In April 2025, the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness (EMCR) administered three 2-hour online engagement sessions for local governments to provide input on the development of regulations for local authorities under the Emergency and Disaster Management Act (EDMA). This article summarizes the feedback provided by local government attendees.
Background
These sessions, held on April 8, 9 and 10, were hosted by UBCM and gave local governments an opportunity to review, validate, and add to key issues and questions identified by the Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) on EDMA regulations. The LGAC, a committee comprised of 10 local government representatives and co-chaired by UBCM and EMCR, was established in July 2024 to provide input on the development of regulations under the EDMA.
The engagement sessions were attended by 209 local government representatives, representing 108 B.C. local governments (including 25 regional districts) from across all five local government area associations.
Key Themes
The engagement sessions covered a variety of topics and provided local government attendees an opportunity to ask questions, provide comments and respond to polling questions related to each topic. A key theme in the feedback from local governments was a need for flexibility at the local level. Local governments highlighted that their individual circumstances are unique and diverse and that regulations need to allow for adaptability.
Local governments indicated a preference for guidance, training and education to support them in meeting the legislative requirements, including the Indigenous Engagement Requirements, rather than rigid regulations. Participants shared that navigating and building relationships with Indigenous partners and neighbouring jurisdictions is context specific and often complex. They indicated support for enabling flexibility to adapt to local circumstances and allow for the continuation of existing work to build relationships. In general, templates were noted as being a helpful tool if they allow flexibility or are optional.
Capacity and resource limitations was another key theme in the feedback from local governments. Attendees emphasized the need for stable, long-term funding to support implementing the requirements under the EDMA. It was noted that local governments are often managing competing priorities and may not have in-house expertise in developing risk assessments, emergency management plans, and business continuity plans. While target dates for completing risk assessment and planning requirements could support accountability and resource acquisition, participants shared that some duties may require more time than others due to differences in capacity and resources.
Local governments indicated support for limiting the minimum required geographic scope for regional district risk assessment and planning and enabling regional districts to prioritize areas they deem most critical. Regional district representatives pointed out that they don’t have decision-making authority on Crown land and land-use by tenure holders is often beyond their control, and as such they sought for the Province to assume these responsibilities.
Overall, local governments emphasized the importance of coordination and cooperation across jurisdictions in building community resilience. Information and data-sharing, while protecting sensitive information, was highlighted as one way to support efficiency and the development of robust risk assessments, emergency management plans and emergency programs broadly.
Polling Question Results
During the webinars, EMCR offered several polling questions for consideration by local government attendees. A summary of the responses to the polling questions is outlined below by topic.
Risk Assessments
Attendees were asked whether there should be additional requirements for risk assessments included in regulations that go beyond what is already required under the EDMA. Most respondents expressed support for the LGAC’s recommendation that no additional requirements for risk assessments be included in regulations.
Emergency Management Plans
In relation to publishing emergency management plans, approximately two thirds of the respondents supported local governments publishing emergency management plans online with sensitive information removed. Similarly, almost two thirds supported local governments setting their own review periods for emergency management plans. Overall, more than one third of respondents were neutral on the Province setting a target completion date for risk assessments and emergency management plans. The remaining respondents were relatively evenly distributed between being in support or not in support of the Province setting a target completion date. When asked what the preferred target completion date for emergency management plans would be if a target date was established, most preferred a target date that was 5 years from the adoption of the regulations.
Business Continuity Plans
The EDMA requires that local governments prepare and maintain a business continuity plan. Almost all respondents agreed that templates and guidance to support local governments on business continuity plans would be helpful. Approximately half of respondents agreed that a specific mandatory review period imposed by the Province could lead to non-compliance, as local governments have different levels of capacity.
Scope of Regional District Responsibilities
Prior to the introduction of the EDMA, the Province announced an intention to introduce regulations that would limit the minimum required scope of regional district plans to geographic areas for which the making of plans is most critical. When asked about risk assessments and emergency management plans in relation to Crown lands, two thirds of participants reflected agreement with the LGAC that regulations remove requirements for regional districts to prepare risk assessment or emergency management plans in relation to Crown lands. Two thirds of the participants also supported allowing regional districts to identify the areas of their jurisdiction that are the highest priority for risk assessments and to determine the scope and scale of assessments themselves. A significant portion of respondents agreed that areas where there is potential risk to health, safety, or well-being of persons; critical services such as water and electricity; and community egress and ingress should be considered when determining the scope and scale of assessments.
Emergency Management Organizations
The EDMA enables the formation of multijurisdictional emergency management organizations (MJEMOs), which are a voluntary framework for collaboration and partnerships between local authorities, Indigenous governing bodies, and the Province.
Most respondents agreed that it should be required that an MJEMO establishing agreement describe the jurisdictional boundaries within which the MJEMO will operate and list the members of the MJEMO. Most respondents also agreed that the agreement should include the effective date of the agreement, duties in the EDMA that the MJEMO will fulfill on behalf of member entities and any powers in the EDMA that are to be delegated to a staff person of a local authority participating in the MJEMO. Most respondents also agreed that including procedures for how a member could leave the MJEMO would also be important.
Final Reports
After a state of local emergency or a local recovery period is declared, the EDMA currently requires a local authority to prepare a report with respect to the declaration of a SOLE or a local recovery period. The report contains basic information, such as the nature of the emergency, emergency powers exercised, and whether consultation and cooperation with Indigenous governing bodies occurred.
With respect to publishing the final report, more than half of the respondents indicated that they would prefer having the Province publish final reports on the EMCR website as opposed to local governments being required to publish the reports on their own website, or both.
Consultation and Cooperation
Under the EDMA, there are requirements for local governments to consult and cooperate with Indigenous governing bodies across all phases of emergency management. When asked if there should be more consultation and cooperation requirements in relation to the development of risk assessments and emergency management plans, most respondents agreed that there should be no additional requirements. Instead, respondents indicated a preference for a flexible approach and guidance.
Next Steps
With the conclusion of the webinars, EMCR will continue to work collaboratively with the LGAC on regulations taking into consideration the feedback heard from local governments. EMCR will also conduct similar engagement sessions with First Nations for their input. The target date for regulations for local authorities is currently fall 2025.
For general questions about the EDMA or regulations, please contact EMCR.
For queries on the Indigenous Engagement Requirements under the EDMA, please contact the ECMR team supporting this work.
For local government representatives seeking a copy of the webinar materials, please contact Stephen Roddick, UBCM Senior Policy Analyst or Bhar Sihota, Senior Policy Analyst.