Challenges experienced by the province during the recovery

We found that the provincial government’s role in the Village of Lytton’s recovery process was challenged in three areas:

1. Supporting the village’s complex and unprecedented recovery needs.
2. Ensuring Nlaka’pamux were partners in the village’s recovery.
3. Providing oversight of the village’s recovery activities funded by the province.

1. Supporting the Village of Lytton’s complex and unprecedented recovery needs

The province was challenged to support the Village of Lytton’s recovery needs. At the time of the fire, B.C.’s emergency management legislation and policy were not sufficient to guide the complex and unprecedented recovery of a whole community. In addition, the village lacked staff and funds to lead its recovery and most of the residents were uninsured or underinsured. Recovery was highly complex and included remediating soil, archaeological considerations, and rebuilding the local government.

Source: CP

B.C.’s emergency management framework did not sufficiently address disaster recovery

When the Lytton Creek wildfire occurred, the province had started modernizing the Emergency Program Act. The decades-old statute focused on emergency response (e.g., actions taken in response to an imminent or occurring emergency). It did not provide a comprehensive legal framework that established responsibilities for managing disaster recovery.

In 2019, the province introduced the Interim Provincial Disaster Recovery Framework to guide recovery activities until new emergency legislation was developed. The recovery from the Lytton Creek wildfire was the first time the province operationalized the interim framework. The policy established that local authorities were expected to lead their own recoveries, with support from the province.

In addition, the framework only provided high-level guidance. The province and its partners were required to develop detailed processes, procedures, and considerations as the village’s recovery progressed.

In 2021, Emergency Management BC was responsible for leading provincial emergency management activities, as laid out in the Emergency Program Act. This included approving and tracking recovery funding and coordinating support from various ministries. Emergency Management BC was beginning to broaden its traditional focus, from emergency response to include emergency recovery. In addition to the wildfire season, ministry staff were tasked the same year with supporting recovery from flooding and landslides linked to the November atmospheric river.

The village lacked staff and financial resources required to lead its complex and unprecedented recovery

The scale of destruction in the Village of Lytton was unprecedented for a community in B.C. The damage to buildings and the environment spanned most of the village site. The municipality’s offices were lost along with its tools for conducting business, including all bylaw records. Community members scattered, which complicated post-disaster needs assessments – a key component of recovery planning.

Before the wildfire, the Village of Lytton employed six staff, including a chief administrative officer, clerks, and public works staff. There were no bylaw officers, planners, or engineers to inform recovery planning, and no recovery manager to coordinate it. The village had a small budget and low financial reserves.

After the fire, reduced taxes and service fees further limited the village’s revenue base. At the same time, the village’s costs multiplied. It needed to hire staff with skills and experience to lead the recovery. It also needed to fund rebuilding, soil remediation, and archaeological work.

Due to its complex recovery needs and lack of financial reserves, the village was unable to leverage the province’s two emergency funding mechanisms under the Emergency Program Act.

• The act’s Disaster Financial Assistance (DFA) program provided partial (80 per cent) reimbursement for infrastructure repairs, but the village could not afford to pay the remaining 20 per cent. The village received only $48,000 of DFA funding for a public rights-of-way survey and the removal of garbage cans, planters, picnic tables, etc. from sidewalks.
• The act also allowed local authorities to borrow money to pay expenses caused by an emergency. The framework assumed the local authority had the revenue base to recover the costs of the debt. The village’s financial situation meant it would likely be ineligible to borrow the funds required.

In addition, about 60 per cent of property owners did not have fire insurance and others were underinsured. While insurance is the primary source of recovery funding following a disaster, private insurance did not cover the environmental remediation and archaeological monitoring work in the village.

Province provided significant funds but expected the village to lead its own recovery

Despite the village’s lack of staff and financial capacity, the province attempted to follow the community-led model described in the Interim Provincial Disaster Recovery Framework:

“It is important that the Province supports but does not lead community recovery…the Province’s role is to establish policy and coordination to support the community and for implementation to be actioned by the community.”

To support the village, the province expanded its recovery efforts under the leadership of Emergency Management BC and with oversight from a cabinet working group. The province assigned an assistant deputy minister and later an executive lead, to the village’s recovery. The province also assigned two parliamentary secretaries to liaise with the village council and attend community meetings.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs supported the village with governance and municipal capacity matters (e.g., support for council-staff relations, bylaw recovery, local elections, and financial contributions).

Initially, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Emergency Management BC directly funded contractors to work on behalf of the village. In August 2021, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs hired a contractor to act as a recovery advisor to the village. Emergency Management BC funded a consultant to work with the village to develop a short-term recovery plan that was finalized at the end of October 2021. The short-term recovery plan supported funding requests and guided immediate recovery efforts for the village.

By late 2021 it was evident that the village would require substantial provincial funds to continue operating, as well as to pay for its recovery. The province’s first direct payment of recovery funds to the village was a $1 million grant in December 2021. In early 2022, Emergency Management BC began reimbursing the village for expenses incurred during response and early recovery stages. These reimbursements totaled almost $2 million. It also paid the village approximately $48,000 for two Disaster Financial Assistance projects.

It also paid the village approximately $48,000 for two Disaster Financial Assistance projects.

In February 2022, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Emergency Management BC both requested funding from Treasury Board to support municipal operations and recovery work in the village. As directed in the Interim Provincial Disaster Recovery Framework, the requests were to access Contingencies funding. After receiving Treasury Board approval, the ministries set up agreements with the village and began disbursing funds in March and April 2022. The village then hired contractors including archaeologists, environmental consultants, and a debris removal company to conduct recovery work.

As recovery progressed, it became clear that the amounts allotted in the original contribution agreements would not be sufficient. For example, the village initially budgeted $5.1 million for debris removal and soil remediation on uninsured properties, but by November 2022 the estimate of total cost at completion had changed to $16.7 million. Over time the province signed additional funding agreements with the village to support expanding costs.

Remediation complexity

Smoke and ash from wildfires can contain a variety of contaminants, such as contaminants from burned vinyl siding or vehicles. A preliminary assessment in the village identified levels of contaminants that exceeded provincial standards. Project managers contracted by the village estimated that more than 50,000 tonnes of debris and contaminated soil needed to be removed.

Remediation work occurred in tandem with archaeological work. Debris and contaminated soil removal required archaeological permits and monitoring.

Between the time of the fire and March 2025, the province disbursed over $51 million for the village’s recovery.
Throughout the village’s recovery, the two ministries continued to be actively involved, including frequent status meetings and ad hoc discussions with village staff and contractors.

Despite the support and funding from the province, the recovery process had taken longer than many hoped. This was partly due to the complexity of the village’s recovery context, such as extensive soil remediation and archaeology requirements, as well as staff and council who, due to limited capacity, could not respond effectively to the province’s community-led recovery model.

In addition, because most property owners did not have insurance or were underinsured, it was likely that many could not afford to rebuild. Residents displaced by the fire were also hesitant to return for various reasons, including the absence of services and housing.

The first permit for a single-family home was issued in October 2023 and village staff reported to council in November that soil remediation was substantially complete for most of the village. By December 2023, a home was under construction.

At the end of our examination period (March 2025), 33 building permits had been issued by the village.

Source: Calvin Jones

2. Ensuring Nlaka’pamux were partners in the Village of Lytton’s recovery

However, at the time of the fire, the province’s emergency management legislation was silent regarding the role of Indigenous Peoples in emergency management. This lack of a legislative framework impeded the province’s efforts to bring together the Nlaka’pamux and the village to plan and participate in the municipality’s recovery. Ultimately, a collaborative partnership failed to emerge. This lack of collaboration was a missed opportunity for the village and the province.

Nlaka’pamux territory includes the Village of Lytton

The Nlaka’pamux have Aboriginal title and rights in Nlaka’pamux Territory. The Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council is a governing entity responsible for title and rights and represents the interests of its four member communities, which includes the Lytton First Nation. The tribal council is not a provincially or federally regulated body.

Aboriginal title

Aboriginal title is a right recognized and affirmed under Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution Act. A duty to consult is triggered where claimed or proven rights may be adversely impacted by a potential Crown action or authorization.

Regardless of whether these rights have been proven in Canadian courts, the province owes a duty to consult and accommodate whenever it contemplates taking actions that have the potential for adverse effects on claimed Section 35 rights.

Source: Calvin Jones

B.C.’s emergency management legislation was not aligned with the Declaration Act in 2021

In November 2019, B.C. passed legislation that had implications for the full inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in emergency or disaster recovery. B.C.’s Declaration Act requires provincial protection of rights specified under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The UN Declaration includes the right of Indigenous Peoples to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources. It also includes the right to protect archaeological sites and artifacts.

At the time of the Lytton Creek wildfire, B.C. was in the early stages of aligning provincial legislation with the Declaration Act. The emergency management framework for First Nations was based on the federal Indian Act band system, with the federal government paying the province to deliver on-reserve emergency management services, including recovery, to First Nations.

One purpose of the Declaration Act is to support the affirmation of, and develop relationships with, Indigenous governing bodies. However, the province’s emergency management legislation did not reference Indigenous governing bodies at that time and would not do so until the new emergency management legislation was passed in November 2023.

Indigenous governing bodies

B.C.’s Declaration Act defines “Indigenous governing body” as an entity authorized to act on behalf of Indigenous Peoples that hold rights recognized and affirmed by Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982. The act states that the term “Indigenous Peoples” has the same meaning as Aboriginal peoples (Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada).

While the Interim Provincial Disaster Recovery Framework referenced the UN Declaration, it did not contemplate traditional territory or impacts on Aboriginal title and rights. It did not provide guidance on how a local authority should work with Indigenous governing bodies to recover from a disaster.

The interim framework did recognize that recovery is most effective when it leverages partnerships, and encouraged First Nations, municipalities, and regional districts to work together whenever possible. The interim framework also acknowledged that such partnerships are especially effective when smaller communities lack overall staffing capacity, impacts are spread across a wider area, or when it would be most effective to plan for a collective recovery effort.

Province’s attempts to facilitate a collaborative partnership were unsuccessful

We found the province attempted to support the village in working with neighbouring Nlaka’pamux governing bodies, mainly the Lytton First Nation and the Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council. In September 2021, early in the village’s recovery, the province hired a contractor to facilitate a community recovery planning process for the village and neighbouring Nlaka’pamux communities. The process was intended to establish a collaborative planning structure with representatives from all parties to identify shared objectives and develop a plan for community recovery. We did not see evidence that this resulted in joint recovery activities.

There were also examples of Lytton First Nation and the Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council offering support to the village. The village was able to benefit from the Lytton First Nation’s procurement process by directly hiring the same companies for environmental remediation and debris removal. This allowed the village to avoid a lengthy procurement process with multiple bidders, given the urgency of the situation. The tribal council offered to work with the village on a collaborative planning approach for interim housing, and the Lytton First Nation offered to let the village build interim housing on its land. Ultimately, the village did not build interim housing for its displaced residents.

Village of Lytton and neighbouring Lytton First Nation

Source: iMapBC and Google Maps

The Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council’s role in the recovery of the village was limited

In July 2021, the provincial and federal governments made commitments, in writing, to the Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council on how they would work with the tribal council and the Lytton First Nation on recovery from the Lytton Creek wildfire. The commitment letters recognized the Nlaka’pamux Nation’s title and rights in its territory and committed to implement the standards of the UN Declaration in all aspects of working together on actions described in the letters.

While the Village of Lytton is located within Nlaka’pamux territory, the commitments to the tribal council were made by the federal and provincial governments. Elected officials from the village were not included in the development or signing of the letters despite the municipality’s central role leading its own recovery.

In 2022, the tribal council drafted a memorandum of understanding to strengthen the relationship between itself and the village, identify priorities for recovery, and set out how the parties would work together in a manner consistent with the commitment letters, rights and title, and reconciliation. It also offered the village the opportunity to join governance tables working on implementing the commitments in the July 2021 letters.

The village did not sign the memorandum of understanding. Ultimately, the tribal council was only involved in the village’s recovery work to protect heritage artifacts and ancestral remains, under the Heritage Conservation Act.

The tribal council told us it was frustrated that the province did not compel the village to work with them on other aspects of the recovery. It described the experience as a missed opportunity to advance reconciliation in the region and to ensure all affected individuals impacted by the Lytton Creek wildfire, Nlaka’pamux and non-Nlaka’pamux, were supported.

Province and tribal council worked in partnership to address archaeology, but there were tensions the province could not mitigate

Prior to the wildfire, there were six known Nlaka’pamux archaeological sites and the presence of ancestral remains in the village. It should not have been a surprise when early recovery work triggered permitting and consultation requirements under the Heritage Conservation Act.

At the time of the wildfire, the Ministry of Forests’ Archaeology Branch had processes for regulating archaeological work on individual properties, but not for an entire community. The tribal council told us that it initiated discussions with the province about protecting archaeological sites in the village. The tribal council also prepared a heritage management plan and worked with the branch to create a streamlined umbrella permit. This enabled archaeological work across the entire community and meant that property owners didn’t need to apply for individual permits – a process that could take months. The special permit for the village was issued on March 7, 2022, the same day the application was received.

The tribal council also proposed a special archaeology advisory committee to bring together representatives from the village, the tribal council, Lytton First Nation, and the province. The Kumsheen Heritage Committee was developed to allow collaboration, review proposed activities and make recommendations to the Archaeology Branch for decision.

In March 2022, the province began providing funds to the village to hire archaeologists to conduct work during soil remediation. Similar to its contracts with other companies doing recovery work, the village directly awarded the contract for the archaeological work. The village entered into a contract with a local company established by the member communities of the tribal council. The company had workers in the area and had access to expert knowledge of Nlaka’pamux history and culture. This also aligned with the province’s Archaeology Branch requirement that archaeologists have experience working in the “cultural area”² where they will be conducting work.

Generally, archaeology work during debris removal and site remediation involved monitoring the excavation of contaminated soil and backfilling activities. Excavated soil was inspected for archaeological materials to identify and delineate archaeological sites. Subsurface testing was then conducted to refine the boundaries of identified archaeological sites. This work was done to inform the archaeological requirements for the rebuilding phase.

During the initial phase of site remediation, the top 10 cm of contaminated soils were removed and disposed of without archaeological assessment due to the high level of contamination. This would have resulted in the loss of Nlaka’pamux artifacts.

While multiple factors (including significant debris removal, complex soil remediation, and the lack of village capacity) affected the pace of rebuilding of the village, the archaeology work became the focus of negative attention. Many residents were unwilling to accept that the work was required under provincial legislation:

• village residents were upset by the duration and cost of archaeological work;
• people associated with the village questioned whether the tribal council’s ownership of the archaeology company presented a conflict of interest;
• media coverage of delays frequently focused on archaeology work;
• employees of the archaeology company experienced hostility and racism while working in the village; and
• tribal council representatives said they were left alone to justify the protection of archaeology sites despite provincially legislated requirements.

The Lytton Creek wildfire occurred in Nlaka’pamux territory, which includes the Village of Lytton. In addition to having Aboriginal title and rights in their territory, the province’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (“Declaration Act”), further affirmed the right of the Nlaka’pamux to be involved in the village’s recovery.

Tensions came to a head in October 2023. Residents held a demonstration over archaeology requirements. The Premier’s Office sent a senior staff member to the village in November 2023 to hear concerns. This led to the Archaeology Branch taking the unusual step of sending staff to assist with sifting for artifacts for three weeks (the Archaeology Branch is a regulator and does not typically participate in archaeology work).

Private insurance did not cover archaeological costs. The province paid for archaeological work across the village during the remediation phase. In 2024, the province also allowed the village to use provincial funds to establish a grant program (initially $5,000, then increased to $20,000) to subsidize property owners’ archaeological costs during the private property rebuilding phase.

Many of the tensions described above were present in the Kumsheen Heritage Committee, which became dysfunctional and was replaced in 2024 by a Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council-Archaeology Branch technical working group. It did not include village representatives.

3. Providing oversight of the Village of Lytton’s recovery activities funded by the province

The province provided recovery funds directly to the village after it became apparent the village could not fund its own operations or recovery activities. Emergency Management BC and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (now the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs) set up a series of funding agreements with the village. The agreements established commitments totalling $61,673,839.

Provincial recovery funding agreements with the Village of Lytton, July 2021-March 2025

Source: Calvin Jones

Provincial funding agreements required the village to report on its recovery activities

From December 2021 until January 2024, the province provided financial support to the village in lump sums and in advance of contractors performing work.

To ensure transparency and accountability, the Interim Provincial Disaster Recovery Framework required communities to report to Emergency Management BC on the status of provincially funded work. Municipal Affairs and Emergency Management BC both specified reporting requirements in each funding agreement. The requirements varied by agreement and by ministry.

For example:

• Municipal Affairs’ first agreement required the village to submit unaudited schedules of expenditures under various categories twice yearly.
• Emergency Management BC’s first agreement required quarterly “progress” reports, monthly spending reports, and a final report. The progress reports under its first agreement with the village were to include: “project progress, issues (real or anticipated), and expected activities over the next reporting period.”

Emergency Management BC received incomplete spending and progress reporting from the village

The Village of Lytton’s reporting to Emergency Management BC under its agreements was incomplete. It provided most of its monthly spending reports in 2022 but not for 2023. It never submitted quarterly progress reports or summary reports.

The absence of formal reporting, as required under the funding agreements, did not mean that Emergency Management BC staff did not know what was happening in the village. Ministry staff worked directly with the village and prepared a range of monitoring reports at various stages – including dashboards, updates to senior leaders, transition notes, and weekly reports from the Archaeology Branch.

But there was a lack of reporting from the village on whether provincial funds were being used for purposes that were agreed on. This was particularly significant because the province had paid the village in lump sums up front. Without the reports, the province could only say what it expected the village to spend under the terms of the agreements. The province could not say with certainty how funds were spent.

While there were gaps in the reporting to Emergency Management BC, the village did consistently submit its required reporting to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs during our examination period.

Emergency Management BC received incomplete spending and progress reporting from the village

In July 2023, the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness – formerly Emergency Management BC – hired a private firm to review the village’s use of provincial funds. The objectives were to determine whether funds were used appropriately, whether all funds were accounted for, and if requirements for each agreement (e.g., reporting) were met.

The firm’s November 2023 report noted that the village’s documents were often missing and incomplete, and that frequent changes in village management resulted in information gaps. The firm could not locate contracts to support 13 of 34 procured goods and services selected as a sample.

The firm concluded in its report: “Although the management and council of the [village] were acting in good faith, it appeared that they lacked the leadership and governance capacity to manage such substantive and complex contracts.”

Emergency Management and Climate Readiness set up a reimbursement agreement with the village in 2024

In January 2024, after receiving the firm’s report, the ministry set up a new funding agreement with the village. This agreement followed a reimbursement model and included expectations that the village submit monthly financial reports, as well as a final project status report that “summarizes the outcomes of the projects along with a financial summary of all eligible costs that were incurred.”

The agreement also required the village to meet the following stipulations to retain the funding received under the agreement:

The CISO regularly provided cybersecurity updates at the board’s audit and finance committee meetings, including:

1. Report monthly on engagement activities with the Lytton First Nation and the Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council “in all areas of shared interests and opportunities for joint planning and collaboration.”
2. Report monthly on engagement with other local authorities where neighbouring municipalities or regional districts share a mutual interest in a matter.
3. Report compliance with applicable trade agreements and comply with best practice principles for procurement, such as taking accountability for procurement decisions and processes and ensuring value for money.

As of March 2025, the village had provided all required reporting under the new funding agreement. The funding agreement was extended to December 2027, after which time the village is expected to submit a final summary report.

Source: CP

Subsequent changes to provincial emergency management legislation

The Emergency Program Act was replaced by the Emergency and Disaster Management Act in November 2023. The new legislation includes provisions that are applicable to disaster recovery in small municipalities like the Village of Lytton.

Provides recovery powers to both local authorities and the province

The former act did not provide a comprehensive legal framework for recovery. The new legislation includes the option of a “recovery period” when local authorities may exercise powers like a state of emergency. For example, during a declared recovery period, a local authority could authorize the destruction of structures.

The Emergency and Disaster Management Act retains the previous act’s expectation that local authorities produce emergency management plans. In addition, local authorities are required to develop a business continuity plan that specifies how they’ll continue to provide services during an emergency.

The new legislation also provides pathways for local governments to form collaborative emergency organizations with Indigenous governing bodies and the province, rather than attempt to lead recovery alone.

• The Emergency and Disaster Management Act provides for “multijurisdictional emergency management organizations”, which can include two or more governments (local authority, Indigenous governing body, the province) to coordinate emergency management activities. When formed, the multijurisdictional emergency management organization “has responsibility, oversight, leadership and coordination of activities with respect to each phase of emergency management.”
• Local authorities can enter agreements:
  • to cooperate in taking emergency measures;
  • to provide and receive assistance, including in the form of financial aid, emergency resources and the use of land, in taking emergency measures; and
  • to recover costs in relation to the provision of assistance.

The act creates flexibility for the province to manage local emergency response and recovery. For example, Emergency Management and Climate Readiness must approve any local declaration of a recovery period, including the recovery powers to be used. The ministry is able to order a local authority to stop using certain recovery powers. It can also order the establishment of a multijurisdictional emergency management organization, or order a local authority to join one.

Recognizes Indigenous governing bodies’ role in emergency management

The Emergency and Disaster Management Act states that effective emergency management requires the government, local authorities and critical infrastructure owners, and Indigenous governing bodies to:

• “acknowledge and respect the authority of each party;
• work towards harmonization and coordination of emergency measures, plans, policies and programs; and
• foster collaborative approaches to matters of mutual interest.”

The legislation notably recognizes Indigenous governing bodies, a definition that includes individual First Nations like Lytton First Nation but also entities authorized to act on behalf of Indigenous Peoples, like a tribal council. As noted above, Indigenous governing bodies can join with local authorities in multijurisdictional emergency management organizations.

The legislation follows the UN Declaration language of “consulting and cooperating with” Indigenous Peoples. For example, a local authority that is required to prepare a risk assessment or emergency management plan must consult and cooperate with Indigenous governing bodies.

Local authorities are also required to work with Indigenous governing bodies to identify traditional territory or treaty land that falls within the local authority’s emergency management authority. This is to ensure proper consultation and coordination during the recovery. The act also requires emergency management plans to describe “measures to promote cultural safety”, although the legislation does not define the term.

Enables emergency management agreements with Indigenous governing bodies

The Emergency and Disaster Management Act also provides a pathway for the province to establish agreements with Indigenous governing bodies, including: collaborative emergency management agreements, coordination agreements, and joint and consent-based decision-making agreements.

• Collaborative emergency management agreements are not named in the act, but are enabled under Section 8, which allows the minister to enter into various types of agreements for the following purposes:
  • to cooperate in taking emergency measures;
  • to provide or receive assistance including in the form of financial aid emergency resources and the use of land in taking emergency measures; and
  • to recover costs in relation to the provision of assistance.

Collaborative emergency management agreements are government-to-government agreements between an Indigenous governing body and the province, and can focus on strengthening relationship-building, achieving shared interests and developing structures for collaboration in emergency management. Other governments could also be invited to join these agreements. For example, the Government of Canada is a signatory to the collaborative emergency management agreement with the Tŝilhqot’in Nation. These agreements may complement reconciliation agreements (for example, treaty or other types of reconciliation agreements).

• Coordination agreements can be made for the purpose of coordinating the exercise of statutory response and recovery powers held by the province or local authorities with the exercise of an Indigenous governing body’s rights-based authority. In these cases, a coordination agreement would include steps that support coordination of authorities related to response and recovery actions. Coordination agreements can be developed in relation to specific areas within the traditional territories of First Nations and are made between the province and an Indigenous governing body. Local authorities can also be parties to these agreements.
• Joint and consent-based decision-making agreements can require that a decision-maker exercise their decision either jointly with an Indigenous governing body or after obtaining the consent of an Indigenous governing body. A mandate from Cabinet is required prior to negotiating or entering into a joint or consent-based decision-making agreement.

Considerations to inform the development of emergency management policies and guidance

Across North America, the frequency and severity of wildfires, extreme heat events, and floods are increasing. It’s likely that at least one of B.C.’s 29 small municipalities (less than 1,000 residents) will experience a catastrophic event requiring recovery support from the province.

While the Emergency and Disaster Management Act addresses some of the challenges experienced during the Village of Lytton’s recovery, our examination identified potential gaps that the province may wish to consider as it develops policies and guidance to support implementation of the act, particularly in small municipalities.

Anticipating disaster recovery in communities with low cash reserves

The Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness should consider how it will support small communities that, for various reasons, are unable to access recovery funds as laid out in the act and its regulations.

In addition, the ministry should consider developing a recovery funding framework, approved by Cabinet or Treasury Board, to guide provincial decisions on future recovery funding. A framework would include a comprehensive description of the province’s process for funding disaster recovery outside the usual funding programs (e.g., Disaster Financial Assistance). It would also include information about eligibility requirements at different stages of recovery (short-, medium- and long-term), pathways to approval, and expectations about reporting.

Overseeing provincially funded recovery work

To provide effective oversight and support of community recovery, the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness should consider:

• developing clear guidance for local authorities to support accountability for the use of provincial funds;
• requiring local authorities to provide financial and outcome-based reporting; and
• ensuring that reporting expectations for a community’s funding agreements are consistent to minimize the burden on those submitting reports.

Ensuring local authorities are supported in implementing Emergency and Disaster Management Act requirements

The Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness has developed documents that provide guidance to local governments navigating new expectations under the Emergency and Disaster Management Act. These include the Provincial Disaster Recovery Framework (2024), the Disaster Recovery Guide for Indigenous governing bodies and local authorities (2025), Indigenous Engagement Requirements Interim Guidance, and factsheets on multijurisdictional emergency management organizations, and cultural safety.

This guidance is an important step, but the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness should consider whether it has provided sufficient tools and training to local governments to implement the new expectations for:

• existing staff resources, functional governance structure, and access to funding;
• capacity to consult and coordinate with Indigenous governing bodies; and
• capacity to develop an adequate recovery plan.

The guidance should also be available to local authorities and the public to ensure transparency in the roles, responsibilities and expectations across levels of government with respect to emergency management.