Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 24, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2021.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 24 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 24; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

The Chair: All right, Members. I’m going to just put us into a short recess to prepare for the next bill, committee stage.

The committee recessed from 2:45 p.m. to 2:49 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 1.

The Chair: All right, Members. We are here for committee stage of Bill 24, the Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2021.

Did the minister want to open with a statement? Or we’ll dive right in.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I look forward to questions from members. I know there has been some speculation in the public about whether important issues like accessibility or health issues will be addressed in the consultations that will accompany the development of regulations. I will welcome the opportunity to offer clarity on those questions.

P. Milobar: Thank you to the minister.

Certainly, quite a few questions around section 1, trying to get a good sense of the scope and what is intended by the definition around “single-use product.” I think everyone agrees, and we’ve seen with polling, that we want to see as much reduction of plastic as possible within our lived environment and, by extension, our natural environment as it turns into waste. But certainly, there are good intentions, and then there is the practicality of enforcement or actual day-to-day usage and things happening within our daily lives.

I guess if the minister could just provide a broad overview of the intent. Under the definition of “single-use product,” what types of products are intended to be captured by the definition that we see in the bill?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question.

Currently there is no definition of “single-use product,” so we wanted to provide that definition. The member’s question is a good one. Including the definition of “single-use product” will allow the ministry to regulate and restrict products that have both a single use or a short-term use, which is more than one, but, really, relatively short-term, very short-term. Let me give some examples. A Tupperware container may be a short-term single use. Disposable razors are, I think, a good example. Moving boxes would be a good example.

P. Milobar: Thank you. Can the minister confirm, then, that the intent is truly to restrict the single-use products, so things like disposable razors and Tupperware that were just mentioned could quite easily fall under the regulation, moving forward, once this bill is passed?

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer to the member is yes, subject to the consultation that we will do and the economic analysis, as well as the environmental analysis that we will do. The intention is to restrict.

[2:55 p.m.]

There are some items, of course, that were put forward for bans by local governments, which I have already approved as minister. I think it’s pretty fair to assume that we would include those, given they’ve already been approved. Plastic bags are one of them, polystyrene foam containers are another, and straws, by request — straws being allowed by request, not automatically handed out.

P. Milobar: One of the recurring themes we’ve seen with legislation, certainly, throughout this session…. Some of the bills are still open and being gone through at committee stage but other bills as well…. We have a bill in front of us with a concept, and then everything is left to regulation after the fact, without a clear understanding of what the regulations’ boundaries would be.

We have been hearing concerns from people wanting to know, under these definitions, if things like…. You go to a Canucks game, and you get your drink and go back to your seat. You’re not allowed to have glass in a Canucks building. You’re not allowed to have a reusable container that you bring in from the street.

Will products such as that be subject to regulation? Or is there somewhere that I’ve missed in this act where they would be excluded?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member. That’s, actually, a very good example, and I’m sure it’s on the mind of every hockey fan or football fan.

We will consider, through the process of consultation, exemptions for exactly that kind of example offered by the member. Part of it will also be considering if we can find or if the marketplace provides viable alternatives that reduce the use of plastic that can be used in places like games to reduce waste and eliminate single-use containers.

P. Milobar: Again, the questions are maybe sounding flippant at times. I assure the minister they are not meant to be. But again, people do have a lot of serious questions around this type of a proposal, especially because everything is being left to after-the-fact regulation.

Some other examples we’ve heard of. Is there anything in this that would prevent the sale…? Or is this intended to…?

Let me rephrase that. Under regulation, would this legislation enable the minister to ban things like the sale of garbage bags that people use at home, and things of that nature, that you might buy in a large box, 100 at a time, where you have the actual product inside the box that is most certainly single use? I think of garbage bags. I’m not aware of many people that would re-use their doggy bag when they take their dog for a walk, but certainly, those types of products are in high demand, especially in urbanized areas where sidewalks and such come into play when you take your pets out for a walk.

Is there anything in this act? This act seems to be structured in such a way that would make it possible, through regulation, to ban those types of products. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Heyman: I want to assure the member that I don’t find the questions flippant at all, because they probably represent questions that many people in British Columbia have. It’s great to be able to provide an answer.

[3:00 p.m.]

Our focus would be, certainly, on instances where retailers are providing single-use products that actually have viable alternatives to replace them. Theoretically, the act could allow that, but we would not be seeking to ban something for which there is no viable alternative — for instance, a garbage bag or a doggy bag that people are using. We may, however — and hopefully, the market will work with us on that — encourage the development of viable alternatives, which may be truly biodegradable, that could, ultimately, replace some of these products.

Of course, as the member knows, a large focus of our time is spent on encouraging people to reduce waste overall, therefore requiring less garbage bags — although there’s not much we can do about dogs — and contributing to a true circular economy by reducing what people use. This is where the single-use plastic amendment comes in and, ultimately, the regulations — recycling and ensuring that we have adequate extended producer responsibility coverage for a broad range of items in British Columbia.

P. Milobar: I’m not sure if my question around packaging, which I have, is for this or for later on, on clause 2 or on 11.

Overall, when it comes to packaging, could the minister clarify…? When it talks about packaging of products and when you think of things like, say, bottled water…. I’m assuming that bottled water may fall under single-use plastic as well. It typically comes with some form of plastic wrapping around it to make sure you’re not shipping 24 bottles at a time that are rolling all over the place.

Is that the type of packaging — the shrink-wrap that goes around a pallet when it’s getting shipped from one store to another and off the containers to the store — that is referenced in this bill as well?

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, I just want to assure the member and the public that we’re not considering banning plastic water bottles, although we would certainly encourage people to find and use reusable ones.

The answer with respect to shrink-wrapping, for example, that holds bundles of things together for packaging…. Yes, we could ban that. We would ban it if we found that there were viable alternatives available that reduced the necessity to use that kind of plastic.

P. Milobar: Could the minister, then, clarify…? Bottled water — obviously not. Ultimately, it’s the bottle and not the product that people worry about the most.

Is the minister, then, saying that any type of plastic bottle that one would associate with, say, bottled water but that, obviously, holds juice and other beverages in it…? Those are not contemplated with this legislation or this regulation?

Hon. G. Heyman: No. I can confirm that we are not considering banning those kinds of plastic containers. They’re covered under our bottle deposit and recycling program, which encourages people not to toss them in the gutter or in the garbage but to ensure they’re included in the recycling program and repurposed or reprocessed following that.

[3:05 p.m.]

I. Paton: Based on the massive use of agricultural plastics throughout the world…. It has become one of the biggest users of plastic. In the United Kingdom a few years ago, a statistic showed 45,000 tonnes of plastic was used for an agricultural purpose in the United Kingdom in one year.

In British Columbia, we have several types of heavy plastic that are used in all aspects of agriculture, including baler twine, netting that goes around the round bales that are produced to hold them together, the white plastic and green plastic that goes around the silage bales, which look like marshmallows in the field. It would be devastating to the agriculture industry in B.C. to somehow have those removed or considered as a single-use plastic.

To the minister: could you comment on different varieties of agricultural plastics that are used? Will they be, under regulation, banned?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. It’s an excellent question. Agricultural plastic and agricultural plastic waste are, of course, a concern to the agriculture industry, to farmers as well as to the people of B.C.

The way that we are addressing agricultural plastic waste is through the extended producer responsibility system. Our proposal and consultations that are currently going out now with respect to how we update that plan for institutional, commercial and industrial sectors…. That’s where we will be likely to address the handling of plastic waste and how we ensure that we bring it back in a way that handles it properly through the recycling system.

The focus on single-use plastics through regulation, which will be enabled by this bill, is in response to the consultations and what we heard from the public about single-use plastics. While there’s concern about agricultural plastic use, it wasn’t something that came up in this consultation. It has come up in consultation generally on the broader extended producer responsibility system.

That’s what we’re going to bring in. It will take some time to bring it in because we have to ensure that there’s facility and capacity to handle those plastics and that it’s cost effective for everyone. But that is the route we will take on agricultural plastics.

I. Paton: I’d like to, further, just give a definition of some of the many, many uses of plastic. It would be devastating to agriculture in B.C. and throughout Canada if they were to be banned.

As I’ve said before, polyethylene baler twine for baling hay, of course. Bale netting that goes around the round bales. Massive tarps that go on top of bunker silos for corn silage and grass silage. The white plastic that goes around round bales.

[3:10 p.m.]

Plastic that goes over seedlings. We see, in B.C., rows upon rows of the plastic that goes down over top of seedlings, which keeps the weeds down and creates a bit of a greenhouse effect for the seedlings that are growing.

Fertilizer bags. Pesticide containers. Greenhouse coverings. The plastic that goes over the greenhouses hoop houses. PVC pipe for irrigation purposes. Greenhouse packaging that the peppers, tomatoes and cucumbers go in is a vital part of our greenhouse industry and food production. Seed bags and, of course, like I said, fertilizer bags.

To the minister, having such an impact on agriculture in B.C. and having a devastating impact if it were to be banned, when it comes to consultation, probably the number one consulting group in British Columbia to stay in contact with would be the B.C. Agriculture Council, which was just here a week ago or two weeks ago for B.C. Agriculture Day….

My question to the minister. Have you consulted (a) with the B.C. Agriculture Council and (b) with the Minister of Agriculture?

Hon. G. Heyman: I want to repeat and reassure the member that we don’t propose to ban things for which there are no alternatives. I want to also reiterate that our focus on the real issue of agricultural plastic waste is through our extended producer responsibility section of our plastics action plan, not through this bill.

We are consulting with the B.C. agricultural association on how we deal with agricultural plastics through, ultimately, changes to extended producer responsibility and recycling. I have, in fact, consulted with the Minister of Agriculture on a number of occasions, both with respect to this bill and addressing agricultural plastics in general, and she, of course, is a strong advocate for the continued viability of our important agriculture sector which, of course, is what we rely on for food security.

Our focus with respect to agricultural plastics where there may not be alternatives is to not ban plastic. It is to increase the percent of content of recycled plastic in the plastic products. So when we attempt to deal with it through extended producer responsibility, ensuring that people have a real incentive to collect and recycle, we have an industry in British Columbia, unlike other jurisdictions, where we have plastics remanufacturing.

I hope to see even more plastics remanufacturing plants than those that currently exist in British Columbia. Part of the StrongerBC recovery program was an invitation to different entrepreneurs and companies to make proposals about different ways that they could recycle plastic and use plastic so that it can be used again and reduce the use of virgin plastic. We had a broad range of thoughtful and viable proposals.

That is how we propose to deal with the agricultural sector — not through bans but by extended producer responsibility and ensuring that we up the content of recycled plastic and plastic products in B.C. for the agricultural industry, as well as elsewhere, and that we do that with manufactured-in-B.C. recycled plastics.

[3:15 p.m.]

I. Paton: If you’ll indulge me, since I have an opportunity to ask a few questions to the minister on maybe a slightly different topic, the massive amount of….

I would say British Columbia might be a third of the U.K. in tonnes of plastic used in a year for agricultural purposes. In the Fraser Valley and on my own farm, I was one of the first persons to import equipment from Germany that actually wrapped these round bales in white plastic. They looked like marshmallows in the field.

I’m getting comments and information from farmers and ranchers all over B.C. about: what do we do with our plastic? In the Fraser Valley, we do have opportunities to take this plastic to some recycling facilities. But if you live in Fort St. John or in Hudson’s Hope or in the Kootenays or Vanderhoof…. They’re absolutely out of ideas on what to do. We really don’t want to burn this plastic. We really don’t want to dig a hole with the excavator and put it in the ground.

I’m asking, to the minister: what facilities do you have in place in northern B.C. and eastern B.C. for farmers to be able to recycle their plastic?

Hon. G. Heyman: I’ll start by saying that probably the single topic that engenders the most meetings and comments for me at the Union of B.C. Municipalities is recycling, in general and particularly from Interior and northern communities which don’t have the benefit of the same economies of scale that have led to facilities existing of the kind the member referenced for agricultural plastic in more populated areas.

Among the demands that local government make is that we focus on institutional, commercial and industrial recycling and including that in extended producer responsibility in our recycling program, which is exactly what we are proposing to do.

We’re currently working with the recycling industry, with local governments, with industry, to bring that online, but we can’t collect it until the facilities exist to handle it and process it. Otherwise, we’re simply going to be collecting it, and it could well end up in landfills or burnt or whatever. So that is not our long-term plan.

We’re working as quickly as we can, but the member asked what facilities are in place in the north, for instance, to handle them, and the answer is: none yet. We’re working on it.

The Chair: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson. North Thompson. Both beautiful places.

P. Milobar: We get mistaken as one and the same — often called twins.

The Chair: Definitely. I’ve got a twin in Kamloops.

P. Milobar: Actually, you do. That’s true. So there you go.

Thanks to the minister for that. I think where some of the apprehension is starting to come with the bill is that in section 1 here, in clause 1, we’re talking about adding in a definition to the act around what a single-use product is, and every interpretation of that, moving forward, is left to regulation, an unknown regulation.

By virtue of that, almost every product out there could almost meet the definition that the minister has clarified for us. When even Tupperware is being invoked as a short-term product, well, I can tell you…. Well, at least the Tupperware lids in my house last a long time. I don’t know what happens to the rest of the Tupperware, but if you’re like my house, you’ve got a lot of lids and not a lot of containers.

The point being, I think, is that there is not enough detail in what is being excluded at this point. So as we’ve heard about the concerns on the agricultural side of the equation, we’re also hearing the same within the health care realm and things around PPE, especially in light of what’s going on with COVID and you think of all of the first-aid attendants and on-site construction sites with first aid kits and everything else.

[3:20 p.m.]

Would “single-use product,” under this definition…? Would that include things like plastics used in the provision of health care, based on this definition? Not what might happen in regulation, but based on how this definition is worded — would health care plastics also fall under this single-use definition?

Hon. G. Heyman: I want to reiterate for the member….

Well, first of all, let me say that the member knows, and members opposite who have served in government know, that it is not uncommon to leave certain details to regulation for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the ability to more easily keep them current and amend them and ensure that they meet the intent. So that is why much of the detail will be developed in regulation, following real consultation with the public, with retailers, with manufacturers about what’s possible.

It’s not our intent to ban things where there is no alternative or where they’re necessary. It is clearly our hope that alternatives will be developed over time to reduce plastic waste where that’s possible. It’s also our intention, as I’ve stated, to increase extended producer responsibility, recycling of plastic and inclusion of more recycled content in our plastic products, rather than virgin plastics.

This is an excellent question by the member with respect to health care. It gives me the opportunity to make absolutely clear…. I want to make absolutely clear that it is not the intent under this bill to — and we will not — ban the use of plastics, single-use or otherwise, where they are necessary for health care, whether it’s personal protective equipment or other health care uses. Nor would we ban the use of single-use plastics — for instance, plastic straws — where they are necessary for accessibility issues for people with any kind of disability where that single-use plastic is the only alternative for them. We will not do that.

In fact, in all of the bans that were submitted by local government for my approval as minister, before we made it possible for them to develop them on their own, it was made absolutely clear that the bans had to provide provision for health care uses and accessibility uses. And again, when we issued the order that allowed municipalities to go ahead without my approval, the order included issues of health care and accessibility as issues that had to be addressed as exemptions to single-use plastic bans.

I hope that is absolutely crystal clear for the member or anyone else who shares that concern.

P. Milobar: I take the minister, certainly, at his word on that. I guess it’s sometimes a function of….

When we each have jobs or titles, so to speak, under our governmental elected–type work, you start to feel like: “Okay. What I say today is how it shall be forevermore.” Certainly, there were mayors in my office in Kamloops before me, and when last I checked, there’s one in there after me. There were Environment ministers before this minister and, you know, at the whim of the Premier, there’s a new Environment Minister. That’s just the system that we work under. So what one minister’s intent might be is not necessarily the actions of another minister, moving forward.

[3:25 p.m.]

When things are left wide open, under legislation, to be decided by regulation after the fact, and there are no exemptions in here, it does open the door for future governments, future ministers, anybody in a position of power to change that.

Could the minister please just clarify, then…? I was just simply checking whether or not medical plastics would fit under the definition, as it’s written right now, of single-use product, under this legislation, the way it is written.

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, I appreciate the member’s comment and the concern that he is raising. I also know that interpretation of an act is guided by statements that are made by the minister in introducing the act and in answering questions at committee stage, which is why I tried to give such a clear answer to the question in my previous response.

I don’t think I can make that more clear, but I want to assure the member that we would not consider medical use plastics that are necessary and for which there is no alternative to be covered by the definition in this act. I think we’ve demonstrated that in the exemptions that we insisted on with respect to local government.

P. Milobar: Well, that sounded like a fairly succinct answer as to how an exemption could have been worded when this bill was brought forward to make amendments to the existing act.

Within the discussion and within the development of clause 1, specifically, but these whole four clauses that are in front of us amending the act, why were there not any exemptions just highlighted right off the very front end instead of leaving everything wide open for interpretation of a regulation process as opposed to flat out making sure that…?

As the minister just laid out, a fairly clearly defined wording around medical plastics could have easily been inserted in as an exemption. There could have been an exemption, with a reference made to agricultural plastics in terms of how this act directly pertains to them, and leaving other waste acts to deal with agricultural plastic.

[3:30 p.m.]

Why were there no actual exemptions highlighted and defined in this bill that would have actually very clearly told everybody — especially on medical plastics — that this is a no-go zone, full stop, and that it’s not being left to regulation now or in the future?

[3:35 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I think I addressed the issue of medical-use plastics and the accessibility of [inaudible recording].

The member asked about agricultural packaging and products and why we didn’t specifically include an exemption. Actually, I would say that almost exclusively, that kind of packaging of agricultural materials or commodities is already covered by the act, which was brought in, in 2003, by the previous government.

The existing provision says: “‘packaging’ means a material, substance or object that is (a) used to protect, contain or transport a commodity or product, or (b) attached to a commodity or product or its container for the purpose of marketing or communicating information about the commodity or product.”

That is currently the language in the act. The act contains no specific exemption with respect to agricultural products, but as the member knows, those things have not been banned where there is no suitable alternative.

P. Milobar: Yes. Thank you for that on the agricultural side. Again, there are still questions around packaging, as we canvassed earlier, in terms of what would qualify or not. It comes down to some of that interpretation.

I guess the bigger concern I have was actually the question around the discussions as this bill was being crafted, as it was being brought forward, as it was looking at amending the act, why was there not…? What discussions led to there not being a very clear exemption for medical-grade, medical-use plastics?

[3:40 p.m.]

If there is absolutely no intention through regulation moving forward, now or infinity, to ban those, why was there not, just clearly articulated, an exemption in this bill, which is already updating the act? It would seem to be a very simple way to update the act and put people’s minds at ease. We’re in the height of a global pandemic where PPE is in short supply, and people are already, rightfully, nervous around those supplies and other medical provisions. This seems to be a very easy way to address that.

What discussions led up to deciding? Was there even any consideration of bringing in an exception, and why was it not acted upon, if there were those discussions?

Hon. G. Heyman: It is our intention to develop regulations through consultation about which items to specifically name.

With respect to the exemptions for accessibility or health purposes, again, I’ve made very clear statements in this House that can and will be used to interpret the act.

With respect to consultation, we consulted with the Provincial Health Services Authority, with the provincial health officer, with the Disability Alliance B.C. and, within government, with the Ministry of Health and the accessibility secretariat.

P. Milobar: Well, I guess we’ll try to FOI to see what the decision-making process was with that. I’m not holding my breath on that either.

I guess the concern, though, is…. I get that the minister is saying this will all come into effect under regulation, but in fact, the act commences on royal assent, which will happen next Thursday, at the latest. Then it’s up to people, the citizenry, to interpret the act and the lack of regulation attached to it.

[3:45 p.m.]

I guess the question to the minister is, then: if this comes into effect on royal assent, what is the timeline to actually have the consultation done and actual regulations known, given that there has been no preliminary look at proposed regulations attached to this bill, as seems to be the practice with this government lately with bills?

It’s an unknown regulatory scheme being proposed. Pass the legislation, and we’ll tell you after the fact how it is going to operate or not.

What is the actual timeline for the regulation? I don’t see anything in this bill that spells out how quickly it has to be developed or not.

Hon. G. Heyman: As the member knows, the bill…. Anyone reading the bill will know that it is an enabling provision, and nothing is banned until there is a regulation banning it. It is our intention to….

First of all, I’ll back up a minute. We have been having discussions with the industry. We’ve heard lots from the public in previous consultations and discussion papers around generally what people are looking for, what concerns they want addressed. We’ve heard from industry and retailers.

In the spring of 2022, sometime around February or March, we’ll begin a 60-day consultation on an intentions paper, which is about 33 percent longer than our normal consultation period on an intentions paper. Then following that, based on the feedback, we will begin drafting regulations, which we intend to bring in by spring 2023.

P. Milobar: Three months from now there will be some consultation. It will be about a two-month consultation.

Does that include…? Is there any intention to include Indigenous communities in that consultation? I didn’t hear them mentioned in any of the consultations being proposed at this point.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: We have, in fact, been consulting with Indigenous peoples. We provide funding for an Indigenous zero waste technical advisory committee that serves as a vehicle for hearing Indigenous views and concerns. That has been ongoing and will continue as part of the upcoming consultation.

P. Milobar: Just to be clear. Was that group, then, consulted with the development of this bill as it stands today?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think it’s been, certainly, public knowledge that we intended to bring in bans on single-use plastics. I’ve been speaking about that publicly for over a year, that it would happen via a combination of legislation and/or regulations.

The consultations that we’ve had with the Indigenous zero waste technical advisory committee have actually been on what regulations would look like, further to the enabling legislation that led to us bringing them in.

P. Milobar: On the development of this Bill 24, were any groups consulted with? If so, who? Were any of those groups required to sign non-disclosure agreements?

Hon. G. Heyman: A letter was sent to all treaty and non-treaty nations, advising them that government was intending to bring in an amendment to the Environmental Management Act to address single-use plastics.

[3:55 p.m.]

We, of course, went on with the zero waste technical advisory committee to hear their input on what kinds of things they would like to see, ultimately, in the regulatory framework. That work is ongoing.

With respect to the letters to all the nations, we invited a response. We received a response from many nations and considered those responses as we brought the legislation to development and forward.

P. Milobar: I guess I’ll be a little more specific with my question. It wasn’t really just around Indigenous consultation but in general. So any groups, any and all groups. Were people or groups consulted on the development of Bill 24? If so, who were they, and were they required to sign non-disclosure agreements?

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, no non-disclosure agreements were required. Every treaty and non-treaty nation received a letter providing formal notification of pending amendments to provincial legislation regarding the Environmental Management Act to provide regulation-making authority to ban the sale or use of specific types of products, etc., and then describing the intended effects of the proposed amendment to EMA as follows.

If I may….

The Chair: Go ahead, Minister.

Hon. G. Heyman: If I may, Chair, we’d be happy to make a copy of one of the letters available to the member.

P. Milobar: Thank you, no. That’s all right.

Again…. I guess I’m a stickler, but I’ve been around the mulberry bush a few times with the minister on the fine points of how answers and questions get worded, in estimates and otherwise, over the years.

There was no requirement to sign an NDA. But were NDAs requested? In other words, were they requested, and then just quietly, if they didn’t happen to sign, they were still consulted or listened to, but the preference of the ministry would have been that non-disclosures be signed off on for consultation to happen? Of course, I ask that because we’re finding out, from bill after bill, that this has started to be fairly prevalent. So we’re just trying to find out if this particular bill was subject to the same ask of participants to provide input or not.

Hon. G. Heyman: We did not request that the nations sign an NDA with regard to the letter, which described, in more than general terms — quite some specificity — about what our intention of the amendment to the Environmental Management Act would be and then to go on and talk about the kinds of things that we would be working to address through regulation and further consultation.

Had we actually shared the precise language of the act, we might, at that point…. We likely would have required an NDA, for obvious reasons. But we were giving them a description of what would be in the act and inviting comment. Therefore, we did not ask them to sign an NDA.

P. Milobar: Again, I think the minister has made the answer around Indigenous consultation fairly clear, but the question was also around other consultation. I mean, there are a lot of environmentally minded groups. There are a lot of people, stewards, associations other than that — other groups like that that may have been consulted on the creation of Bill 24.

[4:00 p.m.]

Again, were any of those groups consulted, and if so, were they required or requested to sign an NDA?

Hon. G. Heyman: We did a broad consultation on our plastics action plan consultation paper, which was circulated quite some time ago. It was the result of that consultation that led to our plans to develop an amendment to the Environmental Management Act and then to go forward and consult on the regulations.

The simple fact of an enabling amendment to the act…. We did not think consultation was necessary on that with groups, so obviously, we did not ask for an NDA from any groups. We will, however, be consulting with them on the regulations, should this bill pass.

P. Milobar: That’s a beautiful segue into my next question for the minister. As we roll into regulation of this bill, will there be, through those consultations, either the requirement or the request for NDAs to be signed from participants of any fashion towards the development of the regulations?

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s our intention to consult, publish an intentions paper, which is a public document, so we wouldn’t be requiring an NDA for that. Then, usually, we publish a what-we-heard document — again, a public document — after we get feedback on the intentions paper. If we get to the point of actually wanting to run specific regulatory language by any specific groups, at that point, we likely would require an NDA and ask for an NDA. But talking about general principles, no.

P. Milobar: There are all sorts of NDAs. Certainly, I get…. Especially if you’re talking about things that would potentially impact saleable goods, in theory, in some market areas, that can be understandable. But there are all sorts of NDAs. There are NDAs in perpetuity, and there are NDAs until things are officially released, where people could then talk about the process they went through and whether or not they were listened to and their recommendations were actioned or ignored and why.

Is it the minister’s intention, if an NDA is required…? We have seen, with other legislation that has just come through recently, that some ministers of this government have required that there be absolutely no discussion — even after things are tabled in this chamber and being discussed in the public realm — about any of those participants’ actions or interactions with government through the process.

Would the intention of the minister be that an NDA is for the timeline that those fine points are being dealt with and that once it’s now made a public document of regulations, people are then free to discuss what they’ve worked on the government with? Or is it in perpetuity, and they are essentially bound to not discuss the making of the sausage, as it were, forevermore if they agree to participate in the consultation around regulations?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s an interesting question. I was just checking.

We can’t think of a situation where we’ve required an NDA of people where we have asked them to not discuss information that is subsequently publicly available. But I can’t speculate about whether there might be information to which people under an NDA would be privy in the future that might be commercially sensitive or might be potentially prejudicial to an industry or parties within an industry where we would not consider that an NDA that extended beyond the actual public release of a regulation might not be required. We’d basically take legal advice on that.

P. Milobar: Well, it sounds, then, based on that answer from the minister, that it’s more of a ministerial choice how restrictive an NDA may be in this day and age. So we will continue to follow up with other ministers, I guess, on how they want to conduct themselves, moving forward, in terms of those longer-term gag orders, for lack of a better word.

Mr. Chair, I have no more questions until section 4 now.

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On clause 4.

[4:10 p.m.]

P. Milobar: I just want to confirm on (b) of this section of 22(2) being amended. Is the intent around this to start to be able to better dictate percentages or volumes of plastics being used that would help differentiate whether it’s considered a single-use plastic product or just a product in general?

Hon. G. Heyman: I just want to clarify. Did the member say “b” as in bravo or “d” as in dog?

P. Milobar: There is no (d). It’s just (b).

Hon. G. Heyman: We’ve added the word “material” so that we could, in fact, ultimately regulate the makeup of a plastic product with regard to what percentage of recycled plastics was required to be contained in it, for obvious reasons.

Clauses 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:13 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Bill 24, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Heyman: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 23, Forests Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — FORESTS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 23; N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 4:15 p.m.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes while we wait for a change of teams.

The committee recessed from 4:15 p.m. to 4:19 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

On clause 1.

The Chair: For those of you who’ve joined us, we are doing what’s called committee stage.

[4:20 p.m.]

After second reading, which is where both the government and the opposition get to make speeches, the minister gets to answer questions, clause by clause. There are 111 clauses. Hopefully, you can stay for a few days, as we go through all 111 clauses.

With that, Minister, would you like to introduce your team?

Hon. K. Conroy: I would. Thank you very much, Chair.

With me today, I have Ariel Taylor, manager of Indigenous consultation and negotiations; Tony Cheong, senior legislative analyst; Doug Kelly, director of forest tenures branch; and Diane Nicholls, ADM and chief forester for the province of B.C.

J. Rustad: Welcome to the minister’s staff.

As the Chair has said, this is a rather lengthy bill, and there will be a variety of questions as we go into the bill, questions from myself and my co-critic, as I like to call him — although he’s not quite co-critic, I guess — the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. Of course, the members from the Green Party have a number of questions as well. So there will be a little bit of bouncing around as the discussion goes with this.

If the minister is okay with this — we had a brief little conversation outside — I would like to start with maybe just a couple of general questions around the intent of the bill and process before we go into sections, just to try to have a little bit of up front that may drive or may help to eliminate some of the questions that may need to be asked at a later date.

Starting off with the bill. The bill is a pretty significant shift in forest policy. I think the minister probably agrees with that, in terms of the landscape-level plans and the intent and, sort of, what flows underneath that.

Perhaps just a start for people listening, as well as for my own sake, if the minister could provide a little bit of background around the rationale for implementing this bill, as well as what the objectives are. I know that it’s laid out in this discussion in the bill. It was laid out in the press release, but I want to give the minister an opportunity to expand on that, if possible here, just as we start going on this bill.

Hon. K. Conroy: The member is right. B.C.’s forest sector is undergoing a significant transition and reformation, brought on by compounding economic, environmental and social pressures.

This proposed legislation responds to the profound challenges that B.C.’s forest sector has experienced in the last decade and creates a legislative framework to address both current and foreseeable needs related to supporting reconciliation with Indigenous nations and starting that process to align the forestry framework with the declaration.

[4:25 p.m.]

Also, enabling increased opportunities for participation in forest planning by stakeholders and B.C.’s communities; coordinating forest development and management areas; realizing sustainable timber harvest levels in support of B.C.’s economy; achieving greater government oversight of forest management to protect public safety, the environment and natural resources; and ensuring that land managers have the right tools to establish resilient forests and range lands when faced with the uncertain impacts of climate change upon these ecosystems.

It’s all about ensuring that the public trust is there for the forest industry, as well as forestry in general. It also is the continuation of the foundation of Bill 21.

J. Rustad: The minister just talked about greater stakeholder engagement in terms of the forest sector, in terms of, I think, what’s happening in forestry. Perhaps if the minister could elaborate on that a little bit more in terms of how those stakeholders will be engaged.

Hon. K. Conroy: The forest landscape planning that is being recommended in this legislation is in one of the sections that we’ll probably get to, but maybe this will answer it first, rather than answering the question, as the member says, when we get to it. It’ll start with the government-to-government consultation, discussions, those important discussions which we do not have the ability to do right now. That’s not in legislation anywhere.

It will start with those important discussions, and then it’ll go to the stakeholders that are involved — for example, industry, communities, ranchers, adventure tourism. Those are some examples of the people that would have a say in it, and it would all revolve around the forest landscape planning opportunities in the various regions across the province where they’ll be situated.

J. Rustad: I’m not sure if this sort of thing should be saved for when we get into section 34 of the bill, or clause 34 of the bill. I guess we use “clause” now instead of “sections.” I’m still old school. Sorry. It’s been confusing going back and forth.

The reason why I ask about…. The minister talked about greater stakeholder engagement. Can the minister maybe explain the process once the chief forester…? Like I say, this will be talked about in section 33 and section 34. Once the chief forester reaches an agreement with First Nations in terms of a landscape-level plan, what is the process? How does the minister see stakeholder engagement potentially changing or altering that plan?

[4:30 p.m.]

The Chair: You see, the bill has clauses, which amend sections. That’s why they’re called clauses.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. K. Conroy: What the whole…. The forest landscape planning table is ensuring that we have those really important government-to-government discussions first with Indigenous nations and then engaging with the stakeholders. There is the potential that plans could be amended if new information comes to light, with agreement with the Indigenous nations.

J. Rustad: The reason for asking that specific question and the reason why I’m sort of asking that up front, as opposed to waiting for the bill, is because it…. In terms of the honour of the Crown and the engagement with First Nations, reaching an agreement on a plan…. I fail to see how input will be able to substantially change that plan.

I’m using the example of Cariboo, up in the Peace country. When the agreement was done between the First Nation and the province, there was a process that went out for engagement. It was a rather lengthy process, and there was a lot of engagement, a lot of suggestions, a lot of adjustments and changes. At the end of the day, there were no changes because there was no agreement between the First Nation and government on making those changes.

In this process of going out and having greater stakeholder engagement…. The reason for asking about this is…. I’m just wondering, if that engagement leads to suggestions for potential change, whether or not government has the ability or the willingness to implement those changes if there isn’t agreement with the First Nations or whether it has to go back through a whole process again of redeveloping a plan and reaching agreement with First Nations.

I guess the follow-up to that is…. Usually, once government reaches agreement with a nation and it’s signed off…. Because it’s signed off, it’s extremely difficult to be able to actually to go back and change that.

That’s why I’m asking how the process is about this. When the minister says “greater stakeholder engagement,” I fail to see how that process will actually lead to changes — rather than, perhaps, frustration by stakeholders as they are told what the plan is, as opposed to being involved in developing the plan.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: When the landscape plans are being developed, they’re being developed government to government with Indigenous nations. Then there is input from other stakeholders.

The specific objectives that the chief forester has to consider in the preparation of the forest landscape plan…. There are a number of them. I’m going to list them off for the member. The chief forester has the final say. That’s part of the legislation. That’s in this section as well.

Supporting the production and supply of timber in the forest landscape area. Supporting the protection and conservation of the environment. Managing the values placed on the forest ecosystem by Indigenous nations. Managing the values placed on the forest ecosystem by local communities. Preventing, mitigating and adapting to impacts caused by significant disturbances to forests and forest health, including wildfire, insects, disease and drought. All of those things are taken into consideration by the chief forester before she makes her final decision.

J. Rustad: I’ll save some questions around that for when we get to that section of the bill. I have a number of questions around that.

It makes me wonder, in terms of this process…. It is a government-to-government…. It’s two equal bodies, I suppose, in terms of coming together to develop the landscape plans and the process we’re going through.

If I heard the minister correctly…. Please correct me if I didn’t. The minister just said that the final decision-making rests with the chief forester and that it is on advice from the First Nation, not as a joint decision by the First Nation. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Conroy: There is shared decision-making. The whole process is there within the landscape management plan process. If there are disputes, there are multiple stages of criteria to go through to resolve those disputes. In the end, it’s up to the statutory decision–maker, which is the chief forester.

[4:40 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Okay. I think I understand that. It’s shared decision-making. In other words, it’s more of an advice model, with the decision being made, than it is a joint decision, although I’m sure….

I’m asking that specifically because in a joint decision-making model, there has to be agreement by both parties in terms of how decisions will be made on the landscape. In an advice model or shared decision-making model, the authority for the final decision rests with, in this case, the chief forester. The First Nations input is brought in as advice, as opposed to more of that joint decision-making.

I’m asking that specifically because, obviously, there are issues around who makes those decisions on the landscape, and if something goes wrong, who is ultimately held liable for decisions or issues on a landscape. So that’s why I’m asking, just for clarity, to understand that the decision-making rests with the chief forester and that there is advice, input, from a shared nature with First Nations, but it is not a joint decision by a First Nation on a management plan or on the landscape plan.

Hon. K. Conroy: As is part of the declaration, section 7 agreements are joint or consent decisions, and that’s what this is going to be with this legislation.

J. Rustad: I need to ask for some clarity, if I can, from the minister, then, associated with that, because there is a varying perspective of what joint or shared decision-making means. So that’s why I’m asking specifically about the authority to make the decision and the role of the First Nations in making that decision and where liability would lie if there are issues associated with that decision.

Hon. K. Conroy: The difference between the consultation and cooperation is that a decision-making agreement is a joint or consent-based decision-making agreement between the province and the Indigenous governing body, enabled by section 7 of the Declaration Act. Section 7 requires that negotiation of a decision-making agreement be authorized by cabinet and key process steps be completed before the decision-making agreement is approved and implemented. That’s already in the act.

Amendments to FRPA, to what we’re talking about today, enable an Indigenous governing body and the chief forester to negotiate a process for consultation and cooperation on the preparation and establishment of the forest landscape plan. A negotiated process may require the chief forester to seek consent from the Indigenous governing body to establish the forest landscape plan but does not limit the statutory authority of the chief forester to proceed with establishment if consent is not provided.

[4:45 p.m.]

J. Rustad: That helps to clarify some things on that.

I’ve got a few more thoughts that I want to add to that, but my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands would like to ask a couple of questions associated with this as well, so I’ll cede the floor to him.

A. Olsen: Just some further questions around the commitment to free, prior and informed consent and the commitments that we’ve made to Indigenous nations.

As the minister has just clearly outlined, this is, essentially, enshrining the system that currently exists, which is: this government has the ability to override, if an Indigenous nation chooses to not want forestry activities to go on in their territory. As the minister just said, the statutory decision–maker can continue and proceed anyway.

Hon. K. Conroy: The bill supports Indigenous participation in forest planning and decision-making within the nations’ traditional territories by enabling…. There are three avenues for shared decision-making. The first one is the implementation of joint or consent-based decision-making agreements with the governing body under section 7 of the act.

Then there is the negotiation of a consultation and cooperation agreement between the chief forester and the Indigenous governing body that specifies how consent-seeking will occur in relation to forest landscape plan establishment.

The third opportunity is the introduction of a default consultation and cooperation process that could be relied on if a negotiated consultation and cooperation agreement with an Indigenous governing body can’t be achieved in a timely manner. This also could be brought in, in situations where there are overlapping claims, and one nation has one idea, and another nation has another idea, so there has to be consent and collaboration between the two nations.

That is another reason why the chief forester would be the person to have a say in that process. That’s why we’ve laid out three opportunities to ensure we work towards…. The bottom line is to work with Indigenous nations and to come to joint consent.

[4:50 p.m.]

A. Olsen: This still has the Crown at the centre of the decision, though. It doesn’t reflect a decision-making process in which the nations have…. What I think the Premier and what the minister have used is language around rights and title holders, sovereignty. It doesn’t actually reflect a perspective in which this Crown government is embracing the reality of rights and title and sovereignty. This is still putting the Crown at the absolute centre of the decision that’s being made.

Hon. K. Conroy: This is section 7 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which the Indigenous nations embraced. That is what we are following here.

A. Olsen: I respectfully disagree. It’s not, because we have a situation in this act where the chief forester, if they’re not able to achieve consent, can proceed anyway. I’m wondering how that would apply to, say, the Tŝilhqot’in situation. Maybe the minister can provide some perspective on how this relates specifically to the Tŝilhqot’in decision of 2014.

Hon. K. Conroy: With due respect, we had agreed to some general discussion, but I think we need to get into the section-by-section. Then we can answer those questions specifically when they come up in the section that they relate to.

J. Rustad: I agree. We’re going to need to move into the section-by-section thing. There are details…. This will jump around, but I do want to ask one more question — or perhaps more than one — on general terms. Sorry, I’ve got to make sure. It depends on the answers, of course, right?

In particular, what I’m wondering about is…. The minister has listed the objectives that the chief forester will be looking at in terms of identifying a forest landscape plan. I’ve got to try to remember the new lingo and try to get used to using it on a regular basis.

What I’m wondering is: for those objectives, will the minister be implementing performance measures? Many of the things that we have done in the past, whether it is ungulate winter range or old-growth management areas or all of these kinds of things, were set out for a target. But there were never any measures to look at the effectiveness of those various plans historically. I’m just wondering if there are thoughts around putting performance measures in around the objectives that will go into these plans.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The act specifically says that the chief forester has to report out on outcomes, and those outcomes are established in the forest landscape plan. These have to be done periodically, and it’s set through policy.

J. Rustad: I want to turn it over to my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin for a couple of general questions, but I do want to come back to the issue of performance measures. I’ll do that after my colleague jumps in.

L. Doerkson: My first question is around the age of old growth. Are there only two determinations, and what are those ages at?

Hon. K. Conroy: With all due respect, that has nothing to do with the act.

L. Doerkson: Well, then let me ask a question. Under this act, are there younger stands of trees now being considered old growth?

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, that has nothing to do with the act.

L. Doerkson: Are we still allowed to ask a couple of general questions? Is that still appropriate?

The Chair: Sure. As long as they are appropriate to the act, for sure.

L. Doerkson: I guess we’ll come back to that. Can you just tell me overall how this bill will provide greater certainty to the sector so that forest companies that do continue to invest in British Columbia, and not other jurisdictions down south, will see value here?

Hon. K. Conroy: When we get to the section on forest landscape planning, it’ll show the certainty and how we’re moving forward with the act.

L. Doerkson: What analysis has been done to determine what costs or savings this bill will result in for organizations and companies as they embark on complying with the new provisions provided in this bill?

Hon. K. Conroy: We feel that this will be cost-neutral, because companies are already involved in forest stewardship planning. This is just more…. The legislation will bring in more involvement and collaboration, government-to-government, with Indigenous nations.

[5:00 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I want to thank the minister for engaging on the questions. I know that some of them aren’t quite shaped for what we need — for what we’re talking about here — but they are relevant, as we get into the bill.

I actually wanted to ask one more question just around the performance measures. I understand that the chief forester has some reporting out to do around that process. With those performance measures that you mentioned, is that something that will be done by agreement with the First Nations? Is there input or ways to be able to perhaps shape those performance measures that may be different from one landscape unit to another?

Obviously, what is going on, on Vancouver Island is different from the Kootenays, different from the Interior and different from the North, so there may be different objectives that need to be met on there in terms of how these landscape plans are met and the sort of performance measures that could be looked at. The reason for asking is that at some point, I’m sure the Auditor General or the Forest Practices Board or somebody will be looking at these, and they’ll be looking at how to measure whether what is being implemented is successful.

I’m just trying to understand how this reporting process will be done so that it can be there and transparent for people to be able to see.

Hon. K. Conroy: That’s the list that I’ve already read off, of the objectives that the chief forester has to follow in determining the forest landscape planning. One of the values, for instance, is community values. Of course, there are different community values based on where they are. Yes, areas are different across the province, so there will be different objectives.

J. Rustad: Will those values potentially include, for example, range, the quality of range, things like invasive weeds — these types of things? This is all part of managing on a landscape and setting objectives on a landscape as well as, of course, wildlife and wildlife values. It might even be things like access in or through to other areas for recreation, etc.

I’m just wondering how extensive we’re looking at in terms of the values that will be on the landscape as part of these plans or whether these will be high-level plans and those other components will be dealt with in a different way.

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s actually in the forest landscape plan section of the act. We can get more into detail when we get to it.

J. Rustad: Okay, thank you. I appreciate that.

The last little piece that I just want to quickly go into, just in terms of a general question, is really around permitting and the process there. During the briefing, I think it was, we had talked about how the hope or desire is that, because we’ll have these high-level plans, they’ll be able to move through the process of permitting faster in terms of consultation with First Nations and that kind of process.

I agree that that would be a great process, because right now permitting, of course, as the minister is probably well aware, is quite a lengthy process. It’s challenging to go through and to get anything that’s happening on the landscape and to be able to do that in any kind of speed.

[5:05 p.m.]

Has the minister looked at this model that is being put in place — the landscape-level plans, the forest landscape plans? I’ll get it right before the end of this bill, sooner or later. Have you looked at that and looked at the relationship between the process of permits and activity on the landscape and done any kind of analysis in terms of how this may improve the ability for access and the time for access and the ability to get operational approvals through government?

Hon. K. Conroy: Under the current framework, Indigenous nations have limited opportunity to influence forest planning and are instead consulted on permits only after operational decisions have been made. This, as the member is well aware, can result in prolonged authorization time.

Because this will be done on the overall forest landscape plan, it won’t be done cutblock by cutblock, which is how it’s done now. It will speed things up. It’s actually something that is supported not only by industry but also by First Nations.

J. Rustad: Sorry — misleading. My last statement wasn’t quite the last one. This one, hopefully, will be the last one.

When the minister did the announcement the other day around old-growth deferrals, the minister talked about it relating to Bill 23 in terms of management on the landscape. I’m just wondering, from the minister’s perspective, how the landscape-level processing, forest landscape plans and the process to go through, in terms of identifying the targets and the values and the work that will be in there, relates to old growth, old-growth management and ecosystems on the landscape.

Hon. K. Conroy: Old growth is one of the considerations of ecosystem management. So it’s the overall. It’s one of the many decisions that will be made.

J. Rustad: If I could just ask for a little bit more clarity on that. Obviously, there is this decision that has been made, and there will be a process that it goes through, and I get that with the decision around old growth. But I’m just wondering how that plays into the forest landscape plans in terms of some of the decisions that will be made between the First Nations and the chief forester as they develop these plans.

Given that there’s already a decision for deferrals, potential deferrals, will this process be a way to either formalize those deferrals or to potentially change those deferrals? I’m just wondering what that relationship is.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Old-growth areas that are not part of the deferral process will be managed as part of the forest landscape plan considerations for the area.

J. Rustad: Sorry. I’m just a little confused, actually, by the minister’s response associated with that.

I mean, I understand managing of the landscape and managing of the various ages and sorts of classes, and these are all going to be components. I’m assuming that will be whether it’s plans that are underneath the forest landscape plan, or whether that’s part of the forest landscape plan. But I’m specifically asking about the temporary deferral areas and the process that we’re going to go through in terms of the forest landscape plans.

I’m wondering about just that relationship. The minister was talking about it as part of the announcement, so I’m trying to understand the process that the chief forester and the First Nations will go through, as well as input from others, around this relationship and the targets, or whether there is no relationship there at all.

The minister had talked about it in terms of the press conference, which is why I’m asking this question.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Areas of old growth and the deferral areas will be decided through the process that is established with First Nations under existing guidelines. Once decisions are made on deferrals, they’ll be excluded from forest management, because if it’s a permanent deferral, they’ll be excluded.

This is a process, because this legislation will not be implemented for, probably, a year, so we will be running parallel processes. We still have the ability under this legislation to carry on with the stewardship planning process while we’re starting to engage the landscape, because we have to make sure that we’re still having management of the land base. So that’s the process that we’re going to be dealing with.

J. Rustad: The reason for pursuing this in this initial stage, actually, was for the opening comments on the bill in second reading debate. I believe that the minister talked about this bill and the forestry actions defining who we are in terms of the government’s vision and the jobs, ecosystems, higher values and protecting of old growth.

I’m just wondering. We can go back and pull the Hansard if you want to look, but this is why I’m asking the question. It’s because we’ve gone through this announcement about deferrals, but old growth is being referred to in terms of the management objectives under Bill 23. That’s why I’m confused about it. I’m trying to understand: does this mean there could be, potentially, more old growth set aside, more targets met? Does it mean there could be a change to some of those if the deferrals become permanent, a change to bring some of that wood back in if that’s what’s decided through the process?

I’m just trying to understand how old growth relates in terms of the management, because it was talked about by government in this process.

Hon. K. Conroy: Any new policy directions resulting from the implementation of the 14 recommendations from the old growth strategic review, the report that was done, will be reflected in forest landscape plans, or it may be addressed through the authorities associated with future practice requirements.

With that, Chair, I think we can get on with section 1 of the bill.

The Chair: Member on clause 1.

[5:20 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Thank you, hon. Chair. I’ll save the other questions I’ve got around that for when we get to clause 33.

With clause 1, I’m just checking with my colleagues on it. On clause 1, of course, it is the definitions of the forest landscape area…. Actually, what I’m curious about with this…. These are things that I should have gotten and should have dealt with in the earlier briefing. I apologize that I didn’t, and we have to ask the questions here.

The forest landscape area. I’ve always kind of made the assumption those were timber supply areas of varying kinds. So I’m just wondering if the minister can provide the House with a definition and what those sorts of areas will look like, large or small or varying. And what would be the determinants of those areas?

Hon. K. Conroy: The definition of the forest landscape area is open. An example is a timber service area or a tree farm licence area.

J. Rustad: The reason I’m asking the question…. I’m just wondering if there is room for those areas to change. I’m assuming there will be forest landscape plans — I’m getting closer — over top of various areas. There may be agreement or disagreement between First Nations in terms of the areas that that falls under.

I’m just wondering whether or not the definition of the forest landscape area has potential or could be modified or changed based on the discussions or negotiations, the engagement with various First Nations. I don’t know if that is relevant in terms of how it works, but I’m trying to understand just how those plans will end up over top of these areas, as defined.

Hon. K. Conroy: In a simple answer, yes. That’s why we left it open.

J. Rustad: All right. Well, that will be interesting when we get further into the bill and have some chats about how that will look.

[5:25 p.m.]

With the forest operation plans…. And I apologize. I’m still stuck in the old days of forest development plans and all of that sort of language and thinking. I’m just wondering. I know it means a forest operation plan under the Forest and Range Act. I’m just wondering if the minister can provide that to the House. If she hasn’t got it handy, that’s fine, but I don’t happen to have that other act in front of me. I just wanted to get that definition if I could.

Hon. K. Conroy: Just for time, we’ll get it for the member and get it back to him.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the minister getting me that definition. I could probably do a google and look it up as well, but I just didn’t have it right in front of me.

In section 2, it talks about a forest service road being declared under this act or the former act. I’m just wondering if the minister could provide an explanation of what was required for a road to be declared a forest service road.

Hon. K. Conroy: This is consequential to section 22. We can go into detail when we get to that.

J. Rustad: Perfect. That’s good, because I’ve got a number of questions on that as well. The reason for asking that question, of course…. We’ll get into that under section 22, around that. There are a number of concerns that have been raised, just in terms of declaring and declassifying, I guess, a forest service road and access. I have no other questions on section 2.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

J. Rustad: I had a note here on this, just in terms of applications. I was looking at this in the Forest Act. It says: “…may invite applications.” I’m just wondering about that in terms of forest health issues such as blowdown, wildfires or other types of circumstances. If I’ve got this right…. Hopefully I’m not confusing this particular issue. It just makes me….

Well, actually, it probably flows more under clause 4, I suppose, than clause 3. I had them combined. I apologize. In terms of the…. Well, maybe I should go to clause 4 instead of leaving it at clause 3. My apologies.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

[5:30 p.m.]

J. Rustad: How does this process work, then, for issues of forest health and various components in terms of being invited to apply for a permit or application?

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This just ensures that B.C. Timber Sales licences are held to the same planning standards as other forest agreements and that they come into…. Once this is brought into regulation, then they will be brought into regulation with the forest landscape plans.

J. Rustad: I guess the reason — I should have made a more detailed note as I was looking — I sort of raised this issue…. It’s just when you have those forest health issues that come up and this is describing the situation where a Timber Sales manager may not invite applications….

I’m just wondering whether or not this in any way restricts the ability to be able to manage those sorts of issues from a harvest recovery perspective. That’s why I asked the question. I’m not sure if that helps to explain my rambling on this, I guess you could say, in terms of a question.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: When the bill comes into effect, this ensures that B.C. Timber Sales is meeting the same standards as other licensees from a planning perspective.

L. Doerkson: To the minister, what was the purpose of adding the section to limit the sales manager’s authority?

Hon. K. Conroy: This just makes sure that a Timber Sales manager has…. That they make sure that B.C. Timber Sales does everything that is required to do within the new landscape plan regime.

L. Doerkson: I understand what it might do. I just wondered what the purpose was. What was…? I mean, were there problems in the past, that this has been addressed in this bill?

Hon. K. Conroy: No, there were no problems. It’s just to make sure that B.C. Timber Sales is in alignment with the new forest landscape planning regime when it comes to effect.

A. Olsen: On clause 4, can the minister provide just some indication of what “approximate locations” means in sub (a)(ii)?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you to the member.

These are our approximate locations, which refer to cutblocks or roads on a map. You have to be consistent when you’re laying those out, but you also need to recognize the challenges of map scale. The bottom line is that it has to be consistent with the forest landscape plan. When there’s a creek on the map, and when the original map is done, the cutblock is on one side. But then when you get in there, you realize that the creek is on the other side. It’s approximate.

A. Olsen: I appreciate that and recognize that it’s a big province and a lot going on out there. So I understand.

Are there other instances where approximate location is used to define…? The location of a creek is actually a fairly important thing, depending on whether that creek is a fish-bearing creek or whatever. So when you get to these general terms, I’m just wondering if this is something that we refer to fairly regularly when it comes to landscape management or if this is just showing up…? Are there some guidelines for how the minister or the statutory decision–maker will determine what an approximate location is?

Hon. K. Conroy: This is also used in Bill 21, the Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2019. It’s been consistent with that act in using the same language.

A. Olsen: Is it correct, then, to say that cutblocks will only be permitted within landscape plans? Is that right?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Section 4 is specific to B.C. timber sales, and what the member is getting at is actually the forest landscape plan. We can canvass that in sections 33 and 34.

J. Rustad: Just because it’s mentioned here, in terms of where a sales manager may not invite….

I’m just curious. Will there be landscape-level plans or forest landscape plans across all of the forested area of the province, or is there a subset? Just curious, because there might be an area where you have a forest health issue, and it may go across into an area that isn’t within a landscape plan. So I’m just trying to determine whether there will be landscape plans across — if the intent, eventually, is to have landscape plans across all the forested area, or whether it’ll be a subset thereof?

Hon. K. Conroy: Wherever forest operations are, the intent is to have forest landscape plans. As per section 4, B.C. timber sales will have to abide by that.

J. Rustad: I’ll get into this question when we get to section 33, but just an advance sort of notice. I’m just curious about how protected areas or parks, these types of things, would be considered as part of landscape-level planning, or excluded as part of landscape-level planning, because there could be areas that are….

For example, with the announcement the other day about old growth, there are areas that are now excluded from access, because the only way to get at them is to go through old growth, if that were to become a permanent area. That’s why I’m asking about landscape planning, whether it’s going to go across…. Because this particular section talked about where a landscape plan doesn’t exist, I thought I would ask the question here, but like I say, if you want to answer it when we get to 33, I’m happy to do that.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

L. Doerkson: How many instances have there been of road permits being disposed of to a person that does not have harvest rights in any respective area?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Right now a licensee can transfer a road permit, and the ministry has no control over that. They could be transferring it to a person that doesn’t have the…. It could create liability issues for the government. This will change that.

L. Doerkson: What other types of stakeholders will ultimately qualify to get that road permit? Is it just forestry companies, or are there others?

Hon. K. Conroy: We only issue permits to tenure holders, but under special use permits, they could be issued, for instance, for mining operations or telecommunications operations, things like that.

J. Rustad: This bobbing around a little bit will be a little bit of a challenge, I think, for the minister, but we’ll get through it, in terms of it.

I’m just wondering, as well, in terms of clause 5, in terms of the disposition of a road…. I’m just wondering whether or not this impacts a contractor and their ability to be able to do work. For example, a licensee would apply for it. Then they would get a contractor to do the work, in all likelihood, or they might do it themselves. Are there any circumstances where that permit could be transferred, actually, to the contractor as part of this?

I understand the issue of liability associated with the roads and the reluctance to transfer, but you may be in a situation, for example, where a company may have some sort of agreement in place. A contractor is in working on the landscape to build a road. Company A has a problem. Maybe there’s some part of a transfer that goes, with that, to the contractor. There’s a situation where company A basically won’t exist anymore or is going under.

I’m just wondering how that permit could be transferred, or if it could be transferred, potentially, to a contractor at the time — how that would work or whether it just gets tied up. They can’t proceed.

Hon. K. Conroy: We don’t give…. Contractors wouldn’t be eligible for a road permit. They wouldn’t…. We have to ensure that the people have the capability to accept the liability. So it’s only tenure holders.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

J. Rustad: I’m just looking at clause 6 and the process that is described here with the permits. I’m just wondering what the intent is of this, in terms of…. Have there been problems? What’s an example of some of the conditions that the minister may impose as part of what this clause gives the authority for?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This is about the disposition of transfers. It’s around the transfer provision of tenure holders and an ability to require security deposits and to ensure that the road permit is being transferred to someone who can actually take on that liability. It allows us to manage the risks on behalf of the public.

L. Doerkson: What is the purpose of a road permit holder holding on to a permit once the agreement has been disposed of?

Hon. K. Conroy: This could be done because the cost of deactivation could be greater than the cost of maintaining the road.

L. Doerkson: How frequent is the occurrence of a road permit holder actually holding on to a permit beyond that disposition?

Hon. K. Conroy: We don’t have exact numbers on that, but it’s not substantive.

L. Doerkson: How will the security amount be determined if a holder continues to hold the road permit after the disposition of the agreement?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: There are things to be looked at, like any known liabilities of the tenure holder. Later on in the act, it actually deals with all the issues around road deactivation.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

J. Rustad: It seems something silly to ask, but I’m just wondering why this particular section has been repealed.

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s actually for administrative simplicity. It just removes the existing outright limitation on transferring road permits without the disposition of a parent agreement. Instead, the minister will have the ability to specify conditions in relation to road permits that are associated with the agreement.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

J. Rustad: I’m just wondering. When I read through this, I couldn’t think of an example of this particular situation. I’m just wondering if there have been any cases of this.

Hon. K. Conroy: Because we don’t have the ability to do this right now, it ensures that conditions that are imposed on the disposition of a road permit are actually enforceable.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

L. Doerkson: When was the last time the minister exercised her authority under section 58.2 of the Forest Act?

Hon. K. Conroy: This repeals the transition authority of the minister to extend the term of cutting permits that were in effect on November 4, 2003. Right now there are 66 cutblocks that are part of this. It’s delegated to the district manager, so the minister doesn’t actually make the decision.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

[6:05 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I think I may have just heard the minister’s answer to my question here on 10, but I’m curious. We’ve got a provision in here, a clause in this act…. Just for legislative drafters, I guess I’ll have to change from calling them sections to calling them clauses, since we’re doing that. According to the bill…. Sorry for the little side tangent.

On clause 10, is that true that there are still 66 active permits out there that are pre–November 4, 2003, more than 18 years ago? That’s the question I have. I’m curious. I look at this and think: “Wow, that’s a long time ago.” I’m just curious as to why this section exists.

Hon. K. Conroy: What we’re doing is changing it so that the cutting permits are consistent and will all go to the four-year model, not 18.

J. Rustad: That still sort of answers the question. Are there still permits outstanding from that “pre” date?

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, 66.

A. Olsen: On clause 10. The 2019 amendments to FRPA have yet to come into force. I’m just wondering: is there a timeline for this, considering that this requires this section to come into force? In just looking in the back of this bill, it appears it will be by regulation of Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. There are still outstanding regulations, I think, for that previous bill. So I’m just wondering: when does the minister think that the regulations will be brought in with this and that this bill will come into force?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This clause comes into effect on royal assent because there are no regulations required. The cutting permits come into effect one year from the date of royal assent. For instance, if royal assent is on November 25, next week, it will be November 25, 2022.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

L. Doerkson: Is there a reason that the minister would not specify a date for deactivation of a road?

Hon. K. Conroy: Right now, with the current roadbuilding, there’s no requirement to deactivate. They build the road. They maintain it. There’s no requirement to deactivate as long as they’re maintaining it. It’s often more cost-effective to not deactivate it, even if it should be or not, so there’s no requirement in the bill. In the current situation, there’s no requirement, but later on in this bill, there is a process — how to request deactivation. We can canvass that when we get to that clause.

L. Doerkson: Perhaps this will fall under that same clause as well. Can you give me some specific examples of acceptable deactivations and what those look like?

Hon. K. Conroy: These are standard forest practices. They’re set. The standards are set by the chief forester. They’re based on risk of environmental damage or public safety. Further on in the bill, there’s a whole section on this, and we can canvass the actual examples further on.

The Chair: Nechako Lakes on clause 11.

J. Rustad: I need to get in on this as well.

On section 11, I’m just curious. Often when roads are deactivated…. There are, obviously, lots of people that use roads that may not hold permits, that may want access for a variety of reasons. So I’m just wondering: before you make a decision to require deactivation as part of this, what kind of engagement is undertaken with various stakeholders or interested groups or even First Nations?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This is all part of the forest landscape planning, and that’s where you’ll decide what you want to do with the roads — if you want to keep them in place. That’s part of the discussions G2G with Indigenous nations as well as with the discussions with stakeholders that are involved.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for that question. My thinking around this, of course, is things change. The forest landscape plans are in place for ten years, with the option, I think, to extend, or maybe not. I can’t remember. We’ll get to that when we get to section 33.

Of course, someone may discover minerals in an area in the middle of the plan. It’s not part of the plan. It’s not part of the plan around deactivation, which is why I’m asking about potential deactivation and who is going to be engaged through that process where there may be an interest that comes up that may not have been caught in the initial process of the development of the plan?

Hon. K. Conroy: This is all about the forest landscape plan. Right now we don’t have the tools to require deactivation, and this will give us the power to manage the roads better, and smaller footprints, things like that.

J. Rustad: I agree with the minister in terms of being able to remove…. I remember doing mapping in my life before politics of the road landscape, and there is an awful lot of roads out there across British Columbia. The question still remains with regard to the engagement before a road is deactivated, in terms of people that may have an interest in that road that may have come up after a forest landscape plan is implemented.

That’s why I’m wondering, in terms of a deactivation, when the minister requires a road to be deactivated, what kind of process would be undertaken to make sure that it doesn’t have unintended consequences for other potential permits or interests that may have come up post the landscape plan, or how flexible the forest landscape plan is to be able to adjust to chose changes?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This comes up further in clause 58, but just so that the member knows, the ministers designate. So the statutory decision–maker, who is usually the regional manager, can exempt a deactivation if new information comes up. But in the case of what the member references for minerals or a claim, there would have to be a whole, extensive process that would have to be gone through. It’s not just a matter of deactivating a road or not. There are a lot of other things that have to be dealt with if something like that happened.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

J. Rustad: I want to be quick with this. But it’s curious. I’m making an assumption. In clause 12, under (1)(c), the approximate location…. I’m assuming that is some reasonable number — flexible — and it’s not something that is held to a defined number. I’m assuming that, but if that’s wrong, please let me know.

The other question I had is really under (2), where it says: “…the permit issuer must consider matters prescribed by regulation.” I’m just wondering what sorts of matters or what sorts of regulations may be considered that the permit issuer must consider.

Hon. K. Conroy: This is about being enabling. It’s “if any.” Right now there is not any concrete example, but just in case it happens, we have the ability to deal with it. So that’s why “if any” is there.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

J. Rustad: This goes back to a discussion earlier about the area. An area is not defined under…. Maybe if we need to get into that in section 33 instead, just let me know.

I’m just curious in terms of if you can give any examples of any of the land that might be outside of a forest landscape area that somebody might actually be thinking of applying for a permit on. Right? So if we have a forest landscape, why would there be application for…? If the land that would be subject to the permit is located outside the forest landscape area, I’m just curious why someone would be applying for a permit outside an area.

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This is part of the transition from forest stewardship planning to forest landscape planning. It’s to clarify where the forest landscape planning applies if the forest stewardship plan is still in place and it’s outside of the forest landscape planning area. So the forest stewardship plan applies. It’s just to clarify.

I mean, good thing I’m not doing the clarification to industry. But it’s to clarify to industry and stakeholders how this is going to be managed in the transition framework.

Clause 13 approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. K. Conroy moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.