly suggestions like that that we would enjoy putting forward and debating in a more fulsome way.

We want to create a modern and full-time firefighting service. I think the time is now for this. I can appreciate that ministers tasked with ministries like Emergency B.C. will find themselves in positions where we have “all of the resources we need.” But I have never been convinced of that. I don’t say it necessarily to be critical. We just don’t. When we have 300 fires burning in this province, or in 2021, when we had 65 fires burning in Cariboo-Chilcotin and we have 12 or 15 helicopters…. I’m sorry, I could never be convinced that we have all the resources we need.

I think that we need to create and I think that this ministry and this bill has an opportunity to advocate for exactly that — a modern, full-time firefighting service with significantly more front-line personnel and, certainly, a larger provincial aircraft fleet and cutting-edge fire suppression. B.C. contractors — we need to consider using them a little bit more broadly. Rapid fire suppression, leveraging the unmatched local knowledge, developing comprehensive inventory of available union and non-union contractors and cutting through the bureaucratic red tape.

[4:35 p.m.]

I was just recently on a tour throughout northern B.C., and the message was consistent in so many communities. There were just contractors sitting on the sidelines that we couldn’t process paperwork for. We have to figure out a way to cut through that. If we’re going to have a rapid response, we have to cut through that.

I don’t know whether it’s that we use our winter months better. I don’t know if we cut down the bureaucratic tape, the red tape. But we have to definitely address that, for certain.

We need to train and equip the local response by trusting and empowering volunteer fire response teams from First Nations, local communities, ranchers, farmers, contractors with essential supplies and resources and, obviously, at the same time, addressing safety, liability insurance certifications and standardizing training for these teams.

I mean, I am always shocked — and I’m sure, at this point, the minister is aware — at just how much equipment is on the landscape at a ranch. These folks routinely will replace culverts and different things. They have big equipment, and it’s right there — right there. We need to figure out a way to get there.

We talked a little bit about the forest management practices and things that we may be able to do to encourage different actions on our landscape. I think that that is a very, very important suggestion.

Other solutions. We need to focus aggressively at made-in-B.C. solutions as well, in my mind, such as specialized drones, mass water delivery systems, night-vision technology, obviously so that we can get to those fires early.

That early attack is so important. We have heard repeatedly that residents or other individuals have been in a position to actually stop a fire, stand it down, and then those individuals have been either told to stand down or to leave the area.

I’m sure that is consistent with the White Rock Lake fire, and I know that it’s consistent with other fires, certainly in my riding. One in particular was Canoe Creek. It literally sat there for days. I mentioned my concern to B.C. Wildfire, because I know that people like Cary Camile and others have equipment in that area. But it wasn’t being deployed.

That fire, just like we started today with Hell Raving Creek, just like that fire — it just instantly blew up. We could have stopped it, in my mind. We could have stopped it.

When you think about the effects that the White Rock Lake fire had, I mean, that is staggering. I think my folks at the time were on evacuation alert. They live near Enderby. I had friends that were in Kamloops and also in Vernon that were on alert.

This was a very quickly moving fire that impacted so many. If it could have been stopped…. I won’t say it could have been, but if it could have been stopped, then shame on us for not stopping it right then and there. We have to do better with that first response.

With respect to made-in-B.C., we have companies here that are very well known. In fact, they’re known throughout the world for their firefighting ability and for their innovation, perhaps.

We have the largest maker of Bambi buckets in the world right here. Well, sorry, in the Lower Mainland. Pardon me. We could certainly make use of that. We have families like Coulson’s and others. Those are all definitely things that we could be reconsidering.

We have to assure the public that there is transparency when it comes to this entire conversation. I have spoken many times about the Cunningham family, the time that it took the freedom of information that was filed. I think the first quote for freedom of information was around $8,000, if memory serves correct. I think we got it whittled down to $1,500 or so.

[4:40 p.m.]

All of that was searching for where fire was lit. Was it lit on private property? Was it lit on Crown land? All of that, because the family felt as though they had photos of staff lighting a fire on their private property. That changes everything, by the way, because when we light fire on Crown land and it ends poorly for a resident, there really is no liability, from my understanding, from the province. But if we light it on private property and it goes wrong, then there is an ability for our residents to have some sort of remuneration returned to them.

It has taken all of two years to get clarity and, frankly, we never did. To me, we have to move that sort of thing along, and we need to consider the impact that that is having on people. There are things like, for instance, burned trees, that have a value, but that value is for two years.

In the case of the ranching family at the Cunningham ranch, the situation there was that they lost a lot of private trees. I think I probably told you this before, but for a rancher, that really is their RSP. It might be something else. It might be to top up a year when, perhaps, the rates at the auction are low, and they need just a little bit more funding to make their season profitable or to even break even.

They had no choice. They had to clean up that mess. But the question was how, in fact, that fire actually got to their own private property. They lost tens of thousands of dollars of resource. At the end of the day, that family has gone the distance with the government. They have tried their level best to get clarity, and it has been challenging. Bill 31 certainly could have an opportunity to clean some of that up.

I’ve talked about disaster financial assistance quite a bit, so I’ll move on from there. Just to say that we definitely need to make that work.

We need to ensure that farmers and ranchers are eligible for any funding programs that we put forth. They have to work. I’ll explain a little bit about what’s happening to our farmers right now and why emergency management has to be involved with this.

Right now they’re facing their own crisis, which, of course, is drought — feed shortages and all of those types of things. Again, I’ve mentioned it a couple of times. Trust me: I get the complexity of what we’re trying to solve here, what we’re trying to do. But the complexity for a farmer right now is that they don’t have enough feed. So that ends, tragically, with a rancher having to sell off mother cows, sell off parts of their herd that may have taken, by the way, decades to build.

The problem is the tax implications there. If you’re going to sell all your cows for $10 and expect to buy them back next year for $10, that would be fantastic. The problem is because of the increase of income, the ranchers have given away much of it to taxes. Then, frankly, beyond that, there may be a shortage next year with respect to rebuilding those cattle herds. So those $10 cows this year might be worth $15 or $16 next year, but you only put $5 in the bank to begin with. I’m not trying to move cups around on a desk here. I’m just trying to point out the complexity of what happens in a moment of disaster.

Callously, last year I made a joke in the middle of a drought, suggesting that the next thing that will be here will be the locusts. Then I returned from Anahim Lake, where they have an incredible stampede, by the way, and at about Alexis Creek, I get bugs starting to hit the front of my truck, and I get out and, surely enough, it’s grasshoppers, and they are eating what little feed there is left.

[4:45 p.m.]

The fact is the challenges on the landscape right now are incredible, and we need this bill to acknowledge that, understand it. And we need programs to work because so often, frankly, they don’t.

Mitigate unnecessary economic damages, of course, due to the impacts of state-of-emergency declarations on businesses. I’ll talk a little bit more about this again as we proceed. But I guess what I’m referring to there is that very often ministries are tasked with — and frankly, it’s a difficult task — encouraging zones that travel may not be allowed to. There could be challenges with respect…. We saw this in the Okanagan fires this year where, clearly, nobody was welcome to come to certain areas of Kelowna.

The problem is that when those announcements are made, they refer to the interior of British Columbia. The Interior is a big area, and I can’t stress this enough. If there was one place in the Cariboo — and I’ll probably expand on this…. If there was one place in the province where there wasn’t fire this year, it was actually us, which is unlike us. I’m grateful for that. Trust me.

I am shocked that, frankly, on October 4, we’re dealing with Hell Raving Creek fire again. But at the time of those announcements…. Resorts like the Sheridan Lake Resort, within an hour of that announcement, had lost 27 bookings. Many of these businesses — and I can’t stress this enough — have weathered COVID. They have weathered the atmospheric river. All of these are emergency situations that this bill has and will obviously discuss — transmissible disease and all of those types of things.

They have weathered it all, and here they are — in the smoke-filled skies, granted — with an opportunity to actually fill up their resort prior to the long weekend. And now there are travel advisories that would prevent them from doing that, in a place where, really, you’re 400 kilometres away. Well, maybe that’s not right. I should say a couple of hundred kilometres away from the nearest fire, because there were other fires, of course, burning in Kamloops and other areas.

We have to do a much better job of that, of just conveying to the public where and why not to go. We can’t use vague terms like simply the Interior or the North or the Okanagan. I mean, the Okanagan can stretch to the North Okanagan and Salmon Arm, but Salmon Arm is a far cry from the west side of Kelowna. I really think that we have to do a much better job of that.

It is frightening, to say the least: what’s happening on our landscape. There’s no question about that. We’ve talked about that. In 2010, the fires in Meldrum Creek — it was unbelievable. It was really my first experience. At that time, I was a publisher of a local newspaper, the Williams Lake Tribune. I witnessed firsthand the complexity of evacuations, communication — all of those things — getting information to communities in rural B.C., finding ways to use the local knowledge that we had. This was sort of….

Really, in the Cariboo, I know that we’ve always had fire. But for me, this was the first kick at the can where we could see how some of the structure was breaking down and not functioning properly. I also witnessed, frankly, just how fast fire could move. I, obviously, am a layperson. I’m not a professional, but I can tell you I’ve seen how fast fire is moving these days. And I know that fire can run 20 or 30 kilometres in a night.

[4:50 p.m.]

I remember one of the suggestions from the Meldrum Creek fire. Many people in meetings in city hall were asking if the fire could jump the river, which of course is the Fraser River. I remember going out to about the 18- or 20-kilometre mark — don’t quote me on that — on Soda Creek Road, and I remember taking pictures of a water bomber that was coming across the top of the hill and dropping on the fire. I took those photos back to the office, 20 kilometres away, and I returned with another camera. When I returned, that fire had advanced to about the 18-kilometre mark.

Now, it didn’t advance in a wall of flame. It had advanced with hot pieces of trees and whatever else that was flying ahead of the fire in the winds and everything else. So I know firsthand just how quickly these fires can move.

What I really wanted to note about that situation and time is that everything we’re dealing with today, everything that this bill wants to address, whether it be the year-round challenges that we’re facing, whether it be volunteers stepping up, all of those things we saw back in 2010…. The problem is that so much of that has not been fixed.

I’ve asked about communications in the Chilcotin repeatedly. We’ve talked about it in this House. In fact, I actually toured the Minister of Public Safety as far as the Cotton Ranch. How will you communicate with people in the Chilcotin or other remote areas if we don’t have proper connectivity, if we don’t have proper cell service, if we don’t have those things? In the Chilcotin today, our emergency services, ambulances, etc., are still using ham radio to communicate.

In the time of the Meldrum Creek fire, one of the biggest challenges we had was getting information into those communities. It was a massive challenge, because, as I said, this was one of the first times that we saw a mass situation of fire.

To me, it’s frustrating, because I think…. I shouldn’t speak, obviously, for the Minister of Public Safety. But I think that, frankly, he was shocked when we sat in the driveway of the Cotton Ranch, which is only, probably, 15 or 20 minutes west of Williams Lake, and I suggested: “Minister, what I’d like you to do is just pull out your cell phone and phone an ambulance.” There is no connectivity out there.

We have B.C. Wildfire pages. We have all kinds of connections and different ways to connect, but people can’t read them. They can’t get to them. I can guarantee you right now that Walt and Carol Foster, who, right now, are back fighting a fire that they have been fighting for three weeks, maybe four, in the Middle Lake area of the West Chilcotin…. I can guarantee you right now that they have no way of connecting where they are with B.C. Wildfire to even understand growth, to see the simplest of things — evacuation orders, alerts, all of those things.

Frankly, if the CRD was to say, “Everybody out,” I doubt that they would know it. Now, they might if they were at their home. But the chances of that are slim to nil, because they’re actually out trying to stop this fire right now.

We have to improve those types of things in this province. I know that that is not particularly a part of this bill, and I apologize for that, but it should be. It has to be contemplated as we go forward, because there are too many areas that are just simply not connected.

I talked a little bit about the contractors. This is a frustrating point for me, and it’s certainly frustrating for anybody that is watching the damage happen on the landscape. I had two calls, and I’ve got to say that I was absolutely grateful to B.C. Wildfire because they actually did connect with these contractors, and I thank them for that communication.

[4:55 p.m.]

But the idea that after all we have been through in this province, and all that we have seen happen…. The idea or the suggestion that we have equipment sitting idle at the absolute height of fire season, when we have so much loss on the north shore of Shuswap Lake, so much loss in Kelowna, and certainly even a big fire burning on the south side of Kamloops as well….

The idea that we have two major contractors in 100 Mile phoning the MLA to say: “Why are they not calling?” They’re registered. They’re good to go. They’ve worked with them before. I mean, I will talk about the Cunninghams a little bit more later. But these guys have got three or four water tenders sitting there. They could be hauling water.

Other families, like the Sarvers and families like that — they have incredible amounts of equipment that we could be deploying. Frankly, the idea that they’re phoning an MLA because they can’t get a response from anyone else, to me, is shocking. I am grateful, though, that they were able to make connections. I don’t know that they actually did go to work, but….

So 2017 was my first involvement with an evacuation, and everything that I just talked about in 2010 happened again. It happened again — miscommunication. Sadly, I’ll tell the House that there were actually people that were out there, frankly, enjoying making fake evacuation alerts and all those types of things. It’s why we have to do this right. It’s exactly why we have to do this right.

We have to be the place that every British Columbian will go in a moment of need, in a moment of better understanding, for information — for everything. The misinformation is incredible. But even the simplest things…. Just try to download the B.C. Wildfire app outside of a cell service area, right? We have to figure out ways to communicate or we have to actually provide that connectivity.

I want to say that in the 2017…. I’m going to try to make a point because I think the minister made a point earlier about a whole-of-society approach. I am telling you right now that British Columbians absolutely want to be a part of this. They absolutely want to help.

I’ll just try to make my point by saying this. The welcome that was shown in the 2017 evacuation of the Cariboo was unbelievable. By the time we got to Kamloops, and the fire had been raging all around us for a number of weeks, frankly…. Well, maybe not a number of weeks — a number of days. But I’ve got to tell you that…. You know, people left at different times because of their own stress levels, their own anxiety.

When it was finally time to leave, it was because, as I said earlier, that fire had jumped over the north side of the highway. It really gave us only one way to get out of Williams Lake. It cut Quesnel off. It cut us off from the North. You could go down through Barriere, of course, and then a very long way around to get to Prince George.

I will say that — and they’re represented here today, of course, by a number of people — Prince George and, certainly, Kamloops were incredible. When I got to Riverside Park, I could not believe…. There were probably three truckloads of dog food and cat food there, and a long list of people that were willing to walk your dog, care for you. It was amazing. It wasn’t just for pets. There were so many people there.

Honestly, I probably put on 10 pounds during that time because of the free food that was extended to us. My daughter was in Prince George at that time, and she explained to me that it was exactly the same there — music in the park, free food all over the place. After that event was over…. This will make my point to exactly what Bill 31 talks about with respect to volunteers stepping up, a whole-of-society approach.

[5:00 p.m.]

The coming together of our community after that fire in 2017 was like nothing I have ever seen in my life. It was by then cold, and it was rainy, and we were happy for it. I helped to organize a fundraiser that raised $120,000. I didn’t do it by myself. We’ll give credit where credit is due, and it’s certainly to the stampede board of the Williams Lake Stampede.

What I’m trying to say is that the community came together. They want to help. At the end of the day, that money went back to groups that lost their opportunity to fundraise during this time. The money was raised by a series of donations by local businesses, cover charges, events that happened in the stampede grounds.

What I’m saying is that the bill is right. It does need a whole-of-society approach, but we need to be factoring in everything — local equipment, local people, all of that. Many of the people that stayed behind in the fires in 2017 had unbelievable skill sets. I don’t care if you were a cook at a local fast-food store. There were makeshift restaurants set up all over Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Lee Todd was a major driving force who was just a logger. Just a logger. Just a logger with a helicopter. Just a logger with cats, trucks, water tenders. He took a very active role in fighting fire in Cariboo-Chilcotin. And frankly, the government has been pretty tough on a lot of these people. Lee’s office was turned into a mess hall, for a lack of a better word. People like Tammy Tugnum, his daughter Bridgitte. All of those individuals had the ability to cook, to provide food. They slept on the floor there.

Veterinarians that stayed behind and that I know saw things that none of us ever want to see also slept on the floor. Why? Because systems that were in place didn’t work properly. That’s why Bill 31 has got to be right. They couldn’t get through lines because of evacuation. They couldn’t get through certain ways because they didn’t have the right permits. They didn’t have this; they didn’t have that.

We have to figure out ways in Bill 31 to improve all of that, and that’s why we have to collaborate. That’s why we have to make, in my mind, this bill better and why we have to close the gap on some of the pages that refer to making regulations. We need to consider all of this, and we need to consider it before this House, and we need to debate it properly.

As I said before, that evacuation was one of the largest evacuations of people in Canadian history. I think it was really only second to the floods in Red River in Manitoba and also to Fort Mac, which of course was also a staggering result, when you think about the amount of people that left there and the way that they did leave there. I saw videos of people that were leaving with fire on both sides.

That’s how we left the Cariboo. My grandson was with me, and he was very shook. I guarantee you he’s got PTSD. We left south of Williams Lake, and there was fire all over, frankly. It didn’t end there, of course. I mean, we were driving into evacuation zones that were evacuating at Lac la Hache, 108, all through the Fishing Highway, Highway 24.

There’s no question that all of the things that I just talked about…. We have an opportunity before us in Bill 31 to make this so good for the people of British Columbia. I certainly hope that we can consider all of that.

[5:05 p.m.]

I thought that 2017 would be the year that we would learn from, frankly. We had meetings. We had conversations. The minister mentioned earlier in her comments that you may have missed the collaboration that we’ve had with so many individuals in our province — residents and contractors and all the people that I’ve just mentioned.

In 2021, when the fire started in the Cariboo, we began to live the exact same thing that we saw in 2017. No communication. No Internet. No cell service. No ability to connect. In this day and age, in a time when we have such modern ability to connect with each other, we still, in 2021, could not connect. People were still looking for evacuation orders.

In 2021, we had a community like 100 Mile and the South Cariboo that were obviously in that evacuation zone as the Flat Lake fire raged on. Frankly, what I saw in 2021 actually felt as though it had gotten worse. I want to explain that a little bit.

Not only did we not have the connectivity that we really need to have in rural B.C. — and I know that I’m speaking about, obviously, Cariboo-Chilcotin, but clearly that’s what I’m familiar with and what I understand the best — but it seems to me that we have now created a number of silos that are not communicating with each other.

In my earlier remarks in the beginning of my speech, I mentioned that we really need EMCR — and if it’s not EMCR, then who? — to be in charge.

I’ll give you a couple of examples of why we need that. I received a call in 2021 with regard to Highway 24. The fire was burning around the 70 Mile area. Joy Gammy’s place. David Cunningham’s place. They could see the fire advancing on their homes just about every night.

The concern was that they had to evacuate the area of Lone Butte to Highway 97. It’s a big area, Mr. Speaker. It is a very big area. You’re nodding with me, so you’re probably familiar with the area. I know other members come up and vacation in what is the most beautiful riding, of course, in the province, Cariboo-Chilcotin.

The RCMP phoned me, and they said, “You have to close this highway,” and I said: “Well, I am merely a member of the opposition. I don’t have the power to close that highway.” But I thought that I could make some calls and get it closed.

Frankly, it was a challenge. It was a challenge because people that I spoke with perhaps didn’t understand the area. “Well, we can’t close that. That’s the only way into 100 Mile.” Well, of course, it’s not right. There are multiple other ways. It could be coming up from Ashcroft or Cache Creek. But there was a need to close this highway.

Others, of course, would say: “Well, why do you need to close the highway?” Well, I can’t remember how many members we had in 100 Mile at that time in the RCMP, but today it might be around a dozen or so. I’ve got to say, when you start doing the math backwards on seven days a week and 24 hours a day, a dozen members are not very much.

The RCMP staff sergeant at that time, of course, said: “Lorne, we cannot possibly guard the hundreds of driveways and the hundreds of homes that are in this area if you’re going to allow traffic to flow through Highway 24.”

[5:10 p.m.]

The challenge, of course, with that actually broadened. It was because there was other good work happening at the same time. That work was that volunteers, ESS, were out hanging pink ribbons on the end of every driveway that had vacated.

I see a few heads nodding. I think everybody can presume exactly what happened next — as people’s homes were looted. People lost belongings because we couldn’t close a road in this province.

The issue of evacuation — we talked about that a little bit earlier. But the suggestion that local authorities are afraid of what this legislation may force upon them…. You know, they really are the decision-maker in so much of this.

If you talk to the CRD chair, Margo Wagner, you will know just how stressful all of this is, because at the end of the day, while the province and B.C. Wildfire and MOTI and everybody have their own tasks, frankly, at this point, it’s left with those directors and those chairs to make very serious decisions that involve people’s health care, their mental well-being, everything. In this case, it involved B.C. Wildfire saying: “We think you ought to evacuate this area.”

The Cariboo regional district obviously has to contemplate that and understand fully what that means to the area. They make the decision to evacuate that area. But now you’ve got looting going on and a presence of RCMP that are not enough to actually solve that issue. So I can appreciate that we’re going to put some pressure back again to local governments, local authorities, but I can tell you that I have talked to so many of them, and they are very afraid of what that means.

In my mind, we cannot take this bill forward with suggestions that we may make regulations respecting — just to this page that I’m opened to — volunteers, respecting emergency management. I think this is too vague. It’s too open. And I think that our local governments are going to have a significant issue with the fact that this is not legislation that will determine clearly for them what needs to happen in that moment of decision. I think that we have to sort that out before this goes to a vote.

I want to talk a little bit about the learnings that we have seen. Frankly, in the Cariboo…. I mean, I don’t say this to be callous, but it really has been a training ground. When we had the floods in Abbotsford and certainly in the Fraser Valley that were very significant, I know people like Reg Stewart were called into action to help with permitting systems and help with the agriculture sector that really was caught completely off guard.

I can tell you that in 2017, 2010, 2021, the things that were solutions were thought up by local people. And they may never have been contemplated unless you were forced to do it. I mean, simply painting a name on the side of a horse with a spray can and letting it go because we don’t have a trailer to haul that. Perhaps the owner is stuck at a roadblock, trying to get back in, because they have three horses, and they only have a two-horse trailer, and they weren’t allowed back into that zone. So wildfire fighters would actually just simply paint a name, a house address or something on the side of a horse and let it go.

At the Williams Lake Stampede grounds, we knew that we might not be able to pump water if we lost power. There was a challenge there. So in advance of that fire coming at us from all angles, we were able to fill up stock waterers that we borrowed and stole from Beaver Valley Feeds.

[5:15 p.m.]

We were able to put them on trailers and fill them with water so that in the moment that we did not have water, we had water accessible for horses, for all kinds of larger animals that made their way to the stampede grounds. In some cases, residents actually stopped to pick up your horse or mine or whatever and just drop it off at the stampede grounds.

People want to help. I spoke earlier about Dave Dickson and Eva Navrot and Liz Jones. Oh my gosh, they are the most incredible volunteers that we have, and they, of course, work for ESS. The challenges that they’ve seen, the comments that I read earlier with respect to the Ombudsperson’s report and the challenges that these individuals see…. Frankly, in so many ways, I can assure you that they themselves are dealing with PTSD, and they need supports. They need supports in a big way.

I suggested that I was going to talk about the little fire department that could. I think this is a really important part of the equation. I frankly think that Bill 31 needs to contemplate this. We talk about volunteers in here. There’s a new definition. In fact, on the page that I’m open to, section 165 refers to volunteers and certainly looks to legislate things like receipt of compensation and other benefits that might affect volunteers.

The part of this that I want to explain is that we can do better before the event. We’ve talked about during. We’ve talked about the opportunity for better connectivity, a better understanding of how to reach out to people. Those things we can fix. But before these fires or landslides or whatever get to our communities, our volunteer fire departments need help.

The little fire department that could is Greeny Lake. I have spoken about Greeny Lake fire department and Kathy Anderson and a number of the volunteers there repeatedly in this House.

In fact, I’ve gone to the Ministry of Public Safety to inquire about getting an extension on a fire truck there that, frankly…. Well, I guess I would be not entirely correct, but I’ll guess that it’s been to a few fires and about 25 parades. Our rules in this province have determined that that fire truck is no longer suitable to fight fire, even though it meets every single requirement that it’s supposed to. The pumps. New tires. You could eat off the engine of this truck. It’s a beautiful truck.

They’re timed out at 25 years, and a new truck is $500,000. I won’t make you guess today at how much funding the little fire department that could receives from anyone. I’ll just simply tell you. It’s zero — zero dollars. They go to their neighbourhoods, and they raise membership fees at $200 a house. In their spare time, they run a campground at the Greeny Lake….

Well, it is the Greeny Lake campground, Mr. Speaker. Maybe you’ve fished there before.

Outside of that, they do 50/50 draws. They have hot dog days. And everything along the way fights them — everything. Regulation around new trucks. Regulation around turnout gear that now needs to be cleaned even when it hasn’t gone to a fire. New boots that have to be purchased to fight fire on the landscape, because somehow those boots are different than the ones that they would use in their normal day-to-day business of fighting fire.

[5:20 p.m.]

At the end of the day, heaven forbid that there is a fire at Mount Timothy. They are the very first people that will be called into action. In partnership with B.C. Wildfire and other resources, after they have successfully doused the flames to that fire, they will sit there for weeks and clean it up, by themselves, with their 25-year-old truck and the equipment that they have raised at hot dog sales.

In 2017, when we lost towers, we lost…. I didn’t think connectivity could get worse in the Chilcotin. My Rotary club, in conjunction with a noonhour Rotary club, raised money to provide three trailers for the West Chilcotin.

I guess what I’m trying to say…. I’ll try to explain it. These three trailers — we built them. We built them. They had a water cube on them. They had hose before the cube, after the cube. Any truck could go pick it up. It had tools. Any truck could go grab this and take it to a fire zone. But the problem is that we’re not supposed to do that anymore. We’re not allowed to do that anymore.

Even our rural fire departments are being regulated so badly that frankly, we’re losing memberships. We’re at risk of losing some of these fire departments because they simply cannot keep up to the pressure. If you checked with your local ridings, you might be surprised to know that there are dozens of these departments throughout our landscape. The Lone Butte fire department saved Lone Butte — full stop. They saved Lone Butte.

If we lose these departments, I can almost guarantee that not only will we lose structures, but we will lose resources. We will lose resources like you wouldn’t believe if we don’t have that first response, particularly in years like this. I’ve heard it before. I’ve heard we have all the resources we need, but as I said just a few minutes ago, 65 fires were burning in the Cariboo in 2021, and we have 12 or 15 helicopters. I’m sorry. I’m not convinced. There are things that we could do to improve, and Bill 31 needs to contemplate that.

I want to talk a little bit about the Cunninghams. The reason I want to talk about the Cunninghams is because…. This will be new news. I’ve never really talked about the event that happened there — I have privately, with members here — the moment in time when I decided that I was going to pick up a firehose.

I know that members have challenged me on that, but I want to explain what happened there, because I think it’s happening more and more every day. I think that it’s happening…. It has happened on the north shore. It’s happened in other communities.

I didn’t know that there was an order not to be there; I didn’t know. I drove in up Bullock Lake Road. I drove past all of the wildfire fighters. I had a 12-foot car topper on top of my truck. I was in a T-shirt that day. I did not know what I was driving into, but when I saw Mrs. Cunningham, standing at her table, crying, knowing that they were there alone to fight that fire, I didn’t ask if their house was insured. It’s not my business.

All I knew that day was that something very bad was going to happen to this family, and I helped. That’s all. It’s not that I felt safe doing it. I was worried the entire time I was doing it. But I am telling you that we don’t know, in a fulsome way, what is happening on the landscape and why people are making decisions. I’ve heard everything from people. They don’t have faith anymore. They’re worried. They’re concerned. But the way those stories play out is not always correct.

B.C. Wildfire wasn’t there that day. They were, by air support, yes. But the fire service had left in that area, and that family fights fire routinely for B.C. Wildfire, which goes back to the minister’s comments right at the start of the bill that this takes a whole-of-society support.

Interjections.

[5:25 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, one member has the floor, please. Thank you.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was just suggesting that it goes right back to what the minister was referring to, which was exactly that whole-of-society approach. I firmly believe that we need to reconsider that. We need to reconsider how we approach some of these fires.

In the case of the Cunningham family, they’re not strangers. They’ve probably got more firefighting equipment there than B.C. Wildfire might have in the Cariboo — that type of thing. I mean, maybe that’s a ridiculous comment to make. At the end of the day, they had pumps, bladders, a water tender — three water tenders, in fact — and miles of hose, chainsaws, all of that equipment. Why? It’s because they’re routinely employed.

On that day, every challenge was put before them, including people telling them to get out. All Dave Cunningham could say was: “Please get out of the way. I am trying to save my ranch. I’m trying to save historical buildings.” It’s a shame that there were two cabins — incredible, old, historic cowboy cabins — that were lost in that fire that day. All that was left were the bedsprings.

The point that I’m trying to make is exactly what this bill touts — a whole-of-society approach. All of the volunteer stories that I just referred to, all of the comments that have been made repeatedly, by people that are fighting for their homes, their lives, etc…. We, if nothing else, have to sort that out, going forward. We have to sort out the fact that residents are concerned. They’re concerned about the province’s response, and Bill 31 has an opportunity to address that.

Think about what happened on the north shore this year. I’m not here to debate or suggest that I know everything that happened, but what I do know is this. I know that from what I could see and what all of us could see, those residents, in very short order, had set up their own communications because their access routes had been closed.

They figured out their own shipping lanes across the Shuswap Lake. Residents like Craig Spooner spent thousands of dollars to buy fuel. I’m not sure that that has actually been squared by the province yet, but he bought fuel to put into pumps that were helping with this firefighting effort. That can’t be ignored.

At one point, there was concern because there were things that were being stolen — I believe it’s called the Squilax Bridge — and we had that same thing happening in the Chilcotin.

I saw you shake your head when I suggested that there were members of our public that enjoyed making fake statements. I mean, I do the same thing. It makes me so mad I can barely talk about it. But in this case, they’re trying to protect a bridge that is the only bridge to access that side, unless you want to go…. I don’t even know how long it would take to drive around the lake, or if you can even get around.

The point is that the residents there offered up an opportunity to at least secure the bridge. They would have provided security — security that, apparently, we didn’t have. They created their own communications. I can appreciate, at that moment of anxiety, that moment of fear, that none of us make the best decisions. None of us do. I don’t think even trained professionals are thinking perfectly, not when we’re talking about miles of fire and hundreds of residents.

[5:30 p.m.]

In the case of the north shore, we literally did lose hundreds. I haven’t been at the North Shore, but I saw the damage from the intersection to go over to the North Shore. And of course, it is significant. It’s unbelievable.

We saw the same thing in Monte Lake where, I think, 18 or 20 homes were lost, and residents fought fire in the absence, by the way, of other crews.

Again, I don’t want to get into why they weren’t there, how they weren’t there, whether the fire was too hot or whether there were other issues. The point is that somehow, we have to consider exactly what this phrase means when it comes to a whole of society approach, which is what Bill 31 suggests.

We have to figure out, in my mind, a way to move forward with all of our residents, because I can guarantee you that they absolutely want to help in every way.

As I mentioned, with the 2017 fires, we saw so many individuals just step up. It was just amazing. Members that couldn’t step up, perhaps by way of cooking or something, maybe they would donate food, or they would donate propane or something. The fact is the minister and the bill is right. We do need an entirely whole society approach. No question about that.

I do also want to just talk a little bit about a one-door approach. When I say one door, I want to talk a little bit about all of the different programs that are out there, whether it’s ag stability, whether it’s ESS, whether it’s different funding models that we have. I really feel like we need a lead to gather all of that together as well.

I’ve spoken a number of times here in the last couple of minutes about saying that we really do need someone to gather up this incredibly complex problem and take the lead. Frankly, there are about ten leads on every different thing out there. In a lot of ways, it is creating more confusion than is explainable. So I really think that we need a one-door approach, one ministry that we can approach and go to help us to manoeuvre funding models, help us do different things. And I think that that could be this ministry.

I’m just going to talk a little bit about Terra Ridge. I opened up with this a little bit, and I just want to spend a couple of minutes speaking about the residents there that are under unbelievable pressure right now. And I guess if this is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, then I guess you could tell me not to. But I want to make a plea for them, while the minister has been so kind to listen to my comments this afternoon.

There are 80 townhomes there, and four of them have been completely ruined because of a landslide. Bill 31 would have an opportunity to be amended to change that definition. We’ve talked a little bit about it today. The definition of sudden loss is what would create disaster financial assistance or would create that opportunity.

For the individuals that are in this complex, it’s been made relatively clear to me that that program won’t work for them. And I think that we need to reconsider that, or that we need to at least contemplate that.

[5:35 p.m.]

I want to just close by saying that there are a couple of things that I didn’t get time to chat about. That is dredging on the Fraser River, which is creating a very unsafe situation for many of the large companies that operate and manoeuvre that waterway.

Companies like Sanscorp have always spent years there, dredging that channel, and I think we absolutely have to consider those types of emergencies as well, as we go forward.

I think that we need to listen to people like Guy Burdikin. Guy Burdikin, along with others in Williams Lake, have been here to present, I think, to both sides of the House with respect to cultural burning and those types of things. I think that we really need to bring that back to the landscape or at least consider it or at least have conversation about it. This bill would give space to do exactly that.

Going forward, with respect to questions…. Certainly, some of the things that the minister talked about today or spoke about today I’m going to definitely want to get some answers on and more clearly have defined certain things, like transmissible disease, like the impacts to cultural sites.

We’ve had a devastating impact with the Paul family. It’s been broadly broadcast through different media outlets or whatever — the destruction that has happened there. Because we do not typically share with the public where our archaeology sites are in this province, we have actually caused the damage to happen at the Paul residence. Frankly, the Pauls, both Marty and Kim, are extremely distraught at the damage that they’ve created there on that landscape.

When we ask ourselves just how much of the property they actually want to manipulate or plow, the answer is all of it. They bought the property to grow vegetables there, as they’ve had a very successful produce business at 150 Mile House. It’s important to note that these little things matter in a major way.

Frankly, I think that, again with respect to the bill itself, we could have an opportunity before us, in collaboration together, to make this bill so much better, so much stronger. I really hope. I’m encouraged that the minister listened to me go on and on here for all this time. I’m extremely encouraged by that.

I do want to just also suggest that I am a little bit concerned about the requirement for municipalities to host. Some municipalities simply can’t, so we will definitely canvass that a little bit.

Finally, the last thing that I want to say is simply this. I am encouraged that we can do good work here today.

I am so incredibly grateful to honour today in this House the firefighters that were lost over the past year, and I am grateful for all of the work that B.C. Wildfire and everybody else has done.

I’ll conclude my comments there.

S. Chant: Thank you for this opportunity. I’d like to address the members of the House in support of Bill 31, the Emergency and Disaster Management Act of 2023.

Before I begin my remarks, I’d like to acknowledge that I’m currently working, staying and learning on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən, specifically the Songhees and Esquimalt people.

North Vancouver–Seymour, which is my riding where I also live and work, is in the territory of the Coast Salish, specifically the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish nations.

I’m very grateful to have the opportunity to work and learn with these Indigenous communities.

I would also like to say: “Good evening, Manitoba.”

I’m lucky. In my lifetime, I’ve had the opportunity to travel through B.C. and Canada, and I have an acute awareness of the beauty, diversity and value of what our province has to offer, both to the people who live here and those who visit.

My husband and I have now completed the Trans Canada Trail segments in B.C., and that has allowed us to hike, walk, run, cycle and kayak beside or on lakes, rivers, oceans, streams, forests and meadows.

During our travels, we’ve seen plenty of B.C. wildlife, some of it rather closer than is comfortable — for instance, bison at Liard Hot Springs.

[5:40 p.m.]

I think about Gold River last year when we camped and got to kayak and hike by a local lake. I think of Dawson Creek with its beautiful bike trail that goes right through the community and surrounding agricultural areas.

I think about running along the river in Prince George when we were there with Finance Committee and as we dipped our toes in the river in Revelstoke on that same tour. I’ve taken Brownies and Guides up into our local demonstration forest, spent time at the salmon hatchery with them. So many things that B.C. has to explore and learn about.

We also have this vast diversity of resources that have been a cornerstone of our economic strength and resiliency — agriculture, aquaculture, mining, tourism, winemaking and entertainment and so many other enterprises that provide a living and quality of life that is unique. And people. We cannot forget our most valuable resource. The people who live in our province benefit from the natural resources and provide the services, many of which are considered essential, that sustain day-to-day life.

This whole web of places, people and resources is always at risk from natural disasters and varied emergencies. We’ve already noted in recent years the impact of climate change, evidenced by heat domes, atmospheric rivers, high levels of freshets, wildfires, as well as increased numbers of structural fires in our communities. We’ve seen supply chain breakdowns, communities facing food shortages, gasoline rationing, loss of animals, crops and forests and many other adverse results. And each year competes with the year previous to be the worst year ever.

I think we all worry about our kids, and the kids of our kids, who are going to be managing the world in our future and what they will have to manage. That’s why I’m so pleased to be speaking to this bill as it lays out a framework that supports collaboration on the part of all those affected by the changes our province is undergoing.

This legislation serves to revise and modernize the work which was last addressed in 1993. It aligns with the United Nations Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction, and it’s based on four phases. It acknowledges and addresses the increasing frequency and severity of weather-driven events, and it incorporates the lessons learned from catastrophic floods and wildfires that B.C. has endured.

Additionally and so importantly, it speaks to the obligations of UNDRIP to consult, collaborate and cooperate with Indigenous governing bodies — something that has been missing for a long time in our formalized emergency management.

It includes the revised definition of “emergency” to include transmissible diseases or toxins, which speaks to our recent world-based emergency that we’ve all undergone. Security threats, riots, terrorism — it has the flexibility to speak to those things as well. And this definition is also flexible enough that it could be applied to other emergency situations as they arise. We can’t anticipate everything. We’ve never been able to. We never will be able to. But what we will be able to do is accommodate what comes.

The definition has also been expanded to better reflect Indigenous values such as the safety of objects or sites of heritage, places that we recognize need protection.

The UN Sendai framework outlines a multiphase approach to emergency management to support the goal of disaster risk reduction: mitigation, preparation, response and recovery. These are the steps that form the cycle of emergency management — steps which can occur in sequence or in parallel, as we’ve seen in the past. If hazards are identified as possibly leading to an emergency, the minister can order mitigation. More emphasis on planning and preparation to include risk assessments and emergency plans. Establishment of a 90-day recovery period that can be declared locally or provincially after a response has been implemented.

All of these aspects speak to a significant improvement on how our province is able to prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters and emergencies.

All of this work has a lens that ensures the inclusion of Indigenous communities and nations with a clear recognition of rights and evolving Indigenous governance.

[5:45 p.m.]

The council of the guardians, stewards of the lands, is valued, providing a knowledge base for decision-making and collaboration. Agreements generated for protocols, emergency management measures, coordination and shared decision-making with annual review meetings for those involved in these agreements to ensure that they’re working, to revise them as necessary.

It also speaks to the value of multi-jurisdictional organizations working together as a collective in risk assessment, planning and implementing emergency measures. Collaboration, pooling of resources, expertise, knowledge and a deep commitment to preserving the forests, the lands, the crops and the structures are all encapsulated in this act.

This is an act that represents the modernization, inclusion, diversity and strength of B.C. in addressing how we proactively work towards anticipating, mitigating, preventing, preparing, managing and recovering from emergencies and disasters. This is work that will help in keeping our province for our kids, and our kids’ kids, in a way that supports the economy and the quality of life that can be enjoyed into the future by all the people of B.C.

We’ve had a lot of time to look at emergencies and disasters. My colleague down the way spoke eloquently over the last two hours about what those disasters looked like in his community and in his area.

Every one of our communities is struck in a different way. I look across at my colleague across the way, whose community was flooded badly to the point that the earth was toxic and the crops can’t grow and remediation is needed, to the point where animals were slaughtered because they couldn’t be saved.

I dread to think about what happens to wildlife in wildfires. I deliberately don’t actually think about that because it distresses me too badly, and I suspect that many of us feel the same way. These things are things that are becoming more and more dramatic in our lives, in our communities, in our province, across our country and in the world. We’ve heard about islands in Greece, where the whole island is burning. Spain, forest fires.

Across the world, these things are happening. We’ve got to work together. We’ve got to collaborate. Everybody is impacted by this. This act calls for that collaboration. It calls for us to do that work together. It asks for everybody with expertise and knowledge and willingness to come together and work towards mitigation.

What can we do to prevent this? What can we look at in our communities that sets us up? What can we do to change the trajectory of something, whether it’s a disease…? What did we do with COVID? We mobilized. Everybody worked together in a whole variety of ways.

We’ll always be second-guessing how we do things. That will always happen. But if we have no plan at all, we will not make it better. This provides a framework for us to plan and work together. Every community is different. Every community has different needs. It has different risks. It has people who have different things that they value and want preserved.

This allows for that information to come forward. This allows for us to work together. And most importantly, unlike other frameworks that we’ve worked with in the past, it incorporates our Indigenous folks. It incorporates the people that have been here for much longer and have a knowledge and an understanding of how things could be done and should be done.

If we allow…. Not “allow”; that’s the wrong word. That’s the wrong word. It’s not an “allow.” It’s an “encourage” us all to work together to create something that may help, may work to stop these horrendous events or to slow them down or to reduce the impact or to make it so that we could recover harder and better.

[5:50 p.m.]

That’s what this act is about, and that is why I am very comfortable in supporting it and very glad that it has come forward. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this.

P. Milobar: It’s my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 31, the Emergency and Disaster Management Act.

I just want to start my comments in acknowledging the minister’s comments. I think they were heartfelt and sincere in terms of what she hopes to accomplish with this legislation and the challenges that we do face moving forward.

Certainly, it’s been a long time coming. We heard from the previous speaker from B.C. United how back in 2017, when there was a change of government, there was already a very substantive rework of the Emergency Management Act that was ready to go, that was going to be rolled out.

The new government wanted to review that and check in on it, and that’s understandable. But, frankly, we’ve been hearing since 2020 that the update is coming from this government. I can appreciate that the minister has only been this minister for around a year or so, whenever the last change was made. Obviously, 2020 was well before that, but this has been a long time coming.

This has been a long time coming, and it’s needed. That’s why…. I’ll get into some of the more disappointing missing pieces of this when you consider that timeline and you consider what has been said year after year after year.

In the minister’s opening comments, a lot of what she has said could have been said after the 2017 fires, could have been said after the 2018 fire season, 2019 fire season, 2020 fire season, 2021 fire season, last year’s fire season. That, I think, just exemplifies just how long large portions of the geography of British Columbia have been waiting for this.

I say a large portion of the geography, because obviously in the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley areas, it really got highlighted with the floods that happened in Abbotsford in terms of the shortcomings of the emergency management program in general to modernize and better reflect not just modern climate-related disasters, but to better reflect modern ways of technology and use of technology, communication, resources, all of that. That is where I think you will likely hear a lot of the frustration coming out in a lot of, certainly, B.C. United members’ statements on this bill.

Now, it is wonderful to see much more integration with Indigenous communities and leaderships, and their knowledge base being much more formalized in this. Because certainly, in our parts of the world where we come from in British Columbia, we’ve heard these frustrations from those Indigenous communities year after year after year about how they find out things late, how they are brought in at the very end, how they weren’t consulted in terms of some local knowledge and understanding of large tracts of area, how they are expected to try to mobilize and help displaced communities.

Coming from Kamloops, it’s not just the city of Kamloops that takes on a large portion of displaced people in this province. It’s the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc that do that as well.

When Lytton, two years ago, was erased from the map, essentially, when other fires were raging, the Tk’emlúps stepped up in a big way. They cancelled their powwow which, last I checked, I believe is the second largest in the world. Albuquerque has a larger one. They cancelled that partly because of the capacity of their own membership to be able to handle all of the evacuees they were processing and helping and providing meals for. They were also doing that at the Arbour grounds for the powwow. They didn’t have the capacity, and rightfully so, because they prioritized helping fellow citizens, Indigenous and non-Indigenous.

[5:55 p.m.]

It was open to everyone to come and seek the help and support they needed.

The Indigenous communities have wanted to be much more engaged and helpful in these fights for years now, so it’s absolutely, fundamentally important that this is in Bill 31. I think we all agree in this chamber that that needs to happen, but the frustrations will continue to grow if we don’t see faster timelines, faster implementation and better detail of what Bill 31 will really mean on the ground in real time, because if there’s not substantive, real change by the next fire season and processes changed in a meaningful way, this is just, basically, a bill that creates a cruel expectation for communities that there’s going to be more help there then there actually will be.

I’ll give a few examples of that. In 2021, Lytton’s fire. The very next day, Juniper in Kamloops had a fire — an interface fire. It happened to be almost halfway in between the member for Kamloops–South Thompson’s house and my house. We were literally on opposite sides, about the same distance away from that fire. He was much more into the interface area, but the winds were pushing the fire actually closer to my house than his house at the time.

Now, we weren’t thinking we were in any actual danger, but we were getting out. We had the dogs loaded. We loaded everything up, and we got out. So were thousands of others in Kamloops doing that, for two reasons. When you have an urban interface fire, there is a massive, massive difference in how that fire gets fought, the resources that come to bear on that fire and the skill set of the locals and the residents to fight that fire, and a level of trust in the community around their fire services. That’s a huge piece to it, the level of trust that residents have in the response.

People in my neighbourhood and people in the member for Kamloops–South Thompson’s neighbourhood…. We have a kind of a bench, a ridge in between us. They’re not equipped with water tenders. They’re not equipped with bunchers and fallers and backhoes. They might have the odd chainsaw in their garage. They certainly don’t have pumps to fight fires that run out to lakes, because there are no lakes next to us. I guess I could technically have one to a river, if I wanted to try to run a hose across the four-lane Trans-Canada Highway to get to the river.

But we’re not equipped, because we’re much more urbanized living, albeit in an interface area with a large fire service with standing protocols in place with surrounding communities and everything else that goes with it.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Then you fast forward to this year, and you saw the response in West Kelowna. It was fabulous to see, and the same thing happened. People were getting out of the way of the first responders coming in, and the first responders are doing what they did very, very well. That was another urban interface area, and they absolutely should have done what they did — get out of the way.

Now, it’s no secret that I was making calls for more supports in the North Shuswap. The member for Kamloops–South Thompson was. The member for Shuswap was. But I want to be really, really clear here. It wasn’t on the night of the fire. Both West Kelowna and the North Shuswap started on the Friday evening.

On Friday, around noon that day, the government was assuring everyone no state of emergency was needed and they had all the resources needed. Well, at around that same time, I happened to be in the North Shuswap. I went out with my son to check on our family property that’s been in my family much longer than I’ve ever been alive. Well out of the fire area, but we thought we’ll go check to make sure what perishables might be in a fridge or something, in case the power goes out for a few days or whatever.

[6:00 p.m.]

I was driving back in as the wind started to pick up. Then I saw pictures 40 minutes later of how quickly the fire had moved in Scotch Creek, and that was still before one o’clock in the afternoon. Lo and behold, a few hours later the government was declaring a state of emergency — that 4½ hours earlier said wouldn’t actually result in a whole lot of extra resources or meaningful change into the response.

You can see why people were suddenly getting a little bit worried about what response they could reasonably expect to try to protect their homes, businesses and community centres. That was Friday.

Friday night, as the winds picked up and the fire really started to take off, B.C. Wildfire Service pulled out, for safety reasons. They pulled out the water pumps and the mass water distributions that were set up that had roughly five hours of fuel in their tanks. That’s pretty much the capacity they’re designed for. There was not…. From what the locals say — multiple people have said this, and B.C. Wildfire Service hasn’t refuted it to any great degree — it was 15 hours before they came back to check on the pumps.

The locals that stayed behind on that Friday night, many of which had boats ready on the lake to try to get away — this was not your typical landlocked urban-interface area where you only have roads to get to figure out an escape path — saved a great many structures. If you drive out there, you can see how the fire moved around and avoided areas that had some moisture thrown on them.

Saturday came and went; Sunday came and went; Monday came and went. It was Tuesday when my colleagues from Kamloops–South Thompson and the Shuswap issued our plea to the government, which was very simple: “Either get more government resources into the area, or get things like fuel and food that local volunteer firefighters — and locals that actually have firefighting abilities, because of their knowledge set and what they do for a living on a regular basis — needed to be properly equipped to keep fighting the fires.” That’s what the request was. It wasn’t a blanket: “Everyone ignore evacuation orders.”

These are people that are loggers, that generationally work in the bush, that have lived out there for 100 years, that have equipment literally parked on their property, that have water trucks and that have crews of people. Many of them were paying their own crews to go out and fight the fire, not sure if the government was going to reimburse them or not. They’ve been getting told they’re not going to see that reimbursement.

It’s because of a lack of trust. If this bill does not properly address the lack of trust that has built up, year after year and fire season after fire season in the Interior and the North, that people’s homes will be properly defended, that the fight will be taken to the fire, that they won’t hear, “Well, we’re just going to monitor that fire for the next three or four days and see what happens, and then we’ll get to it,” we’re going to continue to see resistance from people to leave.

It doesn’t make it right. I was the chair of the Thompson-Nicola regional district for five years. I signed a lot of evacuation orders. I signed a lot of orders, and we were trying to get people out of the communities then. It was frustrating.

I can feel for the CSRD and other regional districts that have been put in this situation, because they’re asking people to trust the system. The CSRD, TNRD, other regional districts don’t actually operate the response, but they’re the local government of note, and they’re the ones that have to draw the lines on the map and say: “You need to get out. Trust us. We’ve been told by other government agencies that things will be looked after.”

[6:05 p.m.]

Then they see what happened to their friends and families in Bonney Lake. They see what happened to their friends, families and relatives in Lytton. They see what happened with the Elephant Hill fire, other areas of the White Rock Lake fire — fire after fire. If this bill can actually truly tackle that, that would be great, but this bill also speaks to a process around creating more and more conversation about how to do what most people already know needs to be done.

We can’t stand in this place and have repeated debates and conversations about a lack of fibre supply for our forest industry, all the other spinoff things, value over volume and all of those conversations, if we’re prepared to watch two million hectares burn, because we want to go watch, wait and see.

As we wait so that we can do a watershed assessment of a small spot fire, in the case of White Rock Lake — which then burns out of control all the way up to Monte Lake, all the way down south further, all the way over towards Merritt and all the way over towards Vernon and Armstrong — what’s the watershed impact of that fire now? It doesn’t line up. What’s the economic long-term cost of that?

Let’s put a different layer on how we value things, as we sit to evaluate whether or not to attack a fire while it’s still small. We all talk at length in this chamber, from time to time, about the value of B.C.’s wildlife and the steps we need to take to protect things like caribou habitat from snowmobilers, and all these other issues.

How much habitat got burned this year? And not in a slow, controlled burn, like many Indigenous communities would like to do, at various times of the year, on large tracts of Crown land — where it’s a more gentle burn, for lack of a term. It doesn’t burn as deep; it doesn’t burn as hot. It just takes off the fine fuels on the forest floor, and things start to regenerate fairly quickly.

If you drive through the North Shuswap this year…. It’s a drive I’ve taken when I was literally not born yet, with my mom. It was way before I first started driving out there.

I’ve never actually seen Scotch Creek from the highway. For anyone that’s familiar with it, as you drive past Scotch Creek garbage dump, before you get going down the hill to the bridge, if you look to your right, you can actually see Scotch Creek flowing several hundred metres off in the distance, because that forest is wiped out and gone. It burned deep, and it burned really hot. No one is really sure how fast that’s going to actually come back.

Then you’ve got all the mudslides that will be coming in the spring, off the steep slopes. That’s just one area. If we valued wildlife habitat, we wouldn’t have just sat back and watched things. We would have had better plans of attack.

The fact that we don’t have more modernization when it comes to ESS is burning out our volunteers. I’m from Kamloops. We fire up our ESS regularly — a great volunteer base, and they’re feeling burnt out, underappreciated and frustrated that in this day and age of technology, it’s the same thing year after year.

They have to try to explain to somebody why they have to get a $450 food voucher when they’re going to be staying in a motel, but they can only use it as a one-time purchase, and they have a bar fridge in a hotel room. Explain to me how that works for somebody. I know groceries have gotten pretty expensive under this government, but even at 450 bucks, it isn’t going to fit in a bar fridge.

We haven’t even gotten to the point over the last few years to modernize that, to give a few cards. What difference does it make? If you determine the person is eligible for $450 in groceries, why does it have to be one voucher, in this day and age? Why not a reloadable card that has a balance that goes down? Starbucks has figured that out; McDonald’s has figured that out. Every other organization has figured that out but B.C. That’s what adds to frustration.

[6:10 p.m.]

Then the person is getting mad at our ESS volunteers. We’ve been calling for these changes for years now. They’re needed; they’re real. We’re conveying back what we’re hearing from our communities, year after year after year, on these fires, and it feels like on deaf ears. So we need updates — absolutely. But Bill 31 can’t just simply be a way to appear to be doing something and not actually get it done quickly.

We run the very real risk, with the way Bill 31 is structured right now, for this to turn into a great listening exercise when people need an action-orientated exercise. They need real results. They need real change. They’re burnt out. Volunteers are burnt out. Evacuees are burnt out. The stress they live with every year — what’s the mental health impact of that for people?

The layers of impact that we’re experiencing right now are massive. If it’s okay to do a back burn in the middle of a hot, dry fire season, when you have a raging forest fire coming at you, why don’t we have those resources ready to go and do controlled burns at a much higher rate, when it’s much safer to burn, and burn off those fine fuels?

Why are we waiting until there’s an inferno barrelling down on a community to do that when, for years, we’ve heard from Indigenous communities and smaller municipalities and regional districts that they would like that done around their communities?

Oh, that’s right. The Minister of Forests felt it was appropriate, in the middle of all this emergency this year, to blame those municipalities for the fuel load on Crown lands that the municipalities and regional districts have no actual jurisdiction over or spending authority over or ability to do anything on.

I don’t see Bill 31 adequately addressing that. I don’t see Bill 31 adequately addressing what happens when the Crown, in their response to a fire, creates issues on the landscape, on Crown land, to neighbouring private property.

I’ll give one example in the time I have left. There was a fire a couple of years ago up towards Sun Peaks. Guards had to get cut in. Everyone understands that. The big bulldozers come in, they cut the guards, and they protect the area as best as they can.

The government is now worried about unstable slopes next to private properties, which means that those existing homes have now essentially been red-flagged and that the regional district is not allowed to give out building permits for something as simple as a garage addition on a home unless the landowner pays for the geotechnical work to be done on Crown land and identifies any work that might need to be done on Crown land — which they legally don’t have any right to be sending someone in to do that work on — because the Crown won’t do it.

So the Crown went in. They created the hazard for the neighbour. Yes, it was under an emergency situation, so everyone understands that. But the Crown refuses to go back in and try to stabilize or make things right for the surrounding houses that they’ve now created a problem for.

It’s not just in that area. I know of many others around the province this has happened to, but these happen to be constituents of mine. For 2½, three years now, it’s just been in limbo. The regional district gets made to be the bad guy because the province tells them: “You have to enforce these issues on the Crown land and not allow a building permit to happen.”

Even if they pay the $50,000 to have the geotech work done, who’s paying to actually do any restabilization or corrective work that might be identified by the geotech? The government is not coming to the table. It starts to be a pretty expensive garage for somebody to add on their home.

[6:15 p.m.]

They didn’t create the fire. They didn’t create the fireguard. It all happened on Crown land, and they’re being punished. I don’t see Bill 31 addressing that at all. It’s these types of issues that we at B.C. United had hoped would have been better addressed.

The member for Kamloops–South Thompson brought forward the private member’s bill around disaster financial assistance changes. That apparently fell on deaf ears from government. If you look at the measures that we were proposing in that private member’s bill, a lot of that would have actually helped all the scenarios you’re going to hear from people in B.C. United, from our constituents over the last few years. You’re going to hear that during the Bill 31 debate because it’s our job to give voice to our constituents and their concerns, as uncomfortable as it might be to hear or as repetitive as it might sound.

If it’s that repetitive, perhaps it’s because it’s actually that big of a problem. We’ve heard, Madam Chair, the trials and tribulations of all of the communities, legitimately so, in your own riding over the years. These are real impacts, as my colleague before me was pointing out — real impacts to people. They seem like they just hit a brick wall every time they get brought forward.

It cannot be a strict “government knows best” when you have locals that work in the bush trying to inform the powers that be that the wind shifts at two o’clock every day from a certain direction, and then they insist on not putting a fire crew out until noon and, lo and behold, at two, the wind shifts. So the fire crews get pulled off, and they go and try it again the next day and the next day. That’s not listening to local knowledge. That’s not listening to local knowledge, be it Indigenous local knowledge or a long-term resident’s local knowledge.

If you’re not willing to listen and actually take action based on the local knowledge you’re already being informed with…. If Bill 31 doesn’t actually, legitimately accomplish a structure that will truly stitch that in…. By the looks of it, it doesn’t. It’s got all of the great language, but the track record has been, on this particular file, over the last seven years, of dragging of the feet, of looking for another study, another review.

We have a 2003 review. Well, okay, let’s do an updated one. Let’s do the Abbott-Chapman report. Well, we better go out, and we better study again, even though we all know there’s legislation that’s been on the books, ready to go, behind the scenes, since 2017.

Now we’ve got the Ombudsperson report, a scathing report saying a lot of the same things we in B.C. United are going to be saying in our speeches. The Ombudsperson heard loud and clear what we’ve been hearing in the communities. So again, if we don’t value local knowledge, if we don’t value wildlife properly, if we don’t value the timber and the lost opportunities that creates, none of this is going to matter.

That’s what people want to know. They want to know there’s going to be a quick attack, that their local responders are well equipped, not through hot dog sales but through government supports, to be able to get there. No fault of B.C. Wildfire Service. They can’t be everywhere in a massive province like this. But when there are local volunteer fire departments willing to go fight wildland fire, as well as structure fire, and have a different complement of people willing to fight just wildland, but they can’t afford to have a water tender, that’s a problem.

Or they get told: “Well, don’t action it yet. We don’t want to do an incident number. It’s a spot fire. Just wait. We just want to see what it’s going to do.” Yet the local knowledge knows it’s in an area that’s already bone dry, and it’s going to go for a run if they don’t get to it before the winds come back.

[6:20 p.m.]

That’s the type of communication and changes we actually need to see. We don’t necessarily, even, just need to see it in the legislation. We need to see it in practice and in action. If there’s not a change by these agencies to change that level of communication and that level of tie-in, frankly, it doesn’t really matter what the legislation says. The trust will forever continue to be eroded. We need to build that trust back up. How you build that trust back up is by listening to Indigenous communities, listening to area residents and making sure that proper coordination is taken.

I thank you for this time.

F. Donnelly: Before I get started on Bill 31, I really want to just start by thanking and commending the minister, the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale, for the work that she has been doing since becoming B.C.’s first Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness. Not only has she been doing a fantastic job on a very tricky file; she has been doing this all while carrying a child almost to term.

I really want to thank you and commend you for the work you’ve been doing, Minister, on this. Thank you for bringing Bill 31, the Emergency and Disaster Management Act, today and introducing that in the House. It is a significant piece of legislation that holds the potential to reshape our approach to emergency management in this province. It’s at a critical milestone in our effort to safeguard communities and the environment in the face of escalating challenges.

B.C., like many jurisdictions, finds itself at a pivotal moment in history. Our province is witnessing a surge in the frequency and magnitude of natural disasters, exacerbated by accelerating climate change, including ravaging wildfires, devastating droughts and catastrophic floods, which necessitate a strategic and forward-looking response.

The Emergency and Disaster Management Act is an important part of the province’s call for action. It stands as a comprehensive and progressive framework, one that not only aligns us with global standards but also integrates the lessons learned from our past encounters with the crises that we’ve faced. The legislation addresses the formidable challenges we confront, the lives we endeavour to protect and the resiliency we aspire to cultivate. Together we can lead British Columbia into a future where we are better prepared, more resilient and highly responsive to the intricate emergencies of the 21st century.

In 1993, revisions were made to B.C.’s environmental protection act, which laid the foundation for many of our environmental and disaster management policies of today. Fast forward to 2017 when the Abbott-Chapman review commenced, signalling the start of a thorough re-evaluation of our emergency management strategies.

In 2018, British Columbia took a substantive step forward by adopting the Sendai framework, a global initiative calling for comprehensive disaster risk reduction. This move underscored our commitment to a holistic approach to disaster management. In 2019, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act came into effect, marking a significant milestone in our recognition of Indigenous rights and stewardship. This legislation has played a pivotal role in shaping EDMA.

Over the past few years, our government has worked tirelessly to modernize our emergency management legislation. This ongoing work demonstrates the needed planning and consideration that has gone into the EDMA but also highlights our dedication to aligning our province with international frameworks, respecting Indigenous rights and learning from past experiences.

We aim to achieve a number of objectives with this legislation. As I just mentioned, we are aligning ourselves with the United Nations Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction. This framework provides a holistic four-phase approach to disaster risk reduction. By adopting it, we ensure that our emergency management strategies are in sync with international best practices.

[6:25 p.m.]

The second objective is to confront head-on the escalating frequency and severity of weather-driven events. In light of escalating climate change, the EDMA mandates that risk assessments must consider the implications of climate change, making our approach proactive rather than reactive.

We recognize the importance of learning from past catastrophic floods and wildfires. The EDMA encourages better risk assessment, planning and coordination between decision-makers. It compels us to draw wisdom from experience and apply it to future emergency management, which scientists tell us is going to get even worse, more severe and even more complex.

Finally, we are committed to honouring our obligations under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. The EDMA includes a robust agreements framework that underscores consultation and cooperation with Indigenous governing bodies. It recognizes the authority of Indigenous governments to make laws pertaining to emergency management.

These legislative objectives are not just aspirations. They are our government’s commitment to a more resilient and inclusive emergency management approach. The act introduces an expanded definition of “emergency” that takes into account the evolving nature of the threats we face. It encompasses a spectrum of challenges, including the presence, suspected presence or imminent spread of transmissible diseases or toxins. It acknowledges security threats, riots and terrorism as part of our emergency landscape. It also allows for the prescription of other events or circumstances that could give rise to an emergency, demonstrating the flexibility necessary to adapt to emerging threats.

In recognition of our commitment to cultural preservation and respecting Indigenous values, the act includes the safety of objects or sites of heritage value as something requiring protection. This expanded definition reflects our dedication to inclusivity and sensitivity to the rich tapestry of the values held within our communities.

The Emergency and Disaster Management Act takes a multiphase approach to emergency management built on several key principles. Effective emergency management begins with disaster risk reduction. We understand the best way to manage emergencies is to reduce the risks associated with them. This principle aligns with the UN Sendai framework’s focus on disaster risk reduction.

The act acknowledges the changing landscape of emergency management. It defines all four phases of our emergency management and introduces new powers for the minister to order mitigative actions if hazards present a significant risk of becoming an emergency.

The act places a strong emphasis on planning and preparedness. It mandates risk assessments and emergency plans that cover all four phases for regulated entities. This comprehensive approach ensures that every aspect of emergency management is considered, from mitigation to recovery.

One of the significant innovations of this act is the introduction of a new 90-day recovery period. This period can be declared locally or provincially following a response to an emergency. It underscores our commitment to long-term recovery and resilience-building in the aftermath of crisis.

In essence, the Emergency and Disaster Management Act embraces a holistic, four-phase view of emergency management. It recognizes that effective management of emergencies is not just about responding to them but also about understanding and mitigating the risks, planning for contingencies and facilitating recovery, restoration and reconstruction. This multiphase approach positions us to face the diverse and evolving challenges of the 21st century with greater resilience and preparedness.

The act encapsulates a fundamental principle, recognizing the rights of Indigenous peoples in relation to emergency management, coupled with the recognition of the importance of Indigenous stewardship, advice and input.

[6:30 p.m.]

This principle underscores our commitment to respecting self-determination, as defined in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It also emphasizes a focus on government-to-government relationships. For modern treaty nations, we have considered their role in emergency management with a balance of inclusion and deference. These nations are included as local authorities but with statutory deference to government-to-government relationships. This approach respects their unique status and ensures their meaningful participation in shaping emergency management policies.

Central to the act is the establishment of an agreements framework which provides Indigenous governing bodies, both treaty and non-treaty, with options for coordinating emergency management practices with those of non-Indigenous entities. This framework enables a range of agreements, including protocol agreements. These agreements set out the protocols and procedures for communication and coordination between Indigenous governing bodies and other entities involved in our emergency management.

Just to mention…. A real-life example was the Big Bar Slide that happened on the Fraser River. It was because of the federal, provincial and First Nation governing bodies coming together with local communities that that, I think, was a better solution for the river, the fish and the area, the communities and the nations involved. It’s that kind of framework that this new act will support and want to see in other areas of the province.

Collaborative emergency management agreements. These agreements facilitate collaborative planning, response and recovery efforts, reinforcing the principle of shared responsibility and emergency management.

Coordination agreements. Coordination agreements promote the efficient allocation of resources and responsibilities among various stakeholders, ensuring a coordinated approach to emergencies.

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Sections 6 and 7, shared decision-making agreements. These agreements recognize the shared decision-making process envisioned in DRIPA and provide a framework for consultation and cooperation.

The act also mandates an annual review meeting to be held each calendar year with Indigenous governing bodies that have signed agreements. This ongoing dialogue ensures that our commitment to consultation, cooperation and coordination remains dynamic and responsive to the needs and aspirations of Indigenous communities.

The Emergency and Disaster Management Act not only recognizes the rights of Indigenous peoples, but it also actively promotes their meaningful participation in the development and execution of emergency management strategies. This reflects our dedication to forging strong collaborative partnerships and building a more resilient province that includes the wisdom and perspectives of its peoples.

Consultation, cooperation and coordination are pivotal principles woven into the fabric of this legislation. These principles are instrumental in shaping a more inclusive and effective approach to emergency management. Under the act, both the province and regulated entities have specific requirements to consult and cooperate with Indigenous governing bodies in the development of risk assessments and emergency management plans. This ensures that the unique perspectives and knowledge of Indigenous communities are considered in shaping strategies to address emergencies.

The act mandates that the province and local authorities must engage in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous governing bodies before taking any land-based response and recovery actions. This step underscores our commitment to respecting the rights and interests of Indigenous communities in the event of emergencies.

To determine which Indigenous governing bodies must be consulted in specific geographic areas, the act encourages the province and local authorities to work collaboratively to reach agreements with Indigenous governing bodies. This approach respects the diverse needs and priorities of different Indigenous communities and fosters a spirit of cooperation.

[6:35 p.m.]

In addition to Indigenous consultation and cooperation, regulated entities also have their responsibilities. They must consult with local authorities in the development of risk assessments and emergency management plans, ensuring that the local context is considered in emergency planning efforts. Local authorities, in turn, must consult and coordinate with other local authorities before executing evacuation and re-entry plans. This coordination among local authorities enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of response efforts during emergencies.

The act enables the formation of multi-jurisdictional emergency management organizations comprising two or more local authorities, Indigenous governing bodies and/or the provincial government. These organizations are empowered to assess risks, plan and carry out emergency measures collectively, ensuring a unified and coordinated response in cases that span multiple jurisdictions.

The Emergency and Disaster Management Act emphasizes the importance of collaboration and partnership among all interests involved in emergency management. By fostering a culture of consultation, cooperation and coordination, we are better equipped to address emergencies comprehensively and ensure that no community is left behind in times of crisis.

The Emergency and Disaster Management Act not only focuses on the technical aspects of emergency management but also underscores the critical importance of cultural safety and addressing intersectionality within provincial strategies. Cultural safety is a concept that has different interpretations and meanings for different cultures and Indigenous peoples. Recognizing this diversity, the act takes a principled stance on promoting cultural safety and emergency management. This involves incorporating relevant actions in emergency management plans, policies and programs to ensure that they are sensitive to the cultural needs and norms of the communities they serve.

The act defines “intersectional disadvantage” as the intersection of social categorizations, including race, gender, class and ability, which “may result in overlapping systems of discrimination or disadvantage or disproportionate adverse effects.” This recognition underscores our commitment to ensuring that our emergency management strategies are inclusive and address the unique challenges faced by individuals and communities with diverse backgrounds and identities. To operationalize these principles, the act introduces several key requirements.

Special consideration for persons facing intersectional disadvantage. Risk assessments must give special consideration to individuals who may experience intersectional disadvantage. This ensures that our emergency management plans are tailored to the specific needs of vulnerable populations.

Incorporation of measures to mitigate adverse effects. Emergency management plans must include measures to mitigate any adverse effects on individuals who may experience intersectional disadvantage. This proactive approach reduces disparities in the impact of emergencies.

Incorporation of available Indigenous knowledge. Risk assessments and emergency plans should incorporate available Indigenous knowledge, recognizing the wealth of traditional wisdom that Indigenous communities possess. Simultaneously, the act provides protections for this valuable knowledge, ensuring that it is respected and utilized appropriately.

By embracing cultural safety and recognizing intersectionality, the Emergency and Disaster Management Act reinforces our commitment to equity and inclusivity. It acknowledges that emergencies can affect different communities and individuals in unique ways and strives to ensure that our emergency management strategies address these variations effectively. This approach not only strengthens our resilience but also upholds our values of diversity and respect for all British Columbians. This act includes provisions that empower our government to respond effectively to emergencies and facilitate robust recovery efforts.

Duration of states of emergency. One notable enhancement is the extension of the duration of states of emergency. The act allows for the duration of a state of provincial emergency to be increased to 14 days if declared by the minister or 28 days if declared by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This extension provides the necessary flexibility to manage complex and protracted emergencies effectively.

[6:40 p.m.]

The act introduces a groundbreaking feature: the 90-day recovery period. This period can be declared either locally or provincially, following a response to an emergency. It underscores our commitment to long-term recovery, restoration, reconstruction and resilience-building in the aftermath of a crisis. This extended recovery time frame acknowledges that recovery is a multifaceted process that often requires sustained efforts.

The act grants broad procurement powers that can be exercised during any phase of emergency management. The authority ensures that necessary resources can be swiftly acquired to respond to emergencies effectively. It streamlines procurement processes and enables a rapid and coordinated response. The act empowers the minister to order a regulated entity to support another entity within their own jurisdiction or in another jurisdiction. This authority facilitates collaboration and resource-sharing among entities during emergencies.

Think about fire. Think about policing. Think about search and rescue. Think about all of the mechanisms in place that are engaged in an emergency and emergency response, and this act ensures a seamless response.

The minister is also granted the power to order, control or prohibit a business from operating when deemed necessary for emergency management. This power is essential to ensure that businesses align their operations with the needs of public safety and emergency response.

The LGIC may provide exemptions to legal requirements under any enactment, including modifying time periods. This flexibility enables the swift adjustment of legal frameworks to respond to the unique circumstances of an emergency.

Local authorities are also granted enhanced powers, including the ability to control or prohibit a business from operating. However, it’s important to note that local authorities no longer have the power to carry out all acts necessary, ensuring a clear delineation of responsibilities.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

These enhanced powers embedded within the Emergency and Disaster Management Act are essential tools that enable us to respond effectively to emergencies and oversee the recovery process comprehensively. They emphasize the importance of adaptability and swift action in the face of crises, ensuring that our province remains resilient in challenging times.

The Emergency and Disaster Management Act places a strong emphasis on increased transparency at various levels of government and decision-making.

One key aspect of transparency in the act is the requirement of the minister to provide a report to the Speaker within five business days on the exercise of a power. This ensures that the public and our legislative bodies are informed promptly about significant actions taken during emergencies.

The act mandates that provincial administrators prepare a report for the minister within 120 days following a state of provincial emergency. These reports provide a comprehensive overview of the response and recovery efforts, allowing for a thorough evaluation and learning from each emergency.

Similarly, authorities are required to prepare reports on any matter at the request of the minister. This request-driven approach ensures that local authorities remain accountable and transparent in their actions during emergencies.

Local authorities are also mandated to prepare a report for the provincial administrator within 120 days following a state of local emergency. This requirement enables a thorough examination of local response efforts.

Looking ahead, the act commits to a five-year review of the legislation. The minister must initiate this legislative review and make a public report within five years of the act coming into force. This review includes engagement with local authorities and consultation and cooperation with Indigenous governing bodies, ensuring that the legislation remains up to date and responsive to evolving needs.

[6:45 p.m.]

It’s important to outline the practical steps we are taking to implement the legislation and further enhance our emergency management capabilities. The act is not merely a set of principles and powers; it is a blueprint for action.

One immediate focus is the phased implementation of statutory planning requirements. These requirements will be phased in for various entities, including government ministries, local authorities, critical infrastructure owners, public sector agencies and others. This step ensures that our emergency management strategies are methodically integrated into the broader framework of government operations.

In addition to planning requirements, our government is working on key regulations that will shape the operational aspects of emergency management. These regulations encompass financial assistance programs to support affected communities, compliance and enforcement mechanisms to ensure adherence to the act and other critical elements that underpin our emergency management system.

This phased approach to implementation reflects our commitment to a well-structured and systematic rollout of the Emergency and Disaster Management Act. It allows us to fine-tune our emergency management processes, adapt them to specific needs and ensure that our response to future emergencies is both effective and efficient.

In the coming months and years, as these regulations are developed and implemented, the province will continue to engage with interest groups, monitor our progress and make adjustments as necessary to meet the evolving demands of emergency management. Our goal is to create a resilient and adaptive system that is responsive to the unique challenges and needs of our province.

I want to emphasize that the Emergency and Disaster Management Act is not just a piece of legislation. It’s a commitment to protecting people and place. It represents our collective will to confront the growing challenges posed by climate change, natural disasters and emergencies of all kinds.

I’ve covered quite a bit, from timeline and objectives to its provisions for Indigenous collaboration, enhanced transparency and robust response and recovery. It’s clear that this act is a critical step in our province’s journey to a safer and more resilient British Columbia. The path ahead may be fraught with uncertainties and challenges, but with the Emergency and Disaster Management Act as our guide, we will be better equipped to face them head-on.

We are united in our determination to leave no one behind in times of crisis, to protect our cultural heritage and to build a province that is adaptable and strong. In the Emergency and Disaster Management Act, we find a roadmap to a safer, more resilient future in British Columbia.

Finally, I just want to finish by mentioning that in securing our province, it is, I think, similar to the work that is needed to secure our watersheds in B.C. Securing our watersheds will not only support wild salmon and wildlife, but it will provide food security. When we secure our watersheds, we better prepare communities and nations against wildfires, floods and droughts.

The key in both these examples is being prepared.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kelowna-Mission.

R. Merrifield: Should I just note the hour? Okay.

I will reserve my place, and noting the hour, I move that we adjourn debate.

R. Merrifield moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Malcolmson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House now stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:49 p.m.