Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 55, the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act. In Section A, I call continued committee on Bill 45, Budget Measures Implementation Act.

[2:40 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 55 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

(continued)

J. Yap: It’s an honour and a privilege to carry on with debate on Bill 55, the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act. I appreciate the opportunity to continue my remarks after yesterday evening’s opportunity to begin my remarks.

I want to start out by, first of all, saying that this bill that’s before this House and that we’re debating here in second reading is, quite frankly, a great disappointment. It’s a great disappointment because this was an opportunity for the government, this minister, to bring forward ride-hailing to British Columbia. Today, as we’ve heard over and over again, we are the last jurisdiction in Canada to have ride-hailing. Greater Vancouver is the only remaining major metropolis in the entire continent of North America that is without ride-hailing.

This is very disappointing because this bill, while it is intended or is packaged and is marketed as a bill to bring in ride-hailing, is, in fact, a mirage. It does not do that. It only enables the introduction of ride-hailing to the province of British Columbia. This is very disappointing. Hundreds of thousands of British Columbians share in this disappointment.

My constituency office has been receiving, overnight, a tremendous number of emails and messages from very disappointed constituents. I am sure that all members of this House, both sides and the Third Party, have been receiving these messages of disappointment. Let me share for the record, with this House, some of the messages from very disappointed constituents that were really looking forward to something more from this government.

Let me begin with some feedback from commentators who have been following this topic with great interest. I quote some of the comments from journalists. We’ll start, first of all, with Rob Shaw from the Vancouver Sun. This is a direct quote: “NDP Legislation Pushes Ride-Hailing in B.C. to Late 2019.” Mike Smyth of the Vancouver Province: “Not an Encouraging Start to Ride-Hailing in B.C.” Vaughn Palmer from the Vancouver Sun: “B.C. Bill Just Delays Ride-Hailing Even More.”

My constituents have this to say. This is from my constituent Elon. He has this to say: “My wife cannot work a full-time job because of the health of our kids. Even part-time jobs with a schedule can be challenging for us. But something like Uber will allow her to work when she can. We are now struggling financially. This would really help.”

From my constituent Roxanne: “It’s ridiculous that a major city like Vancouver does not have ride-sharing. I have travelled all over the world and have used ride-share in the smallest towns. More importantly, I have a daughter who has been stranded on more than one occasion in downtown Vancouver because cab drivers refused to drive her home to Steveston. So I consider it a safety issue. Do your job and serve the people who elected you.”

[2:45 p.m.]

Another constituent, Steve, says: “As a long-time resident of Richmond and user of Uber in many other cities, I remain frustrated and dumbfounded that we do not yet have the option of Uber here in B.C.” Let’s have one more, from my constituents Ed and Donna: “Why all the delays? We need ride-sharing now. My wife and I are seniors who do not drive and have been waiting patiently for ride-sharing for the last two years. We have used ride-sharing in Toronto, Honolulu and Los Angeles and found it very convenient.”

Clearly, British Columbians are disappointed that this government, this minister and the Premier, overpromised and now are underdelivering with this sham of a bill, which purports to introduce ride-sharing to the province of British Columbia — when, in fact, it is just another delay tactic, kicking this file down the road, perhaps another year and perhaps beyond. Who knows?

Some of the aspects of this bill that we’ve already heard about include regulations that will make it so onerous for potential entrance into this industry that it’s almost like this government does not want ride-hailing to come to British Columbia.

For example, insisting that a commercial licence, a class 4 licence, be required is making it so difficult and creating a high barrier for ordinary citizens who would like to participate in a program like ride-hailing to earn a little extra income. Whether it’s a senior on fixed income or a student attending college, an opportunity to drive as part of a ride-hailing service to earn a little extra income would be disallowed, unless citizens would be willing to go through the hoops and to go through the significant investment of time and training to get a class 4 licence.

When we look at the requirement, which this bill will require, that there would be an arm of government that would regulate the geography of where ride-hailing can happen, the supply of participants in ride-hailing, this goes completely against the whole intent and spirit of ride-hailing as an opportunity for a market-driven, consumer-driven service that would serve the needs of consumers, of customers.

Those are examples of the key flaws in this legislation. I hope, as we progress past second reading and get into committee stage, that the government would be open to some suggestions, perhaps amendments, that would help to make this legislation what it’s purporting to be, which is to introduce ride-hailing to the province of British Columbia. In its current form, it just does not do that.

It’s another broken promise of this government, another broken NDP promise on bringing ride-hailing to the province, when this bill, as it’s presently written, will not do that. I cannot support this bill in this current form, and I know that colleagues from this side of the House share the same views. This does not do what it purports to do, which is to bring ride-hailing to our province — a needed service for customers throughout the province, especially in urban areas, as we’ve heard.

We hope that the government will be open to changing it so that it will do what it’s intended to do, which is to bring greater Vancouver, bring the province of British Columbia, into the 21st century and to have ride-hailing in our province. In its current form, it does not do that.

A. Wilkinson: Of course, we’re here on Bill 55, which is the unfortunate piece of legislation brought on by the government — apparently with the cooperation of the Third Party, since they worked with their secretariat — which has the result of dismally failing the ridership and drivers of British Columbia.

[2:50 p.m.]

By failing to address the key issues related to ride-hailing and modernizing our taxi system in any significant way, this bill does nothing more than delay and obstruct and create totally unnecessary bureaucratic structures for something that should be managed out of a smartphone, not out of a building somewhere in Victoria filled with bureaucrats.

The issues involved were dealt with fairly substantively and thoroughly in a bill that was prepared in December of 2016. It’s, I think, stunning that the Minister of Transportation denies knowledge of this. The bill, which was referred to earlier today, known as the miscellaneous statutes passenger transportation services amendment act, 2017, is a fully substantive bill which was processed through the necessary drafting committees of the Legislature, through the legislative review committee, fully prepared by Attorney General’s ministry lawyers and ready to go. The Minister of Transportation has denied its existence.

This is either wilful blindness on her part or a derogation of her duty. The minister has an obligation to this House to be forthright about what has happened in her ministry, and she apparently overlooked the existence of substantive legislation that accomplished these goals two years ago — something that she flatly denies.

That bill, which I’ll call the 2017 act, created a level playing field, exactly what the industry’s been calling for. It dealt with insurance. It dealt with licensing. It dealt with zones. It dealt with the consumer demand–driven issues. And the minister pretends it doesn’t exist.

In the spring of 2017, there was a fully prepared revision to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia’s insurance products to provide for exactly what we’re talking about here — insurance for ride-hailing. That was a bill in March 2017. It was actually announced on March 7, 2017, when that minister was sitting on this side and the Leader of the Third Party was sitting in this House. All were fully aware of it, and all of them have been denying its existence.

This calls for a great deal of clarification and also a great deal more honesty from the Minister of Transportation. This is a more substantive point. We rise to the issue of whether there’s an element of hypocrisy going on here….

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Leader. The minister seeks the floor.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you, Madame Speaker. I’d like to reserve my right on a point of privilege.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

A. Wilkinson: The hypocrisy of the members opposite and the government opposite and the Green Party, when they are fully aware of this pre-existing legislation, is ram­pant. It is inexcusable.

This, of course, goes to the issue of whether there is an opportunity for this government to redeem itself by making clear that these pieces of legislation were actually available to them, by telling the truth in the near future.

The core of this, of course, is to focus on the customer, on improving the industry in the face of technological change. That’s exactly what needs to be done in this kind of legislation in the very near future.

The wave of technological change is not going away. Ride-hailing, ride-sharing, the applications on smartphones are not about to disappear because of the whim of the government opposite and the Minister of Transportation, who is wilfully blind to the fact that everywhere else in the industrial world these services are widely available, including everywhere else in North America. Now we have a piece of obstructive legislation that is going to block the modernization of the taxi industry.

In terms of the consumer, we have to think of the demand being necessarily driven off the smartphone. This is where the demand will be measured, where it will come from, and it will not be determined by a ministerial committee operating out of the Ministry of Transportation. What the minister has introduced in legislation provides for an over-weaning, heavy-handed, state-run, ineffective mechanism for adjustment of a rapidly adaptive line of work and a field in which technology is now driving the future.

Instead, we get this state-driven approach driven out of the Ministry of Transportation which will not have any significant effect for years to come. We’re looking at, at least a two-year delay before any meaningful change will occur in the industry. So what we see is an effective bill from 2017 that has been transformed into a bureaucratic nightmare with top-down command and control of a service that, essentially, should be driven by the customer.

There is no need for the heavy hand of government in this line of work. There is no need to cripple the taxi industry by keeping it in the Dark Ages.

[2:55 p.m.]

We have to think primarily, of course, of the things that need to be addressed — a flexible insurance product. That was anticipated in the 2017 act that was available in March of 2017. Why don’t we have insurance that’s only available on weekends? Why don’t we have daily coverage insurance? And most critically, why can’t it be kilometre-based? Why can’t it be, particularly, provided by the private sector?

Instead, we have the ongoing dead hand of the state-run monopoly run out of the Minister of Transportation’s office, which will have the effect of crushing enterprise, denying that spirit of entrepreneurship that is available to everybody in British Columbia if only the Minister of Transportation would provide some kind of modernized bill rather than put the dead hand of the state onto enterprise.

We have a second issue, of licensing. The minister has provided that anyone entering this line of work has to have a class 4 licence. This is a totally unnecessary, bureaucratic, costly hurdle. When we think of the people in this line of work — I rode with two of them yesterday — these people have challenges in life. They’re working off-hours. They’re working very hard, night shifts through the night to 6 a.m., to try and get ahead. There are many of them immigrants, just as I was an immigrant when we came to this country, and they’re looking to get ahead in British Columbia.

Instead of being able to say, “Here’s my class 5 licence. I’d like to get a few upgrades and some safety checks and get a class 5A licence,” or the kind of licence that already exists under class 5, with a type 7 endorsement for trailers without air brakes…. These are readily available today. It’s a minimal pathway to get it done, minimal obstacles for someone to go out and get ahead in life. Instead, we have the Minister of Transportation saying: “Forget it. Your dreams of getting ahead, those little incremental gains of a few hundred dollars a month, will not be available to you until you have a class 4 licence.”

This is crushing the spirit of enterprise and telling people who are trying to get ahead in life that they need not bother because there’s someone wiser in their world, and her name is the Minister of Transportation.

We also have to make sure that we understand where the demand comes from. It doesn’t come from a government ministry. It doesn’t come from some hallway in Victoria. It comes off the smartphones of consumers. That’s the modern world. The idea that you have to phone or use some completely inefficient app or somehow be in contact with one of the taxi companies is obsolete, and everyone knows it.

The taxi industry is very keen on modernizing their dispatch system. They’re working on the issue of getting uniform applications that will apply to the entire industry. That should be respected. This legislation should anticipate that change, accommodate it and facilitate it, rather than obstruct it.

What we have here is a bill that is designed to paralyze the ride industry in British Columbia, to obstruct transformation in the taxi industry, to make it more expensive and more difficult to be a taxi driver — all because the state knows better. The NDP, in all of their wisdom, know better how to arrange a 5,000-taxi fleet and know better how to crush the dreams of entrepreneurs who have very little in the way of means and who are just trying to get ahead with a class 5 licence. And the Minister of Transportation grins from ear to ear as she laughs at their prospects.

We have a chance here to send a very clear message to this government and to our society that this legislation is hopelessly backward-looking and ineffective, and it should be voted against. We cannot vote to support this oppressive, inefficient, backward-looking system that is designed to lock in the status quo at the expense of consumers and to cripple the future development of the taxi industry.

We’ll be providing amendments to this legislation that will address these very issues we’ve described. We’ll provide a private member’s bill that will comprehensively address the issues. And, of course, the invitation is to the Third Party to rise to the occasion, review the private member’s bill that is coming and to make it clear that they support a forward-looking, modern taxi industry, not the archaic, backward-looking, 20th-century industry that the Minister of Transportation is trying to keep in place.

It’s time for us to endorse a bill equivalent to the miscellaneous statutes passenger transportation services act of 2017. This has been fully reviewed in all the necessary vehicles in government, and it’s ready for entry into this room to be considered as legislation.

[3:00 p.m.]

Of course, the question is: why wasn’t this considered as part of the current Bill 55? More importantly, since the members of the Third Party were here during that spring of 2017, why are they prepared to tout an obsolete and ineffective piece of legislation in the hands of the Transportation Minister, rather than to look into the future, rather than to address the interests of consumers, rather than to make for a more efficient taxi and ride-sharing service?

Rather than embrace the future, we’re going to grip onto the past and try to preserve the status quo. Why? Because the Minister of Transportation’s concept of the future looks an awful lot like the past.

I’m pleased and proud to pass on a notice of this bill, which will be the miscellaneous statutes passenger transportation services amendment act, 2018. I’m now prepared to hand that to the Clerk so that we can get on with modernizing our taxi fleet and our ride-sharing services, so that we can embrace the future and live in the next decade, not stick ourselves into the past of 20 years ago.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve sat through the opposition’s various creations of various myths about what is and isn’t going to be happening with our legislation, what did and didn’t happen when they were in government for 16 years. Admittedly, in those 16 years, ride-hailing apps were not part of the whole 16 years, but they were part of five years.

At the end of the rather hyperbolic rant by the Leader of the Official Opposition, he tabled a piece, a private members’ bill, which he says he had as a draft, the opposition had as a draft, when they were in government. It brings to the very heart the question. If it was there as a draft, it was there as a draft in the fall of 2016 into 2017. Why wasn’t it tabled, if there was legislation there? The opposition had five years in which they could table legislation.

The member for Langley, now the Opposition House Leader, met with Uber. She said at that stage, back in 2012, that it was going to cost $75 to ride in Uber. A bit steep. I know people anticipate to have cheaper rides. I’m sure that under our model, with the Passenger Transportation Board setting their fares and making sure we get that in place, the rides, when we get app-based ride-hailing, will be much cheaper.

I have to say the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition talking about how they had something ready to go…. They had every opportunity to bring it in. They were government for five years when there was app-based ride-hailing.

Now the Leader of the Opposition is talking about turning to private insurance to deal with app-based ride-hailing. I’ve got to say I think it’s outrageous if the opposition believes that undoing decades of a public insurance model in this province is going to be faster than creating a new product under the existing model. That is what we’re going to be doing.

Given the mess that the previous Transportation Minister left ICBC in, it is going to take a little time. We have a $1.3 billion hole, thanks to the previous government. I’ve got to say the opposition really don’t like to remember that they were a government up until just over a year ago, 16 months ago, and they have a responsibility for what hasn’t happened.

We have the draft legislation, which the previous government inadvertently forgot to bring in, even though it had gone through all the various stages it needed to go through to bring it in. They didn’t bring it in. They decided they weren’t going to bring it in.

Now, a bit like Neville Chamberlain, they’re waving it in the air, saying: “This is a solution. This is the solution.” I think that the public realized that that is not the solution. Even the former minister talked about the laborious approach needed to get to this stage. What did they do? They actually forgot to bring in their bill.

I think that the members of the opposition forget their own history with app-based ride-hailing. They do forget their own history. Even back in 2016, the member for Kamloops–​South Thompson, the then Transportation Minister, said that at some point in the future, companies like Uber might be here, but not any time soon. That was back in 2016.

[3:05 p.m.]

By the end of 2016, they were thinking they’re going to have an election issue. Maybe they needed to get something ready — didn’t get it tabled. They got their draft legislation — didn’t get it tabled. Now they’re waving it around.

I think that what they were planning, what they had five years to do, what they finally got together but forgot to table in this Legislature, forgot to bring it to the House whenever they got it ready — we have done it. We have before us a piece of legislation that will ensure that we get app-based ride-hailing as well as modernizing the current system.

I heard the member for Surrey South asking: “What is so unique about B.C.? Why is it taking so long?” Well, why is it taking so long? I mean, she was part of the government that, you know…. As her colleague says, it was a laborious process.

We also have the Passenger Transportation Board. We look at it provincially, and that’s what this legislation does. It looks at it provincially. We have ICBC, a provincial model, which, obviously, the Leader of the Opposition wants to take apart, because he thinks that having private insurance is the way forward.

I think this is going to be very interesting to debate as we go forward.

Accessibility has been a problem. I know that has been highlighted by the member for False Creek. That will be addressed through our legislation by a fee per ride in app-based ride-hailing.

I heard also from members opposite that our reputation is going to be at risk. B.C.’s reputation is going to be at risk. I’m concerned, obviously, about B.C.’s reputation. We are a wonderful province. We are a leader around the world for many, many things. But my role as Minister of Transportation…. While I want to enhance B.C.’s reputation, I also have to look out for the safety of the people of B.C. That is my prime role here.

I know that in London, England, a major market where they’ve had black cabs, they’ve had minicabs and they have app-based ride-hailing, they are really concerned about what has been happening in London. There is the question of safety of passengers, and attacks.

I heard the member for Chilliwack-Kent say that safety is driven by consumer demand. I would disagree. I think safety is driven by good regulation, and that’s what we’re going to be doing.

I heard, also, a very interesting, throughout the debate — the opposition making parallels with proportional representation. I find it’s very interesting that they’re making parallels between our referendum on proportional representation — which I think that they had wanted to see too, but yes, it’s our referendum on proportional representation — and then making parallel analogies with this legislation.

What was very strange was that the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, my critic, was talking about all these locations where there is app-based ride-hailing: Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia and a number of other places. Syria, I think he mentioned, though I’m not going to count Syria because there has been a dreadful civil war in Syria for the last six years. So I’m not going to count Syria in this, and Iraq has its own problems. But I do know that at least in Iraq and Afghanistan and very likely Russia, we do actually have proportional representation.

It’s a strange analogy that these places have ride-hailing but they also have proportional representation. I’m not quite sure what the member was trying to drive at in his quotes. Maybe I shouldn’t press him on it.

While that logic really doesn’t follow, I’d like to compare. We heard from the Leader of the Opposition about the fact that, basically, Vancouver is the last major North American community without app-based ride-hailing. We’ve got to realize that these jurisdictions that have app-based ride-hailing have faced problems. They acknowledge they’ve faced problems. An urban planner in Toronto says that we’ve actually skipped over app-based ride-hailing 1.0. We’re at app-based ride-hailing 2.0, because we’ve learned from others’ mistakes.

In Boston, we’ve heard that…. A study has found that ride-hailing is adding new cars on trips and really exacerbating congestion on the roads.

[3:10 p.m.]

In Denver, the usage of app-based ride-hailing has increased vehicle miles travelled by 85 percent — again, massive congestion from it. In San Francisco, a 50 percent increase in congestion there, from 2010 to 2016, was found to be the result of the ride-sharing cars. In fact, a report from San Francisco by the transportation authority questioned: “Do TNCs affect congestion?” The answer is, very simply, yes — a 51 percent increase in delay; in number of miles travelled, a 47 percent increase by app-based ride-hailing cars.

In New York, we are seeing a major change. We’re seeing that New York is wanting to…. Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York, has been looking at caps on the numbers of ride-hailing cars and having everything data-driven, as we are doing, and also ensuring that there is a minimum wage of $17.22 an hour for those who are driving these app-based vehicles.

When the member for Kamloops–North Thompson talked about his trip to New York, I’m sure he was very well aware that with 100,000 new cars on the road and having to fix the system it already has, New York is now looking at a system similar to that that we are going to be introducing in B.C. through this piece of legislation.

We have a demand-driven system. We are using data, and we are going to ensure that people actually have the opportunity for a safe ride.

I’m very pleased that we’ve been having this debate. We have moved in a way that the previous government did not move. We have legislation on the floor of this House that will make a major change for the people of B.C. It will enable the start of app-based ride-hailing. As I’ve mentioned before, we’re looking at having this in. We’re looking at 2019. I know people want it sooner. We are doing it — making sure that we will have it there.

I think that when we finish the debate, we’ll have full support of it. I know that the opposition, who have now tabled a private member’s bill that has been lying around for a long while and never actually got to the floor of the House before, will be very eager to show that they want to see change in B.C., that they want to give their constituents the same choice we want to give our constituents and the whole of everybody in B.C., which is the opportunity that if they so choose, they can use their smartphone to order a ride wherever they want.

I look forward to committee stage. With that, I move second reading.

[3:15 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Second reading of Bill 55 approved on the following division:

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 55, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 56, Oil and Gas Activities Amendment Act.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

BILL 56 — OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. M. Mungall: I move that Bill 56 be now read a second time.

I am pleased to present the Oil and Gas Activities Amendment Act, 2018. Bill 56 is proposing to amend provisions in the Oil and Gas Activities Act to support an equivalency agreement with the federal government regarding methane regulations and to provide a legal framework for off-site environmental mitigation.

I know that this particular bill is not going to be capturing as many headlines as the previous bill, Bill 55, but I would argue that it is equally important to British Columbians because we are all committed to reducing our impact on climate change. One of the ways that we are able to do that is by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and methane is a greenhouse gas.

On the agreement with the federal government, they are putting in regulations to reduce methane emissions in the upstream oil and gas sectors all over Canada by 40 and 45 percent. The province has committed to going to that higher level of 45 percent. We want to be reducing methane emissions by 45 percent. In order for the federal requirements to not apply here in British Columbia, the provincial approach must be considered equivalent in terms of emission reductions.

I know that all of us here in the House value our place in Confederation and that we appreciate the laws that the federal government puts together and those laws that apply to us as provinces. But we also appreciate our own ability to make laws and govern our own land base.

That’s why we wanted to step forward with a made-in-B.C. approach and make sure it was equivalent so that we also had the jurisdiction to oversee the actual regulations that will be put in place and the implementation of those regulations; then also to be able to respond over time, as things may need to be changed; but also seeking to always achieve that federal goal of 40 percent to 45 percent — us, we’ve chosen 45 percent — reduction in methane emissions.

To achieve that equivalency, we need to do two things in legislation, and that’s what this bill does. We need to have regulations that generate at least the same reductions as the federal approach, which we are doing. And we need legislation that allows the public to request an investigation of any alleged contraventions of methane emission regulations and require government to investigate. That is what we are doing with this bill.

[3:25 p.m.]

The proposed amendments will support a made-in-B.C. approach, as I said, to methane regulation by creating the complaint mechanism under the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

I think it’s also important that…. I see that there are some students up in the gallery today. You might be wondering: how it is that the federal government can even make laws that apply to the province in this respect? Well, I would bring their attention to section 1 of the British North America Act: “Peace, Order, and good Government….” The federal government is able to make laws for anything that it desires throughout the country. That being said, we have a constitution that defines provincial and federal jurisdiction.

Generally, provinces have jurisdiction over managing the land base. That is why we want to retain that jurisdiction and be able to ensure that we are the primary lead, as governing body, on protecting our environment, as well as ensuring that the work that’s done on the land base in the upstream of our oil and gas sector…. For those who don’t know where that is, that’s generally in the northeast of British Columbia. And for the members in the gallery, you’re going to be hearing from a member from that part of the province. He’ll be able to tell you all about how important that sector is for his region in particular.

That’s the portion of this legislation that looks at methane reduction. But while we are looking at this act, we also wanted to take the opportunity to look at how we do environmental mitigation. So this act is looking at an off-site environmental mitigation. What started this is the province’s current plan, in conjunction with the federal government, to recover boreal caribou and achieve self-sustaining populations. Part of this plan is a habitat offset policy. Where habitat has been lost for boreal caribou, we’re looking to reclaim that habitat and restore it so that our populations for caribou can grow again.

Just so people understand what’s happening with the different caribou, there are woodland caribou, and there are boreal caribou, but all of our caribou are at risk right now. In my riding, the caribou population has gone, in a very short period of time, from over 100 to three — three females at that. So the herd in my riding is considered extinct.

I have watched that over the time that I’ve been an MLA. In a very short period of time, we’ve lost that entire herd of caribou. This is a very, very delicate species, and we need to do what we can to make sure that it is sustained as it was able to do for millennia. We need to make sure that the activity that we have on the land base is not further destabilizing our caribou populations.

One of the things that we need to do is make sure that we’re restoring their habitat. This act allows for that to take place. However, we’re not limiting it solely to caribou. The off-site environmental mitigation policies that are coming through this legislation would also be open to apply to any type of environmental mitigation. That can include habitat restoration for moose, badgers, frogs — any type of wildlife that we need to ensure that their habitat is sustained.

We could look at other issues. For example, working with First Nations on some of the issues that they might find are necessary for their land use. Water reclamation. Whatever we see, as a government going forward, that we might want to use this type of policy for to ensure stronger environmental protection and reclamation as a result of industrial use of land, we’d be able to do that.

To be a bit more technical, the policy from this legislation would require permit holders to mitigate their impact from their activity by treating or restoring previously disturbed land elsewhere, outside of their operating area. In this case, it’s for caribou, so we would require permit holders to mitigate their impact on caribou habitat by treating or restoring previously disturbed caribou habitat outside of their operating area.

[3:30 p.m.]

That would, therefore, ensure that we are building a strong habitat for a particular species — in this case, the caribou — and ensuring that we’re able to regain those populations.

With that, I look forward to the remarks from other members. Like I said earlier, this might not be the most headline-grabbing piece of legislation, but any time that we make forward movements to reduce our impact on climate change in this province, we are showing leadership not just in Canada, but we are showing leadership globally.

Any time we do it in a way that is in partnership and that works with industry, that’s further leadership showing that it’s not the typical green versus brown or the economy versus the environment — that these are actually one and the same and that we must always be considering them in conjunction. To me, I think that is very important — that that’s the type of path that we walk and the leadership that we show the world.

M. Bernier: I thank the minister for her words in putting the bill forward. Maybe I’ll start by acknowledging that she shouldn’t be selling herself short.

I’m sure this will get headlines in some parts of the province, maybe not in all parts of the province. I know that up in my area, this actually is important, as the minister alluded to, because 99.9 percent of the activity that’s referenced in this act and everything the ministry is doing around oil and gas activity happens, actually, in the Peace region. So of course, it is near and dear to my heart.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

To step back for a second, it’s acknowledging the prosperity that we have in the province and how our natural resources are the foundation of what they really bring to our province. Whether it’s mining, forestry, oil and gas or agriculture, all of these industries help build our province. Again, typically, in my part of the world, I’ve got all of those industries that are at the forefront, employing a lot of families and bringing a lot of companies to the region. You know, they depend on these industries. They depend on the natural resources for a job and to raise their family.

One of the main issues that we want to make sure that we talk about in this bill — because a lot of bills have been coming forward — is just making sure we have that certainty. That certainty is really important, not only, again, for the families but for the companies that are employing those people. We support the goal that the government has in front of them.

Of course, as the minister mentioned a few times, it’s nice if we can always look at a made-in-B.C. solution rather than it being a top-down-driven policy from the federal government. If we have an opportunity to meet the targets and be able to put our own regulations in place here — through legislation, hopefully — that is always something that’s desirable and something that we have.

I know we can’t capture it in this act, but one of the concerns or issues that I have when we talk about methane reduction…. We’re going after an industry in my corner of the province, and I’ll bet you if we looked at this, they’re not the largest producers of methane. Yet we’re going to be tarnishing them with these goals of reductions of 45 percent — albeit they have to play their role, and they acknowledge that.

I’d also encourage…. I’m sure the person who might speak after me might even acknowledge this fact. When you look at the amount of methane that is released from municipal dumpsites, from other areas in the province that we deal with in agriculture industries and others, this is not just about one industry. I want to make sure that we in this House don’t think that there’s one group that’s the silver bullet and we try to make sure that we go after them for absolutely everything. That’s not fair to that sector as well. That needs to be acknowledged.

Another concern that I have with this bill that we have in front of us is the continual reliance on regulation that this government has. It creates that uncertainty. When I talk with employers and companies in the area, it’s one of the things that they are always looking for: “Let’s set down some rules. Let’s set down the regulations. Let me know what hoops we have to jump through or what guidelines we have to meet, and we will work with government on that and do our part.”

[3:35 p.m.]

What’s really troubling for many is when an act hits the floor and, once again, it will be: “More details to come in the future.” I know the minister will have an opportunity, because I’ll ask some questions around this when we get to committee stage, but one of the challenges that we’ve had through this session is that most of these bills that are hitting the floor are saying: “More information to come at a later date.” I’m thinking this one might not have 29 unknowns, like the proportional representation bill, but it does have some unknowns in there. Typically, we ask: “Can you give us more information?” And all we get is: “Dot, dot, dot.” Not too much to work with there.

Of course, we’re going to have questions as we go forward. The minister is, in all fairness to her and government on this, being tasked to meet targets that are put down again from the federal government, and they have to do this policy. So I’m glad to see them doing that. The last thing I would want in my area is government not taking control of this issue and then it being mandated from a higher-up who really doesn’t understand what’s going on in our province or in our area. So I do agree with the premise of this bill coming forward.

When we talk about some of the fugitive emissions, some of the questions I’ll be asking will be around that. Because when we talk about a 45 percent reduction…. From where? From when? What are our targets going to be? Where are we starting at? Governments in the past and present have been working with industry to already…. We are already ahead of the curve, in a lot of ways, of making sure there are regulations in place and policies for reductions, whether it’s in flaring or fugitive emissions. I would say we’ve been the leader in Canada in a lot of these areas.

We have to really be cognizant of how we will go after companies to try to meet these targets, but I would also follow it up with saying we want to be very careful on how we do the reporting aspect of this. The reason why I flagged that is that there are some activist groups out there that will look at what I’ll call reportable spills in the industry.

Well, we changed regulation years ago, where companies would have to report the small…. Like four litres of oil gets spilled on a rig site, and they have to report that. But without the quantifications there, some groups are actually using that and saying: “Oh my god. This is horrible. Look at all the numbers of spills that are happening out there.” But it’s not being broken down to the legitimacy of what’s actually taking place within the industry and the work — the great work, I’d say — that they’ve been doing. So how that will be reported will be really important.

The other issue that we’ll want to really talk to the minister on later is around what really designates an off-site mitigation zone. To me, that is something…. I know her staff’s aware of this, and I’ll talk to her a little bit further about that later.

When you look at the activity that’s in my area, there are already the sensitivities, as the minister alluded to, around habitat and what we need to be doing as a government, as a society, as individuals and as companies for the protection of habitat, and especially in areas where there are very critical numbers. Obviously, this side of the House supports that completely, but we want to make sure that it’s not a one-size-fits-all kind of approach with this, because there are many different factors that play into what the causes are for habitat growth or reductions. We want to make sure that that’s taken into place.

We’ll dig into a few of these topics as we go into the com­mittee stage. Again, it’s maybe not going to be the headlines, as the minister said, but it is important, nevertheless, that we have these discussions in here. We need a strong resource sector, we need a strong oil and gas sector, and we need to make sure that that’s done properly, with the proper environmental protections in place. That’s a given. We all agree with that.

[3:40 p.m.]

Back to the point that we need to ensure we have certainty, companies need that. I believe this House needs it. The citizens need it. When we have the bar in place so that people know what they have to meet, it makes it a lot easier for peo­ple to decide if they are going to invest in British Col­um­bia or not, if they are going to invest in a certain resource in a certain area or not. They need to have those regulations.

As the minister also alluded to, I think it’s important to highlight the resource sector and what it really does for our province — the amount of income revenue that’s generated into our province to help with our social services, our health care and with our school system. I mean, we’d all agree that every child deserves a chance to soar. That’s going to happen when you actually have a strong resource sector that’s helping fuel a strong economy that gives us the revenue sources that we need.

Again, we’re going to support this bill. There are some critical questions, probably just for clarification, that we want to make sure we bring forward and challenge the minister on a few of these areas — to make sure not only that we’re doing our job in opposition but that from an industry perspective and from a perspective for the Peace region, this isn’t something that will be put into place and will give comfort to the people in that area that this is not going to hinder or slow down activity. It’s just going to make it better and stronger.

With that, hon. Speaker, thank you very much.

S. Furstenau: I’m pleased to rise today and speak to Bill 56, the Oil and Gas Activities Amendment Act. Just to speak to one of the comments from the member for Peace River South. Indeed, we agree very much with him that methane emissions reductions — in fact, reductions of all greenhouse gases — need to be considered by every ministry of government, which we have been reinforcing this week in question period. We do need to recognize the true urgency of this task and the dire implications of not stepping up to meet the serious and significant challenges and threats posed by climate change. Reduction of emissions is essential to that.

Directly speaking to this bill, the bill does two key things. First, it is enabling legislation that allows for off-site mitigation activities to now occur. Under this legislation, the minister will be able to determine if there are special considerations that need to be accommodated and what such offset measures might look like. The bulk of this bill is devoted to this change.

Secondly, the bill includes changes that allow for citizen-initiated investigations to occur if there is a suspected contravention related to methane emissions. I want to speak to some aspects of this bill that I think are warranted. For too long, in my opinion, the Oil and Gas Commission has had widespread authority to do as it sees fit. As a result, I don’t think it has done a particularly good job of regulating the oil and gas industry in our province. It has been shrouded in secrecy, its operations often seemingly clandestine.

In the last seven years, only one news release can be found on its website, and there have been no information letters posted since 2010. I remember a year ago raising questions in question period about the oversight, or the lack of oversight, of earthen dams in the province, many of which were outright breaking the law, while the Oil and Gas Commission seemed to have turned a blind eye.

Critics have repeatedly raised valid concerns of the commission not doing its job. Unauthorized storage dams for fracking, leaking natural gas wells, pipelines approved without proper consultation from First Nations — all concerns that were raised, once again, earlier this year. My confidence and, I believe, the public’s confidence has been eroding steadily in the regulator responsible for B.C.’s oil and gas industry, and the bill before us does little to increase transparency and accountability of the commission.

However, I’m happy to see the provisions that allow for a citizen complaint to trigger an investigation. Unfortunately, it only applies to contraventions that relate to methane emissions, but it is a step in the right direction — a step, I might add, that only exists because the federal gov­ern­ment required it in order for our regulations to be equivalent to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. One day, maybe, we’ll see legislation that broadens this power to any contravention that a citizen records with the oil and gas sector.

[3:45 p.m.]

With regard to the off-site mitigation activities that this bill will allow for, they are also a potentially good step. They allow for the minister to require that in order to receive a permit or to change a permit, additional environmental mitigation measures may be necessary. At present, there is no authority to direct companies to do offset activities in other places, so this is potentially a good thing. But I must emphasize the word “potentially.”

While the bill does give broad new powers to a minister to direct industry in certain ways in specific circumstances, it is all up to regulations that are essentially to be determined on a case-by-case basis at the will of whatever minister happens to be in charge.

We may see good regulations come out of this, or we may not. We may see good mitigation measures, or we may see greenwashing.

My colleagues and I will support this, as it is a potential step forward and is legislation that helps with our overall pan-Canadian climate framework. But I remain concerned, despite what appears to be steps in the right direction, that the Oil and Gas Commission remains a regulatory body that needs further oversight.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the debate.

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, and I thank the members for their comments.

I look forward to our committee stage, where they’ll be able to ask questions that are, no doubt, very important to be able to get clarification, get further information on the record. That process is very important in terms of making sure that people in the industry, people in the communities that are impacted by the oil and gas sector in our province have a better understanding of exactly the intention behind this bill and how it is to be applied.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

I did get ahead of myself. I should have been moving second reading of Bill 56. Do we want to do that again, or have we considered that we’ve moved Bill 56 at second reading?

Interjections.

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

Bill 56, Oil and Gas Activities Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Mungall: I call that we go to Committee of the Whole for third reading of Bill 51.

[3:50 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 51 — ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 51; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:55 p.m.

On section 5 (continued).

J. Rustad: The other day, when we had an opportunity, I’d asked the minister about a definition of “Indigenous nation.” The minister, if I remember correctly, mentioned that Indigenous nation was something that would have to have been referred to out of the Indian Act, so there was no definition provided here.

I want to expand a couple of questions with regards to that directly in section 5(1). The reason for asking these questions about an Indigenous nation and what constitutes an Indigenous nation, of course, is there are often disputes or factions within a nation with regards to any particular position that a nation may have.

Where there is a case where there is a dispute, whether it’s a large or smaller faction within a nation that decides to take some action, how would the minister be able to consider a recommendation that comes from an Indigenous nation without a definition of what constitutes an Indigenous nation?

Hon. G. Heyman: As I’m sure the member is aware, this subsection (1) of section 5 has to do with recommendations of individuals to facilitate disputes. There may be a number of recommendations, which the minister might consider, but in the development of regulations to give life and shape to the dispute resolution process, we may choose to define how to deal with that circumstance. Or should it become necessary at some point in the future, the act does allow for definitions to be created by regulation — should it be necessary.

J. Rustad: To the minister, thanks for that. I do understand the process in terms of making regulations, but the issue at hand and the question at hand is: what’s going to drive those regulations? If there is an Indigenous group that claims to speak for the nation and that may be in a situation that puts forward a recommendation to the minister to create this dispute panel, how is the ministry and how is this act going to be guided in terms of the authority of that coming forward and the ability to be able to create this dispute resolution mechanism?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Let me begin by saying — I think the member for Nechako Lakes will know this, having at one point been a minister, a member of cabinet; in fact, at that point, Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation — that ministers, at times, will make decisions after considering recommendations from one group or a number of groups.

I think the member’s comments or questions may actually be more pertinent to section 14, which refers to participating Indigenous nations. If I’m incorrect in that, the member will clarify that, but I think here we’re just talking about the appointment of somebody to facilitate the resolution of the dispute, in respect to a matter referred to in subsection (2).

J. Rustad: Certainly, it leads to section 14, and there will be some questions that come forward under section 14. Where I’m trying to drive at with this, in particular, is the case, for example, of Lulu Island. During that case, there was an individual who claimed to speak on behalf of the nation, who claimed to be a hereditary chief, and was regarded as such by some individuals — some individuals in this Legislature as well as others outside. Clearly, there was no way to be able to reconcile that this individual had the authority to be able to speak on behalf of the nation, so that becomes the question mark.

If there’s a dispute between a process and you have an individual or group that claims to be the spokesperson or represent an Indigenous nation, versus other groups that also claim to speak on behalf of the Indigenous nation, without a definition, it’s impossible to be able to determine who is the official spokesperson or spokespeople for a particular Indigenous nation. So it creates the potential issue that the minister is now in a situation where they have to choose which side to believe or which presentation to be brought forward.

This, of course, then becomes a subjective process, as opposed to an objective process, which creates all kinds of challenges, as will be laid out in further sections. This is why I’m asking, once again, to the minister: how will regulations…? How will this minister look to implement this section without having a definition of what an Indigenous nation is and without the ability to determine who is the official spokesperson for a particular nation?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s a little difficult to anticipate every eventuality or every dispute. It’s a bit like asking me to determine in advance how I might rule on a complicated environmental assessment, for instance, for a project that’s yet to be actually proposed or defined. But what I can talk about is that the purpose of this section is specifically to address the kind of issue that the member raises, where there is a disagreement or a dispute between nations or members within a nation regarding who is representing the Indigenous people.

Let me talk about dispute resolution generally. There are a number of ways in which we might define who might be eligible to be a dispute resolution facilitator through regulation. That might be by having a roster or a list of people that generally have the support of Indigenous peoples and government and potentially others beforehand. Or it might be a number of other ways.

I can say that if the purpose is to find somebody to resolve a dispute between parties — and my experience in this regard is that I have a lot of practical experience from labour disputes — it doesn’t help to resolve a dispute if two parties each have a preferred mediator or dispute resolution facilitator and you choose one of them, rather than somebody that is entirely independent and separate from the preferences of the parties and isn’t one of the people that one of them has put forward at the expense of another.

J. Rustad: Having some experience with dispute negotiations and processes as well, that wasn’t the point to the question. I do understand the challenges and issues.

The issue is, really, that you have something in here called an Indigenous nation — it’s in an act without a definition of it — and multiple parties potentially claiming to be representing an Indigenous nation. The action that a minister must take or may consider comes from a recommendation, if any, of an Indigenous nation. That becomes the challenge.

For example — and I would put this, as well, to the minister — you have a situation where you may have hereditary chiefs asking for one thing and an elected chief asking for another thing. Without a definition as to who represents and who speaks on behalf of an Indigenous nation, once again, the minister is in a situation where it becomes subjective in terms of a particular perspective that’s brought forward.

If that’s the case, that’s fine. Then say that. The minister will actually have to make a decision based on whatever information they have available, I’m sure, with advice from staff. What I’m looking for is the clarity as to whether or not there’s an intent to identify what an Indigenous nation is and who would represent or speak on behalf of that Indigenous nation or whether it will be subjective through this process.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I think all I can say to the member is that this section is around the minister considering the recommendations, if any, of an Indigenous nation in order to appoint facilitation or facilitators.

I think the real issue that the member is trying to get at is: who is the correct participating Indigenous nation under section 14, where we’re actually getting to the meat of the issues to do with an assessment? That’s precisely why we have dispute resolution to clarify that: so that we can move forward.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

P. Milobar: Just a clarifying question for the minister around this. It really has more to do with existing projects that are currently underway.

I’ve had a few people wondering what this new bill would mean to them. I know, in the briefings, staff made it clear. But maybe just for the record and Hansard, if we could get a recap of what will happen to existing projects that are already in the stream and whether they will be subject to this new act or the existing act, where the changeover piece will be — especially in relation to the timelines of when the new regulations would be coming in — and when that full implementation piece would actually be.

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question and wanting to get this important question clarified in committee stage.

I can answer it now, or I can answer it when we address section 78. As the member will note, we have a small amendment in section 78 which will provide even greater clarity, I think. But I’m in the hands of the member if he would like me to answer this now or under section 78.

P. Milobar: Well, my fear is, as we get rolling through the afternoon and start to hit a wall of time, we may not actually get to any detail on 78.

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, I think we will, given that there’s an amendment to be moved. But I’ll answer the question now.

This is what section 78 speaks to. Projects that are currently being assessed or have received environmental assessment certificates under the current act will be transitioned to the new act. Any proponent may request that their project be brought into the new act if an application has not yet been submitted.

Projects that have been issued a section 11 or section 14 order under the amendment at the time the new act is brought into force will proceed under the current act. It’s a transitional project for the purposes of obtaining a certificate. Projects that have not received a section 11 or 14 order under the current act will need to submit an initial project description under the new act.

S. Furstenau: Could the minister also speak to how this section, along with section 8, would prevent a proponent from starting any work without an environmental assessment certificate? Could he provide an example of how that would be relevant, for example, with the Prosperity mine saga? Would this apply to that kind of case?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. With respect to the ability to undertake work in the absence of an environmental assessment certificate, whether under section 6 or section 8, both the current act and the new act are clear that work related to a reviewable project cannot be undertaken in the absence of an environmental assessment certificate.

Section 6 approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: May I just clarify my answer to the last question? When I said “work,” I was referring to construction work related to the project.

On section 7.

P. Milobar: A question on (b). I know, I think, what the spirit and intent of this section is.

My concern, I guess, is the difference between what the government may feel is an agreement that may require consent, in terms of an agreement in an area between the government and an Indigenous nation, and what an Indigenous nation may feel, if it’s Crown land — that they automatically are required to provide consent and that, therefore, there would automatically be an agreement with the government that any Crown lands would require some form of consent. Can we get a little more clarification from the minister?

I know the intention of this is supposed to be, if there’s a specified area, that there has already been a prearranged document where the government and the First Nations have said: “For any work to happen in this area, it will require us to work together or consent.” However, there are situations out there where many Indigenous nations do feel that any Crown land would require their approval to do any work. Therefore, they would feel, potentially, that they already have that arrangement with the government. Can we get some clarification there?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer to the member’s question is that this section refers to an express agreement between the government of the province of British Columbia and an Indigenous nation and is prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

E. Ross: Section 7 is a hot topic lately, especially when we’re talking about section 35 of the constitution versus UNDRIP. It’s causing a lot of confusion because a lot of First Nations believe consent equals veto, and that’s continually the push. But in reading certain sections of this, I just want to clarify that we’re talking about an agreement between government and a First Nation that allows the consent. But in other sections, we’re talking about the decision of the minister that can override consent, whether it be in favour of or against the wishes of the First Nation.

My question to the minister is: was there any legal advice given to the minister on whether or not this clause fetters the decision-making powers of the minister or ministers in relation to a consent clause even before there’s, let’s say, a statement of a claim made — or maybe there are terms of reference made on an environmental assessment — or any other agreement, apart from what you’re talking about with the First Nation?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. Other sections of the act — and I’m sure we will get to those — require the process, the office and the minister to make every effort to achieve consent. But it does allow the minister, potentially, in the absence of consent from all participating nations, having made every effort to achieve consent, to issue a certificate or, in some cases, to not issue a certificate because the opposite may be true in the absence of consent.

This clause, however, is, in fact, an override of that and very expressly defines those situations where the minister would not have that discretion. That’s where there is a final agreement or where there is a particular agreement with the government of British Columbia that requires the consent and is prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

[4:25 p.m.]

Whether or not this clause was in here, that would be the case. What this clause does is make it absolutely clear, in this act itself, so there will be no misunderstanding that there is not that leeway for the minister in that situation.

E. Ross: Thank you to the minister for that answer. But best efforts to require consent, whether or not the Crown decides for or against a project, are already there with existing case law.

That’s what the proponents have been doing for the last 16 years. With LNG, for example, that’s what the government has been doing for the last 16 years. They’ve been trying as much as they can to get consent. They do it through protocols. They do it through funding agreements. They do it through environmental agreements. So that’s not the point.

My point is that when you’re talking about the ability of a minister to protect his or her decision-making powers at the end of a process like environment assessment, doesn’t this clause on consent contradict that? Doesn’t that actually get rid of the decision-making power right out of the gates?

Even if you did come up with an agreement that says both parties agree to consent, well, you’ve already basically decided the outcome of the project. That takes away the decision-making power of the minister at the end of the environmental process. The minister is supposed to be making a decision on his own on the merits of the information that’s provided in the environmental assessment, and it’s not supposed to be fettered in any way.

Doesn’t this clause fetter the decision-making power of the minister in that respect? The original question was: did the minister get legal advice before inserting this? My question to the minister.

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer with respect to legal advice is yes, of course — on a continuing basis.

With respect to the member’s comments that best efforts to achieve consent are exactly what’s required now, that is certainly not true. The member may choose to argue with that, but if it were true, there’d be no litigation.

The answer with respect to fettering the minister…. Where there is a final agreement or where there is an agreement ratified by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, that would be a binding agreement. Whether or not this section was in the act at all, that would prescribe the nature of the decision-making that would take place by the minister.

[4:30 p.m.]

A certificate would still be required. Conditions would still be considered and applied, but the requirement for consent would be defined in a binding agreement. That is exactly what’s described in section 7, binding agreements.

E. Ross: Thank you, Minister. When I was talking about consent that’s already existing, I was talking about LNG, for example or, say, forestry. The forest and range agreements that were developed ten years ago — that was basically consent. That was to get rid of the war of the woods.

With or without this clause, you’re still going to get litigation. With the new environmental assessment, you’re still going to get litigation.

I haven’t really seen, in the last 14 years, a government or a proponent that hasn’t been working for consent. The proof is in the LNG projects already. We’ve got 20 First Nations on board with LNG Canada. We’ve got 17 First Nations for the Chevron project. That’s consent in my mind. That was a cooperative arrangement between three parties: the proponent, First Nations and industry. I don’t know what else you’d call it. In either case, litigations can be present in any type of situation, especially when you’re talking about Aboriginal rights and title versus vague language around UNDRIP, for example.

With that being said, there’s another part of the clause here I wasn’t clear on. I wasn’t quite sure if I got the answer from staff in our briefing. On section 7(b): “in an area….” I’m assuming geographical area — that we’re actually talking about an agreement between the Crown and a First Nation agreeing to the First Nation having consent.

When we’re talking about this, are we talking about geographical areas, both in non-linear and linear projects?

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m not going to presuppose what the nature of a geographic area that would be the subject of an agreement with the Crown might be. But whatever that is, that is what is covered by this section.

S. Furstenau: In this section, is it referring specifically to treaty nations? If so, what about nations that have not signed treaties?

Hon. G. Heyman: Subsection (a) refers specifically to treaty nations, but (b) refers to agreements that are made outside of the treaty process.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

S. Furstenau: Actually, this goes back to sections 6 and 8, which work together. Just in terms of the EA process and the other way around, if a proponent has passed the provincial environmental assessment process but not the federal, would work be able to start?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the opportunity to clarify. This is provincial legislation, so it would apply to provincial certificates and projects that need a certificate from both the federal government and the provincial government. Federal law would apply with respect to whether work could proceed in the absence of a federal certificate.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

P. Milobar: I’m seeking further clarification here. It seems to be fairly open-ended for cabinet, on the regulation side, to prescribe what constitutes a reviewable project moving forward, with this new legislation. I say that because there’s a lot of worry with this bill that it’s, in fact, not streamlining any processes, that it’s adding a lot of red tape and that it’s going to add a whole new scope and scale of project that previously had never been required to go through these types of processes before.

[4:35 p.m.]

So perhaps, contrary to maybe the best of intentions, this section here seems to open the door wide for cabinet to really start to bring projects in under this legislation that otherwise wouldn’t.

I specifically look at 2(a), where: “categorize projects on the basis of size” — so that’s understandable — “production or storage capacity.” Again, that pretty much goes into size. “Timing” is an interesting one. I don’t quite understand why cabinet could decide a project needs to be based on timing.

Does that means only projects in January have to go through this process, but ones in March don’t? Or is it political timing? Is it what timing would possibly come into play that would affect whether a project should be reviewed under the Environmental Assessment Act or not? Given how long these projects go and how much work needs to be done, it can’t be based on weather, when a study needs to be done or anything like that, because that would just flow.

“Geographical location.” Are we saying, then, that if it’s a project in Metro Vancouver, it gets a pass, but if it’s in the Peace country, it’s going to automatically have to go through an environmental review? That’s interesting that the geographical location will be a trigger, potentially, on cabinet’s decision-making on whether or not you need to do this.

“Potential adverse effects.” That’s understandable.

“Type of industry to which the projects are related.” Again, somewhat concerning, given that…. Does that mean that if you’re having a ten-acre wellhead site for oil and gas that that still triggers it, or is it the overall 1,000 wells that may trigger it? That needs a little more clarification, I think.

“Type of proponent.” That’s where it gets more problematic, though. Is that opening the door so that cabinet can say it doesn’t matter what size, what scope, what scale it is at all; if it’s to deal with oil and gas, it must go through this?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Could we get a little clarification from the minister why cabinet seems to, after this bill has been passed, have the door wide open to it, and for anything else it considers appropriate; to suddenly open the door wide open to any and every project that they deem acceptable to go through this process, including things like geographic location and timing — which, again, make absolutely no sense that I can see?

I’d appreciate an answer to the logic behind this.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I think the best answer I can give to the member is to read from section 5 of the current Environmental Assessment Act, which was introduced and passed by a Liberal government in 2002. It’s called “Reviewable projects established by regulation,” and it reads:

“(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing what constitutes a reviewable project for the purposes of this Act. (2) For the purpose of a regulation under subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council by regulation may (a) categorize projects according to size, production or storage capacity, timing, geographical location, potential for adverse effects, type of industry to which the projects are related, type of proponent or on any other basis that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate, and (b) provide differently for the different categories of projects.”

S. Furstenau: Could the minister explain his expectation and plan for what will be established through regulations in reference to section 9(1) and who he will be consulting with while developing the regulations?

Hon. G. Heyman: I would expect that we would consult broadly, as we did on the act itself, with the same general bodies — Indigenous people, business, local government — with the opportunity for public comment. We would do that over the course of the next year, in preparation for implementation of the act.

S. Furstenau: Could the minister also provide an example of what a “different category” of project might be?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I can’t be exhaustive in this list, nor will I attempt to be, because we will be consulting broadly. But let me use as an example…. There might be a category of projects that overall has the likelihood of significantly fewer potential adverse impacts than a different category of projects. In that case, you might want to use different threshold limits for a decision to make it a reviewable project or not. That might be one example.

It might be a difference between categories of projects, although this would also relate, potentially, to a geographic area and an area where there’s a land use plan or an area where there isn’t a land use plan, or an area where there’s a regional assessment or there hasn’t been a regional assessment, or areas that have been more substantially impacted by previous projects than areas that have been less seriously impacted already.

S. Furstenau: Just one more. In terms of this section, I appreciate the need for further consultation and flexibility, but could the minister not speak to the notion that many would think there should be a baseline standard of what constitutes a reviewable project set out in the legislation, which the regulations could then build off?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. I think the breadth of the act is fairly substantial, and it’s meant to be, because we have a broad range of projects that could potentially be reviewable now, and there may be different kinds of projects in the future.

In general, I would say, the baseline is contained in the purposes of the environmental assessment office that are laid out and are further elaborated in the matters that must be considered in every assessment. That is the guiding baseline from which regulations should flow.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

P. Milobar: I’m just wondering if the minister….

Well done. I hadn’t read that one provision in the previous legislation, on 9. So good job there.

I’m guessing, especially because “Indigenous nation” would not exist in the previous act, that in 11(4), “On receiving an application under subsection (2), the minister must consider the following….” Now, this is if a project is already deemed to not be required to fall under this act and move forward but somebody in the public or a municipality or an Indigenous nation — anyone who feels that it should…. They can appeal to the minister to have it included in, if I’m reading the section correctly.

My question, I guess, is that after receiving the application, “the minister must consider the following….” The first thing the minister must consider is if the applicant is an Indigenous nation, but I don’t see anything that the minister must consider if it’s a municipality or any other type of potential applicant wanting a project to be included. Recognizing full well, obviously, that Indigenous nations do have a voice — and appropriately so — I’m wondering why they would be specifically singled out to automatically have to go into the minister’s decision-making process.

Does this mean that a request by an Indigenous nation winds up having more sway with the minister than if it were a municipality, an NGO, an environmental group or any other of a myriad of possible applicants wanting a specific project to be put under this act?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: This particular sub, (4)(a), flows from a desire by Indigenous nations to ensure that there was recognition. But it also flows from the purposes of the environmental assessment office, one of which is to advance reconciliation by…. I’ll have to look up the exact wording. Section 2 says: “to support reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in British Columbia by supporting the implementation of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.”

Considering whether the applicant is an Indigenous nation flows logically from that, in terms of holding the opinions that would be expressed by Indigenous nations in enough regard to consider whether a second look should be taken as to whether the project should be reviewable.

P. Milobar: Well, as I say, I can understand wanting to work with Indigenous nations and trying to hear their voice in a meaningful way. But this section is all about people or anybody being able to apply to the minister if they feel a project that has been deemed not to be reviewable should be reviewable. The question is: why would the first thing the minister has to consider be whether or not the paperwork was filled out by an Indigenous nation?

Does that not send a signal to everybody that an Indigenous nation making an appeal to have a project reviewable has more clout, more sway, in the process than anyone else that’s entitled to file the same type of paperwork to have a project reviewed?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think it’s important that the member understand that in some cases, you have to read subclauses together. So the first thing that’s considered is whether the applicant is an Indigenous nation. If the answer to that is yes, then consider whether the eligible project may have effects on an Indigenous nation and the rights recognized and affirmed by Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

But to the member’s point: would people assume that greater regard is being given to Indigenous nations than anyone else? There’s nothing in the act that would give legal standing to that assumption, other than where legal rights actually exist very specifically and where we talk earlier in the act about advancing reconciliation through implementation of UNDRIP.

P. Milobar: Well, when the minister spoke to this bill in second reading, the premise was that this bill was meant to provide greater certainty for industry, greater certainty for Indigenous nations, greater certainty for the public and a streamlined and sped-up process. But in this section….

There’s also, in section 5…. Although the minister is right. You read 4(a), and 4(b) automatically kicks in if the applicant is an Indigenous nation, but (c) and (d) are still around the paperwork that’s been filed, whether it was from an Indigenous nation or not.

[4:55 p.m.]

The problem is that this is supposed to be a streamlined and sped-up act for people, which seems totally contrary to just about everything else that’s been talked about from the government when it comes to environmental reviews and processes.

In (5), this is saying, essentially, then, that if you combine (4) and (5), and you are an Indigenous nation…. The minister, by way of this section, is saying that in (5), that First Nation, that Indigenous nation, will get an answer back within 30 days.

But what is the mechanism around whether or not the ultimate decision is agreed to by the Indigenous nation? In other words, if the minister says, “No, this is still not a reviewable project,” does that end it right there and then, regardless of who the applicant is? Or is every applicant in the same boat, and they would have to go to ask for a judicial review on something under section 11?

Hon. G. Heyman: I realize that the member and I have different views on the efficacy of this act and whether it will lead to more timely approval of projects and reduced litigation, which we on this side firmly believe and which, apparently, many people in the business community also believe, because they’re eager to work with us on the regulations that will give life to this act so that we can then move forward with actually seeing how it works on projects coming forward in the future. What I’d like to point out to the member is that the current act provides for the minister to designate a….

First of all, the 30-day time limit applies to anyone making an application under this section. Anyone, of course, can apply for judicial review. The act can’t prohibit that. But the current act allows the minister to designate a project as reviewable. It does not require the minister to give reasons for the decision, which this act does. There is no time limit in the current act, as opposed to a 30-day time limit in this act. So I would say that this act goes further to meet the concerns the member is raising than the current act does.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

P. Milobar: A question, again, on the timelines. My under­standing, as part of the new spreadsheet of the timeline, is that this early engagement block is no longer considered under the clock, compared to the existing system. So a nice big chunk of time on the front end suddenly disappears, even though that work still needs to get done and discussions still need to take place.

The question I have is within 13(1). It says that the proponent of a reviewable project may submit, in accordance with the requirements of the assessment officer, the initial project description and an engagement plan and other issues there.

[5:00 p.m.]

It says it “may submit” as part of the early engagement. What happens to the applicant if they choose not to submit? It doesn’t say they have to; it just says that if they choose to early engage, they can.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: This process remains proponent-driven, as the existing process does. This is substantially similar because this is the first phase of the application process for a proponent. So it says “may.” The current act says, with respect to applying for an environmental assessment certificate, that the proponent “may apply for an environmental assessment certificate.”

The discretion for the proponent to do that remains the same. But the fact is that for a proponent to proceed with a project, they need a certificate. For them to get a certificate, they have to go through certain phases that are described in the act. What happens if they don’t do that is that there is no process and no certificate. But that’s the same as today.

P. Milobar: Well, today the initial project description and the engagement plan and all that aren’t on the front end the same way as is written in this act. That’s my understanding. This isn’t meant to be a gotcha question. It really isn’t. I personally read this as it was as simple as yet another “may” or “must” wording.

The reason I say that is because it doesn’t say a proponent has to submit the initial project description — they may — or has to submit an engagement plan. It says they may. And my question was: if they don’t do that, it doesn’t say that the project’s dead. It’s silent on that. Does that mean they get to bypass their early engagement process and just file their paperwork? That was really the intent of it. I’ll leave it at that in the interests of time.

Actually, let’s get an answer on that. That’s really the intent of what I’m trying to get at here. It seems to be totally contradictory between (1), where the proponent may have to do something but doesn’t actually have to. Everything else says what will happen once they file. I understand that in this section, but it doesn’t actually say the proponent has to do that to go to the next step.

Hon. G. Heyman: I didn’t intend to avoid the question. The act needs to be read as a whole. Section 6 of the act requires a proponent who wishes to receive a certificate on a reviewable project to go through the steps in the act. If they choose not to go through this step, which is their choice, there will be no other steps, because they can’t avoid a step in the act. That’ll be it.

P. Milobar: Moving on to (5) — specifically 5(b). So 5 is: “Within 90 days of making an order under subsection (3)(a), the chief executive assessment officer must provide a notice to the proponent setting out…(b) the Indigenous nations that are participating Indigenous nations.”

Am I reading this correctly — that the CEAO will be unilaterally deciding, within that 90-day time frame, the strength of claim of Indigenous nations, making the CEAO the sole determiner of who has a strong enough strength of claim that the proponent needs to work with?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. Section 14 actually addresses the process of determining participating Indigenous nations. The notice and decision will be given by the chief executive assessment officer, but the process of that determination is subject to a dispute resolution process.

The chief executive assessment officer, in giving a notice and determination of who is and who is not a participating Indigenous nation, must set out the reasons for the determination. Of course, that’s also subject to judicial review if it hasn’t been resolved through dispute resolution.

P. Milobar: I recognize, again, that the sections interconnect. However, again, under the guise that this is supposed to speed things along, it’s been my experience, in former political jobs, that typically, hard-and-fast days set out to get comment don’t necessarily totally hold up.

You have the chief executive assessment officer needing, within 90 days, to let a proponent know who the participating Indigenous nations are. I wasn’t trying to interconnect the two, but since the minister referenced 14…. However, in 14, those Indigenous nations have 80 days of that 90 days to make comment that they would like to be a participating Indigenous nation, which would mean that that gives ten days — it doesn’t say working days; it says calendar days, so depending on the time of year, that could be a little problematic — for a CEAO to make a final determination to give a list to the proponent.

However, there’s no guarantee that on day 80, all Indigenous nations would have made their positions known, and that on day 85 or on day 92, they say: “No, we would like to be included.” Does that mean that then they would miss the window of the early consultation part that this whole section is supposed to deal with, which was supposed to try to provide some streamline speeding up, given that they are now past that 90-day window and the proponent has been told 90 days is 90 days?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, again, I think the member and proponents and nations and all of us need to read the act as a whole and this section as a whole. Section 13 sets out a whole process with respect to engagement, to identification of interests — all culminating in the project description.

While the member is theoretically correct, all through that process leading up to the project description, the chief executive assessment officer will have a pretty good idea of who may or may not have any likelihood of identifying themselves as a participating Indigenous nation. Presumably, the proponent will have done the same.

While it’s true that we’ve given lots of time here for an Indigenous nation to express an interest — up to the 80th day after the publication — an expression on the 80th day would essentially be a form of appeal. The chief executive assessment officer will certainly be in possession, as will the proponent, of relevant information. There will then be lots of opportunity for dispute resolution after that point.

If, theoretically, someone comes forward on the 80th day and the chief executive assessment officer has ten days to resolve the issue or make a decision, my presumption is that the chief executive assessment officer will have done what he or she needs to amass a certain amount of information — or the information needed to make a determination — will consider anything else that comes forward and will work very quickly to meet the timeline.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

E. Ross: Section 14. Just to follow up on that last statement by the minister, it’s been characterized that this will be a streamlined process and it will actually make everything a lot more efficient with this new environmental assessment. But in dealing with section 35 of the Constitution Act…. When you’re dealing with strength of claim, that is a very expensive, time-consuming process, especially when you’re talking about one or more nations — let alone, say, 20 First Nations.

Some of the case law that we’re actually talking about under section 35 says that you can’t arbitrarily put time limits on Aboriginal rights and title consultation and accommodation. When we’re talking about three or four First Nations that are applying to be participants here, there’s got to be a lot of archaeological and anthropological work, and it’s got to be assessed by somebody.

In this case, I’m assuming it’s going to be the chief executive assessment officer who makes that determination on whether or not that evidence is actually valid. In my experience, no chief executive assessment officer has that ability or expertise to pull that off. It always goes to some assessment by anthropologists or somebody within the justice department to determine whether or not that strength of claim is valid. Then it goes down to…. The idea of consultation is based on how strong that evidence is.

Has the minister taken into consideration how time-consuming it is to determine strength of claim in respect to section 14? Will that fit within the time limits, whether it be 80 days or even the 90 days in terms of the previous section?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: To give this section some context, it is a section on an activity that takes place before it’s even determined whether an assessment is required. But not withstanding that, the section isn’t about determining strength of claim. It’s about determining a participating Indigenous nation, in the spirit of allowing Indigenous nations to self-identify and to participate in a consensus-seeking opportunity, as well as reconciliation opportunities pursuant to the stated intent of the government and the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

What it really says is that the chief executive assessment officer can’t notify an Indigenous nation that they can’t participate in the EA process in a unilateral and unfair manner. What’s happening in this section is that Indigenous nations are invited to file notice and self-identify. A dispute can be addressed with a dispute resolution facilitator.

We’re not determining strength of claim here. There is a high test for the chief executive assessment officer to tell an Indigenous nation that they won’t be afforded participating Indigenous nation opportunities to seek consensus, and that will only take place where there is no reasonable possibility that the nation that has filed notice would actually be affected by the proposed project.

I’m a little confused. On the one hand, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson is saying that the time frame is too long. The member for Skeena is saying it’s too short. And we’re saying, it’s going to be faster, more streamlined and less prone to litigation.

E. Ross: You can imagine my confusion with the whole chapter on Indigenous nations when you’re talking about section 35 of the constitution versus UNDRIP. Subsection 14(2) specifically says the “…executive assessment officer may provide notice to the Indigenous nation that the chief executive assessment officer has determined that there is no reasonable possibility the Indigenous nation or its rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act….” It makes no mention of UNDRIP.

When you’re mentioning section 35, you’re actually talking about the case law and the jurisprudence around that. That’s what you’re talking about. Section 35 doesn’t mention UNDRIP. None of the case law that I’ve read, whether it be Delgamuukw or Mikisew Cree or even Haida, mentions UNDRIP.

The answer you just gave actually contradicts section 14(2), unless I’m reading it wrong. If it’s just notice to say, “Your rights and title will not be adversely affected by the project,” there’s got to be a way to assess that. There’s got to be a way to do that, and to do that, you’ve got to look at the evidence. That’s basically another word for strength of claim.

[5:25 p.m.]

In determining that the rights and title will not be adversely affected by a project, can I ask the minister: how will the chief executive assessment officer make this determination? Will the chief executive assessment officer have specific resources at their disposal to actually make this determination?

Hon. G. Heyman: To the last part of the member’s question, currently, the environmental assessment office has to determine which nations have an interest. The resources exist to make that determination today, and they will continue. So the answer to the member’s question is yes.

The member said that section 14 doesn’t reference UNDRIP, but the purpose of the environmental assessment office references advancing reconciliation by assisting with the implementation of UNDRIP. So that’s an overarching consideration of the office.

Finally, I would say that, again, this is a part of the spirit of reconciliation in UNDRIP, and clear in UNDRIP is the right of Indigenous nations to organize themselves and identify themselves, whether they believe that they have an interest or a right or whether something will negatively impact them. So in reading subsection (2), it’s important to note that the language says: “…there is no reasonable possibility the Indigenous nation or its rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 will be adversely affected by the project.” It doesn’t say “and”; it says “or.”

It could be read that there is no reasonable possibility the Indigenous nation will be adversely affected by the project whether or not section 35 applies. It’s important to understand that what we’re trying to do here is allow and express in the act the ability of Indigenous nations to say: “We want to be a participating Indigenous nation because we believe there’s a potential impact on us by a project proposal.” It’s the chief executive assessment officer who then determines if that makes sense or if there is, in fact, no reasonable possibility that there could be an impact on the nation or on its rights under section 35 — not and.

E. Ross: Thank you, Minister. I think you just affirmed my point. That’s case law. When the Crown is aware of an action or a decision that’s going to infringe rights and title, the duty to consult and accommodate kicks in. That’s what I’m reading here. But a First Nation has to provide its evidence.

This is a really tricky area, because nobody has been able to determine strength of claim based on evidence yet, except where it’s right smack in the middle of your territory. The problem with strength of claim, and this is what this clause is speaking to, is that there’s going to be a lot of First Nations from all over B.C. that will use this clause, whether they’re down in the southeast of B.C., and they’ll apply to be a part of an environmental assessment in the northwest of B.C. This clause will allow it.

[5:30 p.m.]

This will have 203 bands being allowed to be participants in an environmental assessment because the language says: “All we’ll do is provide you notice that your rights and title will not be affected.” That’s not what the case law says. If you did want to include UNDRIP in this clause and you want that to affect the timelines and you want it to affect section 35, then why didn’t you mention it here? You’re dancing between case law and section 35 of the Constitution Act, where one is fairly defined, especially with the case law, and the other one is undefined.

All I’m trying to get to is…. If we really want to get these First Nations involved to a point where they can provide employment and contracts and provide a better solution for these bills, then we need clear language.

In terms of this section here, when you provide notification and you tell a First Nation there’s no possibility of their rights and title being adversely affected as per section 35 of the constitution…. In terms of timelines, there has to be an appeal of the decision made by the executive assessment officer. And how long would that appeal take in terms of a First Nation getting notice that their rights and title would not be adversely affected by the possibility of a Crown decision?

[5:35 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, I understand that the member doesn’t support this act, that the member voted against the act and that the member believes that the inclusion of reference to the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, as a mechanism to support reconciliation, may stand in the way of economic development.

In terms of the point that the member is raising…. The point that the member is raising is subsection (2), which — after supporting reconciliation by allowing Indigenous nations to self-identify — provides a provision to decide, in the unlikely event that 203 Indigenous nations said they wanted to be recognized as participating Indigenous nations, which had a reasonable claim that either their rights or their interests would be impacted by the specific project. That happens today. That will continue to happen. The resources to make that determination are available.

The fact is that there are a number of reasons that an Indigenous nation might want to be a participating Indigenous nation. It might be because of negative impacts on their territory physically, culturally or spiritually. It may also be because they want to ensure that the economic development that happens is one in which they are partners and they share and that conditions on the certificate protect their interests environmentally, socially, culturally and spiritually while still allowing for participation in economic development.

We believe that by providing an open-handed way for nations to identify that they have an interest, that they or their rights would be impacted or that the project proposal is on their territory and that they should participate…. We’re inviting them to come in and identify early so they’re not in a position of fighting a project description in which they have not been consulted, their interests haven’t been adequately addressed and proponents haven’t had the opportunity to design a project around issues that are raised by legitimate participating Indigenous nations.

In the unlikely event that there are a bunch of spurious requests to be considered a participating Indigenous nation, the mechanism exists in subsection (2) for those to be winnowed out. But I don’t expect 203 nations, or even a large number of nations that have no interest whatsoever in the territory or the impacts that would flow from a project, to apply to be participating Indigenous nations. In the event they do, subsection (2) provides a mechanism to address that.

E. Ross: Correction. I did not say I don’t support UNDRIP. I didn’t say that I don’t support any of this stuff. I’m just trying to clarify the difference between something that’s basically defined in case law, especially under section 35 of the constitution, versus something that’s undefined in UNDRIP. I still don’t understand the relationship.

In fact, what I see is playing both sides of the fence here, politically, for the UNDRIP side. But really, you’re sticking to case law, specifically section 35 of the Constitution Act. Everything you’re talking about right now is existing practice. In your previous answer, you just said: “This is just notification that your rights and title will not be adversely affected by section 14.”

Then you’re saying: “But there’s a way to wean them out, if….” Well, that’s the Crown’s duty. That’s the job. That’s what I was getting at: which process will you use? That’s what I was getting at, because it’s clear to me that section 35 is still basically the law that the Crown is going to have to follow at the end of the day.

[5:40 p.m.]

Now, I understand there are certain aspects of any act, regardless of the issue, that government could use aspects of UNDRIP. But when we’re talking about something as important as this, especially around the timelines and how the Crown is saying that they’re going to speed up the timelines and make them more efficient, I don’t see it with the lack of clarity between the constitution, section 35, versus UNDRIP.

I didn’t read any UNDRIP into this. I was asking specifically about the Constitution Act, section 35, and the pursuant case law. I did not say anything about not supporting UNDRIP or anything like that. Those were your words, Minister, not mine.

Hon. G. Heyman: Chair, I’m not sure there was a new question there.

The Chair: There was no question.

Hon. G. Heyman: Okay. Well, the fact remains that the member voted against the act, and I’ve answered the question the member says I haven’t answered. I’ve said there is an “or” in subsection (2), and both UNDRIP and the spirit of reconciliation and the interests of the nation, as well as their rights and title under the constitution, could be reasons that would be considered by the chief executive assessment officer.

S. Furstenau: A bit more of a procedural question. Section 14 says that within 80 days of the first publication, Indigenous nations may provide notice to the chief executive assessment officer. Could the minister just elaborate a little bit on how Indigenous nations will know that a project description has been published?

Hon. G. Heyman: In section 13, there is a requirement for an engagement plan to be submitted, including a proposal respecting engagement among the proponent, the office, the Indigenous nations, so the Indigenous nations to be engaged would be identified. At that point, the environmental assessment office or the chief executive assessment officer would identify any gaps that the office or the officer believed existed in Indigenous nations who should receive notification. Then, in subsection (4) of section 13, the assessment officer must publish the approved description for 30 days.

S. Furstenau: Just one more question on this section. In 14(2) and (3), could the minister clarify how the chief assessment officer will determine if “there is no reasonable possibility the Indigenous nation or its rights recognized and affirmed…will be adversely affected”? What about the constitutionally recognized right to hunt and fish species that move around? For example, migrating salmon could be impacted by projects that are very far away from the people that may depend on them in a distant location.

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, to the member’s question, in order to meet the purposes of the act, the participating Indigenous nation presumably would indicate why they believed that they were potentially impacted with respect to their right to hunt and fish, even though they may be some distance physically removed. That is, in fact, exactly what happens today. That is considered currently by the executive directors — to be the chief executive assessment officer if this bill passes. That is considered, in fact.

[5:45 p.m.]

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

On section 16.

S. Furstenau: Section 16(2)(b)(i) states it “will not have a significant adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or health effect.”

The question is: why is climate change not included in this list? And what would the impact of including climate change in this list be?

Hon. G. Heyman: Section 16 and particularly subsection (2) is about the chief executive assessment officer recommending to the minister that there be an exemption to an assessment. Point (ii) is “serious effects on an Indigenous nation or the rights recognized and affirmed by section 35.”

I think that’s not specifically what the member referenced, but (2)(b)(i) says: “will not have a significant adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or health effect.” Those are the five broad pillars which are given further clarity in section 25, which lists the matters that must be considered in an environmental assessment. Others can be considered, but certainly, those ones in section 25 must be considered.

For the chief executive assessment officer to suggest to the minister that an exemption should be granted for a project, the chief executive assessment officer would have had to consider, pursuant to (2)(b)(i), all of the matters in 25(2), including greenhouse gas emissions, in order to answer the questions for the minister about whether there is reasonable ground to grant the exemption.

It is implicit and contained, and the recommendation under 16(2)(b)(i) could not be advanced without giving consideration to that.

[5:50 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Under 16(2)(c)(iii) and (iv), I would like to ask for some clarity around “on the advice of the minister or another minister.” This is to whether or not the project can proceed or will potentially be considered for termination. I’m curious as to why a potential other minister could potentially make some advice with regards to termination of a project.

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer is simply that the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy and the office aren’t responsible for all the laws and policies in government. Many of them reside in other ministries — for instance, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. So this is a provision that allows another minister, who believes that a project is clearly incompatible with a government policy for which they have responsibility, to direct that advice to the minister and to the chief executive assessment officer.

J. Rustad: Thanks for that. Is it possible, then, that a minister who does not have an area of responsibility — in other words, a statutory decision–maker — for a particular project could potentially give advice as to whether or not a project could be terminated?

Hon. G. Heyman: What is happening in this section is that if a minister believes that a project proposal is incompatible with a government policy, that minister will provide that advice to the chief environmental assessment officer who will then refer the matter to the minister for a decision on whether or not to terminate. But the decision rests with the minister.

J. Rustad: I’m curious about the…. In section 16(2)(c)(iii), it talks about “clearly incompatible with a government policy,” in terms of the recommendation. Is that from existing language, or is that new language that’s been added, in terms of the act?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: In the existing act, section 21 is entitled “Policy direction from ministers during assessment,” and subsection (3) states: “(3) The minister or ministers providing clarification and direction under this section may also recommend to the ministers responsible for making a decision under section 17 (3) that (a) the assessment being conducted by the executive director be terminated, and (b) an environmental assessment certificate not be issued for the reviewable project that is the subject of the assessment.”

J. Rustad: I wonder if the minister could provide a definition or clarity with regards to government policy.

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s a little difficult. I mean, the word “policy” isn’t defined in the existing act. I think the member and former minister has a pretty clear idea of what government policies are. But let me just give an example. For instance, there is a current and previously existing government policy against uranium mining.

J. Rustad: Thanks for that example. I guess the question is…. When I look at this particular government policy, what I’m concerned about is if a project is put forward in the works and if the government — a particular government, not necessarily this government but a future government — decides that they do not like a project that comes forward, they could potentially create a new government policy with regards to restrictions of the flow of goods or the extraction of materials or resources from the ground. That could potentially happen midway through a project — midway through the assessment — that could be potentially coming forward.

This is why I’m asking for some clarity around government policy: whether it’s something that would have to be done through an order-in-council that’s clearly laid out; whether it’s something, then, that comes forward as more of a direction or goals within a particular administration with regards to what they would like to see or not see within the province of British Columbia.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, as I assume the member would know from my answer to the previous question, we don’t actually need this act to do that. That power exists under the existing act, with no further definition. What this act actually does is provide a place very early in the process, before the assessment begins, to determine whether or not a particular project would go against government policy and, therefore, the assessment should not proceed.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for the answer. I’m just curious in terms of time frame. Obviously, as a project enters into an assessment, there’s a desire or there’s a clear understanding as to what could potentially happen or what may not happen in the project — for example, if there is a restriction on a particular resource extraction or other type of activity.

As a project comes forward and enters into an agreement, could that policy change while that’s in that agreement? Or what’s the time frame associated with it?

I think the intent of, certainly, laying things out in clear examples within the Environmental Assessment Act is to show a company a path forward or show a company, perhaps, a path that doesn’t work. My concern is that if some­thing comes forward that suddenly there’s a desire for a change of direction, this gives the opportunity for a change midway as a termination to a project as opposed to having the opportunity to be able to go through a full and thorough process to get to an answer.

Hon. G. Heyman: At the risk of repeating myself — which I’m about to do, because I’ve answered this question — nothing in this act or in the existing act passed by the previous Liberal government prevents the government of the day from enacting a government policy that could be used to terminate a project or a project assessment. It is the case today, and nothing in this act changes that.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

S. Furstenau: Section 17(1)(b) says: “Subject to subsection (2), on receiving a referral and recommendation under section 16, the minister may…(b) order that the proponent is exempt from the requirement under section 6 to obtain an environmental assessment certificate for the project….” Could the minister provide an example of when or why the minister would say a proponent is exempt from needing an environmental assessment certificate?

Hon. G. Heyman: The considerations are contained in section 16. Sections 16 (2)(b)(i) and (ii) identify effects on an Indigenous nation or their rights under section 35 as well as: “will not have a significant adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or health effect….” Those are the five pillars of environmental assessment, which are further elaborated on in the matters that must be considered under section 25.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

On section 19.

[6:05 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: Section 19(2)(b)(ii) specifies how it will be decided if a hearing is needed. My question for the minister is: why is there no mention of community-specific hearings in this section? Is that implied?

Hon. G. Heyman: Again, many sections of the act need to be read together. I thank the member for asking this question. Public engagement generally is covered in section 23, which refers specifically to section 19(5), which is on publishing the proposed process order for at least 30 days and inviting comment from the public on the proposed order. But if we look earlier in section 19, hearings are broad and do include community hearings. Again, (b) says: “…setting out the procedures and methods for conducting the assessment, including, without limitation….” Hearings are the subject of (b)(ii), and community hearings are clearly a type of hearing.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for that answer. We are wondering why there is not a strict requirement in this section in the proposed legislation for comprehensive peer review of the proponent’s evidence and for independent information on a project’s effects.

Hon. G. Heyman: I thank the member for the question because this has been a matter of significant interest in commentary that I have received in my office, as well as discussions with her. If I might suggest that where we can address that very specifically and clearly is in section 21 and section 26. We can certainly address the reasons there.

Sections 19 and 20 approved.

On section 21.

P. Milobar: It seems like just the other day we were talking about Bill 49 and professional reliance, and this section seems to tie right into that. “For every assessment, the chief executive assessment officer must establish a technical advisory committee….” Will that technical advisory committee be required to be made up of professionals under the definitions within Bill 49? If so, will they also have to be part of a roster or not?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, 21(3) says: “The chief executive assessment officer must invite participating Indigenous nations to be on a technical advisory committee and may invite any other persons the chief executive assessment officer considers appropriate.” So it’s clearly much broader than members of the five associations contained under Bill 49, the Professional Governance Act.

If we look at section 77(2)(e), it provides that regulations can be made “respecting qualifications of individuals who may serve on the technical advisory committee.” Depending on the nature of the project, the chief executive assessment officer may determine that expertise might be needed from a number of fields. There may be a requirement for expertise in Indigenous knowledge. There might be a requirement for expertise from an anthropologist, for instance.

The purpose of the technical advisory committee is to ensure that expert advice is available; that where necessary, that advice is impartial; that the people providing it contain the qualifications to review materials that are being submitted with respect to the project to be reviewed by the technical advisory committee; and that peer review can take place within that process.

P. Milobar: That answer actually muddies the water somewhat. Again, it wasn’t meant to be a gotcha question on this section. I recognize that, in (3), “participating Indigenous nations to be on a technical advisory committee” makes sense. I know that within their own nation, they’d either have some of the expertise needed or they’d go and hire the expertise they need as a nation if they don’t possess it in-house to be able to do that, just as in the city of Kamloops, we had to hire outside expertise all the time if we didn’t have it in-house. It’s totally understandable that that would happen.

The question, though…. This is a technical advisory committee. When one thinks of a technical advisory committee in relation to a natural resource project that’s going to trigger an environmental assessment, and you layer that with what we just went through with committee stage with Bill 49, which was designed around resource industries, I find it astounding. What was the point of Bill 49 if not to start to create a governing body to make sure there was public confidence, as was the intention of Bill 49, in a process exactly like an environmental assessment?

It was meant, we were told, to provide confidence and ease of access and competency declarations and conflict-of-interest declarations and all of those types of situations so that professionals working on and reviewing natural resource projects, in particular, would give the public confidence that they had the right competencies, that they knew what they were doing and that they weren’t in conflict of interest, be it real or perceived.

[6:15 p.m.]

Here we jump to the next bill, which is inter-related to Bill 49, I would suggest, in almost any person’s view, except for perhaps the minister. When we get to a technical advisory committee, the minister references anthropology and cultural practices as a technical review.

I think the average person would not view those…. When they hear “technical advisory committee” and “technical reviews,” they would appreciate those reviews need to happen. But in a natural resource environmental assessment process, the technical advisory committee…. One would assume you would actually want people from the engineering field that actually have the competencies and have declared competencies around mining, for example, or the competencies around designing a project for oil and gas.

What was the purpose of Bill 49 if it actually…? There is no requirement under this section. Whether you’re hiring a consultant, hiring an engineer or hiring anyone, they don’t have to actually fall under the Bill 49 legislation. What was the purpose, if we’re hearing that technical advisory committees can be made up with, essentially, whoever the chief executive assessment officer deems appropriate?

I don’t understand why we have a whole other piece of legislation then. Could we get a little more clarity around the qualifications you would actually need to have to be considered a technical adviser on a very technical project, like a massive mine site or a massive oil and gas project?

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer is relatively straightforward. Section 21(1)(b) also requires a review of the proponent’s application under section 27, and the scope of that application is considerably broader than simply technical matters or scientific matters or engineering matters.

In addition, the five pillars of the assessment process are considerably broader than the matters that are typically considered by the members of the five professions governed under Bill 49.

If the chief executive assessment officer requires technical expertise in engineering, in forestry, in biology, in agrology or in the matters governed by the association of technologists and technicians of British Columbia, those people, of course, would have to be registrants, because Bill 49 provides that only registrants have the right to practise in those professions.

If their expertise is required in the process, then they would be covered by Bill 49. If expertise outside those five regulated professions covered by Bill 49 are required, they would be brought in from elsewhere. What wouldn’t happen, for instance, would be finding somebody who calls themselves a biologist to provide scientific biologist information who is not a registrant of the association and governed by the association and by the provisions of Bill 49.

P. Milobar: I note that, in 27, it references the technical advisory committee, but there’s more than just the technical advisory committee contemplated under this bill. There’s a community advisory committee, also referenced in 27.

[6:20 p.m.]

Let’s say I was looking for a permit to store potential hazardous waste, and I needed a permit for that, one would assume there would be a community advisory committee set up for that to try to hear the concerns of the community. But I think even the community would expect full well that the technical advisory committee would actually have people on it that have the right technical skills to deal with those issues.

Again, the questions I’m asking are very specific to the composition of the technical advisory committee, not all the other committees that would, of course, be set up, as needed, for different skill sets on different things. This is about instilling public confidence is what we’ve told. Bill 49 was about instilling public confidence.

I would suggest if the average person…. If a community that’s facing an industrial waste site being used in their neck of the woods hears that a technical advisory committee has been set up, I think that community would go to the natural assumption that the technical advisory committee actually had people with the skill sets and the scientific and educational backgrounds to deal with it, that there may not be a cobbled-together bunch with some of those skills but also some laypeople mixed in.

Again, why was there no certainty in this section around the technical advisory committee needing to be populated by people that have had to, at a minimum…. Now, I referenced Bill 49 because Bill 49 makes those types of technical people and those skill sets sign competency declarations. But there’s no provision, under section 21 of this bill, that anyone has to sign a competency declaration to be part of a technical advisory group that could very well be deciding the science and the facts behind something like the storage of hazardous material next to a community.

Why was that not put into this, given that this was being drafted at the same time as Bill 49 — both shepherded by the same minister, both overlapping timelines.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

How did the left hand and the right hand in the Environment Ministry not know what was going on with the bill drafting that something fundamental, like a technical advisory committee, has missed to specify that people need to have core competencies to be able to sit on a technical advisory committee?

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, as I bring my left hand and my right hand together to repeat the answer that I gave a moment ago to the member, the scope of section 21 is not simply to advise the chief executive assessment officer and participating Indigenous nations on technical matters.

[6:25 p.m.]

It is also to review the proponent’s application under section 27. The proponent’s application covers a range of issues, some of which are scientific and technical, all of which need to be reviewed, all of which need to be reviewed by people who are competent and, in the case of professionals who are governed by the associations named in Bill 49, will be registrants of the association and will be required to declare their core competencies.

For other areas of expertise that are needed to provide advice — not decision-making but advice — and peer review of materials, where it’s scientific and technical, people who aren’t governed by Bill 49 will clearly be people with the competencies and knowledge required to advise the environmental assessment process and Indigenous nations with respect to any range of the matters that are potentially covered by the Environmental Assessment Act in section 27.

It may be expert knowledge with respect to Indigenous culture, Indigenous heritage. It may be expert knowledge with respect to community health and potential health effects, which would likely require people with medical background and degrees who aren’t covered by Bill 49 but are covered by other acts.

P. Milobar: Well, not to totally jump to 27 — and I don’t have a lot of questions on other sections, just so the minister knows — but he keeps referencing 27. Yes, in 21(1)(b), it says to review the proponent’s application under 27 is one of the roles of the technical advisory committee. However, in 27, it says: “respecting matters addressed in advice, if any, provided by the technical advisory committee.”

So they’re going to review their own advice that they provided, I guess, in 27, from 21. The “results of the invitation made under paragraph (a)….”

I guess all I’m pointing out with this legislation is that it seems, despite the best efforts and despite the preambles about trying to have this and Bill 49 create an environment where the public has more faith in the transparency and more faith in the technical reviews and the skill sets of people putting these applications together and providing advice and reviewing….

We know that the groups putting the package together for the proponent will have to have those skill sets, under Bill 49, and have those competency declarations and make sure that they have signed conflict-of-interest declarations. But the technical advisory committee reviewing that work won’t.

They might; they could. A few of them may. But the whole committee, the technical committee itself, doesn’t have to. I guess that seems to be problematic to me, as you get into these.

Again, I’ve lived through a very contentious application for several years in my community. I’m pretty confident the House Leader of the Third Party lived through a pretty contentious one in her area for several years. All the good intentions in the world don’t build public confidence if it’s not in black and white — the skill sets required to start putting these reports together and actually reviewing the reports, more importantly, on behalf of the government.

It’s the reviewing piece that the public starts to really lose confidence if they feel that there’s not the appropriate skill sets within government to review the information and that those people haven’t signed, necessarily, conflict-of-interest disclosures and haven’t had to sign competency disclosures, unlike the people that have actually put the report together.

That’s all I’m trying to point out here. I think it’s a gaping omission in terms of trying to meet that test of providing the public some confidence and some comfort. If they feel that that was already a missed mark, this has done nothing to change that, once you get into a heated application. That’s been my experience, and I would be surprised if that doesn’t happen again, unfortunately, as a result of this omission in this legislation.

I’m not sure about the minister referencing section 27, where in section 27 it says the technical advisory committee must advise the technical advisory committee.

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m not sure if there was a question there. But the member is simply wrong. There is no current requirement under the act that the previous government, of the party of which he is a member, enacted — any requirement whatsoever for a technical advisory committee. There is a practice for working groups with no requirements whatsoever about the makeup, all of which is being corrected by this act.

S. Furstenau: Just one question, section (3) of 21: “The chief executive assessment officer must invite participating Indigenous nations to be on a technical advisory committee….” What about a situation where the First Nation or the Indigenous nation is, in fact, the proponent of the project being reviewed?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. The participating Indigenous nation would still be invited to participate on the technical advisory committee, as would a range of others, as we will see when we get further along in the process.

Currently, for instance, the government of British Col­um­bia may be a proponent of a project that requires an environmental assessment. It’s incumbent on the government of British Columbia to ensure that there is a separation between the consideration of the project being proposed and the arm of government that’s proposing it. One would presume that the participating Indigenous nation would wish to do the same, because they’re addressing different interests.

S. Furstenau: Would there not be some concern about a perceived conflict of interest in that? Even if they were, as you say, working from a different arm, the public perception could be one of conflict of interest. How would that be addressed?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you, again, to the member for the question. It’s an important and valid point. I would say three things. One is that the technical advisory committee is made up of a broader range of participation than simply the participating Indigenous nations. That is one of the safeguards. But also, section 26 as well as section 77 provide for conditions and regulation-making power with respect to makeup of the committees, and that is a good place to address conflicts of interest that could arise, and that is a good point to bring forward in those consultations for the regulations.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

S. Furstenau: Section 22 states: “(1) For an assessment or a class of assessments, the chief executive assessment officer must…” if he or she “considers that there is sufficient community interest in a project, establish one or more community advisory committees….” Could the minister please clarify what constitutes “sufficient community interest” in a project?

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you, again, to the member for the opportunity to talk about community advisory committees, because there has been significant public interest in the ability to engage.

I would say that the way that we’ve constructed section 22 is that the chief executive assessment officer must establish a community advisory committee if they consider that there is sufficient community interest in the project. We intended, in crafting this, to make it as wide open as possible but not to require a community advisory committee if there simply is no interest.

One of the ways — not the only way — to gauge the level of interest is the early engagement phase, where public comment is invited. I think that if there were no public comment, the chief environmental executive assessment officer may think there may not be sufficient interest for a community advisory committee but would probably also take some other measures to determine if that was a fair assessment, given the early engagement phase.

Again, the intention is to have community advisory committees be the default — but an opportunity not to set one up if there clearly is no interest in the community in having one.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for that clarification.

Who would be on these committees?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you, again, to the member.

It would, first of all, be entirely dependent on the nature of the project and the location of the project. But the intent would be to be expansive, not to constrict participation, and ensure that there’s a wide variety of views.

Let me give some examples, which I don’t mean to be exhaustive. It could be local elected officials. It could be chambers of commerce. It could be parents groups. It could be physicians. It could be the chamber of commerce. It could be a tourism association. It could be a local environmental association.

I’m sure I haven’t covered all the possibilities, but the idea would be to ensure that people who would have an opinion and an interest would have an opportunity to express that.

S. Furstenau: Further to that, the criteria for the size and constitution of the committee — would that fall to the chief executive assessment officer? Or would that be determined in regulation? And how much leeway or flexibility would there be on that?

Hon. G. Heyman: Some further clarity might be given through regulation or policy, but generally speaking, the reason the section says may establish “one or more community advisory committees….”

[6:40 p.m.]

In some cases, it may be quite possible to include everyone on one committee. In some cases, it may make sense to have a community advisory committee on a particular aspect of a project or aspects of a project. But all of this would be decided in accordance with the purposes of the office, which is, among other things, to facilitate meaningful public participation throughout assessments.

That would be the guiding, overriding principle about how people would be chosen, from where, what size of committee, whether there’s one or more committees. It would be to provide meaningful public participation.

S. Furstenau: This is my last question.

The notion of there being sufficient community interest — and, as the minister pointed out, if there are initial comments at the beginning of the process. My question is: why would the community committees not be established earlier in the process rather than waiting to this point? If there is the sufficient community interest identified at the beginning, I wonder why the community committees wouldn’t be created right at the beginning of the process.

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, one possible answer to the member on this question is that until we get to this point, there isn’t an assessment process going on. Notwithstanding that, it actually isn’t limited. Section 23, public engagement, says, “The chief executive assessment officer may conduct public comment periods in addition to those referred to” in a number of sections. In addition to those, other public comment periods can be established: “…and carry out other public engagement activities in relation to a project.” These could be done at any point in the process.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

S. Furstenau: Leading in from the minister’s comments, this section allows for additional comment periods. Could the minister clarify what is expected in terms of default basic engagement on an assessment?

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, the specific default public engagement is set out in the sections that are referenced in (1) and (2).

In addition to that, the purpose, again, as I said of the office — to facilitate meaningful public participation — will lead to the development by the environmental assessment office of a variety of forms of public consultation at different stages of the process. Some of these will mirror what has been the practice over recent years and, particularly, the last couple years. Some of them may be new and evolving over time. But the actual default would be the sections referenced in subsections (1) and (2).

Sections 23 to 25 inclusive approved.

On section 26.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move the amendment to section 26 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 26, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Advice from consultants, and mediators and experts during assessment

26 (1) The chief executive assessment officer and, subject to any restrictions imposed by the minister, an assessment body appointed under section 24 (3) (a) may retain consultants, and mediators and experts and set their remuneration and the terms of their retainers.

(2) All or part of the advice and recommendations of consultants, and mediators and experts retained under subsection (1) may be reflected in the assessment report and in any recommendations submitted to the ministers under section 29 (2).]

On the amendment.

[6:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Did you wish to speak to it?

Hon. G. Heyman: I don’t need to speak to it. Well, I will speak to it. I think the critics for both opposition parties have this.

I want to acknowledge, in moving this amendment, that while a number of concerns have been raised and questions asked by members of the public and interested parties with respect to some aspects of peer review and how information from proponents will be reviewed with respect to environmental assessment…. The House Leader of the Third Party has had a number of discussions with me over the past days, has asked me a number of questions of clarification with respect to how this will work and what our intent in the act is.

Our intent has always been to ensure that there was impartial expert review. But in the course of the conversations with the member, it became apparent that this could be clarified further in the act. That is what this amendment is intended to do.

Amendment approved.

On section 26 as amended.

S. Furstenau: Just questions that I was going to bring up in section 19, but the minister referred to section 26. This does speak to expert evidence, the concerns being that: if evidence is primarily generated by corporate- or industry-hired experts, how can people feel or the community members feel certain that the evidence is indeed reliable in this process?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question and the opportunity to further clarify what we’re doing in this section, in addition to what we’re doing in other sections of the act, to ensure the public that there is impartial assessment of the information that goes into making an environmental assessment decision.

Before we get to this point, there is an early engagement period. Key issues are surfaced during the early engagement period, including concerns related to information independence. But the process planning brings together the interests of Indigenous nations, the environmental assessment office, the proponent, community members and others in terms of what information is required and how it will be collected and analyzed.

It was pointed out to me by a friend of mine, who has considerable experience in consulting with Indigenous nations with respect to environmental assessments, that project proponents — in the course of even getting to the point to decide that they have a project to propose that they think is economically viable — have already gathered a lot of information. They also have the resources to gather much of the information and to conduct many of the tests that are required to provide information to inform the process.

That’s fair — that they do that. But what this section does is ensure that the public sees that there is advice from consultants, mediators and experts during the assessment, that the experts are retained and that they will be in a position to provide peer review and independent advice of the material that is collected.

That is clearly the intent of this section, as well as some other sections we’ll get into a little bit later — likely another day.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:50 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. S. Simpson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:52 p.m.