Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Emergency
Management and Climate Readiness

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

[2:45 p.m.]

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $88,707,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. Kelly Greene: I do. Thank you.

I want to start by acknowledging that we are all here today on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking people, the Songhees and SXIMEȽEȽ First Nation communities.

I’m joined today by staff from the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness. I have a wonderful team here with me. I want to make sure that I have everybody acknowledged for their hard work.

Teresa Dobmeier, deputy minister. Stephen Ward, assistant deputy minister and executive financial officer for corporate services division. Jennifer McGuire, associate deputy minister. Rachel Pollard, assistant deputy minister for response division. Monica Cox, assistant deputy minister for partnerships, engagement and legislation. Andrea Mercer, acting assistant deputy minister for disaster risk management division.

It is remarkable that perhaps some people have longer titles than my own.

We have Tina Neale, executive director of disaster mitigation and adaptation division; Ardice Todosichuk, executive director of recovery funding; Brittany Decker, director of emergency support services; and Keith Preston, executive director of policy and legislation.

I’m so grateful for all of their work and all the work of the folks in my ministry. They have expertise and dedication to the people of British Columbia. We all have the shared passion of keeping people and communities safe through wildfires, droughts, floods and other climate emergencies.

Climate change is the defining challenge of our time. We know that there are going to be more climate emergencies. We know that they’re going to be more severe, more frequent. In my ministry, we continue to prepare for the worst while hoping for the best. I knock on a lot of wood.

Over the last number of years, I’m proud to say that we’ve stepped up in a big way to support people and communities before, during and after an emergency. Budget 2025 is going to allow us to continue to do that important work.

We need to be able to sustain the incredible emergency management services that people in British Columbia rely on and continue to support communities and people in a way that’s meaningful and impactful, because when there is an emergency, there is no price that we…. We can’t put a price on public safety, because protecting people isn’t a priority; it’s an absolute necessity. We have the authority to spend, as a province, what’s needed to effectively respond to emergencies and disaster events to keep people safe.

EMCR is always ready to respond to emergencies, but our mandate has been transitioning from a response-first ministry to one that encompasses all pillars of emergency management: mitigation, preparation, response and recovery.

We know that every dollar spent on disaster mitigation can help save far more on recovery costs down the road. Since 2017, our government has invested about $487 million in provincial funding to support First Nations and local governments for over 2,300 disaster preparedness and mitigation projects through EMCR.

We have also recently launched the Disaster Resilience and Innovation Funding program, DRIF — we’ll probably be talking about that today — to support projects that help communities withstand hazards such as flooding, landslides, extreme heat and drought. That funding includes $15 million for 2024-25 and $25 million annually for 2025 and 2026 and beyond. We look forward to announcing the first batch of funding recipients this year.

I think I’m going to leave it there. I’m sure members have many questions, and I look forward to hearing those and for the interest of you and your communities in emergency management and preparedness.

Macklin McCall: I don’t have opening remarks, really. I just have quite a few questions from myself and others of my colleagues from the opposition here. So I’ll just get right into it.

What I did just for ease, just for flow and whatnot, is that I tried to put it all together so it’s not a hodgepodge of different questions all over the place. I tried to structure it a bit. I do have, maybe, regional questions, also specific topics where I’ve put them together here, so I’ll just, kind of, hopefully flow in that fashion — just for ease, really.

The first thing is…. They are really questions regarding the Okanagan specifically. This is a “wildfire recovery and mitigation and ministerial commitments themed” package of questions.

[2:50 p.m.]

My question here is…. The Minister of Forests committed $1 million toward fuel mitigation efforts in West Kelowna–Peachland during meetings with local officials. Can the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness confirm if this funding is included in Budget 2025? If not, what role will EMCR play in ensuring this commitment is delivered?

Hon. Kelly Greene: The commitment for wildfire through the Ministry of Forests is in fact with the Ministry of Forests, so I recommend holding that question for the estimates regarding the Ministry of Forests and the wildfire service and wildfire reduction programs therein.

Macklin McCall: The same ministerial meetings also reference the possibility of a provincial pilot project based in West Kelowna. What pilot project is being considered? What are its objectives, and how will EMCR be involved in coordinating or supporting it?

Hon. Kelly Greene: Just hoping to clarify which pilot project you’re referring to and if it’s through the Ministry of Forests.

Macklin McCall: Yes, it was still with respect to the conversation with local officials in my riding, where there was a discussion of a possibility of a pilot project being based in West Kelowna.

Hon. Kelly Greene: I’d recommend holding questions that are with respect to wildfire response, wildfire risk reduction for the Minister of Forests.

Macklin McCall: Following the 2023 McDougall Creek fire, many neighbourhoods in West Kelowna–Peachland remain vulnerable due to burn-scarred terrain, flash flooding risk and compromised slope stability. Has the minister allocated any emergency planning or mitigation funding for post-wildfire terrain stabilization in these at-risk areas?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: With respect to slope stability, general impacts to Crown land post-wildfire, that would be under the Ministry of Forests to work on the Crown land recovery. With respect to areas that have been impacted, interface areas, infrastructure damage, we’ve provided, as of March 14, $1.32 million to the Central Okanagan regional district for recovery operations.

Macklin McCall: What specific funding is being made available in Budget 2025 for replanting, land rehabilitation and erosion control in areas burned during the 2023 Westside complex wildfire?

Hon. Kelly Greene: In our mandate, the approval of the $1.32 million for the RDCO was for the staffing of recovery operations, public information officer, overtime that was incurred, cultural coordinator, housing, wellness coordinator and some administrative support.

With respect to landscape issues, again, Crown land management would be with Forests, and replanting of riparian areas, which can sometimes be included as well, would be through WLRS.

Macklin McCall: The list that you provided there, which I guess was the $1.32 million provided to the regional district…. You listed off a bit of a list of how it was broken up and used. Is it possible to get a copy of that list forwarded to myself? Do you have that available?

Hon. Kelly Greene: Yes.

Macklin McCall: Is there a projected time that it might be readily available? Is that something, like, that would take a day or by the end of the week or…? Just so I have a time frame.

Hon. Kelly Greene: We can get that to you tomorrow.

Macklin McCall: What follow-up coordination has taken place between EMCR and the Ministry of Forests to ensure post-fire risk reduction mapping and re-inforestation are aligned with community emergency planning needs?

[3:00 p.m.]

The Chair: Excuse me, everyone.

Member for North Island, I’d request that you please mute your electronic device, thank you. And if any other members have their electronic devices on, that they also mute them as well.

Hon. Kelly Greene: We have regional offices that work with the local authorities in various areas. We work on seasonal preparedness to help them understand upcoming risks in areas such as freshet, wildfire, floods, cold weather. For that, forestry, WLRS, EMCR all work together. A lot of our data comes from other ministries, and we have seasonal preparedness calls for wildfire in particular.

We have year-round hazard and weather monitoring, so that makes sure that we’re always prepared for emergency responses, including flooding, wildfire, drought, extreme heat and cold, as well as seismic.

I think I’ll leave it at that and just see where we go with the next question.

Macklin McCall: This is switching gears a bit to community recovery and local capacity-building-themed questions right now. What financial supports have been extended to the city of West Kelowna, the district of Peachland and the Westbank First Nation for local emergency planning, recovery coordination or fuel management in the aftermath of the 2023 wildfire?

[3:05 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, again, I believe someone’s electronic device is making noise. I just ask that, whether it’s staff or members, they ensure that their devices are silenced. Thank you.

Hon. Kelly Greene: With respect to the question about fuel management in forests, that is an important part of wildfire risk, but, as you probably can guess, it doesn’t live in my ministry. I recommend you holding that question.

With our response with the 2023 wildfire event, the Central Okanagan regional district…. There was damage to 17 sites and, as of March 26, 11 projects have been approved, totalling $403,000. Seven have been fully paid out, and there are an additional four projects under construction.

For the city of West Kelowna…. There were 12 sites damaged in the city of West Kelowna. As of March 26, we have ten projects approved there, totalling over $620,000. Four have been totally paid out, and there are six projects that are approved and under construction.

Macklin McCall: How much CEPF or community emergency preparedness fund funding has been accessed by West Kelowna–Peachland or Westbank First Nation in the past 12 months? What streams were applied to, and were any applications denied or underfunded?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: For folks who are interested, the CEPF, the community emergency preparedness fund, is administered by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, who are on the precinct today. It supports First Nations and local governments.

We have five preparedness streams. They include emergency operations centres equipment and training, emergency support services equipment and training, Indigenous cultural safety and cultural humility training, public notification and evacuation route planning, and volunteer and composite fire department equipment and training.

As for a specific breakdown for those three communities, we can get that to you. If you’d like, we can bundle that up with the other one, but it will extend the response time — maybe next week — to get that to you.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for that. I appreciate that it will take a little extra time.

My next question. Will EMCR consider dedicated recovery coordinators or staffing secondments for local governments that faced major disaster events, such as West Kelowna, to help manage the administrative burden of post-disaster planning and grant writing?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: Post event, we have an offer of community recovery managers. That’s something that is offered through EMCR, and it is up to a community to decide that they’d like to have an uptake on that availability or not.

We have ongoing conversations with the Central Okanagan regional district about coordinating recovery and ensuring that they’re supported in recovery.

Additionally to that, we have an offer of support with DRIF grant writing, so applications for the DRIF program. This includes $10,000 for small communities for support for grant writing as well, recognizing that there is an administrative burden to applying for grants and smaller communities need a little bit more assistance.

Macklin McCall: Just a quick follow-up to that. When you said the assistance for doing grant writing is for small communities, what’s the cutoff? What constitutes a small community and one where you’re precluded from that option?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: The program guide for the disaster resilience and innovation fund, DRIF, is available online. The reason for that is that we want to make sure that all the information is publicly available to communities of all sizes, interested individuals.

I note that there’s a new intake closing on June 27, so to communities that are thinking of applying, now is a really good time. You can get lots of work done. There are two different streams. There is the non-structural, the foundational work — things like planning work, mapping hazards, those kinds of things, which have to happen before you decide to go forward with a structural improvement. That might be green infrastructure or the built environment, and both those streams are available there.

For First Nations and smaller communities, that would be defined as less than 5,000 people…. For many people in rural British Columbia, that is a significant help, so that they can have full access to programs that really make a big difference. Making sure that we are fulfilling, as much as we can, the planning part of disaster preparedness and are building infrastructure that keeps people in communities, and people’s livelihoods, safe is just very important and is part of that resilience.

Macklin McCall: Many of these smaller communities, including Peachland, lack internal capacity to prepare competitive grant applications or technical wildfire mitigation proposals. Will EMCR provide technical advisory staff or shared grant support to these smaller municipalities?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: Communities that are interested in applying for DRIF can reach out to either the EMCR’s regional office or directly to DRIF staff, who are always happy to help. We’ve tried to reduce barriers to accessing the funds in DRIF so that communities across B.C., regardless of the size, can have an opportunity to help protect their community, make it more resilient, have those improvements and planning with climate change in mind.

We see that climate change is changing our landscape very rapidly. So reducing some of those barriers, as I said before, for communities of less than 5,000 people. They get $10,000 worth of support actually writing that application.

But before that, you can have an expression of interest. We went with that so that…. Again, reducing barriers to application. An expression of interest is a much simpler process. For expressions of interest that are successful, then it goes to a development proposal. Then we would see grant writing and having that grant writing support for smaller communities. We know that this is working. We are seeing an increase in smaller communities and First Nations communities that are applying.

Examples of work that could be undertaken under DRIF for communities, on the non-structural side, are things like flood mapping and a hazard analysis for their community, so they can prioritize what’s important for keeping people and livelihoods protected. For something that is structural, it might be an improved pumping system, keeping in mind that there’s more than one value that we’re looking for in landscape. So it could be a fish-friendly pump so that when we are doing conveyance of water, we’re keeping in mind other values of communities, such as salmon protection, habitat restoration, while we’re making improvements for people’s safety.

Macklin McCall: Just wanted to go back and clarify a point with what you just said there. You mentioned DRIF and the grant writing and so on, but you mentioned that it was related to or had to have a climate-related component to it.

I just want to be clear. So if someone makes an application through this grant, if it’s specifically identified as climate-related, is that the benchmark? If it does not have a climate-related aspect to it and it’s specific to emergency management or public safety…? Is there a preferential treatment, or does one outweigh the other? Or are they kind of on an equal playing field if someone said, “Here’s a public safety issue,” if that makes sense?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: There’s mitigation funding. It’s for climate-related emergencies. That’s what we’re seeing right now, like our flooding events, freshets, landslides, wildfires. Risk is very tightly related to climate effects.

The program guide that I referred to before does have a number of parameters that are all important in an application. Ultimately, the goal of funding these projects through DRIF is for long-term resilience, and that long-term resilience can really only be achieved when your planning process takes into account our changing climate, our increased amounts of drought and heat and uneven precipitation compared to years prior. It’s kind of, if I could say…. Part of planning for resilience is taking into account the changes of climate.

Then, the two streams are also really important. That stream 1 that I referred to before, that non-structural stream, that’s risk mapping, feasibility studies, floodplain mapping. There’s a total of up to $400,000 per partner per expression of interest. Partners, say there are many communities in an area that want to work together on floodplain mapping, they can do that collectively through this program.

Then the structural activities would be infrastructure construction, replacement or upgrades or nature-based solutions, as I mentioned before. That’s for up to $5 million per partner, with a total cap of $15 million per expression of interest.

We do see communities working together to reduce the risk collectively. We do find that because of the way the landscape is, communities’ risk is related to each other. So we’re trying to reduce barriers but also be really thoughtful about how we can maximize the benefit for affected communities, because we are seeing rural and small communities, First Nations communities having those disproportionate impacts.

We do want to make sure that we’re being thoughtful about our program and reducing barriers by having an expression of interest prior to having a fully developed grant application.

Macklin McCall: I just want to go back a couple…. Well, it’s kind of related to the grant stuff we’re talking about.

For the first question I had about grants, the response was, you know: small community, less than 5,000. I just want to clarify one little point.

I appreciate that information. It helps answer the question. But I just want to know: is there a difference between an incorporated community and an unincorporated community in terms of getting the assistance with the grant or the funding for the grant? So if there’s someplace that’s in a regional district, if they’re unincorporated, is there a difference in terms of getting that assistance?

Hon. Kelly Greene: You know, it’s very important for us that communities have access to the resources that they need to build community resilience, safety for their people, their infrastructure, and we know that every community is different. They have different populations, different kinds of risks, different infrastructure needs depending on where they are in the province.

Our communities are vastly unique. I’ve had the privilege of going out to meet many of them, and I’m very much seized by knowing that each community is like a fingerprint, right? We want to make sure that communities are supported.

[3:35 p.m.]

In the case of an unincorporated local government, our staff at EMCR are always wanting to be able to help. So I would say, first and foremost, reach out to the regional office for EMCR and talk to staff about what the need is so that we can identify the best way to address it. There are different avenues for supporting communities. Like I said, the communities are so unique that understanding what the need is in that area is the first step in pointing them in the right direction. Staff are always happy to help.

I’d also suggest that the regional district would be a very helpful support, in that case of needing to have EMCR support in areas that are unincorporated. Because they have more structure, they’d be able to respond, maybe, in a different way.

My advice would be: work with the regional district and also with our regional EMCR office, because we really do have an incredible team, and they are a great asset for communities to lean on.

Macklin McCall: Has the minister reviewed the feedback from West Kelowna and Peachland on their experiences with EMCR’s recovery unit following the 2023 fire? How is that feedback being incorporated into Budget 2025 program delivery?

Hon. Kelly Greene: We have EMCR staff in both Vernon and Kelowna. EMCR staff do communicate with communities on a regular basis, including the CAO.

[3:40 p.m.]

I’m wondering if you can give me more information on the method of delivery of this feedback — was it a written submission or verbal? — so that we can give a more fulsome answer.

With respect to applications for unincorporated areas, your previous question, we’ve been able to confirm that regional districts do apply on behalf of those unincorporated areas. But, as always, our staff is happy to answer any questions that folks may have in smaller communities that need assistance.

Macklin McCall: The more context on the previous question here…. I’m not 100 percent certain on the feedback and how it was delivered. I don’t have that information other than just the more generic question. But the fact that you’re getting me some information coming…. I could find that and actually forward it to your office, if that’s okay with you, to get some clarity on that. I’ll make a note of it in a second here. Appreciate that.

This will be switching into another kind of themed round of questions of emergency infrastructure and public safety. My question is…. During the 2023 wildfire, cellular and communication outages severely impacted both resident safety and response coordination. What is EMCR doing to ensure emergency communications infrastructure in the Okanagan is hardened for future wildfire seasons?

Hon. Kelly Greene: Thank you for an important question about keeping people safe during an event.

We know that during an event, it can become quite chaotic and incredibly stressful for residents who might not know exactly what to do in an emergency. I would plug, right now, PreparedBC for people to get their grab-and-go kits ready so that they can evacuate in a timely way when necessary. We do have an application in, which has been approved, for Blue Grouse Mountain communications tower. That’s $235,000, and that is coming through our ministry.

When there is a breakdown in communications during an event, we have response operations that become active. They coordinate with our infrastructure partners because infrastructure can be held both privately and public, and so coordinating amongst all those partners becomes incredibly critical.

[3:45 p.m.]

Our priority is always to maintain public safety, and that can include a range of options all the way up to tactical evacuation. So priority always being on keeping people safe during an event, and then for recovery, things like the Blue Grouse Mountain communications tower being an important part of getting back to a resilient community.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for the answer.

If I can just go back to the previous question I just asked regarding the EMCR’s recovery unit feedback from West Kelowna–Peachland, I just had a thought of another question here that perhaps the minister might be able to shed some light on.

With the context of that question, is there any program in place or any consideration from the minister to, proactively perhaps, or after the fact of an event of a fire in West Kelowna, reach out to the communities or to others that have been affected in the last few years — we’ll focus on West Kelowna, the 2020 fire — and actively engaging with the communities to see what went well or what could be improved on with interactions with your ministry?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: There are a couple different layers on understanding how we can make improvements. EMCR very much incorporates continuous learning and understanding how we can make improvements, how we can support communities better, how we can respond better. Those are always things that we are keeping in mind. Especially, we’re seeing event seasons blend in, overlap each other, so always making sure we’re incorporating the best practices is important.

We have the Premier’s Expert Task Force on Emergencies, which helped us to understand how we can better respond. It has engaged with the Central Okanagan regional district, as well as impacted businesses and public who received ESS, the emergency supports, so that we can understand from many different perspectives how emergencies have impacted them.

Through the response side of EMCR, the Central Okanagan regional district received funds for an after-action report that they have commissioned. Local governments can be funded to do these evaluations. We encourage and support communities in leading that, because having it led by communities that understand impacts and their communities is important.

We’re also guided by a disaster recovery framework. Communities and local governments, like the Central Okanagan regional district, which have more expertise and more capacity…. We support them in doing their work, but perhaps we don’t barge into that work. We communicate with them where that communication is really led by them, where they’ve got that expertise and capacity. Then communities that have less of that expertise and capacity, we definitely lean in a lot more to make sure that we’re hearing from them on their priorities.

Macklin McCall: I’d just like to pass my time here over to my colleague from Kelowna-Mission to ask a few questions.

Gavin Dew: We have recently been discussing matters around the carbon tax and around environmental response. One of the key issues that concerns me is wildfire emissions. We produce approximately two or three times the GHG emissions in Canada from wildfire emissions each year that we do from the entirety of human and industrial activity. In fact, in 2023, Canada produced 23 percent of global wildfire emissions.

My understanding is that over the last number of years, our spending on wildfire response has been about nine times our spending on proactive prevention and mitigation. I wonder if the minister could speak a little bit more about the kinds of investments that are being made in proactive prevention around wildfire and in particular in the deployment of technologies in that regard.

Hon. Kelly Greene: We’ve canvassed a bit about wildfires and wildfire prevention, and that responsibility lies with the Minister of Forests, so I’d recommend that you hold that question for that minister. With respect to emissions, I would recommend that you hold that question for the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, as emissions are a responsibility of that ministry.

[3:55 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: Could the minister clarify? It would strike me that investments in emergency response, the deployment of drone technologies, remote sensing, those kinds of technologies…. Would that not fall whatsoever within your ministry?

Hon. Kelly Greene: B.C. Wildfire Service would be responsible for wildfire response and mitigation, and they are in the Ministry of Forests.

Hon Chan: Given that there are actually many questions that overlap with the Ministry of Forests, and in the mandate letter it shows that you guys have to partner and actually work with the Ministry of Forests, can you tell us, between you guys and the Ministry of Forests or even Climate Solutions, what kind of work you guys are actually doing to assist Ministry of Forests? Also, is there any funding within your ministry that is supposed to be used to assist the Ministry of Forests?

The Chair: Just a reminder to members that you are to not read off electronic devices.

Hon. Kelly Greene: I appreciate you reading the mandate letter.

You will have noticed that this is a new mandate item for this ministry and that we are working with the Ministry of Forests. They are the lead on that; we are in a supportive role. So questions about increasing fibre and mitigating wildfire risk really need to be directed to the Ministry of Forests.

I look forward to your next question.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Hon Chan: So what exactly is the role? You mentioned that you guys are assisting the Ministry of Forests. So what exactly are you guys doing in the past three months, preparing for the wildfire season? What has this ministry been doing in assisting the other ministries?

[4:00 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Kelly Greene: Thank you, Chair. It’s good to see you in the chair there.

Thank you for the question on developing a coordinated approach with Forests on an important issue, which is providing fibre for communities, but also in context of our response for emergencies and for recovery. Recovery for communities is through my ministry.

We are in the process of exploring opportunities that we can support forestry in this work. Again, as I said, we’re in a supporting role. Staff have met with the Forest Enhancement Society B.C., with staff there, to understand how we can support Forests in reaching the mandate, and any possibility of coordinating funding, the coordination of funding being really important with our recovery activities.

When there is an event, there are a number of responses. Recovery responses through my ministry can be coordinated, perhaps, with other activities, making sure that there is the opportunity for coordination of provincial resources. My ministry is very much a coordination ministry. We reach across other ministries to make sure that before, during and after an event, the ministries are talking to each other in a way that ensures public safety and an effective response.

Upcoming, we are having seasonal preparation conversations with communities, with First Nations, making sure that they’re aware of upcoming risks and can be prepared. We are also having briefings coming up for MLAs for that seasonal preparedness so that that MLAs can be good resources for their communities in their particular area and support their community resilience in that way.

We are also not just coordinating with Forests; we’re also coordinating with WLRS. They’re another important partner in land-based conversations. And in our coordination role with the other ministries, we’re looking for opportunities where we can link together a response in a particular area.

We’re also identifying challenges, because sometimes a challenge is apparent to a different ministry in a different way. So again, in that coordination role, identifying challenges and then also identifying efficiencies. We want to make sure that government response is the most efficient it can be, so coordination across ministries is really important. In particular, with this mandate letter item, that coordination is vital.

But again, the lead on that is the Minister of Forests, and I think that perhaps holding those kinds of questions would be illuminating.

Gavin Dew: Coordination and collaboration are definitely themes that we have heard throughout other estimates conversations, but it does appear there are still some silos that remain.

Can the minister speak to the extent of her ministry’s collaboration or her portfolio’s collaboration with the post-secondary sector and, in particular, provide any update on funding or advancements undertaken to bring to fruition the proposed Okanagan wildfire lab at UBC Okanagan?

[4:05 p.m.]

That has been proposed for some time but as yet has not received funding, despite the crucial role that it could play in helping to mitigate and respond to wildfires in collaboration with the more firefighting role played at the TRU wildfire research facility there.

Hon. Kelly Greene: With respect to the Okanagan wildfire lab question, that should be referred to the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills. The TRU program is a forestry program, so it should be referred to the Minister of Forests.

Our ministry has courses with JIBC, Justice Institute of B.C., because it’s really important that people have the skills to help communities. There are many different roles that are needed in community preparation, response and planning, and they’re all quite important.

There is training available for emergency support services. Staff and volunteers are crucial in the delivery of ESS, so that’s a particularly important program. We also have programming available for EOCs, emergency operations centres, which are stood up during an emergency. EOCs would be for local governments and for First Nations to coordinate response during an emergency. Those local governments and First Nations can have access to the knowledge that they need to be effective in an emergency.

The courses are also targeted for responders. That response aspect of an emergency is important as well and supported through JIBC.

We also know that being culturally sensitive is important. That is something that is incorporated into education that is available for people in the EMCR universe, to make sure that in an emergency, people are accessing services in a way that doesn’t discriminate against them and where they feel safe accessing those services. We would hate for somebody to feel like they couldn’t access services because of who they were. That would amplify and multiply the effects of an emergency on a person, on an individual.

The focus is on supporting people in communities to get the information they need to be effective responders and effective at recovery so that their communities are more resilient.

Gavin Dew: It seems as if there is just a really troubling lack of coordination and collaboration across ministries or an inability to answer questions. So I suppose I’ll just ask one more.

[4:10 p.m.]

Back in 2017, as a result of the confidence and supply agreement signed with the B.C. Green Party, there emerged a thing called the future economy task force, the innovation commissioner and a series of other initiatives designed to leverage technology to address climate issues. One of the things that emerged from that was a pilot project undertaken to use artificial intelligence and machine learning to help address wildfires more rapidly. Unfortunately, however, this government ultimately cancelled that program.

Would the minister agree that the cancellation of that program was a blow to the province’s ability to conduct emergency management and respond to wildfires?

Hon. Kelly Greene: With respect to technology and its implementation with forest fires, that is a Forests issue. I think I’ve been pretty clear that the Wildfire Service is a responsibility of the Ministry of Forests. Any questions about technology, predictive modelling, drones, those sorts of things, need to be addressed to that minister.

I am also aware that WLRS does also use drones, so if you’d like to canvass the use of drones with them as well, that would be an option for you there.

I would also like to respectfully say that our ministry is very strong at coordinating, both before, after and during events. We coordinate both inside government and with outside partners and agencies. We ensure that there is an effective deployment of resources to keep people and communities safe, to make sure that, wherever possible, we’re protecting people’s lives, protecting their livelihoods, protecting their communities so that they can get back to normal, because it is critically important for communities.

Macklin McCall: I wanted to segue into another massive chunk of other questions I have, in particular, no longer for the Okanagan but for elsewhere across British Columbia. But before I do that, I have a couple of colleagues that have a few questions. I’d just like to pass my time to them.

I’ll start with my colleague from Courtenay-Comox.

Brennan Day: Across North America, many jurisdictions rely on privately owned contracted firefighting equipment to ensure resources are ready when disaster strikes. While British Columbia favours pulling local fire assets from municipalities, leaving them short-handed during the dry season — which helps local fire departments balance their budgets, to be fair — with few exceptions we are not building out a robust private system to ensure assets are available when needed in British Columbia.

In Courtenay-Comox, a First Nations entrepreneur is facing serious challenges with this ministry’s inconsistent contracting. It’s a cycle of feast or famine. The result is the lack of private investment in fire assets in British Columbia, with very few notable exceptions, like Coulson Aviation, which has the flexibility to deploy those assets globally during our slow season.

[4:15 p.m.]

My question to this ministry: is there funding in this budget for privately contracted firefighting standby agreements, and is the ministry actively working to improve the standby and contracting process to ensure these vital pieces of equipment are available to British Columbians when we need them most and encourage the growth of these assets as we prepare for the worst?

Hon. Kelly Greene: Questions regarding forest fire management practices, forest fire response, belong with the Minister of Forests. The Wildfire Service lives within his ministry. I’m able to answer questions about the operations of emergency management and climate readiness.

Brennan Day: Thank you, Minister.

I suppose I’ll frame the next question differently, then, because it’s obvious that you’re only there for central planning and control, which is fine.

I’ve heard the minister defer quite a few questions, but in Courtenay-Comox, we’re facing a growing crisis. The Macaulay Road area of Black Creek now has a population of over 3,600 people, and there’s no alternative evacuation. In the ‘50s, this area burnt to the ground, but now we’re sitting on 75-year-old timber that is a tinderbox during dry stretches.

While it’s clear this ministry may not control the physical assets, it does control planning and preparation budgets for emergency management.

Can the minister confirm how much of this budget is dedicated specifically to emergency evacuation planning in growth areas and interface zones? And are there any current studies or planning efforts underway to address high-risk areas like Macaulay Road?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: Planning for egress routes is definitely top of mind for many communities. I’ve spoken to many rural and First Nations communities that have concerns about egress in an emergency.

Supporting that work is very important for our ministry. We’ve offered funding through the community emergency preparedness fund, CEPF. That’s administered through UBCM.

It funds the exact kind of planning work that you were describing. It does that emergency route planning for emergencies.

Part of the requirement of that CEPF application is that when that route planning has been completed, those plans are then provided to EMCR, so that during an event we can have those plans at hand so that we can have more of that situational awareness for how we keep people safe, how we get communities safe.

The CEPF funding stream isn’t open currently, but we’ve funded a number of projects through it. For example, the Ulkatcho First Nation working on a secondary egress route through a forest service road up to Vanderhoof from Anahim Lake. Strathcona regional district — reviewing options for the main access egress route road out of Zeballos.

Some of this work also requires coordination with the Ministry of Transportation and Transit and the Ministry of Forests. As I noted, one of those had a forest road in it, so there is that coordination aspect between ministries.

There’s also…. With respect to the risk planning that you had noted, there’s funding through DRIF, as well, that Disaster Resilience and Innovation Fund.

It supports work identifying risks and hazards and mitigating them. For example, flood mapping. It’s really mitigation-focused, and it is currently open. That fund is available right up to June 27, so expressions of interest are being accepted right now for doing some of that risk hazard mapping to support community safety.

Hon Chan: Actually, I just want to give some time to my colleague Kamloops–North Thompson to just ask a few questions.

Ward Stamer: I have a few questions to the minister.

Talking about evacuation routes, I just wanted to pick up a little bit on what you just mentioned. So a couple of questions I have.

Who is actually responsible for planning these evacuation routes out of our towns and communities? They don’t have to be particularly rural communities way out in the hinterlands. They can be interface areas with populations of 2,000; 4,000; 10,000; 100,000 people.

My question to you is…. You mentioned about funding and opportunities for grants and money available by the end of June. Well, fire season started yesterday, I believe.

My question is: do we have comprehensive plans today that are ready to implement and share with our communities for these evacuation routes? Who’s responsible to coordinate that?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: Egress route planning is a priority of our government. We have coordinated or supported communities in a number of projects with respect to evacuation route planning.

I’ve also met with the TNRD about their concerns with evacuation routes, as well as the Minister of Forests. TNRD has agreed to keep meeting with EMCR and Forests about concerns so that we can work together to find some solutions.

The planning responsibility for egress routes lies with local communities, and we support them in that work. It’s very important that we support them in that planning. To that end, since 2017, we’ve supported 143 evacuation route planning projects to a total of $4.7 million.

We incorporate that information, as I said before. When we get evacuation route plans completed in communities, we ask that they are returned to EMCR so that we can have a robust emergency response, if necessary, and, in addition to that, coordinate as necessary, with Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Transportation and Transit to make sure that the plans are coordinated and resourced where needed.

But the planning work is the responsibility of the local authority, and we support them in that.

Ward Stamer: That’s fine if we’re talking about municipal boundaries, but we’re also talking about the scope of areas that could possibly be the evacuation route. It could be a forest service road.

Personally, as a mayor, I was able to work with MOTI at the time in getting an evacuation route from Highway 5 from Barriere to Kamloops up onto secondary roads, no forest service road included in that. We were able to come with a pretty good plan if we had an extended period of time of Highway 5 blocked between Barriere and Kamloops — actually, between Kamloops and Heffley Creek.

Having said that, from Barriere north, if we had the same situation, we have to use the Dunn Lake Road, which is partially paved, and then it goes to a forest service road, and it goes into multiple jurisdictions, including MOTT. We’ve got Forests, I’m sure, as well.

You mentioned hazard assessments and things like that. Does your ministry actually oversee all of that on that evacuation plan, and when are those plans supposed to be completed by?

Again, we’re into fire season. That’s our biggest hazard that we have. We have communities that could be locked in amongst that trunk. So when are those plans supposed to be completed by and communicated to the other elected officials that may be First Nations, may be area directors, may be municipalities? When does that occur?

[4:30 p.m.]

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Kelly Greene: Chair. When did that happen?

The Chair: Magic.

Hon. Kelly Greene: Wonderful. Welcome to the chair.

It is the responsibility of the local government to develop an egress route plan as part of their emergency planning. Many communities have already undertaken this work. There’s no timeline on that work that’s required. It’s been fairly long-standing that communities have emergency plans, but we do support them in the development of egress routes if they need that assistance. We do have streams that can help them with that.

I take the case about having broad geographic regions and how it can be more complicated because of that diverse landscape and diverse communities. So the regional district, the TNRD, was a great example of a local authority that can coordinate that emergency egress plan to make sure that it works for everybody.

They can also lean on our regional offices. So the EMCR offices are happy to take questions about how best to go about this work to make sure that those routes are available.

We know that there are many communities that depend on those forest access roads for that egress service in an emergency, but some of them are deactivated, and that becomes a problem when they need to be used, because deactivated roads have, clearly, different standards than roads that are active.

Forestry roads are managed by Forests under the Forest and Range Practices Act, and there are a number of regulations that specify on activation and deactivation of those routes.

[4:35 p.m.]

Then during an emergency, EMCR can support evacuation, such as requesting the Ministry of Forests to grade a road so that it can be used for passage for evacuees. But that is only during an imminent and active event. It wouldn’t be proactive. It doesn’t include ongoing maintenance and funding. It’s for emergency response.

An example of that would be during the Jasper wildfires, where egress was very quickly organized through forest roads and other routes to make sure that the community could get to safety. That response is available for those circumstances.

Then when communities do identify those routes, getting those to EMCR ensures that we can have the quickest response possible with the best coordination. If we understand which forest access road that might be decommissioned, that they might need in an emergency, then we can act more quickly when an event does arise.

Ward Stamer: Just for clarification, there are forest service roads that are currently under contract with the Ministry of Transportation and Transit. That is their responsibility on those roads.

I know we have further questions, and I have other questions later. But just for facts, there are four service roads that are actually maintained year-round by the Ministry of Transportation and Transit. So technically, it’s the government that has control of those roads.

Hon Chan: Just to talk about some money, we can see that the budget estimates actually went up to about $225 million. I just want to know what specifically is that increase from the previous year, which was $115 million. Can you just kind of break it down for us? What specific programs or the reason why we need more? Is it just because of inflation or…?

Hon. Kelly Greene: Our budget went up from $115 million to $125 million. The difference is a $10 million increase to DRIF, the disaster resilience and innovation fund. We know how important that fund is for communities, so that fund was increased by $10 million.

Hon Chan: With the increased frequency of climate-related disasters, do you think the current level of funding is sufficient to ensure there’s a timely, effective emergency response? Is that the case right now with the current funding?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: When we are looking at keeping communities safe and the mitigation and adaptation that’s required in this time of escalating climate events, we need to prioritize communities that need more support, that are at higher risk and mitigate that risk. We’re also looking at all the pillars of emergency management, in particular, the preparedness part and mitigation part.

Since 2017, we’ve supported almost 2,500 projects with $498 million, which is so crucial for supporting communities. Not included in those is Merritt. Recently we did an announcement of funding for Merritt to support their recovery. They’ve done extensive work on their flood plan to keep their community safe. We know how devastated they were in recent years. That helps with rebuilding dikes that had essentially burst during a flood there.

We are always looking for ways to support communities, both through regular programming as well as extraordinary circumstances, making sure that we are supporting communities with their needs. As I said before, every community is like a fingerprint, and support looks different for different communities. Their need is different. We also have a new agreement with the federal government on building back after an emergency. We are able to access more funds for more resilient infrastructure.

In years gone by, the way it was is you build back what you had before, but we know that that’s not sufficient anymore. We know that we have to build to a standard where there are escalating climate impacts. Building back more resilient is a really great way to make sure that we are getting efficiency with the money that we’re spending, that we’re improving people’s communities’ resilience and, through that, their safety.

Hon Chan: I was aware that you were in Merritt last week. We do have other questions about Merritt, but that’s for later.

A question about…. Is there any funding…? Because on the budget, there’s no line that actually separates it. Is there separate funding allocated for wildfire prevention, drought, and flood mitigation? Is there slush funding that is allocated separately? Also, can you confirm if all the allocated funds from last year, which is ‘24-25, were spent already or are there funds that can be transferred down to this year?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: The question about wildfire, I’m going to carve that out. I think we’ve canvassed pretty extensively that that’s with the Ministry of Forests.

With respect to other hazards, you noted drought. You noted floods. I can offer that CEPF, which is the fund that’s managed through UBCM, as well as DRIF, which is managed through EMCR, are not divided by hazard. We want to support communities in the hazard that’s most important to them. Different communities have different hazards, depending on their geographic location.

We are finalizing our financials for this year, so I don’t have an answer on any unspent money, but there is no carry-forward. You’d mentioned a slush fund. There is no slush fund. If you find one, let me know.

Hon Chan: Thank you, Minister.

A question about Alert Ready system or any pre-warning system that is in place for our province. It has been proven quite unreliable in the past. Especially we can see that in the 2021 flooding and the recent fires and, actually, just a month ago, recent earthquakes. There were very much inconsistencies. Some people in the same vicinity were receiving alerts; some people did not.

Can you tell us how ready is our Alert Ready system or any other pre-warning system and, between now and then, if any improvement has been made?

Hon. Kelly Greene: The emergency alert system is an important component on keeping people informed on active situations in their area. There are a number of different authorities that can issue alerts. For example, an extreme weather alert would come from Environment Canada, being the alerting authority.

[4:50 p.m.]

We also, through B.C. emergency alerts, can alert on flood, for example. The Chilcotin is an example, the landslide there and the resultant flood risk was something that was through the B.C. emergency alert. So depending on what kind of hazard, it’s a different alerting authority.

In 2024, we had intrusive alerts. We had seven for wildfire, five for flood. There were no tsunami alerts, which is always a good news day. There was one earthquake early warning, zero for heat, and there were two tests. One of the tests was with the B.C. system, and the other one was issued by Public Safety Canada.

To speak to the earthquake early warning system. I know that that’s something that has been covered quite extensively, because like you, I’ve heard reports of very uneven receipt of those messages. The earthquake early warning system is federally operated.

I have talked to my federal counterpart, spoken to his office. Unfortunately, there is an election right now so I can’t get more information for you at the moment. But I know that they want to make sure that it works. Because when you have uneven alerting, it can erode the confidence in the system. We want people to be confident that when they get a message, they need to immediately act on it. They need to drop, cover and hold on — critically important in an earthquake, saves countless lives and injuries.

Ensuring that is operational, in a way that we expect, is important. But we also need to communicate with the public on what the expectation is. Because sometimes we feel an earthquake that’s not very severe, but we still feel it, and we think: “Well, why wasn’t there an alert?”

The alert is to let people know when there’s a danger, like a dangerous event. That threshold is set for a 5.0 earthquake. It needs to be above that. The earthquake that we received uneven alerting for was very close to that threshold. I don’t know if that’s part of the problem. I am in communication with my federal counterparts who have the responsibility for that system.

I live in Richmond. I want that system to work well. I want it to work well for everybody in B.C. so that getting seconds of warning can be incredibly important. When you think about all of society, whether you’re a doctor in a hospital in an operating room, or whether you’re operating heavy equipment in a dangerous industrial site, having that alert go out can save lives, and we definitely want that to work.

I would also say that having this moment is a very important opportunity to give people, the public, a chance to get their earthquake kits ready: 72-plus hours of food and water as well as essential medications and your insurance papers.

The last thing you want to do is be digging through your emails or trying to find your insurance coverage. Insurance B.C. can give people a hand finding their coverage, but having it on hand gives a lot of peace of mind and makes you feel a lot more confident about the situation.

Those grab-and-go kits are important, too, if you’re in a wildfire area, if you’re in an area that’s prone to flooding. Being personally prepared goes a long way to making sure that you can get back to normal a lot quicker.

Hon Chan: In the 2021 flooding, the Lower Mainland was cut off. Now it’s been four years. We were relying on the U.S. because we were only connected to the U.S. But now that the U.S. is not a very reliable partner, has any improvement that has been done just in case something or even a more severe incident happened, cutting off the Lower Mainland with a few million people there?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: The floods of 2021 were unprecedented. We really had never seen anything like that in B.C., and I think, historically, we’ve genuinely never seen anything like it. So there were a lot of things that we learned and that we are improving on to make sure that we keep communities safe and have really robust planning and mitigation on risks.

We continue to work closely with Washington state on the Nooksack River Task Force. It is very productive, and we have a lot of confidence in that work. Washington state wants to continue that work because their communities are at risk too. So there is quite a lot of coordination and cooperation in that because the impacts are so significant on both sides of the border.

There is a signed agreement with the Premier and the governor of Washington state on the Nooksack flood initiative. And again, there is a high degree of confidence in that. They’ve been great partners with us, both with the Premier and governor but also with staff, because of the significance and interconnectedness of that area.

We continue to work with Abbotsford and First Nations in the area to reduce risk and do good planning work but also implement improvements that keep their community safe, making sure that we have learned some of these lessons. In advance of flood season, we do get assets into regional areas so that they can be very quickly deployed to problem spots.

In advance of this flood season, we have distributed flood assets into Chilliwack. I’m just going to help you understand the significance of the work that has to happen to get those flood control assets in place.

Chilliwack, for example, has 2.7 million sandbags available. We have, in Chilliwack, 12 kilometres of gabions, 26 kilometres of tiger dams and six sandbag machines. Having those resources available regionally makes us respond more quickly, protecting more homes and businesses more quickly, reducing the damage as quickly as possible.

[5:00 p.m.]

We’re always looking to coordinate the flood mitigation planning with local governments, assisting them in making sure that their communities are more resilient.

Hon Chan: The minister actually recently made an announcement in Merritt, as she mentioned. There are many other cities and towns that need funding for improvement, including the Coquihalla Highway. It has been four years. I don’t think it’s fully completed.

Maybe you can actually provide an update on that as well.

Every year, for example, like in Delta or in Richmond, there’s always a king tide that’s going on. Even Stanley Park was being damaged. Even though some of those might lay with municipalities….

Can you tell us if your ministry has any budget or proportion of the budget that is allocated to these kinds of projects — like Coquihalla, king tide dikes or whatever?

Hon. Kelly Greene: The Coquihalla Highway rebuild, the current status of the rebuild, would be a question to direct to the Minister of Transportation. I can offer that because the event that happened was so widespread, the rebuild is covered under DFA, so we are also seeking federal recoveries to pay for restoration.

The question about diking. There are two components to this. One would be that mitigation and preparedness part of it. In advance of an event, that would be through DRIF — so DRIF being the funding solution for that. It helps with the planning work, to know where mitigation works need to be undertaken and how high the risk is in different areas under different scenarios. Those kinds of things would be through DRIF.

DRIF has a maximum funding envelope of $5 million per project. So certainly, you could explore diking under a preventative mitigation.

Then in the event that a significant event has happened that’s widespread, it becomes captured under DFA. That’s the recovery side of things, where you’ve seen infrastructure damage.

[5:05 p.m.]

Your example of a large king tide, if a large king tide would affect a significant area…. It could be that if there was a king tide and it had a significant impact on essential infrastructure, then those kinds of events would be covered under DFA as a recovery.

So two streams, depending on which side of the event you’re on. If you’re doing that preparedness work to mitigate risk, you’re looking at DRIF, and if an event does happen, you’re looking at DFA.

Hon Chan: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

Similar question. Does your ministry actually know of any climate-related projects that are planned in the upcoming year in the entirety of B.C.? You just had an announcement in Merritt. Would there be more specific projects that we can know that are actually in place?

Hon. Kelly Greene: As communities complete their recoveries, there can be announcements with respect to DFA projects, but it is dependent on the communities, the impacts to them, where they are in their recovery path.

We also have the first round of DRIF. Successful projects are going to be announced later this spring. Successful communities, as I noted, for structural projects can receive up to $5 million. Communities also have the option for infrastructure that is of joint concern. They can apply together for infrastructure and stack the DRIF funding up to $15 million per project if multiple local governments are working together.

First Nations I should note, because First Nations are also eligible for DRIF funding as well.

TBA on successful DRIF applicants later this spring, but we also have applications currently open. Communities that have this top of mind right now, as we are approaching hazard seasons…. We are accepting applications, expressions of interest, to access that funding to make their communities more resilient.

The Chair: At this time, I’m going to call a five-minute recess. I have 5:09 on my watch, so I expect everybody back in their seats at 5:14 please. Thank you so much.

The committee recessed from 5:09 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order.

We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

Hon Chan: Question about dikes continuing. Many of the orphaned dikes in B.C. are at serious risk, with over 175 dikes in the province lacking any government oversight or responsibility. For example, in Kamloops, dikes originally built in the early 1970s to mitigate heavy flooding remain scattered across the city and along the North and South Thompson Rivers. The late Premier Horgan actually acknowledged this issue years ago and made promises regarding these dikes.

Is there any progress that has been made, if any at all?

Hon. Kelly Greene: I know how important dikes are, coming from a community like Richmond. I’m proud to say Richmond, while I was on council, did a lot of work with the dikes there. Very proactive. So shout out for Richmond city council. I enjoyed my time on council there as well.

With respect to your question about orphan dikes throughout the province, that would be a question for the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, WLRS, who has the responsibility for diking and orphan dikes.

Hon Chan: I would like to give the time to my colleague here for Delta South.

Ian Paton: In 2021, the flooding of the Nooksack River…. With the Minister of Agriculture, I had the grateful opportunity to helicopter over this entire Sumas area, and the flooding of the farms was absolutely incredible. The damage was insurmountable, which we’re still trying to deal with.

A siren went off in Sumas, Washington, to warn the people of that area of the impending flooding of the Nooksack River. To this day, we do have a natural flow from the Nooksack into Canada over our border and into the town of Huntingdon, which was extremely devastated.

What mitigation has taken place? I know you touched on this earlier, but what mitigation has taken place with our U.S. partners with beefing up the dredging or the diking of the Nooksack and also the Sumas River that runs through Sumas in Abbotsford? And would there be any sort of a siren that will be initiated on the Canadian side to warn people of a future flood of the Nooksack River?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: I agree the floods were devastating. From the images, from the immediate emergency through to where we are now, there’s an incredible difference.

I really have to commend the city of Abbotsford for their leadership, for the coordination in the region with First Nations, making sure that we are undertaking significant planning and mitigation works to make sure that we’re keeping the community safe.

Since the event, we have had ongoing work to make sure that we are addressing concerns and addressing issues that led to the significant devastation of the area. We have continued to work with Washington state. As I noted before, there’s a Nooksack task force where staff can coordinate activities between Washington and British Columbia. We know that Washington was also similarly devastated by flooding, so there is definitely interest on both sides of the border to continue that work. We have a high level of confidence that that is going to continue in a really productive way.

There is also a signed agreement between the Premier and the governor of Washington, the Nooksack task force initiative, to add that additional layer of certainty to that work that is necessary to undertake.

We have continued to support Abbotsford with significant investments to make sure that we are bolstering their flood protection systems — for example, $76 million towards Barrowtown pump station and $1.8 million towards the Sumas dike repair. And we are also continuing to have tables available to coordinate and maximize the efficiency of flood response.

We have the Sumas River watershed flood mitigation plan and that Transboundary Flood Initiative, recognizing that water doesn’t recognize international boundaries. We also have the Sumas River watershed flood mitigation table.

[5:25 p.m.]

The leadership table met in early March. I was there. It was a very productive conversation. We had leadership from the two municipalities and from three First Nations present to make sure that we’re all on the same page so that our response is coordinated across the entire geographic area and it doesn’t just end at the boundary of somebody’s local government or First Nation, so that everybody is made more safe. I can share that the leadership table is expecting a plan in June outlining three to five items that we can take further action on.

There’s also a lot of interest — we spoke earlier about co-benefits — when we’re doing recovery works, that we’re considering other priorities, such as fish habitat: fish-friendly pumping infrastructure, green infrastructure that helps mitigate flood risk. Giving water somewhere to go is usually an important part of a flood mitigation plan.

Looking at the different ways that we can do recovery in the Sumas area: respecting fish habitat, as I said; ecology; making sure that the farming community is protected and that the different aspects are all incorporated so that when we’re building resiliency, it makes sense for everybody, and we’re building to a standard that helps communities in the long run.

Hon Chan: The minister mentioned about DRIF many times. We’d like to know where the status is under DRIF. I believe last year, you guys, the NDP government, did announce $40 million to DRIF over two years. Where has DRIF funding right now landed, and is there funding continuing to support this program?

Hon. Kelly Greene: The first intake of DRIF, the successful applicants, will be announced soon. It’s closed for full proposals now, and staff are assessing the applications. That amount of DRIF was $15 million, if you recall.

The second intake is open right now for the $25 million of DRIF. That closes on June 27. As a reminder, DRIF has both a non-structural component and a structural. There are two different streams.

Communities that need to do flood risk mapping, for example, to know where they need to do the infrastructure, the structural activities, can access that non-structural fund stream. Then in subsequent years, when they understand their risks and needs better, they can apply through the structural stream.

Hon Chan: With the cancellation of the carbon tax, is there any funding that is flowing to your ministry that might be cancelled or might be impacted?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: I just want to make a slight correction on the first intake….

Interjections.

The Chair: If I can ask the room to keep it down to a quiet roar. Thank you.

Go ahead, Minister.

Hon. Kelly Greene: Thank you.

I would just like to make a slight correction on that first intake of DRIF. They are already adjudicated, so we’re just waiting for later this spring, for announcements.

Then, with respect to impacts to the province’s budget with the carbon tax, I would recommend directing those to the Minister of Finance. I can offer that the budget that we’re voting on is the budget that was at the beginning of the session. The motion was moved. That is the budget.

Hon Chan: Can the minister confirm that the funding from the Ministry of Finance will be the same for this ministry and will not be removed by any chance or reduced or increased?

Hon. Kelly Greene: The motion moved earlier for that amount is the amount of budget. Implications for the province for carbon tax would be directed to the Minister of Finance.

Macklin McCall: The University Hospital of Northern B.C. in Prince George hasn’t had an on-site helipad since 1993. Air ambulances must land at the airport and transfer patients by road, causing critical delays.

Last fall the government belatedly promised to include a helipad in the new 11-storey acute care tower, a project budgeted at $1.579 billion, not completed until 2031.

[J. Sunner in the chair.]

Northern patients can’t wait another six-plus years. Where in Budget 2025 is the funding or accelerated timeline for the UHNBC helipad?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Kelly Greene: Thank you and welcome to the chair. It’s good to see you there.

With respect to construction of hospital infrastructure, I would recommend directing that to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Infrastructure.

Macklin McCall: The wildfire equipment depot in Prince George…. In Budget 2024, the government announced $21 million for a new wildfire equipment depot in Prince George, recognizing that the Prince George Fire Centre, which is the largest in B.C., needed enhanced logistics support, yet Budget 2025 is silent on this depot. There’s no mention of funding allocation or progress.

Has this critical project been delayed or dropped? Northern firefighters and communities deserve an update. When will the Prince George equipment depot be built and operational, and why does the 2025 budget not explicitly commit funds to it?

Please provide a construction timeline and clarify how wildfire equipment for the North is being stored and deployed in the meantime.

Hon. Kelly Greene: Questions regarding wildfire and wildfire response should be directed to the Minister of Forests who has responsibility for the B.C. Wildfire Service.

Macklin McCall: We acknowledge the province has begun providing approximately $6 million annually to the B.C. Search and Rescue Association to support ground search and rescue teams. This sustained funding, now in its third year, is welcome and helps 78 SAR groups and 3,000 volunteers with training and equipment.

Will Budget 2025 renew the boost of this support beyond the pilot agreement?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: I want to specifically thank search and rescue across the province. They do incredible work to bring loved ones home. We know how vital their work is to keeping people safe in a variety of different ways and often in the most challenging of circumstances. Their training and dedication to safety and bringing people home is second to none, and I really want to thank them for that.

I had the opportunity recently to meet with search and rescue in Kamloops. I think it was a very productive meeting, understanding about the challenges of different types of situations that they might be called into, whether that’s recovery or accident or even evacuations. They do incredible work on behalf of the province.

The $6 million is an annual agreement — it’s the only one of its kind in Canada — to make sure that we’re supporting our search and rescue teams with reliable funding for their operations. We’ll continue with that support.

In addition to that base budget, which is an ongoing item, we also support them with reimbursements for deployments. When they are called out, there are reimbursements for their operational costs associated with going out on a call. There are two different components there.

We’ve also been working with them to do a needs assessment. I’ve been able to have ongoing conversations with search and rescue to make sure that we do have those clear lines of communication and they’re working collaboratively, because we definitely need to lean on each other in times of crisis.

With respect to additional funding sources…. There’s the base budget, $6 million. There’s the call-out reimbursements for events. We additionally offer access to community gaming grants. Last year 27 GSAR groups received over $2 million, and five GSAR groups received an additional $489,000 for funding for capital projects.

In that operational funding that I mentioned for call-outs, we reimburse GSAR, search and rescue, for any equipment repair or replacement, for mileage, for meals and for aircraft costs. We’re primarily seeing aircraft costs in helicopter use. That was up 37 percent over last year.

Macklin McCall: Hundreds of families lost their homes during the 2023 wildfire season. Many who were uninsured or underinsured have been left on their own aside from temporary emergency housing assistance and Red Cross relief.

Will the minister commit to a provincial program to help these British Columbians rebuild their homes and lives, or is the official stance that those without adequate insurance are simply out of luck after a disaster of this scale?

[5:40 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, just a reminder to please have your electronic devices on silent.

Hon. Kelly Greene: I just want to note that our programs for recovery are for uninsurable losses. Our government supports uninsurable losses. But we have a number of non-governmental organizations that do support in recovery of things that were insurable losses — for example, Canadian Red Cross, which was already mentioned. There are a couple of NGOs that rebuild homes, such as Samaritan’s Purse and the Mennonite Disaster organization.

[5:45 p.m.]

The Mennonites actually rebuilt a house in Lytton, for example. So I know that they’re quite active, and I thank them so much for their contributions to communities and to the province.

Folks should expect to be partners in resilience with the province. So whether you’re a renter or whether you’re a homeowner, you should be anticipating that you need to be insured against reasonably expected perils and can work with insurance brokers to find out the product that works best for them.

There are so many different kinds of policies. Insurance brokers are very good resources. I spoke with the resource broker association. Also noting that the Insurance Bureau of Canada has resources available for folks to understand what product suits their needs best in many different ways.

Macklin McCall: I’m just going to move over here for a second to let my colleague from Langley–Walnut Grove ask a few questions.

Misty Van Popta: In November 2021, the atmospheric river event caused havoc to municipal infrastructure across the province. In Langley township, we were no different. My community has over 700 culverts, many damaged or compromised from the weather event.

Langley township identified an at-risk culvert over a salmon spawning creek on 40 Avenue. They applied for disaster financial assistance, as they checked every single box for qualification. However, they were denied funding.

In June 2023, they formally appealed the decision. In December 2024 — that’s 20 months later — the township was finally contacted by the province for additional information. In January 2025, after I publicized this delay, the township got another request for information.

It’s been 23 months that a municipality has been waiting for a response to an urgent funding request over a sensitive ecosystem. Since then, in October 2024, the culvert failed, and now a major east-west corridor on a school route in rural Langley is permanently closed until summer.

This request was only for $4.75 million. This department is called Emergency Management, yet it seems that there is no urgency and leaves municipalities with emergencies in unacceptable holding patterns while bureaucracy does what it does.

Why does it take this ministry 23 months to respond to an urgent and eco-sensitive funding request by a municipality?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: I can’t speak to the specific appeal, because the appeal hasn’t been adjudicated yet, but I’d just like to offer a little bit of background on the atmospheric river of 2021 and the DFA applications.

In 2021, we weren’t even a ministry. We were purely response and basically programmatic. It was in 2022 that we changed into the more fulsome ministry we’ve got. At that point, we had three people working on what was DFA applications by paper — 2,298 applications, paper-based applications. So obviously, that was a choke point.

We knew that we needed to do better. From there, we took our lessons learned. We’ve got an online portal now. DFA applications are done online, and response times should be within 90 days, often much less than that. I will preface, though, that if there is a significantly major event, those timelines could be extended slightly, but still much better than a paper application.

When it comes to…. If anybody has to do an appeal, everything is done electronically. Again, so much more streamlined, helping people to get answers more quickly.

DFA is also for eligible infrastructure that’s been maintained by local governments. Ensuring that local governments are maintaining their infrastructure is important, and then we can support them when significant events happen, like the atmospheric river. Although, I’d like that atmospheric river situation to not come back. That would be really great. But if necessary, we are standing by to help people, and we have streamlined our processes and been more responsive to situations like we’ve had.

We don’t want to be in a paper-based application world. We know that we need to have electronic tools, so that’s the reason that we made those changes.

Misty Van Popta: I appreciate the background on that.

Can we…? Will you commit here, either, in a perfect world, funding for Langley township for that culvert in the amount of $4.75, or at a minimum, at least look at this 23-month-old application with due haste?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: Thank you for that. I do want to note that I appreciate your advocacy for your community. I can tell that it’s very important to you. My community is important to me as well.

It would be helpful to know if you’re asking as an MLA or a councillor, because I need to be able to answer appropriately.

Misty Van Popta: I’m asking as an MLA. We have a constituency and a municipality that have had an application outstanding since 2023, and I’m just asking that it get looked at. If you’ve got things streamlined electronically now for current applications, what has happened to applications that are not in the electronic process?

Hon. Kelly Greene: It was originally not eligible due to a lack of maintenance of that infrastructure, and then that was appealed. The appeal is underway. It is under adjudication right now.

We don’t require further information from the municipality, but I’m not able to interfere with that process. I will pass your concerns on to staff about timeliness, but I am unable to interfere with adjudication processes.

Macklin McCall: The new EDMA, Emergency and Disaster Management Act, passed in late 2023. It modernizes B.C.’s emergency laws and places significant new responsibilities on local authorities.

For example, municipalities and regional districts must now conduct comprehensive hazard risk assessments, maintain emergency plans covering all four phases — mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery — develop business continuity plans and even take on managing certain hazards on Crown land in their area.

These are hefty requirements, especially for small communities with limited staff. How is the province supporting local governments and First Nations in meeting with EDMA’s new mandates?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: With EDMA, I think it just makes more clear that there is an expectation for local governments to do critical planning functions. But that requirement has always been there. There has always been the expectation that local governments are doing the planning work required for responding to emergencies. I know many municipalities already have done this work. It’s not new to local government.

We are also supporting a fulsome development of emergency plans, recognizing that not all municipalities are equal. We’re developing guidance documents to help with risk assessments and emergency planning.

We also have some funding available for Indigenous engagement. The Indigenous engagement requirement fund is available for First Nations and for local governments, and it can be pooled. So in areas where there may be many municipalities or many First Nations or both, that Indigenous engagement requirement funding can be pooled. And DRIF, which we’ve mentioned before, can also be used for risk assessment, so municipalities can access that funding that way.

We have heard concerns from local government about the scale to which they’ll be required to do planning. We are responsive to that, developing those planning and guidance documents, making funding available for them for both the Indigenous engagement and for risk assessments.

We have a committee through UBCM for local governments to work with us on developing regulations. That’s the local government advisory committee, and it has representatives from local governments, regional districts, as well as municipalities, to make sure that we have a variety of local governments there so that we can understand concerns in different parts of the province, because something in a regional district in the Interior looks very different than emergency planning in Vancouver. Having that diversity of local government voices in this local government advisory committee is really important.

We’re working with them to make sure that we support local governments in their really critically important planning work, which many of them have been undertaking for years.

Macklin McCall: My question for the minister: has Budget 2025 dedicated funding for training, planning grants or staff secondments to assist local authorities with the required risk assessments and emergency plan upgrades?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: There is funding available for this work through DRIF, as I mentioned before. Local governments can send in an expression of interest and from that complete a grant application. We’ve discussed the process on that, I think, a number of times.

I’d also like to note that there’s climate ready B.C. It’s online, it’s available for any community to access. It’s got a range of tools really supporting communities with information on the emergency planning space and impacts for climate change.

We’ve talked quite a bit about how plans need to be updated to incorporate our expected range of events — how they’re changing, they’re accelerating, they’re becoming bigger with climate change. There are tools on climate ready B.C. that I think would be really valuable for communities.

Local governments, First Nations, can also reach out to our regional offices. We have regional offices in B.C. that have staff with a wealth of knowledge. If folks have questions, our staff are always happy to help answer that because we know that when we work together, our communities are more resilient and bounce back more quickly after an event.

Macklin McCall: We need details on any capacity-building programs, because without provincial help, many small towns simply won’t be able to fulfill these obligations, potentially putting them in non-compliance with the law or, even worse, leaving gaps in their emergency readiness.

Additionally, the act’s key provisions, like local risk assessments and updated plans, were not immediately enforced upon royal assent. What is the timeline for phased implementation?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: We are developing the regulations in partnership with our local government advisory committee. It’s very important that we’re incorporating feedback from them on the development of those regulations.

I really want to emphasize that it’s not new to do emergency planning work. From my experience in local government, talking to many municipalities, they’ve been doing this work for years, because it’s foundational to keeping their community safe, keeping their businesses operational, keeping homes intact and making sure that their community is okay in events.

We’ve also, over two years, offered $36 million of capacity for Indigenous engagement in developing plans, and that’s really important. Then we’ve also partnered with Indigenous Services Canada so that we’ve got, in B.C., 34 emergency program coordinators allocated for First Nations communities in B.C., so that they’re able to conduct the work of keeping communities safe as well.

Macklin McCall: When will the regulations be in place and these sanctions brought into force? And will the minister consider delaying enforcement until adequate support is provided?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: I’d like to push back. These are not sanctions. This is us working collaboratively with local government to make sure that communities can stay safe — that people’s homes, their livelihoods, the things that are important are kept safe.

We are developing these regulations in partnership with local governments and, as I said, represented by different kinds of local governments, like regional districts, large and small municipalities. The regulations are going to be coming out later this year. There’s no deadline by which they have to have a plan.

This is the start of the process of modernizing how we’re doing emergency planning in B.C. It’s in collaboration with our local government friends. We’ve had 41 sessions with local governments and First Nations so that we can discuss upcoming regulatory changes.

UBCM is also hosting webinars next week for local governments on this issue. It remains very collaborative; it is not punitive. We need to work together to keep our communities safe.

This work has been done for years by local governments, and people in communities know that it’s necessary. It’s not optional. We live in an environment where there are hazards all the time. Hazards do continue to arise in communities, and having preparedness is crucial. It’s a very basic function of local governments to make sure that they’re looking after their communities, their infrastructure.

We want to be very good partners with them. That’s why we’ve done such extensive consultation, and we continue to do that. We’ll be coming out with regulations later this year.

Macklin McCall: Just for clarity’s sake, my question originally was regarding delaying enforcement until adequate support was provided. Essentially, that was the end question.

With your answer, I just want to be clear. So there’s no enforcement at all if somebody doesn’t comply and have the stuff implemented? Or will there be some kind of action by the province if there is?

The reason why I ask is that my original question was: if there is some kind of response by the province if a municipality does not have the means to get this up and running in the time allotted by the province, will there be any action taken by the province to compel them to do it?

If so, my question was: would the minister consider delaying that, to ensure that adequate support is provided?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: We want to work with communities to set them up for success. Success looks like resilient communities that have planned for different kinds of hazards, that make sure that they plan in the best way possible to keep people safe, keep businesses safe, keep organizations and infrastructure safe.

Enforcement is really for a situation where there’s a blatant contravention of a regulation. I actually can’t contemplate a single community in all of British Columbia that would be so reckless in the safety of their citizens, in the safety of their businesses. I genuinely can’t even contemplate any local government, any First Nation having that kind of behaviour.

We want to work with communities to make sure that they are safe and resilient. We are always prioritizing compliance with collaboration, because we know that we have to work together in times of dire events. We know that that’s the pathway to success.

This pathway to success is not hostile. The way to success is working together. So I hope that addresses your concerns.

Macklin McCall: My question for the minister. Communities are asking for clarity on deadlines and resources. For instance, if they must produce new hazard risk assessments, do they have one year, two years? Who pays for the required studies and mapping?

The ministry’s answers should include any plans in Budget 2025 to fund EDMA implementation for local and provincial bodies alike and that ensure that no region is left behind in compliance.

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: We are working with local governments to develop these regulations. That’s why we have the local government advisory committee. As I said, it’s got a number of different kinds of local governments in it so that we can understand the concerns of different kinds of local governments.

We are developing these regulations in partnership. We have heard that local governments prioritize flexibility. Key to our work here is working hand in hand in partnership. Again, it’s not new for local governments to have to do this planning work. Many of them already have plans in place.

We’re also supporting local governments with guidance documents, as I’ve said before, for risk assessments, for emergency plans. As I’ve said before, we also have a lot of resources on climate ready B.C. to support local governments in this work.

In terms of funding, as I’ve said before, we have Indigenous engagement funding, $36 million over two years. We’ve also got DRIF. As I’ve said before, DRIF has a low barrier to application. It’s through expression of interest so that smaller, local governments and First Nations have more availability to put in an expression of interest and then be supported in their full grant application. Hopefully that answers your question this time.

Macklin McCall: Now I’m just going to allow my colleague from Prince George–Valemount to ask a few questions.

Rosalyn Bird: To the minister: my questions are in regard to the Jasper 2024 wildfire and the subsequent evacuation orders and highway closures that impacted the village of Valemount, which is in my riding of Prince George.

Prior to our recent break, I asked the minister in question period if she would acknowledge and commit funds in the amount of $1.5 million to support the economic impact that the village of Valemount has experienced. I followed my question up with a letter documenting that request in writing.

A response was received from the minister that she was pleased that in November ‘24, the ministry approved the village of Valemount expenditure authorization form for the hiring of a community recovery manager, acknowledging the substantial economic impacts.

Consequently, the village of Valemount engaged the consulting firm Strategies North, the result being a recommendation that the province support and mitigate the economic impacts with $1.5 million in emergency funding.

To the minister: why would you recommend and fund an economic impact study if the ministry has no intentions of actioning its recommendations?

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: Thank you to the member for the question about Valemount. I know that they were very good hosts for the communities that were affected by a fire and really opened up their community to support evacuees in a very difficult time.

My ministry funded $65,000 for a community recovery manager. We didn’t commission any report. And economic development is an important part of recovery but is the responsibility of the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation.

Rosalyn Bird: To the minister: the community economic recovery table that your ministry and the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation established to assess the economic impacts and solutions did not in any way address incidents of this nature.

Does the minister expect a small village with a population of less than 1,000 people to bear the economic burden of housing, feeding, clothing 20,000 evacuees from another province? I would add this is not what I consider to be collaborative. This, however, is financially punitive.

[6:35 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, just a reminder to direct all questions to the Chair, please.

Recognizing the minister.

Hon. Kelly Greene: Thank you, Chair, and through you to the member: during the evacuation of Jasper, my ministry worked closely with the Ministry of Transportation to ensure that there was a route through for evacuees.

The instructions that we received from the province of Alberta were that evacuees from Alberta should be immediately directed on a route back into Alberta and not to stop in B.C., which is why we worked with the Ministry of Transportation. For example, there was construction on Highway 1 on the route that evacuees needed to take through B.C. and back into Alberta. All the construction work was immediately stopped and moved off the road so that people could just move through.

That instruction from Alberta was also shared with Valemount. We did support Valemount during the evacuation with $35,000 of direct costs associated with opening up their EOC, but there’s no support from Alberta for Alberta evacuees or direction for group lodging, food, facilities.

B.C. would support B.C. evacuations. The direction that we received from the province of Alberta was to move their evacuees through B.C. back into Alberta.

Rosalyn Bird: What does the minister recommend the village of Valemount and other small rural communities…? How would she recommend they work with her ministry to prepare for unforeseen emergencies, particularly ones in neighbouring provinces?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: We offer a number of seasonal preparedness briefings for local governments to become aware of and understand upcoming risks and hazard seasons. There’s also a wealth of resources in regional offices that I would recommend local governments to connect with.

If there was a major event again, we would again pay for an EOC. Once that emergency operations centre is stood up, then that really links our response, and we are connected through multiple ministries, agencies outside of government, as well as other governments.

I think the question is about neighbouring non–British Columbia communities being impacted by a major event and making their way into B.C. So we would take direction during those kinds of events from the other province or territory, because that other province or territory is responsible for their citizens. Whether they would ask us to undertake a group lodging or a similar kind of thing, then they would be paying for it, but that direction would come from them. So we would coordinate that direction with the EOC in the local community.

Then if it was a community that was not a Canadian community, so not a province or territory, we do have border arrangements. The states that border B.C. could also be similarly impacted by an emergency, and citizens need to find their way either through Canada or into Canada and back again.

[6:45 p.m.]

We have the Pacific Northwest emergency management arrangement, which helps us understand roles and responsibilities in those kinds of situations.

We really take direction from the jurisdiction where the event is because they are ultimately responsible for their citizens, for any costs incurred, programs that are needed to be stood up, so we take direction from them. In the case of the Jasper fire, the direction was to redirect their evacuees through B.C. back into Alberta so that they could receive services in Alberta, and that was the direction that we supported.

Rosalyn Bird: I would like to remind the minister that the highway remained closed for an entire month, drastically impacting businesses in Valemount and their ability to continue operating as per normal, further adding to the economic impacts.

I also would ask the minister: would she expect Alberta to do the same thing that we did for Albertans? And I’m sure she would. I’m very proud of the residents of the village of Valemount and what they did in order to support Albertans. And I would certainly hope that Alberta would offer the same sort of assistance to us.

This may be the first massive evacuation of Alberta residents to B.C. but likely will not be the last. With the village of Valemount taking in more than 20,000 people from Alberta, are there lessons learned or postmortem planning around bringing ministries from B.C. and Alberta together in order to help assist neighbouring evacuees and designate funds to assist with economic impacts?

Hon. Kelly Greene: There are a number of different components here. We’ve got the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture, because we know how important tourism is to the village of Valemount, with a tourism recovery plan and actions that would stimulate recovery of the tourism industry.

[6:50 p.m.]

B.C. Parks has been working very hard. They just reopened the Berg Lake Trail, which we know is very important to drawing visitors into the area. Economic recovery would be outside of EMCR. Economic recovery would be through various programs — like, I mentioned, Tourism, Arts and Culture, but also JEDI.

Through the emergency, there was a Jasper business recovery program that was operated by the Canadian Red Cross. Businesses were eligible for $1,500 of reimbursements through the Canadian Red Cross.

Hopefully that answers your question.

Hon Chan: In Chilliwack River Valley, six families lost their homes during the 2021 atmospheric river, a disaster event that we mentioned today. Deep-seated rotational slope failures made their properties unsafe to occupy, yet under the DFAA that we mentioned today, the assessed post-disaster value for both the land and the structures was determined to be just $1.

This situation raises serious questions about how DFA works, how the program is applied and whether this government’s climate change commitments extend beyond radical to real support for victims of climate disaster.

What was the assessed pre-disaster and post-disaster value of the home for the man who received a dollar under DFA? And how does this ministry justify the amount? If you can’t disclose this, can you tell us what justification would be for somebody to just receive a dollar?

Hon. Kelly Greene: There needs to be damage to the structure to be eligible for DFA supports. In instances where there’s no damage to the structure, that is not DFA eligible. B.C. Assessment determines the value of properties, and they would have incorporated a landslide risk where there is an inability to occupy safely. But there’s no structural damage that would be compensated through DFA.

Macklin McCall: A lot of the responses to the questions today have…. It’s really been difficult to get a response in some of the questioning, in the sense that emergency management questions ended up having to perhaps be diverted to several other ministries to get an adequate answer.

[6:55 p.m.]

This is very frustrating for British Columbians during an emergency when there is a ministry for emergency management, and they have to go to one of multiple different ministries during an emergency or after the fact. So I’m going to ask some questions regarding that.

Emergency management in B.C. spans multiple ministries and agencies: Forests, Environment, Transportation, Health, Municipal Affairs, etc. In October 2023, the Premier’s office launched an expert task force on emergencies to bring many of these players together to apply lessons ahead of the 2024 season. That task force, co-chaired by EMCR and Forests, was meant to improve coordination on issues like emergency alerts, evacuations, and supports.

My question to the minister: what has become of that cross-ministry task force, and how is the government institutionalizing interministry coordination going forward?

Hon. Kelly Greene: I just wanted to clarify that the table that the member referred to had forestry and EMCR. It was not cross-government.

There were a number of deliverables that came from that table. There were six for the Ministry of Forests, two for EMCR, and one was a joint deliverable.

We’ve also modernized our emergency support services, which are critical for people under an evacuation. It’s supporting them in their highest time of need. We know that modernization is very important with this. We’ve seen this in other aspects. Having electronic services available is critical to timely delivery of services.

[7:00 p.m.]

We’ve got a number of changes that I think are important. One is an Interac e-transfer for evacuees, so that they can get more flexibility in accessing different supports, and digital submission of invoices for vendors that are supporting evacuees that are on ESS.

Many ESS delivery people are not staff. Many are volunteers, and so we’ve got a streamlined training course. It’s now down to a one-day course that can be accessed quite readily with four courses in that one day.

We have a fully digital self-serve evacuee registration so that when there’s a large-scale event we don’t have a bottleneck at a reception centre. People can access supports that they need in whatever community or neighbourhood they end up in.

We have a B.C. evacuee help line that helps evacuees with supports by phone in case that’s necessary.

There’s more flexibility in the accommodation allowance. They can now receive $200 a night, or if they’re a household of more than six people, they have $400 a night.

We can also deploy more staff from Service B.C. to support that in-person capacity if it’s needed, and they can be authenticated through the B.C. Services Card app, which is used for many different applications in government — again, streamlining that process there.

Macklin McCall: We need to know if the siloed approach of the past is truly being replaced with a permanent, integrated model. Has EMCR been given the authority and the resources to lead cross-ministry coordination on emergency preparedness and climate resilience as promised?

Hon. Kelly Greene: I think it’s really important to understand our ministry as a coordinating ministry. We don’t duplicate expertise that’s found in other ministries. That would be incredibly inefficient.

So, for example, the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship has the technical expertise for monitoring rivers, and so the river forecast centre lives in that ministry. They use that information for a variety of different purposes within that ministry, but it’s also very valuable for us to understand in the context of emergency planning and response.

[7:05 p.m.]

Also, for example, another example, the Ministry of Forests maintains forest roads, and that’s their responsibility.

We, again, have that coordinating capacity. We have the staff to do it and we’ve successfully done it to make sure that we are assisting the ministries with the expertise to be available and part of response in the event of a major event.

We are also leading provincial coordination for disaster risk reduction and climate readiness. We are developing a comprehensive emergency management plan so that different ministries across government are familiar and connected with us, so that when we have an emergency like the Chilcotin landslide, we’re a well-oiled team and able to respond to different kinds of events with the appropriate and expert knowledge that’s found in different ministries. So we’ve been doing that work. We’re going to continue doing it.

I think it’s really important to recognize the incredible hard work of EMCR staff to make sure that, at all times, we are responding to keep communities safe, to keep people and businesses and farms and infrastructure safe, and that when we get through an event, we have a recovery that includes incorporation of climate change, so that we are more resilient in the future, so that our communities are safer than they’ve ever been.

Thank you for the question.

Macklin McCall: Thank you to the minister for the response.

I have quite a lot more questions to ask, but I’ve run out of time, it would seem, so perhaps the minister may be able to allow me to submit some of these questions after the fact, in writing. But other than that, those are my questions.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions at this time I ask the minister if you’d like to make any closing remarks.

Hon. Kelly Greene: I just want to thank my critic or critics and all the members who are so engaged in the topic of emergency management and preparedness, who are as keenly interested and committed to our community’s safety and resilience as everybody in this room. I’m just grateful for your attention to this really important subject, and I know that your communities are in good hands.

When we get into our briefings, as we get into this upcoming hazard season, I’m sure that we’ll see more of each other.

With that, I’ll just turn it back to the Chair.

Hon Chan: I would just want to thank you the minister and her staff for all the patience for the past 4½ hours.

Vote 21: ministry operations, $88,707,000 — approved.

Vote 22: Emergency and Disaster Management Act, $36,420,000 — approved.

The Chair: The committee will now take a five-minute recess while we prepare for the next ministry.

The committee recessed from 7:09 p.m. to 7:15 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Estimates: Ministry of
Citizens’ Services

The Chair: Okay, Members, I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services.

On Vote 19: ministry operations, $705,355,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. George Chow: Yes, I do.

I’m honoured to be on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking peoples, known today as the Songhees and SXIMEȽEȽ Nations.

I’d like to introduce my team from the Citizens’ Services Ministry, and I appreciate the leadership and all that they do to help our ministry deliver the services people in British Columbia count on. To my right is Shauna Brouwer, who is the deputy minister, and associate deputy minister and chief information officer Hayden Lansdell. To my left, assistant deputy minister of corporate services division Holly Cairns, Susan Stanford, assistant deputy minister of connectivity division, and Charmaine Lowe, ADM of corporate information and records management office. Other members are sitting on that side of the room, and they’ll be joining me as required.

I’m honoured to have been re-elected and reappointed as the Minister of Citizens’ Services. The work being done at Citizens’ Services touches the lives of every person in British Columbia when they access government services online and in person. Through Service B.C., people can access over 300 government services in 65 offices around the province, online, over the phone and now through a new mobile service van.

All our divisions are working to help people across B.C. My ministry’s connectivity division is working with the government of Canada and internet service providers to build critical infrastructure for high-speed internet and cellular connectivity. Our investment will ensure people have the connectivity they need to access personal and economic opportunity that comes with reliable, high-speed internet service and increased public safety with better cellular connectivity on B.C. highways.

It is our goal to connect all communities in B.C. to high-speed internet services. When we started this work in 2017, the federal government estimated only 57 percent of homes in rural B.C. and 66 percent of homes on First Nations land had access to high-speed internet. As of January this year, approximately 74 percent of rural homes and over 83 percent of homes on First Nations now have access to high-speed internet. We are going to continue this work, improving life for people in every corner of British Columbia.

As Citizens’ Services, we are also committed to building stronger government programs and services so we can serve British Columbia’s growing population today and for generations to come. Everyone deserves equal access to strong public services.

[7:20 p.m.]

Long-standing systemic racism and discrimination have shaped the delivery of government programs and services for generations. Our government believes we must be a leader of change, which is why we continue to advance anti-racism work to make the B.C. Public Service more diverse and inclusive.

I’m so pleased, as the Minister of Citizens’ Services, to help lead this important work in partnership with the Attorney General and our government’s anti-racism legislation.

We’re also working on important mandate items such as strengthening our digital systems across government so people can receive trusted public services online. Citizens’ Services is also responsive for helping government to run smoothly, from government workstations and office spaces to procuring government products and services and overseeing information management and security.

I want to thank everyone working in our ministry and all the hard work they’re doing for the people of B.C., and I look forward to our conversation with the members opposite.

Thank you for your attention.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Prince George–Valemount.

Would you like to make any opening remarks?

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, to the minister, through yourself, I would like to congratulate Minister Chow for your continued assignment to this ministry. Not a lot of B.C. residents know a lot about it, but it is a large portfolio that covers many topics and impacts every B.C. resident day to day. I look forward to what I hope will be a collaborative relationship with the ministry in addressing various issues for B.C. residents.

I would ask, moving forward through the estimate process, that all of my questions and the answers provided be entered into the official record, whether they are provided immediately or later by paper response. Thank you.

Is there a specific area within the ministry or the portfolio that the minister would actually like to start with?

Hon. George Chow: It’s really for the members to ask us questions, wherever you like to speak. I gave an introduction of the scope of our ministry. But yes, whatever you’d like to ask, and we will try to answer the best we can.

Rosalyn Bird: I’d just like to offer an apology to the minister, the Chair and the room. I have been under the weather, so I will apologize in advance for my hacking and necessity for water. Thank you for your patience on that.

I would like to start with freedom of information. In January of 2024, the Special Report 24-01: Review of Government’s performance in responding to access requests, was released. This report covers a three-year period of April 2020 to March 31, 2023. The report states that during the review period, the government committed to spending $5.5 million to modernize its technology and processes for responding to FOI requests.

The minister’s 2024 transition binder states that the corporate information and records management office is in the final year of this four-year commitment to modernize the FOI processes and systems.

Can the minister confirm that 2024 was in fact the final year, or has the modernization project been extended?

Hon. George Chow: Yes, thank you for your question. Yes, the program has been extended to the fall of 2025, and the investment has increased to $8.2 million.

[7:25 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: The January ‘24 report stated that the project’s commitment was initially a $5.5 million cost. The minister’s 2024 transition binder states that the project commitment is $7.7 million, and the minister has just confirmed that it has been increased to, I believe you said, $8.2 million.

Can the minister give us specific details regarding any cost increases and what they are responding to?

Hon. George Chow: Thank you for the question.

It’s correct that this year’s budget is $8.2 million. So that’s an increase of half a million dollars from $7.7 million. This is required in order to modernize our software so we could use it to redact sensitive information, like third party personal information or cabinet confidence. The redaction software will use natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence, and this tool will enhance the accuracy, consistency and efficiency of the records review process.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for that information. Can you please confirm that the increase in the budget from the original $5.5 million to $8.2 million is strictly to incorporate the redaction software? And can you give an explanation as to why the project has been extended and what data or statistics were used to justify this extension?

[7:30 p.m.]

Hon. George Chow: Thank you for that question. I’d like to confirm that the regional $5.5 million was accomplished. It was accomplished on time, and then we added the $2.2 million, so that is $7.7 million.

[7:35 p.m.]

That’s to make the system better and edit the Open Information system so people can access information without having to do an FOI request. That also helps us in terms of quickening the return time for people who are seeking information.

For example, the average staff time to process an FOI request decreased by almost two hours. That’s as a result of what we spent additionally to the $5.5 million. The average days to respond to an FOI request decreased by almost seven days, and the average on-time rate increased by 16 percent. So that’s the benefit of that $2.2 million.

And of course, like I just said, the extra half a million dollars that increased it to $8.2 million is to have an AI natural language processing tool, which further enhances the system.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for the clarification on the funding.

I just want to reiterate and make sure I understood you correctly. You said there was a $2.2 million increase from the $5.5 million to engage in or create a process where people do not actually have to submit FOIs to get government information?

And then the original question was whether the increase was solely to pay for new redaction software, and you have now added an AI processing tool also. I just want to clarify. Does the $2.2 million or does the $2.7 million include a new process and two types of new software? I’ll start with that question, actually.

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. George Chow: I can confirm the combined $2.7 million basically is for adding new software. The software, as I said, is the new integration open system.

We already have an open site where people could visit, and since we have enacted proactive disclosure, for example, MLAs’ and ministers’ calendars, expense…. We have 17 categories of proactive disclosure. People now if they want information don’t need to file an FOI request. That software site allows people to do that. We had to improve that so that it’s faster, better for the user.

Of course, with that half a million dollars — that’s 2.2, adding half a million — that’s a natural language processing tool, which is that AI I was talking about. So together that’s what we were doing — to make it better so people do not have to file an FOI information request.

The 17 categories are listed. I’m sure you know who they are, what they are. I definitely could…. I don’t know if you want me to read them all out, but I think perhaps for the people, it would be nice to get an understanding of what information you could get.

You could have a summary of deputy ministers’ briefing notes. That’s one category. Another one is summaries of ministers of state briefing notes. Those are two new ones that we added recently. The parliamentary secretaries’ calendars are also available. There’s also a summary of ministerial briefing notes and estimate notes, just what we’re doing here now.

Corporation transition binders and also minister transition binders. So when I became minister, there was a big binder that we had to go through. That’s available.

The deputy minister travel expense summaries. Also, purchasing card and business transaction account expenditures.

Then there are the summaries of open and closed freedom-of-information requests, so people know how many are coming in, and the record of release in response to freedom-of-information requests. That’s also available.

Gaming grants paid to community organizations. You could go online and look at that.

Minister and deputy minister calendars, and also contracts, directly awarded contracts, and minister travel expenses and receipts.

Summary of contracts with value over $10,000 Canadian, and summary of alternative service delivery contracts.

Those are the 17 categories that people now could go online and look at. Without paying any fees, without filing an FOI, without waiting, they could get that information.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for that information, and yes, I am very aware of what is on the Open Information as part of the ministry site. However, I did want to ask a clarifying question about the information you just provided.

There is, in fact, a section where you can get a summary of briefing notes. I have looked at that, and it does actually give a list of the briefing notes you have received in previous years. However, it does not give the briefing notes themselves. So although it’s helpful to know what you were briefed on, I actually don’t have any details of what you were briefed on. I had to submit an FOI request in order to get that information.

If an FOI request is not necessary for that information, why would the FOI office or somebody that had received that request not notify me and then provide me with that information or direct me as to where I can receive those briefing notes?

[7:45 p.m.]

Hon. George Chow: The member is correct. It’s only the summaries in that open site that you could access.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for confirming that.

I’d like to go back to my previous question that I don’t believe was answered. Can you please reiterate why the modernization project was extended and what data or statistics were used in order to justify the extension?

[7:50 p.m.]

Hon. George Chow: To answer your question, Member, I think when we embarked on this project, we were basically following the old way of software development, which was to actually look at the whole system from start to finish. That was how that $5.5 million was spent.

As we went forward, we actually had feedback from the users. We got feedback from over 200 users, who were telling us how to make it even better. We, of course, have the objective of timely delivery to the people who want the information and less time for our staff, so we had to spend that $2.2 million.

It’s kind of like as you develop the software, as you go along on that route, you’re actually adding more, newer function to it. So that’s where that $2.2 million comes from. And of course, that half a million dollars was just for the AI, the open system, because that came later.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for that explanation.

I just would like to confirm that, according to the information that I’ve read, the original intent of this project was to reduce the average time it takes to process and respond to FOI requests, improve business processes across all ministries and implement a new, unified software system to increase efficiency and improve data and reporting.

Based on the answer you just provided, can you confirm that the software that has actually been implemented is above and beyond what was originally intended for this project, and that you received…?

Did you say 200 feedback…? I think you said 200 people gave you feedback. Okay.

Was the feedback specifically in response to needing upgraded software? What type of responses were you receiving that justified a full year extension?

[7:55 p.m.]

Hon. George Chow: The project was delivered and is in operation right now for the 24 ministries. We are all on the unified system, and it is achieving the goals and the timeliness that we are looking for. As I said, it was as a result of feedback from users. So we are doing what is intended to make it more efficient.

With the AI, we’re now able to redact some of the information before we release it, because a lot of the information has to be redacted because of sensitive personal information as well as business information.

So I would say that we updated the open information site and the AI-powered software to review the record faster. As I said, all 24 ministries are now on this new platform, and we are seeing improvement in the FOI requests. Yeah.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

Rosalyn Bird: In regard to the new software that you are referring to, are the AI and redaction tool software separate, or are they a combined software tool?

Hon. George Chow: So what the AI software does is actually go through the documents and take out the sensitive information that we gave instruction to that. We still have to actually go and do the redaction. So that’s what the software is for. It’s to seek out the sensitive information using the AI machine rather than people reading it. That’s where the efficiency comes from.

[8:00 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: Just for clarification, the new software that’s being used for redaction…. The software itself is searching out the information that should be redacted, but it is not actually redacting that information. Then an actual person has to redact the information that artificial intelligence determines should be redacted?

Hon. George Chow: The member is correct. The AI software seeks out the sensitive information, and a human would have to decide whether to redact that information.

Rosalyn Bird: Is this new redaction software used on all FOI requests, or will it only be used for certain ministries, such as the MCFD?

Hon. George Chow: The new tool, the AI tool, is being trained on all files. Of course, there will always be human oversight, particularly the MCFD files because they are sensitive. They will always have human oversight.

We’re using AI as a tool to help us, but the decision is using the human decision. And I also could bring to the member’s attention that we do have the guiding principles for the use of AI. We incorporate the best practices and align with the governments of Ontario and Canada.

[8:05 p.m.]

The AI principles are transparency, accountability, public benefit, fairness, reliability and safety. That’s the guiding principle for us using AI tools. So as the AI tools continue to evolve, government will continue to evolve the policy framework to ensure AI tools are used appropriately.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for that. I will table the AI software for a later time. It will be brought back up.

I’m going to jump ahead here to a question that the information will benefit a colleague. In September 2024, Citizens’ Services established a separate branch within the CIRMO dedicated to processing MCFD personal FOI requests as a short-term goal and to work with the Ministry of Children and Family Development to find long-term solutions to improving access to information for current and former children in care.

Will the minister provide details as to how many additional positions this branch has added to your ministry, what was the increase to your budget, and whether or not this is intended to be a permanent change?

Hon. George Chow: Yes, I can confirm that we added an executive director as part of the 20 FTE that were added — so 20 FTE. And the MCFD provides funding annually, and it’s $2½ million, and this is part of the MCFD budget.

Rosalyn Bird: Just for confirmation, you hired an executive director, and you now have an additional 20 full-time employees working with the MCFD, and they are actually paying for that through their budget. It is not coming directly out of the Citizens’ Services budget?

And a follow-up question: is this branch going to be moved under the MCFD, or will it remain part of Citizens’ Services?

[8:10 p.m.]

Hon. George Chow: Member, you’re correct.

We have one executive director plus 20 FTEs. No decision has been made in terms of moving the branch. So they’re being paid by MCFD, but the employees are working under the ministry for MCFD.

Rosalyn Bird: As we’re on the topic of children, in early 2023, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner released a special report stating that they were in the early stages of developing a children’s privacy code.

Can you explain the working relationship between Citizens’ Services and the OIPC and MCFD in regard to monitoring the federal bills C-27 and C-63, both laws intended to better protect children and youth online?

Hon. George Chow: As the member knows, the OIPC is an independent officer of the Legislature. I have a good relationship, our ministry has a good working relationship with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I have met the commissioner twice, once last year and also after I got reappointed.

[8:15 p.m.]

We’re waiting for the federal bill to come back, because right now it died on the order paper. But you know, for us, the online privacy for children is a very, very important issue for the government, and we are looking at ways to improve the protections that work for B.C. and align with the federal and international models.

We already have a robust privacy assessment process in place, and we’re working with ministries on additional analysis when children are identified as significant users of an application. The Information and Privacy Commissioner is working with us. The commissioner is an independent officer, but he’s responsible for overseeing, enforcing and educating businesses in the private sector under the Personal Information Protection Act.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for that.

I am aware that in the not-so-distant past, the Attorney General was working with your ministry and others to consider changes or implementation of B.C. legislation that aligns with or amplifies federal bills that were being considered or will be in the future.

Are there any current committees or projects continuing this work from a provincial perspective as we await the announcements from the federal government?

Hon. George Chow: We know the online privacy of children is very important, but this aspect of these questions is more appropriately addressed by the Attorney General.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for that. I do appreciate your perspective. I do understand that the OIPC office works very closely with the Ministry of Citizens’ Services, and they have been and are considering recommendations. Those recommendations are very different than actually bringing those recommendations into legislation.

I would hope that Citizens’ Services is continuing to work with the Attorney General’s office and looking at considerations based on these recommendations and that we aren’t just sitting on our hands waiting for the federal government.

A year and a half ago we had a young child in my riding that actually committed suicide due to online sextortion. This is an issue that directly impacts B.C. residents and families, day to day, and I would hope that it would be a priority for this ministry and their work with the Attorney General in order to ensure that we are continuing to look at processes to better protect children and youth in this province.

[8:20 p.m.]

Hon. George Chow: I do agree with the member that children’s online safety is very important. But as I said, this is the purview of the Attorney General, and I think that question would be better answered by the Attorney General.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that. I will address that question with the Attorney General if I have that opportunity.

Sorry, if we can go back to the branch that is now employing 20 full-time employees and an executive director for the Ministry of Children and Family Development through Citizens’ Services.

Is the minister able to confirm or tell myself what the employee pay level is for those 20 individuals?

Hon. George Chow: The executive director is on pay band 5. The other employees are AO 18, AO 21 and AO 24. And this salary range we could bring back, or we look up the table, but the information is public.

Rosalyn Bird: I’m going to sort of reverse now and head back to a topic that we were talking about earlier.

In January of 2024, a special report when comparing government overall timelines in responding to access requests against the legislated benchmark of no later than 30 days…. The government only met the 30-day time frame in FOI requests in 55 to 58 percent of requests closed in the years 2020 to 2023.

In fact, the average response time has crept up over the past decade, reaching a 13-year high of 85 days in the 2023 fiscal year. Since 2021, the Office of the Premier has stood out as a ministry with the slowest response times, and it has significantly increased from year to year: 57 days in 2021, 126 days in 2022 and a staggering 269 days in 2023.

Can the minister validate and justify the $8.2 million investment of taxpayers’ dollars in an FOI modernization project and its extension by providing current statistics that show the legislated process and response times are being met, and business processes across ministries have improved and in accordance with the project objectives and outcomes?

[8:25 p.m.]

Hon. George Chow: My ministry is committed to improving the freedom-of-information system so that people in B.C. have timely access to the information they need. In 2023-2024, we significantly reduced the timeline for responding to an FOI request. We responded to 84 percent of the FOI requests on time in 2023-2024. That’s a 6 percent increase compared to 2022-23, last fiscal year.

We also reduced the average number of days to respond to a request by 26 days. The FOI applicant received a response within an average of 59 days compared to 85 days in 2022-23. That’s a 30 percent improvement.

Also, our ministry staff meet regularly with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review progress and discuss additional measures to improve timeliness. And we have implemented a number of measures to improve FOI timeliness and services.

Since 2021, we have committed over $8.2 million to modernize our FOI service with a new unified system. That is what got us the efficiency, the fast response, for FOI requests.

As for the Premier’s office, the Premier’s office now has no backlog. They’re current, so that’s a great improvement as well.

Rosalyn Bird: Based on this project, the modernization project, how often does the ministry intend, moving forward, to evaluate each ministry’s FOI processes to identify and correct any lags, ensuring performance improvement and that FOI requests are met in a timely manner?

[8:30 p.m.]

Hon. George Chow: To the members, each ministry is responsible for their FOI requests, but we do provide an oversight by quarterly reviewing the statistics of all ministries with the deputy ministers. We also produce an annual report, and we also provide ad hoc statistics to the OIPC whenever the OIPC office asks us.

So that’s how we actually make sure that we are accountable on the FOI requests and the expenditure that we have to improve the system.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for that. Just confirmation. Each ministry is required to do a quarterly review to ensure that their FOIs are being processed correctly.

How does the ministry intend to reduce or hopefully eliminate any current accumulation of unlawfully delayed requests? And what new processes have been put in place to further prevent unlawfully delayed requests?

[8:35 p.m.]

Hon. George Chow: We are committed to improving the FOI timeliness. As you know, in ‘23-24, the average number of days to respond to an FOI request was 59 days, which is an improvement from 85 days in ‘22-23. That’s a 30 percent increase in terms of timeliness.

Also, we received nearly 8,000 requests in ‘23-24 and processed approximately 2 million pages of information, so there’s a lot of information. And in ‘23-24, 84 percent of the requests were completed on time. That’s an improvement of over 78 percent from the previous year, in ‘22-23.

So we are committed to improving the system with the $8.2 million plus the 20 MCFD staff — well, actually, the executive director plus 20 staff that are working on the MCFD file.

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister for…. Just kidding. Recognizing the member. It’s getting late into the evening.

Recognizing the member for Prince George–Valemount.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the unintended compliment.

Although I appreciate that information and the statistics, it didn’t actually directly answer the question.Does the ministry intend to reduce and hopefully eliminate any current accumulation of unlawfully delayed requests, and what specific processes have you put in place to prevent further unlawful delayed FOI requests?

I will actually finish that off with a second question. Is the minister aware of any ministries that continue to have a backlog?

Hon. George Chow: The MCFD records are 80 percent of the delay, just because of the sheer number of records that are being requested by people wanting information. So we are targeting that issue with investments like the 20 FTEs that we talked about, and also the new system, and we are aware of the delays.

In the quarterly report…. Actually, to give you some appreciation for the requests from Children and Family Development, MCFD, it’s actually increasing.

[8:40 p.m.]

In 2022 to 2023, there were 2,020 requests. In ‘23-24, there was an increase, and that is 2,278. That’s an increase of more than 200 requests. So we are also catching up as well. It actually had a serious backlog because of the information requests by people on their own personal information. That’s the sheer volume that we have to deal with from MCFD.

But we’re committed to improving.

Rosalyn Bird: I don’t think there’s anybody in this room that doesn’t understand the complexities of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. It has a number of challenges that I’m sure are going to be addressed in other conversations during estimates, so we don’t need to discuss that.

However, outside of that particular ministry, is the minister aware of any ministries that continue to have a backlog?

Hon. George Chow: Through my deputy minister, I have available a quarterly report on the statistics and the backlog. It is consistent with what the member said. MCFD is a complex issue because of the volume of work. So that is our primary delay here.

But of course, other ministries from time to time, depending on the requests, how many come in, may have a little bit of delay. But consistently, so far, it’s MCFD, and that’s why we’re devoting the necessary resources to clear the backlog.

Rosalyn Bird: I appreciate that information. Yes, we all recognize the MCFD. However, the question was, to the minister: are you aware of any current ministries that remain or currently still have a backlog, outside of MCFD?

[8:45 p.m.]

Hon. George Chow: Yes, I can confirm to the member that there are some timeliness issues with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Transportation, as well as the PSA.

I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness and report progress on the Ministry of Citizens’ Services and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee stands adjourned. Have a good evening.

The committee rose at 8:47 p.m.