Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 35, Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.

In Douglas Fir Room committee, I call the Committee of the Whole debate, Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act.

In third House, committee room C, I call the Committee of the Whole debate, Bill 33, Pensions Benefits Standards Amendment Act.

[1:05 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 35 — SHORT-TERM RENTAL
ACCOMMODATIONS ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 35; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:06 p.m.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We’ll get this committee underway.

We’re here with Bill 35, and we were wrapping yesterday on clause 18. I don’t want to presume that. I should say we’re on clause 18.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

K. Kirkpatrick: The province has said: “We expect that hosts, platforms and others will do their best to comply, and the need for the enforcement will be relatively rare.” Now, how does this square with the claim that 50 percent of Airbnb listings are already legal? Is this an admission that the act won’t be strongly enforced?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s precisely the reason why this legislation has been brought in. Not only were local governments raising the alarm that they were not able to enforce their own rules, but local governments also didn’t even know who was really operating in their communities, and then regional districts had no ability to put rules in place.

The legislation allows for all those things to happen. The legislation requires the data to be shared with local governments, as well as the province. It requires the platforms to be part of the solution. Before, it was upon the host alone; now the platforms have a responsibility to ensure that any listing that goes on their site is actually registered.

So the issue the member raised is exactly why this legislation was needed, because, quite frankly, even those local governments that had access to some data weren’t able to enforce it. Now they will be able to.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

How many FTEs will be hired for the compliance and enforcement under this act?

[1:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We certainly will need FTEs for enforcing. We still have to go through a bit of a Treasury Board process, but we also have to define the regs still.

Once we’ve finished defining the regs, we’ll be able to go to Treasury Board to define the need. I can’t share exactly the FTE numbers with the member. But I am confident that when we’re in estimates next year, we’re going to be able to go through that in greater detail.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I’ll reserve the question until estimates next year.

Back to the issue of compliance, and the fact that registration will make it more obvious and there will be less listings which are legal. According to the latest reports, the city of Vancouver has flagged 54 licences for audit. They’ve written 35 warning letters, and they’ve issued 69 legal orders. It’s barely 1 percent of the total number of listings.

Can we expect a similar level of enforcement by the province?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Every day there are people tweeting at local government officials in the city of Vancouver with another listing that they found. I think the frustration from the city of Vancouver was that they just did not have an ability to enforce their rules and really didn’t even have a sense of exactly how many units or homes are going to short-term rentals.

The reason why the legislation will work for local governments…. The reason why the registry will work for local governments is now the guessing game will not be needed.

The platforms will be required to have a provincial registration number displayed. They’ll need to ensure that anyone that has a registration number can actually get on their sites. That’s why the enforcement will be way more effective now, given the tools that we’re putting forward with this legislation.

K. Kirkpatrick: This legislation sets a baseline. As the minister said, there are some communities that have higher, more stringent regulations.

Will the province only be responsible for the baselines as set in the act? And if the municipality wants to go above and beyond, they’ll need to establish their own compliance and enforcement for that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We will enforce what is in legislation. Of course, if communities decide to go above and beyond, they’ll do what they’re doing now, which is use their bylaws to enforce their bylaws.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Will the provincial enforcement be focused on larger or smaller communities? Where will the priority be, particularly at the initial phase where it’s going to take some time to build up capacity?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We won’t be prioritizing one part of the province more than another. The system, as it’s being laid out here, applies the same level of requirements in one community to another.

Clauses 19 to 23 inclusive approved.

On clause 24.

[1:15 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: What is the timeline for achieving compliance through a court order? How long does that take?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The framing of the question confused us a little bit, so I’ll just give you the answer, and then if the member would like to elaborate from there, we can, of course, have a conversation.

The director may serve a compliance order if they’re not satisfied that the person contravened or has previously contravened legislation or regulation. So the director can serve a compliance order directly.

The director can file an order with the Supreme Court, if that’s needed. If an order is filed with the court, it is deemed to be in order of the Supreme Court, enforceable as an order of the court.

I think, fundamentally, the member is asking: how long will it take for a compliance order? What I’m saying is that the director has the ability to serve a compliance order as fast as the director feels it’s appropriate.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’ll accept that answer.

Clauses 24 and 25 approved.

On clause 26.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister clarify the penalties and how and when they will apply?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll try to answer the questions for the member as best I can, given that some of this is coming in regulations, so I can only speak to so much of it.

I can say that the maximum administrative penalty will be determined in regs, with different maximum penalty amounts for platforms and hosts. We know Quebec has set some fines, so it will be within the range of what’s been done, but we’re still going through that process yet, so I can’t confirm.

I believe the member’s other question was: how will the fines be…? How or when. Okay. So the director can order a person to pay an administrative penalty if they have contravened the legislation or regulations, failed to comply with an order of the director or demand for the production of records or given false or misleading information during an investigation.

[1:20 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Now, I appreciate that the minister can’t give specific numbers in terms of the fines. But if they are going to mirror…. Quebec, I believe, was the reference.

So we know if there are going to be teeth to this, can the minister share with us a range or what the expectation may be, understanding that the final number will come in regulations?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I can’t speak to what the specific regs will say. I can share with the member that in Quebec legislation, fines for hosts range between $5,000 to $50,000 and, for platforms, between $10,000 and $100,000 per posting.

I know that’s a big range. Because it’s coming in regulations, I can’t speak to that directly right now.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Will that be per posting per day, or will that be per posting?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Non-compliance that continues for more than one day may be subject to multiple separate administrative penalties for each day the contravention continues. Non-compliance that is repeated over a period of time may receive increased penalties.

K. Kirkpatrick: Will it be the provincial government responsible for collecting fines, or only the municipalities?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We will be collecting our fines. They may have additional bylaws. So they may have to collect their own fines as well.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can separate or dual penalties be levied by the province and a municipality?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister let us know how these fines will be spent? Will they go into general revenue, or will they go into the housing priority initiatives special account to ensure that the fines go towards affordable housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member asking. I can’t say at this point, given that we still have to go through the treasury process. Again, I’m sure we’ll canvass this during estimates.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

There are some pieces here that I’m concerned aren’t concrete yet. They’re going to be pushed into regulations. My sense is…. These things all should have been identified as the legislation was being developed so that they could draft…. You now, we’re fixing the right problem. We’re not just kind of guessing at things.

Now, the minister may have answered this question, but just to put it on the record. What about the tourism sector? Are they expected to see any support from the fine revenues?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I know the member is aware. This is not the first time that legislation is coming forward where there are regulations that come after. It’s very common. That happens with lots of legislation. So this isn’t abnormal in any way. I just wanted to say that on the record.

That said, as I highlighted, when it comes to money coming in and where money goes…. The member also knows the Treasury Board process.

Again, this is something we will be able to canvass during estimates. It’s not something that I can speak to directly with this piece of legislation.

[1:25 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Minister.

This legislation is being brought in to assist in freeing up more units for affordable housing. That is clearly a piece of this government’s housing strategy. I understand that the minister has just said that things have to go through treasury, and there’s some complexity in terms of where funds can be directed.

Would the minister commit to working to ensure that all the fine revenue goes toward affordable housing or support for the tourism sector?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re investing billions of dollars into affordable housing. I’m continually advocating for more, not only from us but from the federal government, and I’ll continue to advocate for that. As for the specifics, again, I can’t speak to it, because we still have to go through the Treasury Board process. I’m more than willing to go into this when we have discussions after the budget has been put forward.

Clauses 26 to 32 inclusive approved.

On clause 33.

K. Kirkpatrick: What types of data will be collected and used to enforce the registry?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There’s going to be some general data that we’re going to collect — name, address, all those pieces — but our goal is to align with local governments as best we can to make sure that the data we’re collecting is the same data that they’re collecting or that they would like to have so that they can be most effective in their decision-making.

[1:30 p.m.]

It’s not only to help local governments understand the extent of short-term rentals and the issues around enforcement regulation but also for tax collection and policy-making related to housing and tourism. Because the registry is coming late next year, we have some time to work with our local partners to identify what data requirements there are, what they’re collecting, and to really streamline that process as best we can.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Minister.

Will speculation tax data be referenced or otherwise combined with the data obtained in the provincial STR registry?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We will be sharing our data with the Ministry of Finance.

K. Kirkpatrick: So that would include homeowner grant data and the beneficial ownership registry?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We will be sharing the data we collect with the Ministry of Finance. We haven’t yet defined what information we’ll be collecting. Whatever that information is will be shared with the Ministry of Finance.

A. Olsen: In following up on that question, is the data coming back the other way? Is the Ministry of Finance going be sharing data with the Ministry of Housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, at this point, I can’t say. But I can say that we, at this point, don’t need their data coming from the Ministry of Finance back to us to enforce the legislation we have in front of us.

A. Olsen: Doesn’t some of the data that’s collected by the Ministry of Finance determine the primary residence piece? Isn’t that going to be helpful to determine whether or not those units are of…? Yeah, I’ll just leave it at that.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I just wanted to make sure I got the full answer properly.

Because this is a new piece of legislation, we’re not amending the act that allows to collect that data from the Ministry of Finance. That act specifically lays out what purposes that data can be used for. We’re not amending that; we’re introducing new legislation.

We have the ability to share this information. We also have the ability…. Once we’ve finalized what information and data we require from anyone who wants to be a host, as proof — they’ve got, maybe, a receipt — showing that the property is their principal residence, that can be easily obtained and used for this, for our system.

We can also share our data with the Ministry of Finance. Data from us can go to the Ministry of Finance for them to be able to cross-reference the information people are sharing with us. The penalties associated with not disclosing correctly are much higher, much more substantial, than even the fines we’re considering with our legislation.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the response from the minister. I’m just wanting to be clear. What’s behind the questions that I’m asking here is around there being a single data ecosystem — that all of the information that’s coming from the Minister of Finance, the Ministry of Housing, comes in, in order to inform the decisions that are being made by both ministries. I just want to be assured that that’s what’s happening.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, very much so. There is a good understanding of how we’re going to enforce this piece. Again, this legislation lays out what we can do. We are not amending any other legislation on the other side. But again, I’ll echo we have the ability, through what data we want to collect, for asking for proof that this is the principal residence. That’s my expectation of what we’ll be doing.

We will be sharing this information with the Ministry of Finance. Again, if someone were to mislead when it comes to the Ministry of Finance and that act, the penalties are much greater than what we envision with the fines associated here.

Clauses 33 and 34 approved.

On clause 35.

K. Kirkpatrick: Dealing with the exemptions under FOI laws — why is this information being exempted?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member for the question.

An override of part 2 of FOIPPA means that hosts’ information cannot be disclosed in an access-to-information request and limits what information can be shared if a local government receives an access-to-information request. This protects the hosts, who may have safety concerns with disclosure of their information, and therefore promotes greater compliance with the provincial framework.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Could this data that’s being collected be made available to researchers so that they can make a determination on what’s happening and the impact on the market?

Hon. R. Kahlon: What this section basically says is that the detailed personal information of folks can’t be accessed through FOI.

Clause 35 approved.

On clause 36.

K. Kirkpatrick: As the minister knows, this is, from my perspective and the perspective of many people who I know are watching right now, very problematic and seen as being quite punitive. I would like to understand….

This is about the exemptions, for those watching, which end nonconforming exemptions that municipalities have given to certain buildings, certain projects. I ask the minister if he has an exhaustive list of the communities that will be affected by this change.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question. This provision applies to all communities. But I know for communities…. Victoria, Kelowna, Revelstoke, Ucluelet and Tofino — I’m aware that they have some non-conforming zones in their communities.

B. Banman: Actually, I would propose an amendment to section 36. In particular, we would strike out the word “not” in two occasions, with regards to the act — “non-conforming lawful use is authorized to continue” and “lawful use is authorized to continue” in both sections.

[CLAUSE 36, by deleting the text shown as struck out:

Authority to continue use does not apply

36 (1) In this section:

“land use regulation bylaw” has the same meaning as in section 455 [definitions in relation to Part 14] of the Local Government Act;

“zoning bylaw” has the same meaning as zoning by-law in section 559 [interpretation] of the Vancouver Charter.

(2) If a land use regulation bylaw relates to the use of land, or a building or other structure, for short-term rental accommodation services or similar services, despite section 528 [non-conforming uses: authority to continue use] of the Local Government Act, the non-conforming lawful use is not authorized to continue under that section in relation to the use of the land, building or other structure for short-term rental accommodation services or similar services.

(3) If a zoning bylaw relates to the use of premises for short-term rental accommodation services or similar services, despite section 568 [non-conforming use] of the Vancouver Charter, the non-conforming lawful use is not authorized to continue under that section in relation to the use of premises for short-term rental accommodation services or similar services.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a reference to “non-conforming” is,

(a) in respect of subsection (2) of this section, within the meaning of the Local Government Act, and

(b) in respect of subsection (3) of this section, as defined in section 559 of the Vancouver Charter.]

B. Banman: If I may, here’s why.

The Chair: If I can just confirm that it’s the amendment standing on the order paper in your name.

B. Banman: Absolutely.

The Chair: Okay, thank you. Please proceed.

B. Banman: The problem that we have with this bill is that this is severely affecting property ownership rights. We’ve heard many discussions about that.

But in particular, the problem that we have is that when it comes to this particular section, we believe that there’s no one better than local government to decide which ones of these particular areas should be continued versus not continued.

There will be all kinds of exceptions to this that will inadvertently get trapped in this particular legislation. Our opinion is that by allowing local governments, which understand their local areas best, their local needs best…. There could be sections in certain parts of Victoria, as was just mentioned, where this non-conforming has actually very limited use for anything other than short-term accommodation.

Our stance on this is: let’s leave this particular part in the hands of local government, which will be able to respond to it and be able to handle it the best.

We have problems with the entire bill, but in this particular case, well…. Part of our job is to try and make it better. We know that you’re going to pass…. Let’s face it. You’re going to be able to pass whatever you want. You’ve been doing it all along.

We think that this is a huge attack on property rights ownerships in British Columbia, and that part will go, but we still have an obligation to the public and to this House to try and point out any glaring areas that we think can be improved. We believe that by allowing local governments to make these particular decisions, that, in fact, will actually be helpful versus the consequential harm that may come as a result of this particular clause.

The Chair: The Chair has reviewed the proposed amendment. It is not in order, as it amounts to a direct negative of the clause.

For members who are interested, page 250 of our blue book will explain that in further detail. So no, the amendment is not in order.

Amendment ruled out of order.

K. Kirkpatrick: I had previously asked the minister if he could provide a list of communities — I’ll take that down a little bit — more specifically, if the minister knows the number of properties that will be affected by this change, and then breaking that down, the number of units that are going to be affected by the change.

[1:45 p.m.]

So the number of units in British Columbia right now that are operating as short-term rentals, and they’re operating that way because when people purchased, when it was built, it was non-conforming use, and they were able to do that. How many units are now going to be impacted by this?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I just want to take a second just to reply to the House Leader from the B.C. Conservatives. I didn’t get a chance to go through it in full detail, his amendment, but I do want to say, first, that I got his petition. I appreciate him bringing that forward.

What I would highlight to the member is that what we’re doing here with this piece is ensuring that local governments can actually enact their bylaws. This change in the Local Government Act was done a long time ago. Local governments want to enact their bylaws in all these communities. By removing this, we’re giving the ability to local governments to enact their bylaws. I do appreciate his advocacy on this, but we believe this is the right direction to get more housing back into our communities.

Now, to my friend across the way, who’s asked this question, I can share with the member that we know that some communities have specific numbers that they’ve come forward with. For example, in Victoria, we believe it’s about 1,600 units total that are in the space, not necessarily all short-term rentals, but that’s how many would be in that area. In Kelowna, it’s about 250 units. It’s hard to know exactly the percentage of that that is short-term rentals versus people’s primary residence. But those are the broader numbers.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

In response to the answer that he just gave to the B.C. Conservative member, how does overriding the municipality’s choice to create non-conforming zoning empower the municipality to have jurisdiction over their own bylaws? I was a bit fuzzy there….

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We use the city of Kelowna, and we use the city of Victoria, as examples. They set, themselves, principal residence requirements in their communities. They can’t enforce that on those areas, not because they don’t want to but because the Local Government Act does not allow them to enforce it. By removing it from the Local Government Act, now they are able to enforce their rules in those areas.

K. Kirkpatrick: It’s a bit swirly for me.

I’m hearing, as I know the minister is hearing from many, many people in British Columbia who purchased. For the majority of them, this is their only short-term rental. For some people, they live in this part-time, but less than half the year. They bought it on the basis that it was non-conforming, that their municipality approved it as non-conforming. They’ve licensed, registered and paid taxes on it. They’ve done everything that was expected of them.

This change has a significant impact to their ability to cover the costs of these units and their ability to now sell these units without a significant financial penalty. As we know, the value of these units was more when they were potential STRs. This seems extremely unfair to these people, who have purchased in good faith and have done nothing wrong.

This also goes back to our previous amendment, where we feel that this legislation is giving an advantage to property owners who have a single-family home, who have the capacity of ownership of a house with a basement suite. For many of the people that I’ve been hearing from and that own, in these non-conforming suites there are students who are renters, and this is their only way to get a foothold into the real estate market.

This just seems very punitive, and I don’t understand why this measure was put in. UBCM says it did not ask for this measure. I would like to understand, then, why the ministry, without that request having been made of them, determined that this was appropriate.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question. I was reading the Times Colonist recently and just saw a person talking about how they have four condos in one of those buildings, and they used them all as short-term rentals. I think the person estimated that 90 units of the 121, in just one building alone, were short-term rentals.

[1:55 p.m.]

I guess the debate we’ve been having from the beginning is: when we have people working full-time jobs who can’t find a place to live in our communities, and they see, in a building of 121 units, that 90 of them are short-term rentals, at least, it’s a problem. So we want to get more housing back into the housing stock.

Now, the reason why May 1. The reason why people have time is for them to be able to either rent them long-term, or if they feel they don’t want to be landlords and they want to sell them, they have the time to sell them. In fact, what we’ve seen just in the last 48 hours is an increase in listings of people selling in those buildings, so either it’ll become a rental for somebody who needs it in our community, or it’ll become a home for somebody else.

I do appreciate the member’s questions, but fundamentally, what we’re trying to do with this important piece of legislation is get more housing back into the housing stock for people who desperately need it.

I think it’s too early to assume that people are going to lose money on their investments. We’ll have to see, when units are sold, where they bought them and where they sell. Prices have gone up significantly, so I just won’t accept the premise that people are going to lose money on their investments.

That being said, that’s the premise of this legislation: to try to get more housing back to people in our communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m concerned and disappointed in the minister’s answer. These buildings — the minister refers to them like they’re evil owners in these buildings. They were built as short-term rentals. That was the purpose of these units: the ability for people to use them as short-term rentals. So the fact that they’re being used short-term rentals should not be surprising to anyone. As I said, they were being operated legally.

The minister also continues to reference people who own multiple units. I was talking about the people who own one additional unit from their primary residence and who cannot, very often, have an ownership outside of one of these small units. To presume that their costs will be covered when interest rates have gone up and when people purchased at a premium….

I’m sure the minister and all the other MLAs have received letters from people who just purchased these units in the last several months. They have probably lost — I don’t know — up to, maybe, 25, 30 percent of the premium that they paid for those units.

The question was…. UBCM did not ask for this. Were they then consulted — that municipalities would be directed to take this stock out of their potential tourist zones?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are two parts I’ll answer.

First, 440 square feet is bigger than many people are living in, when you see them living in RVs right now because they can’t find a place to live. It’s not an ideal square footage for a lot of families. I get that. But there are still people who are desperate for housing that could use housing, even if it’s 440 square feet.

The second piece of the member’s question was: did we talk to…? I can share with the member that Victoria did ask us to remove that provision. There is a significant amount of units within Victoria on the list.

K. Kirkpatrick: Just for the record, I think this is egregious, and it is hurting British Columbians. Not a lot of consideration has been given to people who have worked hard to purchase these units and have done it above board, in the right way.

I would like to just read something from Hansard yesterday that has given me additional concern. I must say it was the member for Parksville-Qualicum who brought this up yesterday. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I am going to cede the floor to him in a moment, because I suspect that he will have some questions on this.

[2:00 p.m.]

The member mentioned Tigh-Na-Mara as being part of this tourist zone they’ve got in Parksville. When asked if these tourist zones were also going to be subject to this and the properties along there — I don’t know, Tanglewood or Beach Acres, those ones — the minister’s answer was, “I appreciate the member’s question, but my answer is the same as previously shared with him,” which I understood to be that the municipality can’t ask to exempt those unless they have a 3 percent vacancy.

I’d like to confirm if a property like that and if that zone in Parksville is subject to this short-term rental legislation.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I do appreciate that the member went to Hansard to pull my colleague across the way’s question but couldn’t find the time to find my response in Hansard.

I can’t go back now to look at exactly what I said, so I can’t confirm that. But the member should know. Clearly, the member had a chance to look at it.

That being said, my answer is…. If a community gets a higher than 3 percent vacancy rate, they do have the ability to opt out. That answer still remains.

I can’t speak specifically to the project that the member has raised.

A. Walker: There’s a lot to go over here. Some of this will feel a little bit like rehashing, but as we discuss the changes to zoning, I think that’s not necessarily not appropriate.

I think all members of this House, other than perhaps our friends from the B.C. Conservative Party, believe there are some significant challenges in the short-term rental market. It has created a lack of housing availability. We’ve seen the studies that it increases rental prices. It is a few people — as we’ve seen from the statistics, 10 percent — that are generating a significant amount of the revenue and that are creating an outsized impact on our communities.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

These discussions that are taking place here are not to support every player in this space, but there are some that have one unit that are being impacted in a significant way. When the minister mentions that people won’t lose money or premises won’t lose money….

In my community, it’s a little different than others. If you bought a condo intending to run a short-term rental out of it, and that is then converted into a single family or into a multifamily unit for rent or for purchase, that’s a good move. The challenge is…. In a community that is tourist-dependent, like Parksville-Qualicum, we have not just specific developments but whole regions in our community that are dedicated to tourism accommodation.

When the minister says: “Well, a 450-square-foot unit is larger than what a lot of people have access to….” I fully agree.

We’ve got seniors in my community coming to my office regularly. They are showing up with eviction notices, and I have to tell them they’re going to be living in their cars for a few months. Unless they want to move to Nanaimo, where there is a list that is actually going to move fast enough that they can get attached within six months or a year, they’re going to have to get fairly comfortable in their car. That is a horrible conversation to have with a 75-year-old woman that’s living alone.

The intention here is to work with government to try to find solutions to the housing crisis that we have. The questions I have will be related specifically to my community but will, obviously, have an impact elsewhere.

I’m not going to name the different projects. I feel bad for our friends on Resort Drive, who I named yesterday, that are going to be part of this conversation.

Very near to that is a resort development. It was built as a purpose-built resort development. It is a series of…. We could call them single-family homes, or we could call them cabins. They are, basically, a strata hotel, but it’s a little different. Some of the units are part of a pool. Some of the units are marketed independently, whether through a platform or whether they’re done independently through other networks.

I guess the first question I have is…. As we look at, basically, eliminating some of these local government restrictions on short-term rentals…. What would happen in a situation like that, where you have a strata community that’s sort of a hotel but not really? Half the units are in the pool; half are not. What happens to those units that are not in that strata pool?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, thanks to the member for his question.

As I answered to the member before, the strata piece will be in the regulations. Our intention is not to capture that type of housing.

We can spend a lot of time going through what-ifs, because the regulations are still to be drafted. I would say that if the member would like to advocate or just raise issues on behalf of constituents, he can share with me what those specific types of models are that he’s considering, and we’ll put that part in our deliberations for regulations.

[2:05 p.m.]

That work is still yet to come. It’s hard for me to answer exactly, given that regulations are still coming. Giving a whole bunch of different scenarios that might be at play…. I just won’t be able to give the member the answer.

I would say to the member…. If he’s got specific time-share and strata types of hotels that are coming online that have unique models, I’m happy to hear from him about it. In fact, if he would like to meet at a point in the very near future to talk about what those different models are, I’m happy to hear that. Same for my colleague across the way and for all parties.

That regulation is not fully defined. So I’m happy to hear specific types of pieces where we can adjust the regulations. Our intention isn’t to capture that type of housing into this.

A. Walker: Those last few words, which will be captured, are exactly what this next question is. Basically, is that the intention?

The minister mentioned that a 400-square-foot unit could be used as housing. But when these units have lock-off doors to neighbouring units, when these units have not necessarily the same fire breaks or aren’t made to the same code that would be expected in the B.C. building code for a residential unit, it does pose some challenges.

The minister did, basically, say this. Is it the intention of this act to not apply to the types of tourist accommodation, in communities like mine, that are strata-based?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes. I can confirm for the member that strata hotels and time-shares…. The intention isn’t to capture them in this legislation.

A. Walker: The next question is similarly related. If an existing hotel would like to advertise their units on one of these platforms, will that be…? I know that’s not exactly related to this. With some leniency…. Will an existing hotel be able to advertise individual suites or rooms on one of these short-term rental platforms?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah. If they’re a hotel, they are exempt.

A. Walker: Yeah. Hotels are exempt. I’m just thinking as far as the strata hotels or a co-op of different units. I mean, I understand that this will be done by regulation. I’m just looking for certainty that the example I gave before, where we’ve got a lot of individual little cabins…. They are, essentially, homes. If they decide, as the pool, to then put units on, if they would also be permitted to do that.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Out of respect for my colleague, I’ve been trying to give as much answer as I can, given that it’s still coming in regulation.

I worry that if I start giving you more answers on it, it may set up some sort of expectation until the regulations are there.

I can’t share it with him. Not that I don’t want to. I just can’t at this point.

I will just reemphasize that if there are unique circumstances where there are time-share hotels that the member is concerned about…. He certainly can share them for consideration when the regulations are being developed.

A. Walker: I appreciate that. I’m smiling as the minister is answering. So we’re on the same page there.

Is there any protection in place, as we talk about changing of zoning, where a hotel could purchase an entire condominium and convert that into a hotel, whether a traditional hotel or a strata hotel, and then market those as short-term rentals?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member was on council, so he’ll know that you don’t want a hotel just anywhere. Local government would have to change rules, change laws, change zoning to allow for a hotel to be in that specific area. Sure, if a local government says, “We want to zone this as an area for a hotel,” and a hotel gets built there, or another type of relationship happens…. Certainly, that’s where local government is going to have to rezone that.

It also means that…. Of course, for local governments, it means additional revenues and all those things, but that’s a local government piece.

A. Walker: I appreciate that. In a community like mine that is so desperate for both housing but also for tourist accommodation, local governments will look for any of that wherever they can.

I guess the concern I have is that as this moves forward, I can see, perhaps, that individuals that own, whether they’re homes or condos, separate units would then pool their resources to purchase out an entire building that is currently used for housing as a way of…. We talk about loopholes. Depending on how the regulation then frames these strata hotels….

I don’t need the minister to respond to that necessarily. I’m pretty much done with questions on this particular clause. I just wanted to, again, re-highlight that the community of Parksville-Qualicum is unique as far as tourist accommodation. People come every year. They bring families. It’s an intergenerational experience. They come with large groups. So the opportunity for short-term rentals provides something that hotels have a difficult time doing in our community.

I just wanted to end on clause 36, encouraging the minister to, if possible, reach out to local governments in my community to ensure that they are abreast of what these changes mean for them and for the members of their community.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:13 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

[2:15 p.m.]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 33 — PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Bill 33, Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Next sitting.

Mr. Speaker: Government House Leader.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 35, Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.

In the third House, committee room C, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 28, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 35 — SHORT-TERM RENTAL
ACCOMMODATIONS ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 35; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:17 p.m.

The Chair: I call the committee to order on Bill 35, Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act, clause 36.

Shall clause 36 pass?

Division has been called.

[2:20 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.]

Clause 36 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 49
Alexis	Anderson	Bains
Beare	Begg	Brar
Chandra Herbert	Chant	Chen
Chow	Conroy	Cullen
Dean	D’Eith	Dix
Donnelly	Eby	Elmore
Farnworth	Glumac	Greene
Heyman	Kahlon	Kang
Leonard	Lore	Ma
Mercier	Olsen	Osborne
Paddon	Parmar	Phillip
Popham	Ralston	Rankin
Rice	Robinson	Routledge
Routley	Sandhu	Sharma
Sims	A. Singh	R. Singh
Starchuk	Walker	Whiteside
	Yao
NAYS — 21
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Bond	Davies	de Jong
Doerkson	Halford	Kirkpatrick
Kyllo	Lee	Letnick
Merrifield	Milobar	Morris
Paton	Ross	Shypitka
Stone	Sturdy	Sturko

Clause 37 approved.

On clause 38.

[2:35 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Clause 38 is talking about when the regulations are enabled. What is the timeline for the finalization of the regulations?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The first round of regulations will be this fall.

K. Kirkpatrick: Is there consultation remaining on what types of properties, platforms and areas will be included and/or excluded by these regulations?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We continue to take feedback for development of the regulations.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Minister. Can I just clarify the difference between feedback and consultation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’ve done extensive consultation, but we still know that there are organizations sending us additional thoughts. I offered, to the member across the way, the ability to share specific pieces. I offer that to my colleague across the way as well.

Clauses 38 and 39 approved.

On clause 40.

K. Kirkpatrick: Now we’re talking about enabling the regional districts or the intermunicipal schemes to regulate business. Can the minister elaborate on how these regional district licensing schemes are expected to work in tandem with the province?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The regional districts will have the ability — currently they don’t — to have business regulations and licensing powers under the Local Government Act.

How it will work is the same as it works for everyone else. Data will be shared with the regional district. Hosts will be required to register. Their property platform will still have the same responsibility of ensuring that a proper registration number exists.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Is this targeted at the Lower Mainland, or is this more in response to northern and rural areas?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It applies to regional districts anywhere in the province.

[2:40 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Has the minister consulted with regional districts about their capacity to institute these licensing schemes and whether the province will be doing its part to minimize the burden on local governments?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This is in response to requests made to us through the UBCM engagements that were happening. We’re not requiring regional districts to issue business licences. This is just allowing them to do so if they want to.

Clauses 40 and 41 approved.

On clause 42.

A. Walker: This shouldn’t be one of the more exciting pieces of this bill, but I’m just seeking clarity that this will allow regional districts the full power to regulate businesses similar to a municipality.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes.

A. Walker: I just want to thank the government for putting this in place. This is something that’s been asked for many years. It will have a significant impact on areas like mine where we see significant urban populations in rural areas. I just want to take this moment to thank the minister and his staff for their incredible patience over the last few days.

Clauses 42 to 45 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 2:43 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[2:45 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 35 — SHORT-TERM RENTAL
ACCOMMODATIONS ACT

Bill 35, Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act, reported complete without amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Now.

Mr. Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 35, Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.

Division has been called.

[2:50 p.m. - 2:55 p.m.]

Bill 35, Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 51
Alexis	Anderson	Bains
Beare	Begg	Brar
Chandra Herbert	Chant	Chen
Chow	Conroy	Cullen
Dean	D’Eith	Dix
Donnelly	Eby	Elmore
Farnworth	Furstenau	Glumac
Greene	Heyman	Kahlon
Kang	Leonard	Lore
Ma	Mercier	Olsen
Osborne	Paddon	Parmar
Phillip	Popham	Ralston
Rankin	Rice	Robinson
Routledge	Routley	Russell
Sandhu	Sharma	Sims
A. Singh	R. Singh	Starchuk
Walker	Whiteside	Yao
NAYS — 23
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Bond	Davies	de Jong
Doerkson	Halford	Kirkpatrick
Kyllo	Lee	Letnick
Merrifield	Milobar	Morris
Paton	Ross	Shypitka
Stewart	Stone	Sturdy
Sturko		Tegart

Mr. Speaker: I would also ask the members to stay inside the chamber. Her Honour, I am advised, is in the precinct. She’ll be joining us shortly, so please stay seated. Thank you.

[3:00 p.m.]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

 

Money Judgment Enforcement Act

Provincial Symbols and Honours Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023

Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act

Police Amendment Act, 2023

In His Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): Good afternoon, everyone.

ÍY SȻÁĆEL NE SĆÁLEĆE.

As always, it’s great to see all of you and to be among you.

I did have something I wanted to say today, and it, really, relates to the state of the world.

As we look around the world today and we see the chaos and the dysfunction emerging elsewhere in a world that is increasingly fractious — we see the violence, the wars that are emerging — it makes me feel so grateful, really, for all of you, for the system of governance we have here in British Columbia and indeed Canada. It is something to be valued and nurtured and treasured.

[3:05 p.m.]

I do want to say how much I appreciate all of you. You debate; you discuss; you disagree; you challenge each other, as you should, but always in a respectful way, always with goodwill, good intention, with the best interests of British Columbians and the province in your minds at all times. That’s something we don’t see in most of the other countries around the world.

I want you to know how much I appreciate it, frankly, and how much I admire all of you. Thank you.

I’ll be seeing, I think, a number of you at the Premier’s education awards this afternoon at Government House, and I look forward to that very much indeed.

Take care, and we’ll see you all again soon.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 34, Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act.

In the third House, Committee C, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 28, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 34 — RESTRICTING PUBLIC
CONSUMPTION OF
ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES ACT

(continued)

Deputy Speaker: I was just going to advise the House that we are doing Bill 34, second reading, Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act.

[3:10 p.m.]

We’re just waiting for one more member to join us who, I believe, wanted to finish their remarks.

There you are. I need glasses, Member.

The member for Kelowna-Mission is starting her remarks on Bill 34.

R. Merrifield: I thought that in the House there on Zoom, I would be larger than life. I don’t know if you actually need glasses, but I really appreciate the opportunity to rise and take my place to speak to this bill.

I think it’s really important. I’m surprised that not absolutely everyone in this House wants to stand up and speak to it, because I think that we need a clarion call to this assembly to really draw attention to the apocalyptic consequences of negligence, of legislative myopia that has endangered our communities and, most egregiously, our youth, our kids, our toddlers and our babies.

I was just at a luncheon in which I was talking with some parents. I asked: “What would you like to see in our community?” One of the parents said: “I want to see safety in our parks.”

She proceeded to tell me a story about how she had been at one of the parks this summer with an eight-year-old and a four-year-old, and she had sent her eight-year-old into the bathroom alone, from which her eight-year-old had come out and was very distraught. She went into the bathroom with her eight-year-old only to find a person who had overdosed inside the bathroom. When she came to, it was very traumatic, both to her daughter and to this parent.

This type of situation should not happen. Today, we discuss Bill 34, Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act, a piece of legislation that can only be described as too little, too late. Too little, too late for this eight-year-old. Too little, too late for this mother that had to go into the bathroom to find this.

Let us be clear. This bill is nothing but an afterthought, an attempt to band-aid a problem that was caused by this government’s reckless approach to decriminalization. Let me also be clear; this is not an issue of compassion versus consequences. We need both. We need compassion for those in the throes of addiction, but we also need strong consequences for those who flagrantly break the law.

This bill expands on the already dubious federal exemption on where the public consumption of an illegal substance is allowed, but it does so without any clarity, creating an atmosphere of confusion and responsibility.

This bill would allow that situation that happened just months ago to occur today. Police officers are now being asked to be social workers, arbitrators and guardians of morality all at once. What are they to do when they find individuals using substances in areas now deemed prohibited?

Well, I can tell you that our police officers recently made an arrest, but when they were taken to the Crown prosecution, the Crown prosecution didn’t want to press any charges. They’re instructed to merely ask the individual to cease consumption or leave the area, with arrest being the last recourse and often not followed up with any charges. This is ambiguity par excellence.

I can tell you that many are being communicated to that there is no enforcement happening, and the flagrant disregard for our police officers is becoming even worse. The MLA for Prince George–Mackenzie did a phenomenal job of articulating the difficulty that our police officers are having today in enforcing any sort of calm on our streets.

If the Premier’s tenure as Attorney General taught us anything, it’s that his soft-on-crime policies have now evolved into a soft-on-chaos policy as Premier. Our streets have become havens of disorder, and the youth, the very future of our province, are being introduced to drugs under the false pretence of tolerance and compassion. Many British Columbians simply have compassion fatigue.

[3:15 p.m.]

It is scandalous that the NDP has failed to create more treatment beds, leaving people to languish on wait-lists, while claiming to have added only net 242 new beds — 3,035 current but only 242 net new — under this government. That is horrific.

In Kelowna, complex care beds are desperately needed — so much so that Kelowna city council and Kelowna city staff created a white paper to advocate for complex care beds.

Out of the 20 that have been announced not once, not twice, but three times in our community, with ministers and ministerial staff arriving with great pomp and ceremony, only three of those had been opened until about two weeks ago. Now we have eight out of the 20 that were promised four years ago. These numbers are a mirage, they’re misleading, and they do a disservice to the desperate British Columbians who are in dire need of support.

For months, municipalities have been left to fend for themselves, and now this government wants to strip them of their autonomy. Our mayor came to Victoria to implore the Solicitor General to create rules and regulations. But now we have a one-size-fits-all approach that has already been proven to fail. The government is now forcing municipalities to consult with regional health boards and local medical health officers, thereby usurping local authority and wisdom.

Let’s talk solutions. For B.C. United, we don’t just oppose; we propose. Our Better is Possible plan addresses the real issues. Yes, we would end this failed experiment of decriminalization. We want a recovery-oriented system of care and affordable, accessible treatment right now.

We aim to triple the beds at Redfish Healing Centre to introduce youth-focused public education campaigns and to provide families the support they need to help their loved ones recover. We need compassion, we need consequences, and all with the intention of creating community, but let’s not forget the crime.

Our Safer B.C. plan is the part of the consequences. We aim to fill 500 police vacancies across the province and end the disastrous decriminalization experiment, treat all crimes seriously and offer alternative sentencing and rehabilitation: compassion with consequences to form community.

It’s time to admit failure and correct course. The worst thing we could do is to keep doubling down on what is not working. Bill 34 is not the solution. It’s a manifestation of this government’s inability to responsibly govern, and truly, it’s an admission of failure.

For example, this legislation doesn’t address use in public restrooms, stairwells in public buildings, public transportation or public festivals and events. Is that the next bill that will be coming forward, to try and address those aspects? People deserve more than fast-tracked, reckless legislation. They deserve thoughtful, comprehensive solutions that will stand the test of time, keeping our streets safe and our future secure. Compassionate, but with consequences, all the while to form community.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. M. Dean: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Deputy Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 34.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Dean: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 34, Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 28 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2023

Bill 28, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023, reported complete without amendment.

Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read for the third time?

Hon. M. Dean: Next sitting.

Deputy Speaker: So ordered.

Hon. M. Dean: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act, 2023.

Deputy Speaker: We’ll take a brief recess while this gets sorted.

The House recessed from 3:20 p.m. to 3:24 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: We’ll bring the House back to order.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Dean: I call Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act, 2023.

[3:25 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 31 — EMERGENCY AND DISASTER
MANAGEMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 31; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3:28 p.m.

On clause 52 (continued).

The Chair: All right, Members. We are here with committee stage for Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act.

Hon. B. Ma: As was mentioned in previous sections, the Emergency Program Act does already require emergency management plans of local authorities. A lot of the content in the emergency management plans required by the EDMA will likely already exist for many local authorities, although there are some new elements, which I’ll speak to.

[3:30 p.m.]

Generally speaking, for instance, the member noted subsection (2)(b), “the roles, powers and duties of persons identified in the plan by name, title or position.” This is often a list of who will fill positions in the emergency operations centre, or who might take the leadership role on setting up a reception centre, or who has the authorization to sign off on evacuation orders and alerts.

Most local authorities will have already identified those people. If they haven’t, then certainly it’s very useful to know that during an emergency or an evacuation situation you have people in place who are ready, willing and prepared to take on those roles.

Requirements for emergency resources. That would be descriptions of the kinds of equipment that local authorities might need. For instance, when I think about the setting up of a reception centre, they might identify in advance a location for the reception centre that they could use, the number of tables and computer equipment that they might have and where to get that. Those sorts of details.

Some of the aspects of the emergency management plans under the EDMA that are likely new in comparison to the Emergency Program Act would be procedures for engaging emergency systems. That would be, for instance, at what point would a local authority and what steps might a local authority want to build into their procedures for asking the provincial government to issue a broadcast intrusive alert on their behalf, and under what circumstances?

It could also be steps to be taken in order to authorize the turning on of a tsunami siren or alarm. Without those procedures, it might create confusion if a tsunami warning were to come in. Who was responsible for actually turning on the siren? Under what circumstances? Who might need to sign off on being able to activate that siren so that there aren’t any false alarms?

Subsection (2)(f) would also be new. That would be taking into account individuals who may experience intersectional disadvantage and vulnerable individuals, animals, places or things. We had talked about that in an earlier section where if a community recognized that they had a high percentage or many community members who are wheelchair users, then they might take it into account when selecting their emergency reception centre to make sure that it was wheelchair-accessible.

Section 52(2)(g), measures to promote cultural safety, will also be new, although I will say that we have been working with local authorities to already incorporate this into some of their procedures, particularly around reception centres. This takes into account the fact that there may be people, particularly Indigenous peoples, who experience emergencies differently and for whom cultural safety is important. It’s worth thinking about the Indigenous communities that your community might serve and think ahead of time how you might accommodate some of those special needs.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for that, Minister. I honestly feel like you’ve confirmed my worst fear. When we talk about potentially ESS centres and lists of chairs and tables and people and that type of thing…. If I misunderstood that, I’ll certainly stand down on that question, but I think that’s exactly what local governments, local authorities are so fearful of. That level of detail.

I do appreciate the answer, and certainly, I would suggest that there are a number of things that have changed with respect to…. I can appreciate that there may be plans in place in many communities or some communities. That, maybe, would be a better way to describe that. But they certainly don’t refer to the four phases of emergency, I don’t think.

[3:35 p.m.]

The existing ones, we don’t include risk assessments or any of that new sort of part of our legislation, if I understand it correctly. Now, again, I might be wrong on that. But certainly, I would love some clarity around that if the minister could just explain that further.

Hon. B. Ma: To provide greater clarity, local authorities are already responsible for standing up emergency reception centres, regardless of whether or not they have a plan in place to do so. It is certainly to the benefit of the local authority that those details be thought out rather than on the fly. It’s a benefit to the local authority and the people that they are serving for those details to be thought out rather than on the fly during an emergency.

The requirement for risk assessment — it is new. However, we have learned a lot from the last several years of extreme weather events and emergency situations, and it is clear that strong and effective emergency management plans need to be based in an assessment of risk. It is not possible to have a good emergency management plan if you don’t understand the risks. Up until the EDMA, it has not been a requirement, but I would argue that we also are therefore not producing effective emergency management plans without that.

Certainly, moving into the future, we recognize that as a result of climate change, we’re going to be seeing a lot of these emergencies more frequently, greater severity, longer in duration and happening with a shorter time in between.

What used to be a scenario where an emergency management plan was something that communities would just kind of develop and put on the shelf and maybe one day they might pull it out and draw a few items from it, because maybe emergencies didn’t happen that much, we’re now seeing situations where communities are facing emergencies on a very regular basis, so incorporating those lessons into an emergency management plan makes a lot of sense. I know that communities, especially those that have faced a lot of emergencies more recently, are keen to make sure that their emergency management response plans are as strong as possible.

L. Doerkson: Yeah, I would suggest…. I agree with the minister that there are certainly benefits to that. I think what we’re discussing here, though, is the requirement to report and the challenges that those local authorities feel as though they’re going to be faced with, which is confirmed by the original answer with respect to some of the detail.

I can appreciate the value in it. I think what I’m trying to convey to the minister is that there is much unrest within our local authorities with respect to the work that may be before them. I can appreciate that plans certainly exist now, but the problem is that there are a lot of pieces in this legislation that didn’t exist, effectively, before October 2, so those plans will have sort of a framework, but many of them will be in need of much repair. We’ve already noted the lack of staff, the challenges around funding that and everything else. We won’t necessarily go there.

I can appreciate that also there is a need for these plans to be in place now. I guess what I would like to know from the minister is, how many plans with respect to clause 52 is the minister in receipt of now — the ones that exist already?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Under the current EPA and under the EDMA, there is no requirement for local authorities to hand over their emergency management plans. It’s a requirement that they have them, but they do not have to submit them to the province.

I take the member’s point, and it’s been raised a number of times, about the anxiety that local governments have around the resources that may be required to come into compliance with the EDMA. I want to reassure the member again that we do intend to work with local authorities to provide the greatest amount of support that we can to help them come into compliance, because we want these emergency management plans and risk assessments to be effective in order for us to work together well in supporting British Columbians during an emergency.

I’ll also clarify — and there was clarification provided to me now, as well, which I will share too — that what is new in terms of risk assessments is that it is now in legislation and that we are requiring the completion of formal risk assessments. However, it is worth noting that the Local Authority Emergency Management Regulation as it exists today, prior to the EDMA, already required that local authorities’ emergency management plans be based on what was described as an assessment of their risk.

However, under the EPA, under the current system, we don’t provide guidance or support on what that means to be based on an assessment of risk. There is an expectation that local authorities are already doing that, but we don’t provide formal guidance on it.

Whereas, under the EDMA and under the approach moving forward, we are enhancing some of the considerations that should be incorporated into formal risk assessments that then inform emergency management plans, and providing greater levels of support to do so — providing guidance, documents, greater clarity through regulation, other kinds of supports of the nature that we’ve been describing throughout the day.

[3:45 p.m.]

L. Doerkson: Well, thank you for that. I can appreciate the comments around the assumption that those risk assessments may be complete. But we just had conversations about the province not having risk assessments complete on three different things: drought, heat domes and atmospheric rivers, right?

I don’t know what is completed out there. My question was: how many of these emergency management plans is the ministry in receipt of at this point?

Hon. B. Ma: For greater clarity, these emergency management plans are required to be based on an assessment of risk. However, the requirement for formal risk assessment does not currently exist. However, emergency management plans do…. I guess it was a more informal assessment of risk, and now we are formalizing it in the EDMA.

For greater clarity, in terms of emergency management plans, does the member mean: how many emergency management plans are we in receipt of from local governments or from ministries? Because we do not collect emergency management plans from local governments under the EPA or through the EDMA or require that they hand them over.

L. Doerkson: That’s exactly what I was trying to understand. So while they’re required, the ministry has none of those plans.

I guess we’ve talked about, in past hours, the compilation of all these plans coming together. My concern is about what may happen as far as staffing levels at the ministry, as far as the consumption and that compilation of all these plans. How many plans does the minister expect to receive once regulation is in place, once all of the what-we-heard documents are put together and that is passed off to local authorities?

The reason I ask is that those emergency plans will be on a number of different items as well. Would you expect one from every community? Would you expect three or four from every community? What might be the expectation and how many might be received?

Hon. B. Ma: I had provided this clarification a number of times earlier, and I think that maybe it’s worth reiterating.

The comprehensive emergency management plan that is defined under section 1 is a plan that is held by EMCR consisting of all other provincial ministry emergency management plans. It does not consist of local government or local authority emergency management plans.

We do not require, as a regular occurrence, that all local authorities who have plans hand over those plans to the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness for compilation, although there are provisions in the legislation that allow us to request those plans on a case-by-case basis.

L. Doerkson: So then if those plans are not submitted to the ministry, how…? It strikes me that the whole reason for doing this is so that the minister or ministry is much more aware of the challenges that are before the ministry as far as emergency response.

I mean, the idea that we have plans already, the idea that we’re going to now make those plans consist of risk assessment, which…. It sounds like they may be based on that now, but that’s a new plan that the local authorities will have to create. And then atop that, of course, we’ll now have emergency management plans — not just an overarching plan, but certainly there could be different plans with respect to different emergencies, right? There may be a plan for flooding. There might be a plan for fire. There may be a plan for, now, heat domes and atmospheric rivers and everything else.

What I’m trying to get a sense of is where this information is going to benefit this ministry. If it’s not going to be compiled together and then consumed, will it be used strictly during an emergency?

Then, of course, that goes right back to the question that we just spoke about in 51 with respect to: how do we plan for these if the minister is not aware of what other communities are planning?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: For greater clarity, emergency management plans produced by various organizations and entities are there to benefit the preparation, mitigation, response and recovery actions of that entity that has created the emergency management plan.

We are not requesting that local authorities create emergency management plans for the ministry’s benefit to collect. Rather, they are emergency management plans that support the local authority in carrying out their duties, obligations and responsibilities in emergency management. Those plans are for the local authorities to carry out.

L. Doerkson: My apologies. I am clearly not conveying my question or articulating it in a proper way. I’ll try again. We’ve got risk assessments now. The minister didn’t like my suggestion of predictions with respect to certain things that are happening around drought and other emergencies — and now an opportunity that local authorities absolutely must create these plans.

I guess my question is: how does that affect the minister’s plans? I mean, there’s an overarching plan that will come forward with respect to emergency management in this province. And if that information is not consumed, if it’s not used…. If it’s sitting on a shelf in Tatla Lake, B.C., I can appreciate that that might be useful during an emergency, but how will the province actually formulate its plan without the content of those plans being used?

Hon. B. Ma: This question actually relates to section 40, which I know that we had discussed yesterday: “When preparing or reviewing and revising a comprehensive emergency management plan or an emergency management plan under section 39, the provincial administrator….”

These are provincial plans. We must consult and coordinate with a local authority in “a prescribed class of local authorities” and consider any comments received from a local authority consulted in accordance with the previous paragraph.

The province is absolutely responsible for ensuring consultation with local authorities in the development of the plans at the provincial level. Even if we are not physically collecting all of the different emergency management plans from local authorities, we are certainly incorporating their feedback into our plans.

I should also note that provincial emergency management plans relate to provincial responsibilities during an emergency. Local authority emergency management plans relate to the carrying out of local authorities’ responsibilities during an emergency situation. Those responsibilities are linked but different. It is not necessarily necessary for the province to know exactly how a local authority is carrying out their responsibilities at the local level. However, it is absolutely the case that we should be — and under section 40, we must be — consulting and coordinating our plans with local authorities.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

Same question with respect to 52 as we discussed with 51. I can appreciate that the conversation that we had around heat domes, atmospheric rivers and, certainly, drought, that the risk assessments…. There’s no requirement for that yet. My question is: under emergency management plans, does the province have a current emergency management plan for those three items? It would be for drought, heat domes and atmospheric rivers.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: We have emergency management plans for the hazards, not necessarily based on specific events.

Rather than heat domes, we have emergency management plans for extreme heat. Rather than an emergency management plan for atmospheric rivers, the plan is around flooding. Yes, we have a provincial drought response plan as well.

L. Doerkson: I don’t want to belabour the point, but I do want to get clear understanding. We spoke about the need for different risk assessment plans for….

I think Hansard would show that I spoke about Borland Creek wrecking the highway and, certainly, San Jose River, which caused $14 million, $15 million worth of damage in the river valley.

I’m curious to know why local authorities might be in a position to get down to that kind of detail. Noting the losses that we had during a heat dome, the serious situation of drought and, of course, the incredible damage that was done to our province through the atmospheric rivers, why wouldn’t the province see fit to categorize those three as a specific response?

I think the minister suggested earlier, if I heard right, that there would be a much different response, knowing what we know now. I can appreciate that there could be periods of high heat, but I think what I’m referring to in that heat dome was the loss of hundreds of people — right? — that lost their lives.

That’s a very serious event. The damage that was done during the atmospheric river…. I don’t even recollect a time that we had that kind of damage outside of wildfires, right?

My question is: why wouldn’t we have, as an overarching plan, those specifically designated as a response?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. B. Ma: I guess I would start off by saying that the terms “heat dome” and “atmospheric rivers” are technical meteorological…. It’s terminology that is used to describe certain types of meteorological phenomenon.

[4:00 p.m.]

In the case of a heat dome, what it creates is extreme heat risk. In the case of atmospheric river events, because you have these narrow bands of high moisture dropping a lot of precipitation onto the land base, you end up with flooding and landslide risk.

That being said, I appreciate the member’s suggestions around the various hazards that emergency management plans could be developed around. There is a current regulation called the Emergency Program Management Regulation that provides a list of hazards and assignments to lead ministries on that. That regulation would certainly be updated, based on EDMA and also all of the lessons learned over the last few years.

L. Doerkson: Just one last question on clause 52, and that is under (g), Minister; 52(g) is “measures to promote cultural safety.” I wonder if the minister could just clarify what that means.

Hon. B. Ma: As we’ve done through a lot of this debate, I think examples are probably helpful in illustrating what we mean by these various clauses within the EDMA.

Measures to promote cultural safety might be considerations in how reception centres function in recognition of some of the diversity of cultures that that reception centre might serve. For instance, in a community that is likely to receive many evacuees who are Indigenous, we have seen some reception centres set aside a room to allow smudging activities to take place.

We have seen some reception centres or evacuee group accommodations set aside to allow for…. In some cases, we have seen where Indigenous…. It’s very important to the Indigenous community that, as much as possible, all of the community members who are being evacuated are kept together so that they’re able to support one another. That might be accommodated through preplanning of a group facility that allows for that.

[4:05 p.m.]

We have heard, in some cases, that even the presence of eagle feathers at reception centres is an effective way to support some of that cultural safety.

It doesn’t have to be limited to Indigenous evacuees, of course. In some communities that may have a large population of people who speak a different language, it might be consideration of ensuring that at least one of the volunteers or staff members who are receiving evacuees at a reception centre are able to speak that language.

Those are some of the examples of what it might mean to consider cultural safety in the development of plans.

Clause 52 approved.

On clause 53.

L. Doerkson: We won’t be here at 53 very long. We spoke much under definitions about critical infrastructure. I think I do understand it, but I do have just a few questions about what else might be contemplated even going forward, I guess.

Not that I want to encourage extra plans for anybody, but I do know that one of the challenges for lodging around evacuation has been that when hotels’ properties are in those evacuation alert zones, that ESS is reluctant to use those properties.

What it means for our residents of British Columbia is that they must travel much further from where they reside in the first place, but it also means that, frankly, operators that may be in that area that might be able to really be of a massive help are taken out of that equation. It creates shortages throughout the entire province, particularly when we’ve had some of these incredibly large movements of our residents, right?

In 2017…. I think I’ve suggested this before. I think that was one of the largest movements of people in Canadian history. We found people going hours away. We found the same thing in ’21, where you may have a community that would be under alert, not order, and all of those properties taken out of the equation. For instance, if you were on alert in 100 Mile and on order in Lone Butte, you may end up in Kamloops.

Just for the minister’s geography, and I’m not sure if she’s familiar with Lone Butte, but it’s literally ten minutes away from that community, right? Whereas you end up 2½ hours down the road because those properties have been unused for reasons of alerts. I guess what I’m asking is: why haven’t some of these properties been contemplated or some of those types of things?

We spoke a little bit about irrigation systems and such that ranchers obviously have. They’re on the landscape already, and they can be made very available in a moment of fire, for instance. Certainly, we’ve talked a little bit about roads and that type of thing. As I said, I don’t want to spend a lot of time here, but I would like clarity as to why some of those things are not being contemplated as critical infrastructure.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: It is unlikely that hotels would be considered critical infrastructure.

However, to the member’s point, there is a significant amount of important preplanning that can and should be done in terms of how hoteliers and commercial accommodations are incorporated into the delivery of emergency support services and the provision of accommodations for evacuees.

I would say that the emergency management task force that the Premier has struck…. One of their mandate items is, actually, to look at the provision of accommodations for evacuees. So I suspect that…. We’re happy to take the member’s comments back and feed them into that process as well.

L. Doerkson: I want to get a better understanding of where dams may fit into this infrastructure question. The reason I ask that is that it’s been clear through meetings with a number of different groups — Ducks Unlimited, etc. — that they have really advocated to keep more water on the landscape.

I’m not certain of the regulation around those dams, but I do know how valuable they can be in a moment of wildfire — for instance, at Hell Raving Creek — where maybe there is some water stored on the landscape.

I’m wondering. Has there been any thought around dams and keeping more water on the landscape?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Any piece of infrastructure that is prescribed to be a critical piece of infrastructure, whether it is a dam or not, would be subject to the requirements of critical infrastructure owners under the EDMA, which include the need to prepare and maintain a risk assessment, emergency management plan, business continuity plan.

In previous sections, we had indicated that some of the critical infrastructure sectors that EMCR would be looking to prioritize would include infrastructure that provides transportation, energy and utilities, and communications. I can certainly see that…. I mean, some dams do provide power generation or provide a source of….

Yeah, power generation would be a good example. Certainly, I can see some dams falling into that category.

Clauses 53 and 54 approved.

On clause 55.

L. Doerkson: With the permission of the minister, we had agreed that we would stand down 55, and I think that might be just for a few more minutes, if that’s appropriate.

The Chair: There’s been a request to stand down clause 55.

All agreed? Thank you.

Clause 55 stood down.

On clause 56.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. We will get to 55 right away. I just didn’t know where our member for Vancouver-Langara was.

Allow me just a few questions on clause 56. The first one is with respect to (1), that the minister may make an order to mitigate a specific hazard that presents a significant risk. I’m just wondering what would drive the minister to make that order. I wondered if there would be any funding attached to it, if it required extra work on the behalf of local authorities or critical infrastructure owners, etc.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Yes, section 56 provides a minister with new powers to use in the mitigation and preparation phases when hazards that present significant risk of giving rise to an emergency are not being adequately addressed at the local level or by critical infrastructure owners or operators.

Section 56 provides the minister with tools to address unique circumstances, such as emerging hazards, where quick provincial intervention to focus local preparation efforts may be beneficial, or to address shortcomings in the mitigation or preparation work of regulated entities, such as ordering repairs or upgrades to pumping stations, if necessary repairs or upgrades are not made in a timely manner.

Now, having said all of this, this is a tool that is expected to be used only when absolutely necessary. It should not be…. It’s not intended to be used through the normal course of operations. The intention, instead, is for regulated entities to be prudent in their own approaches, and, where there may be a need for a provincial intervention, for EMCR to engage in discussions around bringing local authorities to voluntary compliance.

That being said, if there is an emerging hazard or something imminent that requires immediate intervention by the province, an order under section 56 could be used. It is a tool to intervene, really as a last resort, in order to avoid an imminent catastrophe.

L. Doerkson: I appreciate that in part (2) of this clause, it does refer to “regulated entities,” but in (1)(a) it did not. It just seemed to me that the legislation was a little bit vague. Does this just simply affect regulated entities or could these orders be drawn up against a local authority?

Hon. B. Ma: Subsection 56 (1) affirms that a minister may make an order under this section for these purposes. Subsection (2) describes what the order is and who it is applied to. It can be applied to a regulated entity, other than a government minister of the Nisg̱a’a Nation or treaty First Nation. “Regulated entity” does include local authorities.

L. Doerkson: In the first question I asked…. In a situation that the minister deemed to be appropriate to impose upon either a regulated entity or a local authority, and I don’t want to get into the difference between those two, would the minister attach either funding or help if there was a reason that either of those entities was unable to perform their duties?

In other words, a community that perhaps did not have the funding, did not have the people power that might be able to complete what the minister is suggesting needs to be completed, and likewise for an entity. As we discovered a few days ago, those entities could be partnerships between First Nations and power producers. It just seems to me to be kind of a complex web of people that may be drawn into this.

I’m wondering. In that moment of emergency…. We’ve seen situations where we’ve had heat domes, and we were looking for areas in our communities for cooling centres, and those types of things. I’m just wondering, I guess clarity around whether or not the ministry might help in a situation like that.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Some of the examples that the member described would fall more into the category of responding to emergencies, such as opening cooling centres during a heatwave. EMCR does already provide incremental funding for those kinds of responses.

What section 56 is referring to is orders to prevent a hazard from becoming an emergency ahead of time. While the EDMA does not state one way or another whether this would be funded or who those actions would be funded by, I expect that it would be highly case dependent on what led to the issuance of the order.

I will also note, though, that an order is not required for EMCR to provide financial support to a community that might require it in order to mitigate a potential hazard from becoming an emergency. Those are separate. They would be determined separately.

L. Doerkson: Yes, I’m aware of that.

I guess what I’m trying to understand better is what might…. This is a new power that is bestowed upon the minister once this legislation passes. I’m trying to get clarity and, perhaps, just even an example of why clause 56(1)…. What would encourage the minister to make that order? Just an example of something that would encourage that order to be happening.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: An example that might be helpful is…. Let’s say there was a pipeline spill, and the owner of that piece of critical infrastructure was refusing to provide details about the spill and the location. In order to prevent that spill from escalating further as an environmental emergency or environmental contamination, under the EDMA, the minister could order that entity to provide information about the spill.

L. Doerkson: One last question on this clause. I appreciate that. That makes good sense.

“The minister may, by order, require a regulated entity, other than a government minister, the Nisg̱a’a Nation or a treaty first nation, to do one or more of the following….” Of course, this is with respect to item 3, making changes to risk assessments, emergency management plans, all the plans that we’ve been talking about for the last couple of days. My question is: how would this come about?

The reason why I ask is that we talked a little bit about compliance and those types of things. I know that regulated entities will, of course, fall under that scrutiny. I can appreciate there may be compliance and certainly enforcement, but how would this come about if the province or if the ministry is not in receipt of these plans, as we just learned a little while ago?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Let’s take a hypothetical scenario of a regulated critical infrastructure owner. That would be a critical infrastructure owner where…. This is sometime in the future. We have deposited the regulations. We’ve identified which critical infrastructure owners apply to the regulation. Let’s say that they have an emergency management plan in place. They’re not required to automatically hand it over to the province.

However, we receive a letter from a local authority stating that they have extreme concerns about that particular critical infrastructure owner’s emergency management plan and that they have identified structures of importance that are within the boundaries and jurisdiction of the critical infrastructure owner.

Another example could be that we receive a letter from a First Nation about a site of heritage value that is within the footprint of the critical infrastructure owner’s area to provide an emergency management plan. In the letter, they are telling us: “We have communicated the importance of this heritage site to the critical infrastructure owner. They are refusing to take it into account in their emergency management plan. We’re very concerned.”

Then through the powers of the EDMA, a minister could require that that emergency management plan be provided to the province. The province may review it and work with the critical infrastructure owner to achieve voluntary compliance. But if we’re unable to achieve voluntary compliance and the concerns are significant enough, then it could be escalated to an order.

L. Doerkson: One last question on that. That is: will there be any — it’s late in the day; I’m not sure what the word is — inspection or any sort of action on behalf of the ministry to actually spot-check any of the entities? In other words, will the ministry show up and knock on a door and say: “We’d like to see your emergency plans”?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: The short answer is no. It was proposed in a discussion paper early on in the engagement, in the development of the EDMA. What we heard back in the responses was that there was very, very little support for that.

Clause 56 approved.

The Chair: We will go back to clause 51, and I’ll recognize the member for Vancouver-Langara.

On clause 51 (continued).

M. Lee: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the effort to stand down clause 51 so I could ask further questions.

Before, in my last question, to recap, when we look at subclause 51(3)(b), there is a need and a risk assessment to assess the potential consequences for objects or sites of heritage value if an emergency occurs.

The determination of an object or site to be of heritage value…. It would require what type of assessment in order to do so? Is that typically based on some sort of physical examination or inspection to determine whether a particular object or site has heritage value?

Hon. B. Ma: No.

M. Lee: We’re using the example of the local authority that’s required, under clause 47, to do a risk assessment. How will the local authority know whether the object or site has heritage value?

Hon. B. Ma: We would expect that objects or sites of heritage value would be identified through consultation and cooperation with Indigenous governing bodies or based on local knowledge available to the local authorities.

M. Lee: Well, we will cover the requirement, at least on the local authority, in clause 55 to consult and cooperate with an Indigenous governing body.

The assessment of potential consequences for objects or sites of heritage value if an emergency occurs puts the onus on the local authority to assess those potential consequences.

[4:45 p.m.]

As we’ve seen in even the responses from the Minister of Forests, the last two days in question period, in relationship to Lytton…. The minister stated yesterday, in recognition that Lytton has been built on an ancient village dating back at least 7,000 years, that the archaeological findings that have been revealed, or at least announced, were unanticipated.

In situations where a local authority is trying to address, by way of an example, the assessment of potential consequences for objects or sites of heritage value…. Even with a site like Lytton, where it was local knowledge, presumably — certainly, if it’s not Indigenous knowledge, it’s local knowledge — that the site of Lytton itself was built on an ancient village, yet the findings, at least as referred to by the Minister of Forests, were unanticipated.

How can it be expected that a local authority will be able to assess that risk?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ma: Risk assessments under section 51 are about understanding the way that hazards will affect the things that we care about — the collective we, of course. Incorporating Indigenous knowledge or knowledge of objects and sites of heritage value into a community’s risk assessments, whether it’s Indigenous or not — it doesn’t have to be limited to Indigenous objects or sites of heritage value — allows for us to better prepare for the impacts that might occur to those objects or sites during an emergency.

If a specific object or site has not been identified and incorporated or is not known prior to the emergency, then it can’t be expected to be incorporated into a risk assessment, which of course is unfortunate, because that means that we can’t mitigate or anticipate the impacts of an emergency on those objects or sites. However, the risk assessments are based on information that is reasonably known.

M. Lee: We’ve spent some time here on this particular provision and the use of the term heritage value we’ve touched on in a few other provisions prior to this particular clause. It certainly is the case that the Heritage Conservation Act itself is under review by the minister responsible for the last couple of years and that there are proposed changes forthcoming, as we’ve heard today.

This particular provision does incorporate the recognition, at least — I appreciate that this is in a risk assessment way, as the minister just stated — relating to objects or sites of heritage value. But even as the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin highlighted in clause 56, where a minister, based on the risk assessment that we’re speaking of in clause 51, may make orders to effectively step in to mitigate a specific hazard, and the minister in response just previous to my colleague actually made a specific reference relating to a site of heritage value.

I know that the minister has indicated that under Bill 31, when it comes to objects and sites of heritage value, it’s not intended that this Bill 31 would supplant — that’s my word — the Heritage Conservation Act. But these provisions, like this particular provision of clause 51(3)(b), certainly get into identifying, through a risk assessment, potential consequences for those objects or sites of heritage value if an emergency occurs.

When read against clause 56, the minister has the ability to make an order to step in to address a specific hazard that might present a significant risk. Generally speaking, it sounded like the minister was indicating that that specific risk or significant risk could be towards a site of heritage value.

So this Bill 31 is setting up a situation where, based on local knowledge or Indigenous knowledge that the local authority like Lytton should be aware of or should have consulted or should consult or cooperate with local nations on, puts the onus on that local authority to identify all the potential consequences, and the onus also on the minister to step in with an order to mitigate a specific hazard.

[4:55 p.m.]

That seems to put a lot of weight on the determination that the site has heritage value, and that’s the reason why I’m asking about the assessment, because the risk assessment is calling for an assessment. That seems to me to be a full assessment of the site itself for heritage value. I am just trying to understand the framework this government is setting up for local authorities to have to work through in consultation and cooperation with local First Nations.

Even though the minister suggests that the Heritage Conservation Act does not play into this bill and that it’s separate, I would say that in my reading of this bill, it must put the local authority in a position where there’s an assessment done of the site as to whether it has heritage value. If it doesn’t do that, then, as the minister says, that risk is not assessed and is not dealt with. But then what’s the point of the section, then?

If there’s an obligation of a local authority to assess the potential consequences if an emergency occurs to the object or site of heritage value, then presumably, the local authority can’t ignore that. I don’t know that this is an optional exercise for the local authority. The local authority has to turn their minds to this, and if they’re turning their minds to this, it involves consultation and cooperation with local First Nations involved, as per clause 55, which we will get back to in a moment, but it also involves an assessment of the heritage value of that site.

Again, is Bill 31, in dealing with heritage value in the way that it’s set up in this framework, effectively requiring the local authority to conduct an assessment on heritage value for the site?

Hon. B. Ma: I think I’m following where the member is going with his question. What I can reconfirm is that the risk assessments that are contemplated under the EDMA are completely separate and distinct from whatever the Heritage Conservation Act may require.

The inclusion of objects or sites of heritage value in a risk assessment is about understanding how hazards and emergencies may impact structures, sites, locations and objects that the communities care about, whether it’s the community itself identifying that their library is extremely important and they would like to protect it in a flood situation or if they have consulted and cooperated with a local Indigenous governing body and identified that the local Indigenous governing body also has a site or an object within the local authority’s geographic area that they also care very much about and would like reasonable efforts to be made to protect them from damage.

By way of providing an example, a theoretical situation to help play this out: I can imagine a situation where a regional district has an area where they are conducting a risk assessment around floods. They have consulted with the Indigenous governing body. The Indigenous governing body identifies an object or a site of heritage value. It could be, perhaps, an arbour that is very important to the community, and it’s quite close to some other sites that are quite important to the local authority.

[5:00 p.m.]

In assessing the various flood levels, a one-in-100-year flood or one-in-200-year flood coming from a nearby stream system, they might identify that a one-in-100-year flood would create a moderate amount of flooding in the area and that they could actually probably manage that, when they are developing their emergency management plans, with tiger dams and sandbags.

Because they know that there is a site of heritage value that the Indigenous governing body has identified, they could actually put sandbags in front of that site of heritage value rather than behind it. Just knowing that that site of heritage value is there will help inform, maybe, the response during an emergency. But if they had not attempted to consult and cooperate with an Indigenous governing body and the Indigenous governing body did not tell them about that heritage site, they might have put those sandbags further back in order to protect the library, when easily they could have put it further forward and protected both sites.

That’s the intention of incorporating objects or sites of heritage value into risk assessments. It’s to understand how these hazards might impact the things we care about.

M. Lee: I appreciate, again to the minister, her willingness to work through examples. They’re very helpful, and they do help clarify what’s intended, certainly, with a bill of this nature, which is far-reaching, with much to be still determined by way of regulation, as we’ve been exploring here at committee stage.

I still question the scope of this provision and whether it’s truly workable for local authorities and even Indigenous nations. The assessment of a determination of an object or site of heritage value is — as we’ve been discussing this week, even, in other forums and in question period — far-reaching. Objects and sites of heritage value are, for reasons of the 204 First Nations in our province…. The history and the territories that they’ve resided on and utilized for generations would present objects and sites of heritage value potentially.

When I asked the minister to define “heritage value,” she effectively referred to the definition under the Heritage Conservation Act. She did say more work would be done on the definition or the way that this term is to be interpreted for the purpose of Bill 31. But for the purpose of this discussion at committee stage, it does refer back to what is rooted in the framework of the Heritage Conservation Act. It’s the Heritage Conservation Act that we find ourselves in again.

As my colleague the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin led off on the first day of committee stage, as we can all recall, I’m sure, some days ago, talking about the lessons that were learned, including by Lytton and in Lytton…. I think that even with the current ongoing challenges with the recovery in Lytton, we should be addressing that situation. This government, in response to questions relating to recovery, which we will get to in this bill, raises the challenge around archaeological findings, archaeological findings that have heritage value.

[5:05 p.m.]

This is where, when we’re talking about emergency management…. And I appreciate, of course, that there is certainly an importance to work with First Nations to protect, in a culturally sensitive way, a culturally appropriate way, their heritage sites. That’s the reason why we have the Heritage Conservation Act. I certainly recognize that.

To the extent that that is being wrapped into emergency management recovery, as we’ve seen with Lytton, we also are further potentially compounding the challenge — first, in terms of the work that’s necessary.

Perhaps the minister would suggest to me that if the risk assessment work had been done in the way that this bill is contemplating, the minister would have had the ability to identify the specific hazard that caused the fire in Lytton. There may be a number of factors that caused the fire and some that have been alleged, but in terms of the specific hazards that happened there, that puts the minister in a position to actually step in and deal with, by order, those hazards. But that does involve a front-end assessment of heritage value.

That’s where, unless we’re talking about some general assessment, some general recognition that that site over there may have some heritage value…. I mean, that may be what the minister is suggesting. It’s just local knowledge; it’s just generally understood what the history of the site has been.

Perhaps I can ask the minister that, then. Are we talking about a lesser standard of assessment, then, around an object or site of heritage value that is just based on, as the minister suggested some responses ago, local knowledge? It’s not an assessment, and it’s just based on what we’ll see in clause 55, consultation and cooperation.

If that’s the case, then why are we using the word “assessment” here? Because it’s in the context of risk assessment, if it’s the context where the local authority must assess the following things. I struggle to understand why it could be a looser standard, but I’ll ask the minister. Is it a lesser standard of assessment that we’re talking about here?

Hon. B. Ma: Yes, there’s a requirement for a risk assessment that must identify all reasonably foreseeable hazards and assess, the ordinary definition of assess, all of the following, including the potential consequences for persons or property or for objects or sites of heritage value if an emergency occurs. The act does not require an assessment of the value of objects or sites of heritage value, but to simply assess, or another word for it could be to consider, the potential consequences for objects or sites of heritage value, in the same way that that risk assessment would consider the potential consequences for persons or private property.

In this requirement, we would not require…. The expectation is not that the local authority would create an assessment for the consequences of every person in their community or every specific property in their community. But what we’re talking about is ensuring that the objects or sites of heritage value are considered in addition to persons and properties within the community, as they’re doing their risk assessments. It is not a formal assessment of objects or sites of heritage value.

[5:10 p.m.]

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister’s response. That demonstrates the broad scope of the use of this clause, which establishes that if it’s not in a formal assessment of the heritage value of an object or site, then it is based on local knowledge, as the minister said before, and on consultation with the Indigenous governing body without a formal assessment.

Well, there are two things. One is the potential consequences that the local authority needs to identify around that and whether the local authority has the ability to understand and assess, in a less standard way, the scope of the geographic reach of all of the objects on the site itself, without the benefit of a formal assessment.

The second is the responsibility of the minister under clause 56, based on that risk assessment, to potentially step in to identify a specific hazard that might present itself, that might be of concern to the object or site of heritage value.

Again, what I’m highlighting here for the minister is a broad scope that is captured here within these provisions, which seem not well defined and, as a result, does wrap in a lot of potential consequences.

Even the words “potential consequences” mean that we’re not talking about any level of materiality in what the minister was referring to earlier, in other responses about flood risk and various levels of flood risk. In this clause, there is no de minimis threshold that’s set here. It’s the potential consequences of objects or sites of heritage value, in a way that is not formally defined or specified.

Perhaps the minister would be able to share, again, in terms of the expectation around making of regulations: is it her expectation that this area of heritage value determination, objects and sites, would be more thoroughly and better defined by way of regulation?

Hon. B. Ma: The ministry will be creating guidance documents around how to form a risk assessment, which will include guidance around this area as well.

Clause 51 approved.

On clause 55 (continued).

M. Lee: The preparation of a risk assessment by a local authority would involve the requirement to consult and cooperate with each Indigenous governing body, if any, under subclause 55(1)(a).

[5:15 p.m.]

As with most of the participation by Indigenous governing bodies, Nisg̱a’a and Treaty Nations under this bill, there is no requirement for the Indigenous governing body, Nisg̱a’a Nation or Treaty First Nation to actually cooperate in this work. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Ma: That is correct. The EDMA does not place duties and obligations on Indigenous governing bodies, recognizing their inherent rights and authority as separate governments.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:16 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Monday, October 30, at 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 5:17 p.m.