Third Session, 42nd Parliament (2022)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, April 26, 2022
Afternoon Sitting
Issue No. 189
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2022
The House met at 1:37 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. K. Chen: I call continued Committee of the Whole on Bill 14, the Wildlife Act, 2022.
In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, followed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 14 — WILDLIFE
AMENDMENT ACT,
2022
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 14; J. Tegart in the chair.
The committee met at 1:40 p.m.
On clause 3 (continued).
J. Rustad: I want to start, first of all, by thanking the minister and the minister’s staff for offering an additional briefing on Bill 14 today at lunch. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to take advantage of it, but I just want to thank the minister and, particularly, the minister’s staff for making that offer.
Just before lunch, the minister responded to the question and talked about elements of the agreement related to enforcement or at the discretion of the Indigenous body, in response to when I asked if the components of whether people qualify as a guest or a host First Nation would be included in the shelter agreement or whether the ministry would be responsible for reviewing it.
Given that the minister has said that the elements of the agreement are at the discretion of the Indigenous body, how will this be enforced? How will — I’m assuming it’d be — a conservation officer be able to check the validity of both a guest and a host nation if they challenge somebody who is in the forest, somebody who’s hunting, and they say they’re part of a sheltering agreement? How would those components be enforced if it’s at the discretion of the governing body in terms of the actual sheltering agreement?
Hon. K. Conroy: Sheltering agreements provide a framework for enforcement, and they may produce regulations, which will be publicly available. Enforcement will be done as all other parts of the Wildlife Act are enforced — in the same way.
J. Rustad: I understand, having not hunted in many years, that once a conservation officer asks for information, they have to provide their licence, firearms permit and all of these types of things, for an individual in the forest, that that conservation officer would ask for. I understand that that information would be required.
What I don’t understand, which is why I’m asking the question, is how a conservation officer will determine whether or not the terms of this bill — the definition of a guest — are to be met?
If the minister says it’s going to be required and will be part of regulations and worked out — it has to be there and has to be available if a conservation officer asks for it — then so be it. That’s good. That means it will actually enhance enforcement. But if it’s not available, I’m not quite sure how a conservation officer can enforce this act in terms of whether or not somebody who has entered into a shelter agreement qualifies as a guest, by the definition in the act.
That’s why I’m asking the question. Perhaps the minister could provide some detail as to how the conservation officer would be able to access that information.
Hon. K. Conroy: Exactly what the member said is why we need this bill. It will provide transparency for enforcement. The regulations will be publicly available once there’s a sheltering agreement. We don’t have that now, but it will be publicly available. A guest will have a permit that will be held by them when they go hunting. It makes it all very transparent and much easier for conservation officers.
J. Rustad: I would agree with the minister that it would, on the surface. The problem is that the minister has just said, in her answer before lunch, that it is at the discretion of the Indigenous governing body. “Elements of the agreements related to enforcement are at the discretion of the Indigenous governing body.”
Those are the words that the minister said before lunch, which is why I’m asking the question. Before lunch, I asked whether the ministry would actually be confirming whether or not guests qualified as guests, and the minister said that would be up to the Indigenous body and that she had answered this question before. So now I’m asking the question about how things are enforced. If the minister is not going to be doing the verification of a guest because it is the First Nation’s right to do that, that’s fine. Okay.
Then the minister says it’s up to the discretion of the governing body as to whether that information would be in a permit. Okay, that’s fine. How does somebody enforce it, then, if it is not required to be there and available as part of an agreement and if it has not been verified by the ministry that it is truly there as a host or as a guest person?
In other words, what would have to happen in order for this to work…. The minister is saying that we just have to trust the First Nation — that they’re going to be doing this appropriately. I don’t know any other body in the province where the province just says: “Well, we’ll trust some other body to do something.” The responsibility for managing wildlife is the provincial responsibility. You can’t just trust somebody else to say: “Oh yeah, I’ve got a permit. Trust me.” You’re asked for that permit. You need to provide the information. That is why I’m wondering how this is enforceable.
Now, if that’s going to be defined in regulations, that’s fine. The minister can say that, and then she can retract what she said before lunch about it being at the discretion of the Indigenous body, as to where that information is available. I’d be happy with that. That’d be good. But what the minister has said has provided that confusion, which is why I’m asking this question.
Hon. K. Conroy: If the nations enter into a sheltering agreement, it’s at the discretion of the nations to include the province. When they include the province, it’ll then be enshrined in regulation, and enforceability regulations would apply.
J. Rustad: I apologize to the minister. I’m pretty confused with that answer.
We talk about: “The minister and the governing body of a first nation may enter into an agreement respecting hunting in the traditional territory of that first nation….” So if I understood the minister from what she just said, the province doesn’t have to authorize it. As a matter of fact, this province may not have to be involved at all.
The Indigenous governing body could just create this sheltering agreement without having the province even look at it or see it, which means that the terms in the agreement, as per the minister earlier, is at the discretion of the Indigenous body, in the terms added. How on earth could a conservation officer do any kind of verification whatsoever, if the province is not involved in the agreement and there’s no verification process for the terms that are within the agreement?
I’m sorry. I’m very confused by what the minister has just said because it seems to be…. Earlier yesterday, or whenever we were last looking at it, the minister said that these agreements would help with enforcement of the act, yet what the minister has just said is that there is nothing that can be enforced.
Hon. K. Conroy: I’ll try to clarify things. The earlier statement, regarding what is in the discretion of the governing body, was in relation to the member’s question about the governing body determining for themselves who is a member of the First Nation. That was what the member was asking about, so that’s what that question response was on.
We expect that sheltering agreements would clearly set out how guests will be identified. Just to remind the members, right now the province doesn’t currently have jurisdiction to recognize existing sheltering agreements. Nations have asked for that. That’s what this bill will do.
E. Ross: If anything, this goes to show how complicated Aboriginal rights and title case law is. I’ve always believed that in reading case law and understanding it, you’ve almost got to think about it in the abstract. You know it’s there, but you can’t really quite pin it down on exactly what it is.
I think what we have come to understand over the last couple of days is that, with or without the province’s involvement, sheltering agreements do exist in some form. Because it’s not really legislated or regulated, this causes problems for officers who are trying to enforce wildlife regulations, for example, or firearms laws. So I can understand that side of what’s trying to be accomplished here.
We also came to understand now that this is optional, in terms of a First Nation opting into this type of agreement with the province. There are only two clear benefits I can see coming out of this. It relieves First Nation hunters, as well as conservation officers, from the stress of having to determine who has the right to hunt where. There’s also another objective here that I think was confirmed: this could also contribute to management and conservation regimes within the province of B.C., if I’m correct.
My confusion is on the two areas of enforcement that we’re talking about. There are two distinct areas. One is an area of enforcement that applies to everybody — Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal — under the Wildlife Act, under parallel regulations that are designed not only to protect the resource but also to protect the safety of the citizens of B.C. The other component of enforcement is within this bill that we’re talking about right now, the sheltering agreement itself. I’ve actually lived with this in another context, in fisheries. I understand the complexities of it, especially when you’re talking about something that’s duly authorized, to authorize a permit.
We battled with this as an elected chief and council for years, even under treaty negotiations with B.C. and Canada, in that it had to be, one, within the confines of the laws of B.C. and Canada, and two, it had to be from an official organization such as an elected chief and council. It had to be an official document recognized not only by the B.C. government but also by a conservation officer. It couldn’t be a letter from Uncle Joe Smith saying: “Yeah, I give my nephew the right to hunt in our territory.” The conservation officer will not accept that.
I think what my colleague from Nechako Lakes is…. Out there in the forest when the conservation comes across this, how is he supposed to enforce it or understand that this is an official agreement, between the province and the First Nation in question, that allows this activity to happen and that relieves all the parties of the legal stress that’s currently involved in today’s environment?
Hon. K. Conroy: The member is right about the benefits. Thank you. You nailed it.
The identification requirements will be part of regulations. The First Nations are currently required to follow provisions of the Wildlife Act when hunting outside their traditional territory. Through this bill, the shared agreements will enable regulations to permit the First Nation guest to hunt on the host First Nation’s traditional territory, when requested by the First Nation. The regulations will create further transparency and clarification for enforcement of the sheltered hunting.
Sheltering agreements will be in regulation, so they’ll be available to conservation officers, who will have access to them. Currently the team is working with the conservation service on policies and procedures that will be implemented and in place by September 1, 2022, of this year. They’re currently working on those policies and procedures now.
E. Ross: Thank you for that answer, Minister. This is quite the learning exercise. I wasn’t aware I’d been contravening some of the case law in terms of being in a guest First Nation for hunting in other territories.
Interjection.
E. Ross: What’s that? I know, I know.
This is going to be a shock for many Aboriginals across B.C. who are actually in the same boat that I was in, but you can’t know everything about Aboriginal rights and title. The topic is too vast and complicated.
Related to that, it seems to me that so far, what we’ve been talking about is existing rights and title, as described in section 35 of the constitution, as well as the pursuant case law. For the most part, I’m going to assume that we’ve been talking about undefined rights and title. I think I’ve got a good, broad understanding now of what the province is trying to achieve — not only through this bill but also with the upcoming regulations that will further define this — but we haven’t really talked yet about defined rights.
Really, what we’re talking about is modern-day treaties. I’m not talking about treaty 8; I’m not talking about historic treaties. I’m talking about modern-day treaties. Modern-day treaties have actually traded in, for lack of a better word, their undefined rights and title for defined rights and title, in exchange for land, revenue, some level of jurisdiction and some level of law-making, as long as it abides by the laws and regulations of B.C. and Canada.
Can the minister describe to me…? For a modern-day treaty member who has signed on, basically, to define their rights, will they be permitted to hunt in a territory such as mine, which doesn’t have defined rights but has undefined rights and title? Will they basically, outside of their treaty boundaries, be allowed to hunt as if they had never defined their rights and title with B.C. and Canada in forms of a modern-day treaty?
Hon. K. Conroy: It’s a good question. B.C.’s relationship with modern treaty nations is set out in the modern treaty that B.C. is a treaty partner to. Hunting rights of modern treaty nations are set out in the treaty. If modern treaty nations wish to have their citizens hunt outside of their treaty harvest area, we discuss that with them and look to their treaty, as some of the treaties do contemplate these kinds of sheltering agreements with other nations, so it’s actually in the treaty.
E. Ross: Thank you for that. I did not know that. There’s another thing I learned.
You know, this is not new. I mean, the treaty is basically a formalized sheltering agreement. They traded in their undefined rights to harvest and hunt for prescribed terms and prescribed limits in exchange for money, in exchange for land.
As far back as 1980, there was a sheltering agreement of sorts in terms of salmon that came from Canada for First Nations. It’s talking about the same thing, basically — talking about how a First Nation can allow another First Nation member to come into their territory and harvest salmon. But it’s got to be very formal between the First Nation’s council giving out a legitimate permit to that guest First Nation.
The difference here is we haven’t really talked yet about the difference between an Aboriginal fishing strategy, which is a sheltering agreement, in relation to what the province is proposing here. As I understand it, based on the answers, there is a parallel objective here that actually benefits B.C. in terms of conserving and managing the resource in question. That’s what the Aboriginal fishing strategy does for Canada.
In the Aboriginal fishing strategy context, it’s almost like a voluntary commitment by the First Nation to limit their harvesting rights, in terms of salmon, in exchange for money to manage a fully developed fisheries program within the First Nation itself. A lot of First Nations have these fishing strategies within their communities, and it’s monitored under the Indian Act funding agreements. So a very similar concept here.
In light of their conservation and management concerns here and how it kind of combines all of the above, is the province considering some funding mechanism to the First Nation so they can manage and enforce this sheltering agreement in partnership with the provincial government?
Hon. K. Conroy: That’s not the intent of this bill. Part of other policies and procedures…. We provide other funding to Indigenous nations for those very purposes.
E. Ross: So the idea of managing an agreement, such as a sheltering agreement…. I just want to get this right. Those provisions that would look to enforcing the sheltering agreement are currently or would be covered by other funding sources. So a First Nation would not have to incur extra cost to enforce the sheltering agreement. Did I get that correct?
Hon. K. Conroy: The bill envisions the government providing the enforcement, not the nations.
E. Ross: Yes, I understand that, Minister, through the Chair. The question was….
A sheltering agreement, like the Aboriginal fishing strategy program that’s delivered by Canada right now for salmon purposes, actually comes with funding, so that sheltering agreement, for lack of a better word, can be enforced and implemented in a lot of First Nation communities around B.C. and Canada.
The question is: will there be similar funding provisions for a First Nation to manage a sheltering agreement when it’s actually considered being negotiated and agreed upon with the province of B.C.?
Hon. K. Conroy: No. This bill doesn’t provide for that.
J. Rustad: Thanks to my colleague from Skeena. Definitely some interesting components, especially about the modern treaty side and how that works. I was glad he raised that question.
Just before that, when you were still talking about the enforcement and the tools for enforcement, if I have it right, to summarize what we were talking about before, it’s that a First Nation will enter into a sheltering agreement with a guest, in terms of that agreement. I believe the minister said it would be made public. So I just want to confirm that those sheltering agreements would be made public or whether or not those sheltering agreements would remain between a First Nation and possibly be shared with the ministry.
Hon. K. Conroy: When the First Nation asks, the shared agreement will be signed by the minister. Regulatory provisions of the shared agreement will be made into law through the regulations and publicly available, as are all laws in British Columbia.
J. Rustad: I do understand the regulations and the act…. This is the actual sheltering agreement that I was asking about, whether or not they would be made public.
A sheltering agreement is an agreement that is signed between a host nation and a guest that the province may or may not even have a copy of, I suppose, because the province doesn’t necessarily have to sign off on it. So I’m just wondering whether or not those sheltering agreements will be made public.
Hon. K. Conroy: The bill itself doesn’t address sheltering agreements that are between the host and the guest First Nation that doesn’t include the province. That’s what happens now, so that’s status quo. That’s what’s happening in the province.
It’s when the nations have asked the government to support the sheltering agreements. That’s what this bill will do. All provisions related to the Wildlife Act will be made public, so conservation officers can see that. Anyone can see it. That’s how that’ll work. The overall sheltering agreement itself is at the purview of the nations and outside of what I’ve already shared of what we would be sharing.
J. Rustad: Okay. I think I understand now, with that. So I thank the minister for that answer.
The components of the sheltering agreement that are related to the Wildlife Act would be made public, but anything else wouldn’t necessarily have to be. I think that’s what the minister has just said, so I’ll go with that assumption, unless it needs to be corrected.
The question, of course, then, would be: in terms of the sheltering agreement, in terms of enforcement, would the CO — I’m assuming the conservation officer is the one who’s going to be enforcing — have access to the full sheltering agreement or only the components that are related to the Wildlife Act?
Hon. K. Conroy: Their role is only related to the Wildlife Act.
J. Rustad: Okay, so it’s only related to the Wildlife Act. It’s interesting. Of course, this goes into the Wildlife Act, which means “guest” is in the Wildlife Act, which means that component would then have to be made available to the CO. That is good. That’s an important piece to know.
The only thing we need to do now is try to figure out how we can confirm whether the guest meets requirements based under the act or not. But we’ve been down that rabbit hole. I’m not getting an answer, so I’m not going to go any further on it.
In terms of these agreements where it’s a guest, is there any limit to the number of guests that may be part of a single agreement? Or is there a sheltering agreement for each individual guest? For example, if you have an agreement between two First Nations and one family says, “Hey, I’ve got 15 of my relatives that would like to come and hunt,” and the other nation says, “We’re in agreement to that. Let’s do a sheltering agreement,” does that cover off all of them? Or does it have to be 15 different agreements?
Hon. K. Conroy: It could cover off all of them.
J. Rustad: That’s good to know. It helps with that component.
So “guest” means…. When it says “means a member of a first nation,” it could be multiple members of a First Nation.
When it’s talking about an “agreement may include parties in addition to those referred to in subsection (2),” which, of course, is the government and the governing body, what is the minister contemplating? This is under clause 3, 70.1(3).
It says: “A sheltering agreement may include parties in addition to those referred to in subsection (2),” which is the province and the governing body, “including the governing body of the…nation of which the guest is a member.”
I’m just curious as to what the minister is contemplating in terms of what other parties may be included.
Hon. K. Conroy: The word “parties” in 70.1(3) covers First Nations with overlapping traditional territory who may be signatories to a sheltering agreement and not members of the public or companies. Guests who would be permitted to hunt in the traditional territory of a host First Nation have to be a member of a First Nation.
J. Rustad: I think, if I understand what the minister was just saying, that as these sheltering agreements are created, it is possible, particularly in a situation of overlap, that it may be other First Nations that are involved as part of an agreement that would allow a guest to come in. I think that’s what the minister just said.
Well, I’m not sure. Otherwise, why would other parties be involved in creating a sheltering agreement if they had no interest in that particular area? I see the minister’s staff in the back nodding her head on that, so I think that is what the minister is meaning. But that does leave a question of where you do have disputed territory, in terms of overlap.
Part of the process between First Nations was…. This is being told to me by Elders from many First Nations. Historically, they knew where their boundaries were. It was this ridge, or it was that water system or wherever the case may be. They understood where the boundaries were between nations, particularly nations that were friendly to one another. Of course, there were many disputes where First Nations went to war with one another over territory and over other areas.
Having said that, when Europeans came around, when we came around and created the province of British Columbia and the country of Canada and created these nations, as we called them, under the Indian Act, and then, of course, through the treaty process…. Those boundaries have been blurred significantly. They’ve been expanded for various territories.
Overlap of issues has become very prominent in the province. There are many First Nations, for example on Vancouver Island, which don’t have any territory that’s not in dispute with a neighbouring nation. It creates some challenges and issues in terms of how sheltering agreements could potentially be enacted, given that if they don’t have a relationship with the neighbour that has disputed a particular area, it could create a real problem.
Does the ministry require a sheltering agreement to have approval of any nation that has a strength of claim or that has a statement of territory under recent treaty process or otherwise? Does it require all of the nations that may have an interest in an area to agree before a sheltering agreement can be put in place for a guest to be able to hunt in an area?
Hopefully, I made that clear enough. I know it sounds kind of confusing. The bottom line is if you’ve got neighbouring nations and they don’t agree but one of the nations decides they want to do a sheltering agreement in an area where there isn’t agreement, how is that agreement actually implemented where there is potential dispute, and who is the arbitrator of the dispute — that side of things?
I’ll start off with that piece of it, and we’ll see where it goes from here.
Hon. K. Conroy: I believe that I’ve answered this a number of times. There won’t be a sheltering agreement with the province if the nations don’t agree with each other.
J. Rustad: Okay. Given that it’s about 120 percent of the province or thereabouts — strength of claim — that falls under a traditional territory claim by First Nations, and there is significant overlap with many nations around the province, is the minister saying that there’s only an opportunity for a shelter agreement in a nation’s core territory where there is no dispute or where there is agreement between nations that have a disputed territory?
Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, the sheltering agreements would only be with nations with core territory or mutually agreed-upon shared agreements. This bill is not a mechanism to resolve disputed territories. Another benefit of this bill is that it is a mechanism to work collaboratively with nations to achieve agreement. We intend to work in consultation and cooperation with First Nations in developing the policies regarding sheltering agreements and how to address such issues.
J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that answer. It’s a good, clear answer on that question. But it does make me have to ask one more question associated with it, which is: if a First Nation comes to the province with a sheltering agreement for a host, and it’s for anywhere within their traditional territory, who arbitrates whether or not there is an overlap or a dispute that needs to be addressed?
Hon. K. Conroy: I am shaking my head. It’s déjà vu. I did answer this yesterday, but I’ll answer it again.
If the territory overlaps with other First Nations, we have established policies for addressing this type of matter. Our general approach will be that, first, we’d expect that the host and the guest nation would work this out with the other nations who have overlapping traditional territory in this area.
As sheltering agreements are a tradition and have been in place between nations for generations, we expect that most cases will be handled between the nations. In cases where nations are not able to work this out, we would, at their request, offer to support the process with a strength-of-claim analysis. If there is no way to resolve the overlap in traditional territory, then it’s unlikely that we would enter into a sheltering agreement.
J. Rustad: I guess this comes back to the question about whether a sheltering agreement is needed. Regardless of that, the issue, I think, is…. If I heard the minister correctly in terms of this, where there is a sheltering…. A nation comes to the province and says: “I’m entering into a sheltering agreement with a guest.” That qualifies as being a guest, but we don’t know if that’s being confirmed or not.
A host nation comes to the province and says: “I want to enter a sheltering agreement with a guest.” It will be the province that determines whether or not there is a dispute, if it’s not mentioned in the agreement — whether or not there is overlap. I guess that means that the province will ask and require a host nation to show that there is no dispute in the territory that would prohibit the province from signing an agreement.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
I’m trying to figure out, if a nation comes to the province with a sheltering agreement with a guest, whether or not the province asks the question, “Is there dispute with neighbours?” knowing that where the traditional boundaries are of a claimed territory is of nations, all nations in the province…. Whether the province will ask that question. If there isn’t an agreement in place, whether the province would then ask the nation to go and get an agreement with the neighbouring nation before approving the sheltering agreement.
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. K. Conroy: Welcome to the chair, Chair.
Yes.
J. Rustad: That’s good to know. That’s actually very good to know. There’ll be a process that has to go through…. So there’s a check by the province associated with that. I’m just, like I say, trying to understand exactly how these processes will work.
As part of a sheltering agreement, if a First Nation…. Or, as part of a sheltering agreement, I guess I should ask, can a host nation define a specific geography associated with a shelter agreement? So in other words, it says: “Everywhere in our traditional territory west of the Fraser River is available to you but not east of the Fraser River because we have a dispute.”
Can that be defined in a sheltering agreement so that it is specific to an area as opposed to an entire traditional territory of a First Nation? The reason for asking that is because that may avoid the need for a discussion with a neighbour to create a solution for the overlap.
Just as some background with it, the reason I’m asking the questions around this is that for many First Nations that have overlapping disputed territory…. I’ll just use one example in my riding of Yekooche, with its neighbouring nations, particularly, maybe Lake Babine Nation. I’ll use that as just one example.
Yekooche is in the process of trying to finalize treaty. Lake Babine Nation does not recognize Yekooche’s claim within what they say is their territory. So there is a dispute of the boundary. The problem becomes…. Lake Babine Nation would be concerned about agreeing with something like a sheltering agreement that potentially could go into their territory, because if they do that, then it would be basically recognizing Yekooche’s claim to a territory that they don’t recognize.
They will never agree because of that potential overlap, and they don’t want add anything to the strength of claim from Yekooche, because that would then be used against them in court if a treaty was ever signed and the overlap was never properly addressed.
I’m using that example because you’re going to be in a situation, as a minister and as a ministry, where you’re going to have these sticking points, and nations may not want to agree because they don’t want it to be used against them in a proceeding down the road, whether it’s treaty or otherwise.
To the question I had…. This is why I’m asking the question of whether or not the sheltering agreement can be restricted to a defined geography, as opposed to a traditional territory, and whether or not the ministry is allowing those sort of provisions to be in a sheltering agreement as part of how they can resolve this.
Hon. K. Conroy: The answer is yes.
J. Rustad: Good. That helps to clarify a little bit about what may or may not end up being in a sheltering agreement in terms of that.
One of the other components, though, that is often thought about between nations and associated with sheltering agreements — or between this, of course — is a quid pro quo. There may be a condition that is put on, saying: “Yes, we have an overlap, but if we’re going to allow a hunt in a disputed territory, the nation wants to be compensated for allowing that to happen in a disputed or an overlap territory.” There may be some financial transactions or other types of transactions, which would be included either between the guest and the host nation or the host nation and its neighbouring nations to resolve the dispute.
If there are those types of conditions, like financial or other sorts of benefits that would be used to help to resolve or to help to open up the opportunity for a sheltering agreement, would those be required to be made public?
Hon. K. Conroy: The bill is silent on remuneration in the context of sheltering agreements. This is because the intention of the amendment is to, when requested by nations, align existing traditional sheltering protocols with provincial laws, thereby allowing for the transparent enforcement of sheltered hunting. As hunting may take various forms from nation to nation, it would not be within the spirit of that intention to dictate how a specific aspect of sheltered hunting should occur, if it occurs at all.
J. Rustad: In an earlier question, with regards to the sheltering agreement, the minister said that the shelter agreements could potentially strengthen conservation and management, and I’m assuming conservation management to wildlife. I understand that shelter agreements would help to formalize the process that’s going on. They would help to, potentially, track the number of these types of interactions that are going on.
I’m wondering if the minister could potentially provide some examples of how a sheltering agreement would be able to help strengthen conservation and management.
Hon. K. Conroy: I’m not going to presuppose what could be in the sheltering agreements. Sheltering agreements might possibly have included a prescribed number of animals; a class of animals — i.e., male or female; the time of harvest; the method of hunting, either bow or rifle; things like that.
J. Rustad: As the minister has said, those sorts of things may be in there, but they may not be in there. I’m just curious, because the minister did clearly say that these would help to strengthen conservation and management, which, of course, is one of the key things of the Wildlife Act to begin with.
One of the other components I’m just curious about, just before we move on to the next part of clause 3…. When sheltering agreements are created, is there a time frame associated with the sheltering agreement? Can it be open-ended? In other words, could it be for the next five years that there’s an opportunity for a guest to be hosted, or the next 20 years? Along with that, can a sheltering agreement be retroactive to include, perhaps, last year or the year before?
Hon. K. Conroy: They are not retroactive, just to be clear. Timelines would be case specific, and we expect reviews and renewal would be built into the agreement process.
J. Rustad: If I understood that right, they’re not retroactive. That’s a good thing. But they could be of varying lengths, depending what the agreement, what the First Nation wants to do.
I guess that leads to a question, because they could be multiple years, in terms of a sheltering agreement. Is there a provision for being able to amend the terms of a sheltering agreement? What would that process be?
Hon. K. Conroy: Amendments would be made under a case-by-case basis. We would make required appeals or enactments of regulations as necessary.
J. Rustad: If I understood the minister, their amendment is possible. There isn’t necessarily a process associated with it, but I suppose that’s just what would happen if a First Nation wanted to come forward. There would be a discussion that would take place, and I guess we’ll see what that process looks like over time.
There is a case, just within the last couple years, of a First Nation that invited a significant number of Indigenous people into the territory. They harvested quite a few animals, many ungulates, but seemed by some, described as being a tremendous amount. They kind of cleaned out an area of ungulates within that particular area of a First Nation.
That leads to the question. Is there any limit, or any consideration to the limit, as to how many sheltering agreements could be put in place or how many individuals, under a single agreement or under multiple agreements, would be allowed to come in and harvest an animal within a traditional territory or within a subset of a traditional territory?
Hon. K. Conroy: Conservation is our shared priority, and the shared goal is to ensure that the harvest is sustainable. As I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again, during this debate, I have great faith in our First Nations partners in wildlife management. I hear from them often about it. I fully expect to see that the limits are collectively in place through the agreements process.
J. Rustad: If I understood the minister correctly, in there, there are no limits that would be defined or implemented, which is fine. We’ll get to the issue of conservation and animal challenges, I guess, in terms of sustainability for certain animals. We’ll get to that when we get into 70.2 of clause 3.
The sheltering agreements, as I look at them, are pretty broad-based. The provisions in this act are very broad-based. I’m just curious. There are some restrictions in the Wildlife Act. For example, could a sheltering agreement allow for somebody, say, nine years old to go out and hunt as a guest?
The reason for asking that is that there’s a limit, say, to the age ten for hunting. I’m wondering whether or not there’s potential for a sheltering agreement to supersede other types of restrictions that are within the act, such as allowing an individual of nine years old or even younger to be able to go out and hunt.
Hon. K. Conroy: The province wouldn’t enter into a sheltering agreement if the province’s guiding principles of conservation and public safety aren’t met.
J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that answer. That helps, certainly.
One of the things that the member for Skeena had talked about were the issues of safety. You know, hunting within X number of metres of roads and these types of things. So I’m glad to hear the province won’t enter into agreements that would potentially compromise those safeties.
There is the issue of private land within traditional territory. There hasn’t been any case law that talks about whether or not there are rights extended into private land or not in terms of it. Clearly, when you look at the Williams case, where private land was completely surrounded by title, there is a serious question as to whether or not title and rights would extend into private land.
Would private land be excluded from a potential sheltering agreement even though it may be, obviously, within a traditional territory? Or could private land be included as a hunting opportunity within the traditional territory as part of a sheltering agreement?
Hon. K. Conroy: The province wouldn’t enter into a sheltering agreement without the agreement of the private landowner.
L. Doerkson: Just to follow up on that question. That is a specifically interesting area of Cariboo-Chilcotin, and I wondered how these agreements may affect any other agreements that the province may have in that specific area with respect to guide-outfitters or other people that have tenure on the land. Will all of that land be available for a second agreement with other bands?
Hon. K. Conroy: We just need clarification if the member is referring to private land.
L. Doerkson: I’m actually talking about…. The area that we’re talking about would be in the West Chilcotin. That area is sprinkled with private land in the Xeni Gwet’in territory, okay? But there are other people doing business in those areas, right? Guide-outfitters. There are certainly traplines. There are all kinds of different things. There’s Crown range that is kind of sprinkled all through that territory.
I’m wondering. If there is an agreement with other First Nations, will that, I guess, supersede the agreements? I mean, could people tend to see other people, for instance, hunting in their guiding area? Could they expect to see hunters in through rangeland in the back country of that area, specifically to that Xeni Gwet’in territory?
Hon. K. Conroy: First Nations enter into sheltering agreements between themselves and have done so historically for a long time. These rights are enshrined in the constitution.
The purpose of the bill is to allow host and guest First Nations to ask the province to support their sheltering agreements. This would apply in the Chilcotin.
Chair, could I please get a recess for ten minutes?
The Chair: The House will be in recess for ten minutes.
The committee recessed from 3:37 p.m. to 3:55 p.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
L. Doerkson: I just wanted to go back to the question…. I appreciate the answer that you gave, Minister, before the break. Maybe I’ve complicated things by specifically talking about the Xeni Gwet’in. I guess what I’m trying to get at is that, obviously, in all of these territories, there are a mixture of other stakeholders inside these areas, whether they be guide-outfitters or ranchers, whatever. I mean, there are many different users in the back country.
What’s been contemplated around those users? How will this affect them?
[J. Tegart in the chair.]
Hon. K. Conroy: Again, the purpose of this bill is to allow host and guest First Nations to ask the province to support their sheltering agreements. And sheltering agreements won’t change the intent of existing tenure holders.
J. Rustad: Along the lines of the sheltering agreements and what’s allowed and what’s not allowed, as I said, I was very happy to hear about the safety component — that the province would not enter into an agreement that would potentially violate those safety components. That was good to hear.
I also wonder, in terms of conservation, about whether or not sheltering agreements could include animals that are restricted — for example, an animal that might be endangered or a grizzly bear — and whether or not a sheltering agreement could be entered into to allow for a guest to be able to harvest an animal like a grizzly bear.
Hon. K. Conroy: We won’t enter into any agreement that compromises the government’s principles on conservation or safety.
E. Ross: In reading what the sheltering agreement is and what it isn’t, I’m starting to get a good idea of what the government wants to accomplish. But in reference to the idea of shooting a grizzly bear, that’s traditional practice — killing a grizzly bear not just for food, not just for its pelt but for reasons of safety.
It was a traditional practice, especially in a community like mine, Haisla, where we didn’t eat grizzly bear meat, but my dad’s generation and his dad’s generation would monitor a population of a watershed that had grizzly bears. When it got over a certain number, they’d go out and kill grizzly bears.
Well, the recent legislation that came from the B.C. government actually put a stop to that, to the point where it limited the Aboriginal right to harvest the grizzly bear — for whatever purpose — and to the point where shooters, designated on behalf of a band, had their firearms confiscated for contravening the grizzly bear.
In this sheltering agreement, I know we’re contemplating a whole range of laws and management principles and regulations. I’m presuming, also, based on the UNDRIP discussion, that the B.C. government wants to incorporate traditional practices, as well, and traditional laws.
In light of the idea that the minister just said — that they will not contravene existing grizzly bear practices — will that mean there will be no consideration or bringing back traditional practices in terms of culling predators such grizzlies?
Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to clarify, just to correct the member. What I said is that for the sheltering agreement, our guiding principles are safety and conservation. Traditional practices will be considered on a case-by-case basis through the lens of the province’s guiding principles, which are conservation and safety.
E. Ross: Thank you for that. It sounds like the direction will be actually existing regulations in terms of management and conservation through the regulations, and somehow that’s going to meld with the First Nations’ right to hunt as well as the existing practice of allowing other hunters to come in from other jurisdictions to hunt under that Aboriginal right. That’s what I’m getting.
I think the principles of conservation, safety and management will guide the sheltering agreements. That’s what I’ve come to understand over this past day or so. In terms of that, I’ve seen these types of agreements before.
Unless you want to correct me there, Minister, on that point? Otherwise, I’ll just move on.
The principles of conservation, safety and management through the regulations will be B.C. guiding the sheltering agreements in partnership with what the sheltering agreements are meant to achieve in terms of the Aboriginal right to hunt and harvest and allow other harvesters to come in from other jurisdictions.
That’s what I’m presuming the sheltering agreement will be. That’s correct? Yeah. But the guiding principles will be existing regulations in relation to health, safety and conservation. Am I correct?
The Chair: I would ask you to ask through the Chair, please.
E. Ross: Through the Chair, of course. I’m not going to repeat that, by the way. It’s too long and convoluted a question.
Better than that, what I’m going to get at is that I’ve seen these agreements before, especially in terms of Aboriginal fishing strategies. It does accomplish a number of objectives that I think are what are contemplated here in Bill 14, the Wildlife Amendment Act.
In terms of management and conservation, these types of agreements don’t work without data. They don’t work without numbers. In fact, take the Nisg̱a’a treaty, for example, where they traded in their undefined right to hunt for defined rights. Their quota is actually within the scope of the B.C. wildlife plan and regulations to manage wildlife populations. They don’t get that unrestricted right to hunt within treaty boundaries anymore for Nisg̱a’a. They’ve actually got to go into a lottery system, and the lottery is actually based on numbers and data.
Every type of sheltering agreement I’ve ever read and come across, even from my own band, talked about management in those terms. So we’re talking about that. Is the sheltering agreement contemplating the overall objective of B.C.’s duty to manage the resource in the context of gathering data and numbers along with trying to fulfil the idea of hosting guest First Nations to hunt?
Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to clarify. Previous to this question, the member was talking about the government’s principles, but I want to make sure that he knows it is also including section 35 rights, which are enshrined. That’s definitely a part of it as well.
Then we expect that through the enactment of this bill, we will have better data to support the management of the harvest.
E. Ross: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.
Yeah. Well, that’s what the Aboriginal fisheries strategy actually proposes as well. It not only talks about information coming from the First Nation in terms of their harvest amounts; it also prescribes amounts of a certain species of salmon to be captured, for instance, in exchange for funding to run a fisheries program in our communities. These are all over B.C. So we have examples already of sheltering agreements.
I’m pretty sure I have got it right now, in terms of the principles of conservation, safety and management being incorporated in with the idea of allowing a First Nation or formalizing a First Nation to have a guest come into their territory and exercise the right to hunt under the host First Nation’s Aboriginal right. I’m pretty sure I’ve got that right now.
The minister had said that they take into consideration, on a case-by-case basis, the idea of culling a predator, such as a grizzly. That was a traditional practice in my community, culling grizzly bears. If we didn’t, the grizzly bears would move into our community.
This happened not just six, seven years ago in my community. Two young grizzlies who got kicked away from their mother bear took up shop right in behind the convenience store in my community. It took two weeks of harassing the conservation officer to come in and do something about the grizzly bear. Since no incident had happened, this conservation officer would not act. Our hands were tied. The last time that we had a designated shooter to shoot the grizzly bear for safety purposes, our designated shooter got their firearms taken away.
Our First Nation actually does abide by the laws and regulations of B.C. We gave up the practice of culling grizzly bears in a neighbouring watershed. We gave that up. But if it is going to be on a case-by-case basis and the province is willing to look at traditional practices of culling predators, say just for the purpose of safety, then that does raise another question in terms of the economic opportunity to cull a grizzly bear.
Now, in this case, is the province considering the guiding opportunity to be regulated by existing wildlife regulations under the B.C. government? Or is the government considering having that provision within a sheltering agreement to allow that economic opportunity for a guiding outfit to go in and cull a grizzly bear?
Hon. K. Conroy: The answer to the member’s question is no. This legislation is about sheltering agreements between First Nations.
E. Ross: Yes, I understand what the sheltering agreement contemplates. It’s really…. The sheltering agreement is talking about taking my Aboriginal right to hunt and harvest and allowing a guest First Nation to come in under that right and allow that hunt to happen on our territory under my existing rights and title. That’s basically what I read into it. The meat of it, I guess, will be brought out in the regulations.
The question really relates, maybe…. In relation to traditional practices and a need, in terms of safety, in culling a grizzly bear, for example, a right — I want to say a right, but there is probably a better word — that was taken away by B.C., by the law that said you cannot shoot a grizzly bear….
Well, under a sheltering agreement, then, you’re considering, on a case-by-case basis, maybe a guide-outfitter coming in to actually take advantage of the opportunity of a culling operation, if allowed through agreement between the government and the First Nation in question.
Maybe a guide-outfitter was not the right reference. Maybe the right reference is to say, okay, a guest First Nation that is hired to come in or requests, not as a guide-outfitter but comes in as an economic opportunity to cull a predator like a grizzly. That was an Aboriginal right before the legislation kicked in, which the province kicked in, in terms of making it illegal to shoot a grizzly bear.
If this sheltering agreement does contemplate traditional practices coming back like that, will there be the issue of money being exchanged, say, in the question of harvesting a predator such as a grizzly bear?
Hon. K. Conroy: The member’s question is: does the bill consider economic opportunities as part of a sheltering agreement? The answer is no.
E. Ross: The last question before I turn it back over to my colleague from Nechako Lakes is…. We’re talking about First Nations within the boundaries of B.C. That’s what I gather. We’re also talking about the right to harvest or the Aboriginal rights and title in question. You have to be from that specific territory before you can be the host First Nation. When we’re talking about that identification, how are we going to identify the host First Nation?
I know that we’ve talked already about governance and the authority. We’ve talked about how the government will issue that notice in some form that makes it easier for a conservation officer to recognize that they’re not breaking the law or vice versa. But what will the government use as terms of reference to identify a host First Nation, a resident of a certain territory? I know what it means for my territory, but it also means that I’m also looking at a number of different areas that are actually covered by overlap questions.
To give you an idea of what I’m thinking about and where I’m going with this question…. Will the B.C. government consider, say, the Indian Act registry, for example, that would determine a host First Nation and its members, or will it consider the band list, membership list, to determine who is the host First Nation? Otherwise, you’ve got no way to determine who is the actual First Nation.
If you do go with the Indian Act registry, for example, it’s a simple matter of looking at the Status card that shows your band number. But that might not necessarily correlate with the band list that’s actually managed by chief and council. So how will the government determine the host First Nation — how to identify it?
Hon. K. Conroy: We’ve already covered this, but perhaps I’ll reiterate it for the member’s benefit. The host nation will approach the province, and they’ll be identified as a governing body as per the definition, which is a part of the definition in clause 1. It’s: “‘governing body’, in relation to a first nation, means the governing entity of the first nation, however organized and established by the members of the first nation.”
J. Rustad: To the minister, thank you for entertaining the questions from my colleague from Skeena. I do know that some of that had been covered off already. So I appreciate you taking the time to go through that answer.
It’s interesting that in that exchange, there is the opportunity, potentially, to use the shelter agreement to be able to help out with the safety issues such as grizzly bear populations and overpopulations in the area.
I’m happy to hear that, although the ministry may — and this isn’t part of this bill — want to consider, in future, providing First Nations the opportunity to be able to do that directly, as opposed to having to do it through a shelter agreement and a guest coming in. Currently, Haisla First Nation, for example, isn’t able to carry on with that traditional practice of culling for safety. But through a sheltering agreement, perhaps there is an opportunity for them to do that now. I’m happy to hear that’s the case.
Like I say, perhaps in the future, the minister could consider trying to work through a way that First Nations such as Haisla or Tahltan or others that have expressed concern to me about the grizzly bear populations…. To give them the opportunity to be able to do that as well.
I want to go into talking a little bit about what the minister had said near the close of yesterday, which was managing wildlife effectively. There is huge concern across the province right now with declining ungulate populations. Some areas are far more severe than others in terms of the decline. Part of, obviously, good wildlife management and managing wildlife effectively is being able to control the number of animals that are allowed to be harvested.
Predators and that sort of thing are another thing that’s outside of this, which I won’t go into, associated with this bill. But managing to targets is important: what is sustainable, what’s needed to be able to help with recovery of ungulate populations where you have overpopulations, and what other components are allowed. It’s the effective management and the ability to have good management of wildlife, and sustainable management in terms of the numbers of animals and the types of animals that can be harvested.
I’m wondering, in terms of the shelter agreement, whether animals such as cows or calves may be considered as part of a sheltering agreement, even where we have an area where there might be significant decline in animals and the need for recruitment.
Hon. K. Conroy: Once again, the guiding principles are conservation and public safety. They’ll be used on a case-by-case basis in the development of sheltering agreements.
J. Rustad: Artfully answered by the minister to avoid the question about cows and calves, which is fine, because it’s a tangent to this particular bill. Like I say, the issue is around conservation recruitment. Right now there are no limits for Indigenous harvest within their traditional territory.
To the best of my knowledge, and please correct me if I’m wrong about this, there are limits for, of course, residential hunt and how many animals are available, or for guide-outfitting. There are formulas around that, but the number of animals taken within a territory by First Nations isn’t necessarily reported and, to my understanding, isn’t necessarily restricted.
Obviously, the issues of conservation and recruitment are pretty significant within traditional territories, and shelter agreements could add pressure to areas that have significant population issues or population declines. In terms of sheltering agreements, will the issues of the number of animals harvested and the targets that are set be a factor for the minister in terms of approving shelter agreements within traditional territories?
What I’m trying to get at, just to be clear, is that in order to be able to have recruitment, you need to be able to have good numbers. You need to be able to have good reporting of the numbers that are harvested. You need to have good science in the database and the information that goes into all of that. I know that the minister will know all this information already — that that’s what’s needed — but there’s a gap.
The gap is that we don’t know, necessarily, how many animals are being harvested annually within a First Nation’s traditional territory by a First Nation. The question becomes: will there be limits on the number of shelter agreements that would be approved in an area that has significant ungulate population issues? If the numbers are low — in other words, there are very few opportunities, or maybe a limited hunt only for resident population or virtually no opportunity for guide-outfitters — will those same kinds of restrictions be put on shelter agreements to make sure that there isn’t an overharvest of animals in the area?
Hon. K. Conroy: Once again, I will reiterate what I’ve been saying. Sheltering agreements will enable our partnership with First Nations to work together on harvest. We will not compromise conservation in agreements that involve the province.
I have to say that I do take exception with the member’s assertions that First Nations don’t believe in conservation. I believe First Nations strongly believe in conservation and in good stewardship. So I am somewhat concerned about the member’s assertions that are…. He’s giving examples where they don’t. I just am having trouble with that. I would really look forward to moving on, discussing the basics of this bill.
J. Rustad: Madam Chair, it must be getting late in the day. I quite took offence at what the minister just said, which is fine, I suppose. The minister is allowed to make those kinds of comments. In no way did I say that First Nations don’t care about conservation. What I have said is that there have been many examples in history where that hasn’t been the case. Sorry, that’s the truth. If the minister wants to deny it, that’s fine, but there have been examples.
I can quote issues — for example, Roosevelt elk on Vancouver Island. I can quote issues up in my own riding, where moose and stuff are harvested. Having said that, I think the majority of First Nations in this province want to see healthy populations and want to engage in it. When I was minister, I engaged with many First Nations across the province to enter into agreements to look at managing how we recover species and putting plans and stuff in place.
First Nations don’t always control all their members. There are issues that happened out on the land base. There have been many reports to your very ministry, just in the last four or five years, which give examples of that.
In any case, I’m not making a claim that First Nations do not care about conservation. I think they do. I’ve worked closely with many First Nations that want to do that, but like I say, they can’t always control their members — they’ve told me that — and there are issues that happened out on the land base.
It’s one of the reasons for my concern in terms of the data that is collected and the need to be able to make sure, if sheltering agreements are approved, that they’re within the framework of what is allowed to be harvested or the targets for harvesting, to allow for recovery of ungulate populations in areas where they are particularly low.
This is why I asked the question, which really wasn’t answered, about whether or not those conservation targets, the limits in terms of the number of animals that would be allowed to be harvested, would be a limiting factor on the approvals of sheltering agreements. I’ll give the minister another opportunity to be able to answer that question.
Hon. K. Conroy: As everyone knows, wildlife targets are a key part of conservation. We will consider them on a case-by-case basis, as I’ve already said.
J. Rustad: I won’t bother arguing with the minister with regard to what she’s already said or not. I appreciate the fact that that is going to be used.
The question to the minister is: where shelter agreements are approved in tight areas…? Will that have an impact on the number of animals that will be available for non-Indigenous people to be able to harvest in a particular area?
Hon. K. Conroy: The member is asking if these agreements will have an impact on non-Indigenous harvesting opportunities. The answer is no.
J. Rustad: Okay. That’s interesting. That’s an important piece to know, in terms of the number of animals that will be harvested within particular areas and how those are set. We’ll monitor that over time, but I appreciate the minister answering that question.
In 70.2 of clause 3…. This component of the bill reads a little confusingly. I’m going to need some clarity, if I may, from the minister on this. It says:
“Subject to subsection (2) and without limiting the matters that may be addressed in a sheltering agreement, a sheltering agreement may include provisions that do one or more of the following: (a) in respect of hunting and traditional territories of the host first nation, authorize a guest to (i) do anything that is prohibited under this Act, or (ii) omit to do anything that is required to be done under this Act; (b) set out conditions or limits that a guest must comply with in relation to an authority provided for under paragraph (a).”
I think I understand what that says. That’s basically meaning that a guest doesn’t have to follow the rules in the Wildlife Act. But then in the next part, under 70.2(2), it says: “A provision included in a shelter agreement under subsection (1) is not effective unless the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by regulation, approves the provision.”
What I’m curious about is that under the first part, it seems to say that a guest can do anything that is prohibited under the act, or omit to do anything that is under the act. But then it seems to say that the ability to do that has to be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I’m curious. Those two things seem to be in conflict — unless, under this act, the minister is basically going to authorize a sheltering agreement to not have to follow the Wildlife Act. Is that true?
Hon. K. Conroy: First Nations hunting within their traditional territory are already not subject to most provisions of the Wildlife Act. They have treaty or section 35 rights. The “anything prohibited” clause in this bill allows the government to support implementation of a sheltering agreement that allows a guest to hunt in a host territory under the host First Nation’s laws. This is to support the rights that nations already have set out in treaty and in the constitution.
Provisions of the sheltering agreements that alter the operation of the Wildlife Act must be approved by cabinet and the LG and then deposited as regulations for the public. This is an increased level of transparency.
J. Rustad: I want to thank the minister for explaining that. That makes sense to me, in terms of how I was reading it.
It does raise the question…. In terms of transparency and, in particular, in terms of managing wildlife effectively and strengthening conservation and management, there are provisions in the Wildlife Act that require — for example, in the Kootenays — parts of the animal to be submitted to the conservation officer to deal with and to look for animal health issues that may arise in certain species. Those are the requirements under the Wildlife Act to help with managing ungulate populations and the health of ungulate populations.
Under this section, it may be that a guest hunter does not necessarily have to follow those rules, would not have to submit those samples for monitoring. I understand section 35 and how that implies, but I’m curious as to why, for a sheltering agreement, the ministry would not be more concerned about making sure that those kinds of provisions for animal health and reporting would not be required, even under a shelter act, to be able to help with better management of the species.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Hon. K. Conroy: Provisions for animal health are a key part of our conservation principles and, again, would be considered on a case-by-case basis. I want to ensure that the member knows that there is already a high rate of voluntary submissions by First Nations when it comes to animal health issues.
J. Rustad: Maybe it’s just getting late in the day, and we’ve been going at this for a long time. I find it kind of amusing. This whole act, of course, is modifying the Wildlife Act and then says it doesn’t have to follow the provisions of the Wildlife Act. Well, that’s what it says here: “do anything that is prohibited…or (ii) omit to do anything that is required…under this Act.”
Does the minister have the ability to — on a case-by-case basis, I suppose — authorize whether or not a shelter agreement meets the intent of what they’re trying to achieve within the act, or does it follow, to the letter of the law, that it doesn’t have to necessarily follow things?
What I’m saying, for example…. Like I say, it’s getting late in the day, and we’ve been going at this for a long time. There are requirements that the minister just talked about in terms of management of species, restricted species, etc. This clause seems to say that a First Nation and a guest can enter into an agreement that doesn’t necessarily have to follow those requirements.
I’m just wondering, I guess, in terms of this, how this particular section or this part of the bill could be used to circumvent what’s in the Wildlife Act and the intention of what we’re trying to do for both conservation and safety or any other provision that’s in there and whether or not the minister has the ability to look at those and say: “No, that goes too far” or “That is outside of the scope of what we want to see happen.”
Hon. K. Conroy: I want to correct the member. First Nations hunting within their traditional territory are already not subject to most provisions of the Wildlife Act. This legislation doesn’t change that. They have treaty or section 35 rights. So just to clarify that again, because the member seems to be misrepresenting that in his comments.
Again, our guiding principles in considering a sheltering agreement are public safety and conservation.
J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for that answer.
Under Indigenous knowledge…. Maybe I will just start with something pretty straightforward. What actually constitutes Indigenous knowledge that would be considered to be included as part of this?
Hon. K. Conroy: Incorporating a definition of Indigenous knowledge was contemplated. There were a number of venues. We ended up using the First Nations–B.C. wildlife conservation forum and got input from them.
We recognize that the definition of Indigenous knowledge is ultimately determined by a First Nation, and it could vary by First Nations. So this flexible definition was co-drafted with forum members, which will be incorporated in the Indigenous knowledge policy, and that will be developed by September 1, 2022.
J. Rustad: Under this, it says: “…must consider relevant Indigenous knowledge….” Could the minister provide some examples of what would be relevant Indigenous knowledge in terms of information that would go into managing the Wildlife Act?
Hon. K. Conroy: Examples could include observations or experiences about the biophysical world relevant to wildlife management. It could include information about community practices and teachings related to wildlife or wildlife habitat. It could also include knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora relevant to wildlife management.
J. Rustad: I thank the minister for those examples.
I’m curious, though, in terms of decisions and decision-making under this act, why that information would be kept confidential. I do understand that there is local knowledge, local issues on the ground that are important for Indigenous people, particularly some history — archaeological. I understand why there would be a need for many things to be kept confidential as knowledge is shared.
When we’re talking about wildlife management, when we’re talking about issues of sustainability and issues of recovery of animals, I’m not quite sure why there would be a need for confidentiality of this information. I’ll explain why, and I talked about this in second reading, around this particular issue. When you’re dealing….
There are thousands, tens of thousands if not even hundreds of thousands, of people in the province who follow the Wildlife Act that are concerned about hunting. They’re concerned about management and concerned about conservation. When decisions are made that aren’t transparent, when people don’t understand why those decisions are made, it raises suspicion. It raises confidence issues with people of the ministry of the rationale for those decisions.
I’m concerned that the issue of keeping confidentiality of these types of issues will actually do more damage in terms of creating friction or challenges or issues than it would be in terms of being able to promote good wildlife management and the need for making these decisions.
Could the minister provide some rationale as to why there is the need to keep this information confidential?
Hon. K. Conroy: Not all information currently used in decision-making is public. Article 31 of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage and traditional knowledge.”
To be consistent with this clause in the UN declaration, Indigenous knowledge will be used for the purposes it was originally shared. Consent will be sought for all other purposes of use of the Indigenous knowledge. Indigenous knowledge shared may represent aspects of Indigenous laws or protocols, locations of sacred sites, knowledge of important wildlife habitat or use.
Some Indigenous nations have adopted formal policies that govern the use and access to their Indigenous knowledge. Decision-makers will document their considerations and how all information was used in significant decisions without disclosing the confidential specifics of the Indigenous knowledge.
Further policies and procedures will be published by September 2022 to inform this type of scenario.
J. Rustad: I understand and have read the UN declaration many times with regards to that, but it still leaves the question, particularly around what you are talking about, wildlife management. I understand many of the other components, but there are lots of people that are concerned about it. When there’s a shift or a change, people like to be able to ask why was there was a change. That may be relevant to a number of things, and in some things, it may not be relevant.
However, I believe in open, transparent government, a title that this current government does not have, by the media. It is very unfortunate that’s the case, but it is what the media said, not us. I look at this example, and I think where there are decisions that are being made and people don’t understand those decisions, it creates problems.
I’ll give you an example of what I’ve used in the past and that I used in second reading. When there’s a gate put on a road, you will always get people that have access and people that don’t have access. I will use the same example when it comes to knowledge. When there’s a decision made based on knowledge and that knowledge is not shared, there will be resentment, there will be friction, and there will be challenges and issues that are created by that.
I understand what the intent of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous people is, and I understand the intent of why that information should be kept confidential. But when it comes to wildlife management and it comes to the management of wildlife as a provincial responsibility, I have a concern with keeping information that would impact on those decisions confidential.
Now, if there is specific site information that is sensitive and decisions around a particular area, okay, I can accept that, because there are areas around the province that are like that. But when it comes to making broader decisions around wildlife management, I fail to understand how there would be information that would be sensitive, that would not be able to be revealed to the broader public in terms of why a decision is made.
I know the minister will just get up and reread the section that she had just said in her defence, but I’m still going to provide the protest that I think there are circumstances, particularly when it comes to managing wildlife, where we are far better off with the sharing of that information publicly than we are trying to make these decisions in secret. I do not understand why there would be hesitancy or resistance within government to want to be able to be transparent associated with that.
Having said that, the act outlines a number of situations where information can be made public, which I won’t bother going into. Those are all pretty straightforward in terms of this. But like I say, it is disappointing that there is that decision to be made. I would much rather have seen an error on the side of being more transparent than having the default of secrecy.
As we move on in this bill, there are a number of things that the minister has mentioned in terms of the regulations that will be required to be set up by September, the date of enactment that is coming up.
Can the minister provide a detail of just what extent the regulations will actually need to be created as part of this and whether or not there will be any opportunity for engagement with broader groups, such as the B.C. Wildlife Federation or guide outfitters or others, with regards to the creation of these regulations?
Hon. K. Conroy: A point of clarification. It’s policy and procedures that will be developed, implemented and publicly shared by September, and there will be targeted engagement with First Nations and stakeholders.
J. Rustad: Just before we leave this clause of the act, I do wonder a little bit about where there is a contravention of or where somebody doesn’t follow issues that are in a shelter agreement. What I mean by that is you’ve got a host First Nation that lays out some requirements for a guest. The guest then has the opportunity and is signed off by the ministry. The guest then has the opportunity to go hunting. If the guest does not follow the rules that are in that…. Perhaps that should be better addressed under section 4 of this, as opposed to section 3.
Regardless of that, the question, I guess, is: how is…? If there is a breach or a contravention or if there is somebody that does something they’re not supposed to do as defined under a sheltering agreement, and a conservation officer finds a person that hasn’t been following this agreement, what are the penalties that could be applied to an individual? I’ll start with that one, and I’ve got one follow-up question on it.
Hon. K. Conroy: That is under clause 4. If the member would like to move to clause 4, we can do that now.
Clause 3 approved.
On clause 4.
J. Rustad: The question is already asked. I’ll wait for the minister’s response.
Hon. K. Conroy: Under clause 4, 108(q), it says: “providing that contravention by a guest of a condition or limit set out in a sheltering agreement under section 70.2 (1) (b) constitutes an offence.”
J. Rustad: First of all, I guess the question would be: what sorts of measures, what sorts of penalties or what sorts of provisions could be taken, potentially, if an offence were undertaken?
The second question around that is: if there are provisions in a sheltering agreement which provide restrictions that may not be a restriction under section 35 in case law, how would that actually be upheld?
Hon. K. Conroy: Chair, none of us understood the premise of the member’s question. If he could rephrase it, please.
J. Rustad: Well, I’ll put it into two questions. The first one is quite simple. What are the penalties that may be imposed for any kind of contravention or any kind of offence that is discovered?
Hon. K. Conroy: There are various penalties under the Wildlife Act, and these are prescribed in regulation. Clause (q) establishes the offence to which the penalties will be applied, and will be on a case-by-case basis.
J. Rustad: If a sheltering agreement puts some restrictions in place that would require a guest to follow those restrictions, but under case law they wouldn’t necessarily be required to follow those restrictions….
I guess what I’m saying is…. I understand that right now in the province if somebody…. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this. If an Indigenous person, by law, wanted to hunt somewhere outside of their traditional territory, they would have to follow the rules of the Wildlife Act and hunt like anybody else would in the province of British Columbia, a non-Indigenous person in British Columbia.
What this act is doing is it’s basically saying that because historically there were these agreements, we’re now allowing an Indigenous person to be able to enter into a sheltering agreement and then not have to follow the rules of the Wildlife Act but follow the rules that may be in a sheltering agreement, to give them the right to hunt in another traditional territory other than their own. That’s my understanding of what we have been going through with this whole discussion of the sheltering agreement.
I guess the question that just keeps rolling around in my mind is…. Well, it just seems to me that the rights of Indigenous people, which don’t have to follow the Wildlife Act…. I’m just wondering how you could apply penalties or other restrictions or other issues if there’s a contravention to a shelter agreement that may not be in….
Okay. My apologies. It’s getting way too long into this thing, and my mind is just not working the way it should be. Maybe I could put it another way. I’m just trying to think of this.
If an Indigenous person breaks or contravenes anything that’s in the Wildlife Act in their own traditional territory while they’re hunting, there are no provisions that can be taken against them because they don’t have to follow the rules. Under clause 3, section 70.2, it says that those same provisions apply to an Indigenous person hunting under a sheltering agreement. So I’m just wondering how it is that there can be penalties to somebody who doesn’t have to follow the rules, based on 70.2, when they’re hunting under a sheltering agreement.
I’m just trying to understand. I think staff are finally getting what I’m trying to ask, which is good. It is confusing, and I do apologize. I’m just wondering how the rules, the penalties, would actually be implemented if, under 70.2, they don’t have to follow the rules of the Wildlife Act.
Hon. K. Conroy: To clarify, a First Nation hunting outside their traditional territory needs to follow the Wildlife Act. In the case of a sheltering agreement, a guest will be subject to the provisions of the sheltering agreement.
J. Rustad: Like I said in section 3, in what we had already canvassed, in 70.2, where it says that they could “do anything that is prohibited” or “omit to do anything that is required,” just as the minister had described during that section. That’s the right that they have, and this sheltering agreement allows them to extend those rights outside of their traditional territory into a host territory.
When a sheltering agreement is created and there is a provision in there that is contravened — that is, somebody doesn’t follow the rules that are in the sheltering agreement…. I’m not quite sure. Will the sheltering agreement define what the penalty is? How does that work? If they don’t have to follow the rules according to the 70.2, but there’s a rule that’s put in place under a sheltering agreement, how does a penalty get applied? How does that work in terms of those provisions?
Hon. K. Conroy: The same answer applies. The penalties for contravention of the regulations are under the Wildlife Act.
J. Rustad: Obviously, I’m not describing the issue well enough for the minister.
So 70.2, according to what the minister has said, gives the Indigenous person as a guest the same rights that they would have in their traditional territory — I think that’s what the minister said — in terms of their ability to be able to hunt outside of their territory in wherever they have an agreement. That is why, when I asked why that provision was put in there, the minister said — maybe the minister can correct me — that this is what they have in their traditional territory, which is why it’s put in here as part of recognizing it as a sheltering agreement, that they don’t have to follow the rules.
This is why I’m wondering: if there is a breach of a rule that’s in a sheltering agreement, what kinds of penalties would be applied if they don’t have to follow the rules that are in the Wildlife Act?
Hon. K. Conroy: To clarify, the “anything prohibited” clause in this bill allows government to support implementation of a sheltering agreement that allows a guest to hunt in a host territory under the host First Nations’ laws, and that’s what I said.
J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that answer. That’s good. Okay. So I understand that. It’ll follow under the host nation’s laws.
The host nation’s laws are not the Wildlife Act. The penalties and provisions are written in the Wildlife Act, so will the sheltering agreements be required to define the penalties if there is a breach?
Hon. K. Conroy: The regulations may create an offence for failure to abide by a sheltering agreement, and the agreement itself may provide for consequences for the guest hunter.
Clauses 4 and 5 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:51 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
BILL 14 — WILDLIFE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022
Bill 14, Wildlife Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.
Hon. R. Fleming: I call second reading of Bill 20.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Deputy Speaker: We’ll take a short recess to allow the appropriate parties time to be here. We will take a short recess.
The House recessed from 5:55 p.m. to 6 p.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 20 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT,
2022
Deputy Speaker: We are here for second reading debate of Bill 20, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2022.
Hon. N. Cullen: I move that the bill now be read a second time.
I’m pleased to rise in the House today to speak to this important piece of legislation. As I admitted to colleagues, I was taking good use of the parliamentary basketball hoop just recently. I had received important information that colleagues would run the last bill up until the end of the House, but I’m glad that we’re able to get up and start the debate on this important bill.
I know a number of our friends in municipal government have been quite eager for a number of the statutes and amendments that we’ll be moving today. This is the first bill I have moved as a relatively new Minister of Municipal Affairs and minister responsible for immigration. I want to, in advance, thank my colleague from across the way and look forward to his comments on this bill and the important debate that we’re having.
Bill 20, the Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2022, is a critical piece of legislation that has five important key goals, which I’ll speak to, each one, more in depth. Just to give colleagues and those watching a sense of what it is that we’re talking about, it removes redundant legislation. That is, essentially, housecleaning, getting rid of things that have already been decided by this House.
Secondly, it clarifies local governments’ authority on electronic meetings and subdivision of land that is not agricultural land. That’s an important piece to emphasize. I know the Minister of Agriculture will be keen to know about that.
It updates legislation to provide gender-neutral language, which we’ve been doing as a government, consistently.
It also provides the city of Vancouver the same authority that all other local governments have with respect to energy benchmarking, an incredibly important tool in our efforts to reduce our carbon footprint and fight climate change.
Lastly, it implements new requirements for local officials who are charged with or convicted of criminal offences.
To achieve these goals, Bill 20 proposes amendments to the following: the Auditor General for Local Government Act, the Community Charter, the Local Government Act, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4), the Vancouver Charter, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Islands Trust Act and, finally but not lastly, the Cultus Lake Park Act — which, I know, all of my colleagues are very familiar with and know well.
Let me start with the first one first, the Auditor General for Local Government Act repeal. Now, the Auditor General for Local Government, the AGLG, closed its offices in the spring of 2021. The repeal of the Auditor General for Local Government Act reflects the closure of the AGLG office. Consequentially, there are amendments that are required to the Community Charter, to the Vancouver Charter, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act to remove reference to the AGLG office in legislation.
As I noted in my opening statements around this bill, there are times when the House has made a decision on an office or a statute — in this case, the AGLG — in a previous session. We then have to go through and look at any of the other acts that might be consequentially effected. This is a natural course of events. The House has made the policy decision, if you will, and now we’re into the housekeeping to make sure that all consequential acts are kept correct.
The second piece, the electronic meeting for local government bodies. These proposed amendments will clarify the authority for local governments, municipalities, regional districts and their meetings, such as advisory committees, that can be held electronically.
Of course, we’ve all adapted. I can see colleagues on the screen. Local governments, too, have adapted. We, as a government, help local governments adapt to the impacts of the COVID pandemic, unable to meet together. These amendments include transparency requirements — this is important — to ensure that the public can hear or watch meetings that are held electronically. As we’ve adapted, there have been some of the subcommittees and other groups of local government where this wasn’t entirely clear. We wanted to make sure, in the efforts of transparency and accountability, that this was the case.
An amendment to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4) is also required to validate electronic meetings of local government bodies held since September 29, 2021, when expanded authority for electronic meetings came into force. Essentially, we can do this as legislators, and it’s an amazing fact.
We have a bit of a time-machine capability in which we’re able to go back and validate decisions that were taken in good faith as government expanded the role of electronic and online meetings, to make sure that any decisions that took place under some of these subcommittees also remain valid. We wouldn’t want a decision that a city, municipality or regional district took, in the proper way, to be later invalidated because of a small amendment.
The correction of Consequential Amendments Act, the ALCA, 2018. The 2018 consequential amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission created inadvertent policy change with respect to an approving officer’s statutory discretion to permit subdivision of land that is not agricultural land. Now of course, we all understand what the agricultural land reserve is there to do and what the ALC is charged with. This was an error, and we’ve taken the opportunity to correct that error and improve consistent legislative reference to agricultural land.
One of the reasons this is important. I was just speaking with a number of municipalities today — Kelowna and others — where they have opportunities for development of new housing properties within their region, within their municipality, other types of development that they deem to be important, and they run into places that are not agricultural land but that fell under this error. This is something that’ll be very important, and other municipalities will be looking very keenly to the legislators to correct this aspect.
Gender-neutral language. I believe this is the third aspect of this bill. These are proposed amendments to the Vancouver Charter. There are necessary steps towards building a more inclusive British Columbia by reframing the language that we use. We, as a government, have been doing this, consistently, over legislation, other new legislation that we are introducing — or, in this case, looking at the Vancouver Charter. This is something that Vancouver wanted, of course. They need the Legislature, under the Vancouver Charter, to enable their ability to improve language into a more gender-neutral frame.
These amendments will eliminate all instances where gender-specific language is used and replace it with gender-neutral language. These amendments do not alter the existing authority or power granted under the sections where gender-specific language was removed. In doing this, there is no effect on the ability and the authority of Vancouver city council. It doesn’t improve their authorities in any way or, in a substantive way, change the authorities that they have.
There is also an amendment which adds sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination as identified in the human rights code. These changes are both symbolic and meaningful, and they demonstrate our continued commitment to inclusivity.
Energy benchmarking. For those familiar with this aspect, this is an incredibly important tool for municipalities. This act will also amend the Vancouver Charter. The city of Vancouver has noted that they don’t have the ability to use this tool right now in meeting the goals outlined in their own climate emergency action plan.
These amendments respond to requests made by the city to grant the city the authority to establish energy benchmarking through bylaw. These amendments provide the council with the authority to make bylaws to establish requirements to report information respecting greenhouse gas emissions or the use of energy and water.
These provisions do not provide the city a special authority, as these provisions are exactly equivalent to the Community Charter. You can see this as another bit of, I suppose, legislative housekeeping. Sometimes when acts are brought in — energy benchmarking, in this case — we have to make further changes. Vancouver, as you know very well, Mr. Speaker, is special and exists under a special charter, the Vancouver Charter. When we have to make changes, we follow through, particularly when the city has asked us to make these recommendations and changes in law.
Now, the last piece in Bill 20 is probably the one that has gotten the most attention. This is with respect to the unfortunate, and rare, instances that happen in which a locally elected official is charged and/or sentenced for what we call an indictable offence.
These are serious offences. These fall under the Criminal Code. There have been instances in which someone sitting on locally elected government, a city or town or village or regional district, has been charged with an indictable offence. This is not jaywalking. These are serious. Sexual assault, theft over $5,000. These are significant charges.
We are offering two new tools to the province — and, through the province, to municipalities — for circumstances where a locally elected official has been charged with or convicted of a criminal offence. The first amendment makes changes to the existing disqualification rules to ensure that a local elected official is disqualified at the time of conviction of an indictable offence.
The reason this is pertinent…. I’m not a lawyer myself, but I’ve seen some played on TV, and this sounds like it’s really critical. And it is, according to all the lawyers in the House. Some say there are far too many. I choose to disagree.
If somebody is charged and found guilty of an indictable offence, and they sit on a local council…. Sentencing can take a little bit of time. Again, these instances are rare, but it’s important that there is no delay between once they are charged and found guilty until the sentencing, where someone could continue to hold their elected seat in municipal office. The effect of this is that they would be disqualified immediately.
In general, and in this section of the act…. We’ll get into it, I hope, in third reading, in talking about the particular aspects. I take very seriously, and we take very seriously as a government, any point at which we as a province initiate legislation that affects the democratic outcome of anything and that experience between voters and those they choose to represent them.
We have heard consistently from elected officials and from those that they represent that in an instance where someone is charged and found guilty of an indictable offence and, in the period in which they are waiting for sentencing, continues to attend town council meetings — village meetings, RD meetings — it creates an incredible distraction for that local elected government. In fact, in some cases, they are unable to do any other work in the meantime because, obviously, there is controversy that follows. Currently disqualification is dependent on sentencing and may occur later than conviction if sentencing is at a later date, which it sometimes is.
The second amendment. This is the second aspect of this, of a local official charged with a serious offence. This is in response to calls for legally enforceable tools available to a council or board to require a paid leave — this is important — when a local elected official is charged with any criminal offence for the period from the date of charge until the criminal process is completed or the charges are resolved.
Of course, we always operate under the auspices of innocent until proven guilty, so this is not in any way meant to be a penalty for somebody who is seen as charged. Of course, all of us in this place are elected people, and we know facing such a situation would obviously impact one’s prospects of electability, but that’s not for us. That is between somebody and their voters.
The difference here is that councils find themselves, sometimes, in a situation which they feel — I don’t know about conflicted — somewhat constrained in terms of voting somebody off of council who has received a serious charge, an offence. The disruptions at local council when this happens are significant.
There are some people in this place who have served in local office, either in an RD or in a village or city. They can tell — I’ve had many conversations with colleagues — of how difficult it is to conduct normal business in any kind of way when the person sitting by you is continuing to vote, yet this cloud of a serious and significant charge has been laid.
Councils have been disrupted. They’ve asked UBCM…. The Union of B.C. Municipalities, I believe, has passed two resolutions on this specific effect: one in 2017 and again, I believe, in 2019. Our government is responding to those calls.
There are sometimes questions in the media and from others, which I find a bit passing strange, as to whether these aspects of the act apply retroactively. We don’t pass laws retroactively, especially when it comes to criminal offences. We are go-forward, generally speaking. This does not apply retroactively. This is something that is for the future so that all the rules are understood by all of the parties.
We have been very attentive to the declaration of the rights of Indigenous peoples as we developed this legislation. Treaty nations, which also fall under the purview of my ministry and have varying levels of involvement with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, were contacted.
Regional district boards. We’re seeing more and more treaty nations and other nations, in fact, beginning to attend meetings. This is a conversation I hope to have in this place at some point in the near to medium future. As our regional districts are coming to us, in particular, they have sitting members from local First Nations who are participating in meetings yet have no voting rights and powers. We have heard expressions from various regional districts around the province — this might be the beginning of something larger, but that’s where it is right now — that are seeking voting rights, not just participation in meetings.
I’m greatly encouraged by these aspects of involvement, where First Nations have chosen to participate in groups and meetings that clearly affect their rights and titles and interests. There are clear pathways for those rights and titles to be expressed to the province and to the federal government, but clearly, in local government, there is a role to play. I look forward to perhaps working with colleagues across the way to draft some legislation or look at amendments that we can make.
Our government is listening to the needs and requests of local communities by clarifying the authorities and providing them with the tools that they require. Sometimes I feel like the local RONA. The municipalities show up and say they need a few more tools to do this job or that, whether it’s accepting more housing densification development or dealing with challenges that they have faced in the past.
These amendments are supported by the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the city of Vancouver where it affects them directly.
With that, hon. Speaker, I want to thank you and all members of the House. I look forward to listening to my colleagues. I know we have only a few minutes left in the day, but I am sure that there is interest from across the way on these aspects of the bill. I thank you and the House for its attention.
D. Ashton: First of all, to the minister, thank you for your comments and broaching, basically, the five major changes that are coming forward. I will be discussing those with the minister in the committee process, going through.
Today I’d like to concentrate, basically, on what I think is one of the most important sections of the bill, and that is the amendments to the municipal affairs statutes in regard to indictable offences. You know, as a councillor, a member of the regional district and the mayor after that, and coming from a small town, it is disturbing when we read about elected officials that do not toe the line or are not as straight as they should be.
Unfortunately, that brush paints many of the members of councils and regional boards and mayors in a bad light. I really, really think it’s important we address this issue. We believe that public officials that commit indictable offences should be held accountable, and we fully support them holding to the same standards as provincial and federal policies.
When elected officials are charged or convicted of a crime, public trust is shaken, and steps need to be taken immediately to hold them and to restore the trust that the office of an elected official has and should always follow. This bill would create a mandatory leave of absence for elected officials that are charged under the Criminal Code of Canada or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
I would also, at this point in time…. I had a discussion with the minister and his great staff, and I threw something else out. Civil actions are also difficult, especially in smaller communities where, again, a cloud or a web is cast over not only the individual that it’s in response to but also to the other elected officials that are present. I’m hoping that at some point in time, the minister and ministry will take a look at that and maybe extend the brush a little bit further.
Again, as the minister mentioned, individuals, if they are charged, would be put on paid leave until it’s resolved, either through conviction, acquittal or a stay of the proceedings.
One other thing is that there are going to be some that are going to wonder that if somebody is not working and is still getting paid…. I fully understand the labour relations act and that. However, if there are charges, especially criminal charges, I’m going to wonder if there isn’t some form of recourse where a municipality or a regional board could not recover some of those funds from the individual that has not been there and then is charged in a criminal offence. As the minister has said, if there is a conviction, they would be removed from elected office.
It’s incredibly important that we collectively keep the public confidence in the highest of expectations for each and every one of us that hold not only a position in this House of the people but those that are on a council, those that are on a board. It’s incredible important, especially…. Again, I’m going to refer to all municipalities elected and those elected to regional districts. It’s incredibly important that we hold our position to the highest point and the highest calibre, if at all possible.
I would also state that at times, as this continues to evolve, the public expectation in terms of consequences that elected officials should be subject to and related to their crime…. In fact, on this side of the House we’ve been asking for these changes since 2019. I would ask that that be considered in one other point that the minister has brought up, and that’s the Auditor General.
I know there’s some language housekeeping that he had mentioned. Just a point of interest is…. I was reading today — and if I remember correctly, it was in the Vancouver Sun — where the auditor general for municipalities in Alberta found that Calgary is $149 million to the black and has an operating surplus of about $20 million this year. That’s pretty nice for the people of Calgary. It’s too bad that it was after taxes were issued.
I would just say there was a good reason that the auditor general for municipalities was put in place. Having asked, as a mayor, for an audit on several occasions by the auditor for municipalities, maybe in the future, collectively, we in this House could think about that possibility again of having somebody there, because we all know how valuable the Auditor General is for our branch of government.
I would say that at this point in time, we are looking at going into the estimate period of this, and I know that there are a few minutes left. My peer would also like a couple minutes to say some things on this.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
I would say there are mechanisms in place that I hope will come to fruition. I really, really look forward to the committee stage, where a lot more of this can be discussed in detail.
Hon. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity. I will reserve my right to continue my conversation in the committee stage of the bill.
A. Olsen: Thank you to the member for Penticton for leaving a couple of minutes at the end of the day. I only have a few brief comments. I’ll start with this.
I want to recognize the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I believe this is the first piece of legislation that the member has brought to the floor. I want, after many years of service to the people of Canada and to the people of British Columbia…. Congratulations on bringing this piece of legislation forward, and enjoy the committee stage.
I’m just kidding.
I rise today to make just a few comments to Bill 20, the Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act.
The components of this, as the minister and as my colleague from Penticton have raised, are very, very important in addressing the issue around where municipal leaders have been charged with a crime. A crime such as assault or sexual assault has been highlighted. It is incredibly important that we ensure that these charges and these actions, potential actions, don’t jeopardize the relationship that people have with their elected governments and their elected officials.
I would say that an aspect of this is there are criminal charges — a focus in this bill on criminal charges. We had a conversation about this in our caucus office earlier. Unfortunately, the way it currently is within our legal system and within our society, it’s very difficult for survivors of sexual assault, as an example, to have any redress for those actions.
We have heard many stories where unfortunately, charges are not pressed; really unfortunate comments are made. I would just like to say that oftentimes, the civil route is the route where survivors of sexual assault cases are able to get the attention to the crimes that had happened exist. I wanted to highlight that aspect of it, recognizing that the bill is doing something else here. I just wanted to raise that.
I also raise my hands in gratitude for the work that is being done to the Vancouver Charter, allowing them to do the important work and to report on the greenhouse gas emissions and energy use and water use. I also will take up most of my questions that I might have for this bill in the committee stage.
Again, congratulations to the minister. I look forward to engaging in the rest of this process.
I will now take my seat.
Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further members wishing to participate, the minister to close the debate.
Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to both of my hon. colleagues across the way. I do very much look forward to the committee stage, where we can get into the details of this particular legislation. I thank them for their support, and the staff who have been bringing us all along with respect to the amendments that we’ve moved today.
With that, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Hon. N. Cullen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting day after today.
Bill 20, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2022, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND
LOW CARBON INNOVATION
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Dykeman in the chair.
The committee met at 1:38 p.m.
On Vote 23: ministry operations, $109,556,000 (continued).
The Chair: We are meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.
T. Shypitka: I left a question with the minister before the break. So I will just quickly…. Unless he wants me to rephrase it?
Hon. B. Ralston: I appreciate the question the member has posed. Let me just say a couple things as a prologue to discussing that suggestion further. Clearly, climate change and climate solutions are an important part of public discourse and public policy, not only here in Canada but around the world.
The recent International Energy Agency report shows the potential pathways for the global-to-global energy sector and the implications that each could have upon climate change. This ministry is committed to developing a low-carbon future by supporting electrification and energy efficiency and reducing methane emissions. The recent report that I’ve referred to validates the work that we’ve done.
Here the CleanBC plan, which is our guiding policy document, puts our province on the path to a cleaner, better future with a low-carbon economy and creates opportunities for all, while protecting our clean air, land and water. As part of CleanBC, we’re also focused on working with industry and the federal government to reduce methane emissions — I think widely recognized as being a very deleterious greenhouse gas, linked to the upstream extraction, reduction and liquefaction of natural gas.
We recognize and know that the energy industry has a significant role to play in reducing emissions and fighting climate change. Our government has made it clear that any LNG development must meet our four conditions, which includes fitting within our climate targets. Just as a refresher, the four conditions are: guaranteeing a fair return for B.C.’s resources; jobs and training for British Columbians; respect and partnership with First Nations; and protection for British Columbia’s air, land and water. That includes living up to our climate obligations.
We’re committed to working with the industry to meet our climate targets by investing in electrification of upstream oil and gas production to allow extraction and processing to be powered by electricity instead of burning fossil fuels. By moving to clean, renewable energy, like our abundant supply of B.C. electricity, we can power our growing economy and make life better and more affordable for British Columbians.
T. Shypitka: I’ll try to decipher what the minister said there. It was a simple yes-or-no question. It was whether the minister agreed with the statements made by the member for Boundary-Similkameen and doubled down by one of the ministers of the Crown here in the government. What I heard was that they’ve got all kinds of initiatives put forward — climate change, identifying climate change. They’ve got CleanBC initiatives and four conditions on holding true their commitments to reducing emissions.
Through that, I guess what he’s saying is that because of the programs they’ve put forward and the fact that the LNG industry in B.C. — we’ll go into that a little bit later — is, arguably, one of the more responsible jurisdictions in the world, he disagrees with the member for Boundary-Similkameen — that there is a future for LNG here in British Columbia, that we do it responsibly, that we do it better than anybody else in the world.
Perhaps the member for Boundary-Similkameen…. Who was it? It was the Minister of State for Infrastructure who tweeted out and also agreed with the member for Boundary-Similkameen. What I’m hearing — the minister can debate it if he wants — is that he’s saying: those statements were incorrect, and there is a future for B.C. LNG. Is that what I’m hearing?
Hon. B. Ralston: Certainly, our goal in British Columbia, following our CleanBC plan, is to reduce emissions to create the lowest emissions profile possible. In the LNG sector, the way we plan to do that is by sticking to and adhering to the four conditions that I’ve set out. That’s the manner in which the LNG industry will proceed forward here in British Columbia.
T. Shypitka: Not to belabour it too much, but we can’t kid ourselves. There are offsets to industry. There are offsets to production of fossil fuels, extraction of fossil fuels, production into LNG, and shipping those abroad. There is some carbon intensity to those projects, but we’re talking about global emissions.
There was a report that came out in Science Digest not too long ago that suggested that B.C. LNG shipped to China could lead to a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. This is what we’re talking about. When members of either party make suggestions contrary to what I’m hearing the minister saying, they’re trying their best to make B.C. clean and green as much as we can.
We have got some of the cleanest and greenest hydro power anywhere in the world. We’re very fortunate that about 95 percent of our production comes from hydro power here in B.C. — clean and green. LNG provides those offsets outside of Canada, to China, India or anywhere west of us, I guess, over the Pacific. It leads to a reduction of thermal coal burning, for example. I think China has put in 800 thermal coal plants in the last year or two.
We want to try to get those folks off higher-intensity, carbon-emitting products such as thermal coal and transition them to liquefied natural gas. I think it’s the responsible thing to do. I think the ministry sees that. So I’ll take it that the minister disputes the member for Boundary-Similkameen on his statements, and the Minister of State for Infrastructure, on what he said as well.
To kind of double down, in the budget here — I think it’s on pages 103-104 — it kind of highlights what I’m saying here. They’re talking about “real business investment” as just another by-product of what LNG can do for British Columbia. “Over the 2023 to 2026 period, growth is forecast to range from 1.1 percent and 3 percent annually. The LNG Canada project is expected to generate a significant amount of economic activity, which will support B.C.’s economy over the forecast horizon.”
Once again, it’s expected to generate revenues “over the forecast horizon,” which is into the future. This member is saying that there’s no place for it in the future, no further expansion of fossil fuel extraction. The statement was: “If we want good jobs for our children’s children in a world that’s safe and secure, then all indicators are that future LNG expansion isn’t the answer.”
I would expect that future expansion would mean the LNG Canada project maybe going from two trains to four. That’s an expansion. Could the minister, maybe, make a comment on the fact…? Would he support an expansion of LNG Canada to four trains?
Hon. B. Ralston: The member has mentioned LNG Canada phase 1. It was widely recognized as having substantial economic impact, particularly in northern British Columbia, the biggest private sector investment, at an estimated $40 billion. The employment benefits and the impact upon GDP growth in northern British Columbia are, I think, well understood.
Phase 2 is a part of the project which is fully permitted. The private sector consortium will have to make that decision as to whether they intend to go forward. There is, I think, some anticipation that that decision will come sometime in 2024. We’ll see what’s decided by the private sector consortium at that time.
T. Shypitka: I understand LNG Canada will be making their own decisions on their own project, for sure, but the question was: would government support a move like that? Hearing what the member for Boundary-Similkameen said, and the minister in the tweets, suggests that they wouldn’t be supportive of that.
The question to the minister was: would the ministry support a move, expansion? Given the economic benefits, given the opportunities to reduce global GHGs across the planet, given those things that the minister said earlier about LNG as an economic driver for our province, would the ministry support such a move?
Hon. B. Ralston: We’re expecting, as a government — I’ve discussed the four conditions for LNG development — that any project that would wish to go forward would meet those four conditions.
T. Shypitka: As the minister knows, there is a fraud risk management report that just came out today with B.C. Hydro. I’ve got to go jump on a call. I’m going to turn it over to my colleague here from Peace River North, and he’s got a few questions on LNG.
D. Davies: I’ll correct my colleague. Not LNG, the NG part of LNG.
A few questions on the upstream piece.
I do want to thank my colleague from Kootenay East for allowing an opportunity for a few minutes to ask some questions.
A lot of buzz in the Peace country now, the price of natural gas in that $7 mark. I was in Fort St. John in 2014, 2013, when we saw the same gas prices. I saw what the economy did. I know that the contributions from the region were significant. There was a lot of work. There was a lot of activity. We’re now at the same level of gas, and there certainly isn’t that same level of activity. Some of my questions are going to kind of go around that.
I was just recently in Fort Nelson. A lot of the gas wells up there, of course, are being closed in. With the gas prices where they’re at, is there any talk within government about some work or additional work that maybe could be used to bring some of those economic opportunities within natural gas to the Northern Rockies region?
Hon. B. Ralston: I take the member’s point about the price of natural gas.
Certainly, production in other parts of the northeast is doing well. What I’m told is that in the Fort Nelson area, typically, the natural gas is very dry. It doesn’t have the same condensate content of propane and butane, which are economically quite rich, as some of the more southern geological formations have. So that, I think, is maybe some of the reason why that activity isn’t taking place at the same level in the Fort Nelson area.
Although people attributed many powers to the government that the government doesn’t have, it’s very difficult for government to tell a company to go and drill in a certain area or engage in economic activity in a certain area.
Certainly, I ran into the mayor of Fort Nelson just at the major projects conference in Vancouver on Sunday, and he did express to me the concern — properly — about the economic activity in his community. So I’m aware of what’s taking place there, but I think that probably is the explanation that explains the lack of robust economic activity in that particular part of the northeast.
D. Davies: Certainly, that was the case a few years ago. When natural gas was low, dry gas became much less valuable as opposed to the wet gas, which is mostly throughout the Montney play.
However, things have shifted. Things have shifted, of course, with the oil sands in Alberta requiring less of the condensate. We’ve actually seen a shift from the lower Peace region, Montney play, with activity moving further north to drier gas, because there isn’t that higher demand for the natural gas. So this was kind of why I was thinking that if that is the case, there is an opportunity for the dry gas, which is predominantly in the Fort Nelson Horn play — as well as in the Liard play to the north. I’m not here to talk about that.
I guess the other question, which is also a concern, is the pipeline capacity. Is…. I don’t want to use the word incentivize. To promote the industry, at a time when there is an energy crisis looming not just in Europe but around the world, these opportunities, which I believe that your ministry plays a significant role in promoting and working with companies to build that capacity, which we don’t have right now and which the world is demanding…. Quite frankly, if they won’t get it from us in B.C., they are going to go get it from somewhere else.
I know the minister has heard this before. There’s no other jurisdiction on the planet that does it better than, probably, British Columbia, when we’re talking about extraction. I do think that that is something to be proud of.
My long, get-to-it question is: working with industry to build that capacity — specifically Fort Nelson down into the main hub but also beyond that capacity — what are the government’s plans to build that capacity out to these other markets?
Hon. B. Ralston: Returning, again, to the Fort Nelson region, what I’m told is that there is pipeline capacity — the northern part of the Westcoast transmission pipeline — but it’s underutilized because of the company’s calculation about where they can best make a return, and it is not in that particular region. Were there a choice to use that pipeline capacity, it’s available, but it’s not being used.
D. Davies: Well, thanks, Minister, for that. Like I say, I think the bigger picture is that capacity, getting products to market, which of course ties right in with the LNG projects and stuff. I know there are lots of comments and concerns about that capacity out of the Peace region.
A few years back government started the orphan well project, decommissioning a bunch of the wells. I have a couple questions around that.
One is…. Again, it ties in with what I opened with — the cost of gas, which is quite high right now. Many of these wells that are being decommissioned are still able to produce. I’m just wondering if there’s any possibility that, if gas is where it’s at now, the government has any ability to pause on some of these wells, and again, work with some of the companies to utilize what has already been drilled.
Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for the question. I probably should distinguish at the outset between dormant and orphan wells. Orphan wells are wells where there is no longer a relationship of a company to that particular tenure. The company has either disappeared or gone bankrupt and no longer has any continuing legal right to the tenure. A dormant well is one where the company continues a legal relationship with the tenure and has certain obligations to remediate that within a certain period of time.
I think, following that thought there, that companies, if they chose to reactivate a dormant well within the rules that are set by the Oil and Gas Commission, could do so if the price were such that it would justify renewing the activity on that particular site. I think that’s a possibility that some companies may, in the present price environment, choose to follow, but that would obviously be an economic decision that the company would make. They would not be relieved of their dormancy obligations. Presumably, they would have to make that decision for themselves.
D. Davies: I should not have interchanged those words. You’re right; they are very different. Specifically on the orphan wells, what I understand is that a lot of them are set to be put back. And with everything where it’s at now, the ability to have those up for sale again — those leases, those tenures — doesn’t seem to be an easy process.
That’s what I’m wondering, if there is something to…. We’re at where we’re at. The footprint is already there, the hole is drilled, and there’s still life in some of these. Is there ability for the government to come up with a program to offer these for companies to bid on?
Hon. B. Ralston: What I’m told is this. When it comes to orphan wells, typically, when a company goes through bankruptcy, the trustee in bankruptcy would try to sell the wells to any willing purchaser. They become orphan after the bankruptcy proceeding is concluded and there’s no purchaser. The title then reverts back to the Crown. A company that might want to consider that….
Many of these wells, I understand, are older, the ’60s or ’70s. They go back some way. They would have to consider the cost of reactivating them in a safe way and also what the likely return from the well might be, given that there’s public data on the extraction records from any individual well. They’d have to consider that as well.
There is not a program in place by the ministry, and I don’t think there have been any approaches, as far as I’m advised, to consider the proposition that the member is advancing, as intriguing as it is.
D. Davies: Talking to a couple of the companies, they’re saying it is a process, and they have the data. They’re going to be making a business decision. There are a lot of wells, obviously, from the ’60s and ’70s, but there are also a lot of orphan wells from the 2000s that are up in the region. I do ask the ministry to look into that and possibly get back to myself. I can pass on that information to these companies.
Kind of on the same point. I actually mentioned this last year in estimates, as well, I believe it was, or the year before or both years, with the orphan well program. It, again, is a good program. I’m not saying that. It was very clear that we wanted British Columbian companies to be doing this work. That is still not happening.
We are seeing a significant number of Alberta contractors that are doing 95 percent of the work — my colleagues Peace River South as well as Peace River North. As you can imagine, there are a lot of upset people when they see dollars that should be in British Columbian businesses’ pockets going across the border 90 minutes down the road.
Just one example. For one of these oil and gas companies that are doing these reclamations, their head office is in Sidney. I don’t know if there are many oil and gas companies in Sidney, British Columbia, but there’s no work being done out of the office, other than all the subcontracting is happening out of that Sidney office. That’s just one example.
I implore the government to come up with some sort of checks and balances. I guess that’s my question. Can we put some checks and balances in place to make sure that more of this money is prioritized to British Columbia companies, right from the initial contract down to all the subs?
Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for his question. I am concerned to hear what the member is saying. When the program was created…. This was created by the federal government, offered to the province, $120 million, to use for these purposes. The program was established and run by British Columbia, by my ministry. Appreciating the political sensitivity of this issue, I did really insist with officials on very strong criteria to make sure that these contracts went to British Columba businesses.
The criteria were that they had to be based in British Columbia — registration office and operations in British Columbia. The sites would be located in British Columbia and put British Columbians to work. The companies and the contractors were required to have a valid contract with a British Columbia oil and gas activity permit holder for a dormant site, and the companies were required to be registered businesses with B.C. registry.
Certainly, having spoken to members like yourself from the northeast, to the members of mayors and councils in the northeast, I’m well aware of the sensitivity of this issue. So that was something that I insisted upon when the program was put together. If the member has information that that is not the case, I’d certainly be interested in receiving that and investigating.
The other thing that I would say is that the company responsible for doing the contracted work must apply for the funding. Contractors and consultants, the rule is, may not apply on behalf of others. So it wasn’t a question of a B.C. company that met all the criteria, getting the contract and then shopping it to someone else. That was expressly prohibited. That may be what’s taking place. I don’t know. I would be interested in hearing more about it.
The program is, at a time, particularly, when…. I mean, the price environment has changed dramatically, but when this program was initiated, it was designed to help field service companies in British Columbia get work. It went out in two tranches of $50 million each for the dormant well program, oversubscribed, and I think reasonably generous terms that incented companies to do work, which they were obliged to do anyway, but it gave them some financial incentive to do that.
Certainly, on the dormancy side and on those sites, that was a strong incentive. The program was well managed.
The other part of the program — certainly in the second tranche, not so much in the first tranche — was that Indigenous-owned-and-operated companies in British Columbia were companies that got some of the work and were asked to perform that work here in British Columbia.
That’s how I understood the program, and my sense of it was that it was well received in the region, particularly at a time when, given low prices, there wasn’t a lot of other work.
D. Davies: Thanks to the minister.
You’re right. It was well received in the entire Peace region, but also the Alberta Peace region, unfortunately. There are companies that are skirting around, obviously, what you had strongly suggested should be happening and keeping these dollars. I can get you a number of examples. I will do that and send them off to you.
Another thing, as a challenge, is there’s one taxman in all of northeastern B.C. trying to get out…. There are still going to be companies that are going to be coming in from Alberta — we understand that — a lot of the specialized services. Their wages are different. Fuel costs are different. Insurance is different. The list goes on and on in Alberta. When they come and do this work in B.C., it’s often because it’s cheaper to get them out of Alberta.
Like I said, there was a tax collector that was brought in a number of years ago to look at the northeast, and we could probably use about five of them. Again, just a morsel in the minister’s ear. If that could be improved on — maybe two — that would be certainly assist that.
I’m not sure if the minister wanted to reply. That was more of a statement that I was making.
Hon. B. Ralston: It is particularly galling when one considers that Alberta companies might be getting the work, because the same program transferred $1 billion to Alberta for their dormancy program. They were well provisioned by the federal government for that kind of a program.
I have heard of the concern about taxation. I think, most particularly, the mayor of Fort St. John has raised that with me. I’m aware of that concern. Technically, it’s in the province of the Minister of Finance, so perhaps my advice to the member would be to advise the Minister of Finance of those concerns, because I agree with him.
The prospect of earning legitimate taxation revenue — not to overtax people but legitimate taxation revenue — for the province of British Columbia for economic activity that takes place in British Columbia and where tax is owing is something that certainly should be collected for all the programs that government supports. That would be my comment.
D. Davies: Thanks to the minister, as well, for that. Again, I will reach out to his office with some of those examples.
I’ve just got a couple of questions in and around permitting in the northeast. Of course, I know that I’ve spoken to you already a few times on this, and others. I do want to read just a short email that I got, into the record here, from a small resource company that’s in the northeast:
“Good morning, Mr. Davies.
“My family owns a small oil field service company in Fort St. John with 17 employees. Last year the B.C. Supreme Court found in the favour of First Nations in their argument that they had not been properly compensated for resource development across the province. Currently negotiations between First Nations and the government are ongoing to rework compensation.
“However, in the meantime, no new licences are being issued for oil and gas projects, as well as, I believe, for forestry and mining. The last licence that the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission issued was in July of ’21. As licences are generally for a one-year period, we’re coming close to shutting down the entire oil and gas industry in the northeast.
“We know at least one of one of our large clients that was unable to continue operations in B.C. because of this issue, and we’re hearing now two other major oil and gas operators may be suspending their operations this June for the same reason.”
This is a concern that I’ve heard in my office from a number of small and larger companies. The big question that people are wondering is the process. Nobody has a process that they can start going inwards to look at, to get those permits rolling. I know these are big questions. What are cumulative effects? How does that all come down?
This has been ongoing for a while now, and companies are leaving. They’re leaving British Columbia for Alberta. They’re leaving British Columbia and heading south into the States because there is uncertainty, and companies don’t invest in uncertainty. It’s just a fact of the matter that they don’t.
What I’m hoping we can get today is some timelines from the ministry, what this process is going to look like. Like I say, the biggest thing is: when can companies expect that they will be seeing this process in place?
Hon. B. Ralston: The member raises a very significant question. The Supreme Court of British Columbia decision in Yahey was a very significant decision, legal precedent, in assessing what the court and what the litigants called cumulative effects.
The decision litigated the impact on the rights of Treaty 8 Nations, who signed a hunting and fishing treaty in 1900, and the degree to which oil and gas activity, in particular, and other activity — resource activity, forestry included — had, in its cumulative effect, prevented those Treaty 8 Nations from exercising their rights under the treaty.
What the court decided was that the cumulative impact of all of that activity had impaired the right of those nations to exercise their rights under the treaty and recommended some remedies in terms of the approval process going forward. There was no monetary compensation awarded in the decision, but what it has meant since that time is that the process by which permits are issued has had to be rethought and re-examined.
There is no moratorium on permits. The province will continue and is continuing to authorize some activities, but decision-makers are obliged, just by the nature of the decision, to exercise caution and scrutiny to applications to make sure that they don’t authorize further activities that might unjustifiably infringe upon the treaty rights and upon the court decision that was made by the Supreme Court of Canada. The government is obliged to follow the direction of the court.
Since June 29, the Oil and Gas Commission and provincial ministries have referred some permit applications to Treaty 8 Nations, given the strategic negotiations underway between the province, including the Oil and Gas Commission, Blueberry River First Nation and Treaty 8 Nations. Those negotiations to reshape the approval process are ongoing. The intention of these agreements that are sought is to allow resource development to move forward under a new decision-making framework that balances economic activity and employment with environmental sustainability and a recognition of the now legally protected treaty 8 rights.
The time frame for statutory decision-makers to consider new authorizations and permits will take longer, as any decisions have to be made in light of the court’s finding and must incorporate the consideration of cumulative effects where there is a reasonable expectation that the decision could result in those effects. Applications related to public health and safety are being prioritized. The goal is to create a path forward that balances off the interest of environmental sustainability, that respects the treaty 8 rights that the court has spoken of and that guarantees stable economic activity and employment.
The member has suggested that no permits were issued. That’s not completely accurate. Within the 2021 calendar year, there were 1,740 applications for permits submitted and 1,023 that were approved. Moving forward three months to last fiscal year, the commission received 1,691 applications and made 569 decisions on those. Provincewide, the commission has 702 applications outstanding right now. That includes both new permits and amendments.
I would say that the integration of the ruling of the court into the decision-making process is something that, understandably, the oil and gas industry is very concerned about. I’ve had a number of conversations, particularly with CEOs of oil and natural gas companies, and they’ve expressed their concern. They have to, obviously, report to their boards and to their shareholders to give an explanation of what’s going on in British Columbia and the impact of this decision.
The Oil and Gas Commission is working its way through this process, and I think there’s steady, steady progress forward. It’s perhaps not as rapid as some might wish, including myself, but there is a process to follow. There are counterparties, and there are negotiations that the government is obliged to undertake. That, I think, is what I would offer in the way of a summary, in response to the important question that the member has raised.
D. Davies: This is probably my last question, just further on from what the minister has just said. You know, we all share the same goal. We do want this process. I think everybody shares the same goal — understanding the reconciliation piece.
It was mentioned in the letter — I know that it has been mentioned to you before — that this is going to be bad for everyone, including the hundreds of First Nation partner companies and companies that are up in the northeast, as well, that rely on the oil and gas sector. When these big companies leave British Columbia, they don’t come back. That is the challenge that we’re seeing right now. We are seeing companies leave.
I understand that the process isn’t moving fast enough for you as well, but we do need to somehow get some timelines for these companies to start bringing back some of that stability into the process. I implore the ministry again to come up with some firm timelines that companies can look at, and a very clear process that companies can apply through to start getting these permits done. Right now they’re not happening. It’s causing right now, and I’m worried it’s going to cause, a huge chain reaction as the industry dries up.
I’ll leave it with that. I’m not sure if the minister does want to reply to that, but that’s my final question. I’ll turn it over to my colleague from Peace River South.
Hon. B. Ralston: Chair, I just wanted to respond to the statement that the member just made. I think it’s important that I express, on behalf of the ministry, on behalf of the Oil and Gas Commission and on behalf of the government, our concern that this process….
There is an interim process in place. It’s moving forward, negotiations are continuing, and permits are being issued. I share the concern of the member, and I also share the goals that the member has set forward, in the sense that a defined, understandable, accessible process that deals with these permit applications is the goal of the negotiations that we are presently undertaking.
I have reported at the high level and, certainly, within the ministry, within the Oil and Gas Commission. We are in constant touch with CEOs and senior officials at the oil and gas companies so that they understand where the applications of their particular companies are in the process. We’ve made some progress in satisfying some of those concerns.
This is new ground for everyone. We are bound by a decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and we’re making progress. I’m optimistic that the kinds of goals that the member has expressed and the goals that we share will be achievable within the near term — if that gives the member some comfort. I hope it does. It’s a challenge, and it’s a real one, but we’re working hard on it, and I’m confident that we’ll have an outcome.
M. Bernier: I think my colleague to the north of me might be a little bit more diplomatic than I’ll be, if the minister will indulge me. I appreciate the comments that the minister is saying, but here’s the challenge. The minister can say that he shares the same goals or opportunities that we want to see, but the companies aren’t hearing that. That’s one of the challenges.
I’m going to ask the minister in a minute, when I finish here, to maybe highlight which companies he’s met with and to share some of the conversations he’s had. As the minister knows, I’ve worked in and out of this industry for 2½ decades. I’m very well connected to a lot of the issues and the companies he met with and share some of the conversations he’s had.
As the minister knows, I’ve worked in and out of this industry for 2½ decades. I’m very well connected to a lot of the issues and the companies. I’ve been having numerous meetings in Calgary with some of the…. I won’t mention company names, to respect them, but it’s numerous of the major Canadian and British Columbia players who are all telling me the same thing.
They are responsible to their shareholders, as the minister acknowledged. Their shareholders are concerned about investments in British Columbia. I would assume the minister is hearing the same thing. They’re saying this because of the uncertainty. The minister can say that their permits are being issued, but the problem is the messaging that accompanies around how these permits are being handled, the timelines involved.
As the minister, I’m sure, well knows, capital is fluid. Capital moves easily. As my colleague from Peace River North said, once these major companies choose to invest in an investment cycle for a couple of years, it takes time for them to come back. They don’t just do that, because they are moving rigs. They are moving people. They’re moving their investment, basically. As the minister can appreciate, that’s our backyard. That’s tens of thousands of jobs.
I am hearing from companies right now, just within the last one month, that for the ’22-23 calendar work years, the fiscal planning years for these companies that I know of, we are now exceeding $4 billion of capital that’s pulled out of British Columbia for the next 18 months and moved into Alberta and down to Texas because of the uncertainty in British Columbia. Is the minister hearing the same things?
Hon. B. Ralston: I’ve met with a number of, typically, the CEOs of the companies. I’ll give you a list: ConocoPhillips, Tourmaline, CNRL, Petronas, Ovintiv, Murphy Oil, ARC, Mitsubishi, Shell and Crew.
The purpose of those meetings is to explain…. The conversations that I may have might be different from the conversations that the member might have, but it’s to explain to those companies the process that that’s undertaking and the way in which the court decision is working its way into the permitting process and our efforts to negotiate and create a new process.
The deputy minister is also meeting very regularly with those same companies, as is the head of the Oil and Gas Commission as well. Those companies are granted, and rightly so, a line of sight into where their permits are at and our plans to move that process forward. We’re also in the process of attempting to gain from the companies an understanding of their longer-term plans and their needs in terms of permitting over the longer run, when the process is renewed in the way that it complies with the court decision.
I think it’s important. The companies have expressed, I think, some gratitude for being able to have that access and to gain that understanding for the reasons that both the member and I agree on — that they have to report to their shareholders, to their boards of directors in order to inform the decisions that they make going forward. So that’s the process that we’re engaged in. That process continues. If any company seeks a meeting with me, generally it’s granted fairly quickly.
M. Bernier: I appreciate that the minister is willing to meet with the companies. That’s only a small part of the job, though. It’s listening to the concerns that they have and trying to act on them in order to facilitate what I would argue is a very important industry in the province of British Columbia, when you look at the revenue that it’s generated over the years.
The uncertainty that’s being created because of the lack of direction, I think, is the big issue right now. I don’t mean to sound accusatory. It’s just factually what I’m hearing from these companies — that they’re nervous.
I’ll give the minister an example. I had an email shared with me, again, about a month ago — everything kind of blends in these COVID years, but I think was around a month ago — from a company, this specific company that said that $1.2 billion…. They were not able to get it approved through their shareholders for investment over the next calendar year for capital drilling activities. The main reason was….
They shared an email with me — maybe they shouldn’t have — from the Oil and Gas Commission. It was very blunt. It said: “Due to the Blueberry decision, going forward we cannot give you any timelines on when we will be able to issue permits to your company.”
They shared with me another example with that. They got a permit a year ago to do drilling activities, but they were unable to get the permit for the tie-in. I know that the minister understands what that means. You drill a hole, and you have to cap it. If you can’t get a tie-in, you can’t flow gas. In the same email…. It was shared, again, from the Oil and Gas Commission saying: “Sorry, but we can’t give you a timeline.”
Companies investing billions of dollars need certainty and timelines. I think that that’s what my colleague from Peace River North was also trying to get to around the challenges. I know the minister is aware of this, and that’s what we’re looking for on behalf of not only the companies but the tens of thousands of people that work in this industry.
I will say that I was absolutely surprised that the government didn’t appeal the court decision to begin with. But that’s a conversation for a different place and different time. But that, in itself, created a lot of doubt within companies.
Maybe I’ll go to, along with that: what is the minister hearing, then? We know we usually do land sales. I’m curious to hear what kinds of revenues the government is projecting this year from the industry, from the upstream. We’re talking about the land sales that would be part of the subsurface rights. The minister knows how that process works. The revenues from that, and then from the industry in itself — what do we anticipate from a budgetary standpoint, within the ministry, for revenues?
I know there’s some stuff listed within the budget documents, but I’m curious on the minister’s thoughts and if he thinks that’s changing based on what we’ve already heard in the budget.
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
Hon. B. Ralston: Let me just…. From the budget document, the provincial and natural gas royalties in ’20-21 fiscal were $196 million. They’re forecast to increase to $911 million in ’22-23. This increase is due to a combination of rising prices for natural gas and natural gas liquids, up 69 percent and 67 percent, respectively. In ’23-24, the natural gas royalties are projected to bring in $691 million. And then in ’24-25, $580 million. That’s predicated on a decline in the price of natural gas.
Obviously, there are economic opinions about the price, and there are people in the industry who make those calculations. But that’s the projection for the next three years in terms of natural gas royalty income.
M. Bernier: Thanks to the minister. I think it’s also important to acknowledge — the minister can correct me if I’m wrong on my, I’ll say, assumption on this — when we’re looking at the royalties that come in, that takes into consideration, obviously, as we’re selling gas. The royalties are based on the gas flow in cubic metres, gigajoules, however it’s being calculated by the company.
I would argue, though, there’s a lot of lost revenue because this revenue is based on…. A lot of the drilling has already happened. A lot of the flow and molecules will be moving down pipelines, coming out of the ground and being calculated that way. But especially when we’re talking about $6, $7, $8 gas…. If you looked ten years ago, the amount of drilling activities, the amount of the jobs we’d have right now if companies would stay in B.C. and invest…. That number would go way up, because it wouldn’t just be the present gas flow; it’d be the anticipated growth in that, due to future and active drilling activity.
I wanted to put that…. The minister is shaking his head. He acknowledges that that’s kind of how the system works.
Again, I just want to quickly say that uncertainty creates huge issues for the growth in the industry. One of the things I’m hearing right now in my area: there is nothing that will drive First Nations in my region back into poverty faster than them losing their jobs in the oil and gas sector that most of them have, whether it’s through partnership agreements or whether it’s actually working in the industry themselves. This is something that really needs to be acknowledged.
Talking about the uncertainty, though. I’m going to give the minister an opportunity to clarify a few things around the uncertainty. One of the challenges that we’re still hearing with this government is their lack of support for the oil and gas sector. By that, I mean the amount of comments that we hear in this House and publicly from members of this government who say that they want to terminate or stop the use of hydraulic fracturing in the oil and gas industry.
I think the minister would acknowledge, and knows very well, the only way we get natural gas out of the ground in British Columbia is through hydraulic fracturing. I’d like the minister to kind of clear that up a little bit for us, because this is again what I’m hearing from some of the companies. Where does this government stand? Do they support the industry, or are they trying to shut it down?
We talked about hydraulic fracturing reviews. Fair enough. We’re always looking at trying to do it better. A review can do that. I’ve got no problem with that; I’ve always supported that. But when I hear comments from other people in government saying they want to stop it completely, that puts a stop to the industry.
What can the minister say to try to put some companies’ minds at rest that this government is actually not going to be stopping hydraulic fracturing in B.C.?
Hon. B. Ralston: As the member knows and has pointed out, most of the natural gas that’s produced in British Columbia is the result of the use of the technique that the member describes that’s regulated in the Oil and Gas Commission.
We’re moving forward in natural gas development, relying on the policy direction of the four conditions. Those four conditions include environmental standards that are high environmental standards, and that’s the way in which we intend to move the industry forward.
M. Bernier: I appreciate the answer. I was hoping, obviously, that that’s what I would hear and assumed that’s what the minister would say.
I think it’s important that we continue to have this discussion based on comments we hear to the contrary sometimes coming from this government. I think it’s important, especially for the minister who’s responsible for the file, to be able to set the certainty and the parameters around the expectations of this government when it comes to how the industry will move forward. So that’s really important.
One of the things I want to…. Maybe before I bridge off of that, I just wanted to leave a couple of comments, again on behalf of my colleague in Peace River North. I say that because we tag-team in our communities.
At the end of the day, the industry is fluid. It moves around. It’s not siloed in one community or another. People work, and they travel back and forth. Our communities rely on a strong natural gas sector. Again, tens of thousands of family-supporting jobs are at risk. Communities are at risk.
The businesses themselves, the ones that are the lifeline and blood for communities, are usually your small- and medium-sized businesses. That’s who we hear from daily in our offices, because they’re hurting and they’re scared. They employ two people. They employ 100 people. It could be a trucking outfit. It could be a first aid operation. Their life and their dollars are embedded into their company, and they’re nervous that the direction it’s going right now, the uncertainty, has put all of that at risk.
If companies aren’t investing in British Columbia, these small businesses don’t have jobs to bid on. It’s a cyclical effect downward that’s going to affect our communities. We implore this minister and this government to really — I respectfully say that I think the minister does — take this seriously.
We need to figure out a mechanism that we work together to send a strong message to the industry players that we need to move forward, that we need to have certainty and that we’re going to find opportunities to give some timelines for them to make those investments.
Before I turn it back to my colleagues here, I want to go to one…. It’s a bit of a segue, maybe, into a different topic we’ll get into, and it’s around B.C. Hydro. It’s actually around heat pumps. Now, I know the Minister of Finance has announced increased taxes to people who choose to use natural gas appliances in their home. I want to flag this for the minister, because even though it’s a taxation issue with Finance, it’s also a B.C. Hydro program that is being pushed out, which is under this ministry’s purview.
I find it quite astonishing that, even in this government’s own documents, they say this process could negatively affect people, especially in rural British Columbia. I was on a call with B.C. Hydro, and I confirmed with them. They actually did say…. I understand heat pumps. I’ve installed them, so I’m not trying to going down the technicality roads of it.
We need to remember that, whether it’s an air pump style or water ground-source heat pump, they work great in moderate climate zones. If you’re moving anywhere north of Hope in this province, where you’re going to have weather patterns that go to negative climates for extended periods of time, you have to go into what’s called a variable-motor heat pump system. The price just jumped up from $7,000 to $20,000 if you’re going to a variable system to have it installed in your house.
Here’s the catch that the minister I sure hope is aware of, and if not, I’ll flag it for him. Even those systems work to about minus 25. I confirmed with B.C. Hydro, because they’re pushing this. Don’t forget, B.C. Hydro is also the same one, and government, that’s partnering with Fortis, Pacific Northern Gas and others to try to have incentivized programs to move to high-efficiency natural gas systems.
It’s a little bit of an interesting situation where we have the government supporting high-efficient natural gas systems with rebates through Fortis and others. Some of those are private companies. I understand how that works. Then you’ve got the government saying: “But if you do that, we’re going to tax you more.”
If you live in an area like Prince George or north, possibly even 100 Mile House, especially in the patterns that we’ve been seeing lately in our weather patterns, if you are in minus 25 for any extended period of time — by the way, we saw in my region probably a couple of months of minus 40 this year — the heat pumps aren’t efficient. They won’t work. You need a secondary fuel source, a secondary heat source. And guess what. That’s going to be natural gas.
Does the minister actually think…? As communities are growing — especially in the northern part of British Columbia where we have the natural gas, in a community like Dawson Creek, Fort St. John — 98 percent of any dwellings built use natural gas as their primary source for heating the air, heating the ground, heating their water. They’re not going to be able to go off of that the way a variable heat pump system works. B.C. Hydro confirmed that for me.
Although we have a system where this government wants to tax people to incentivize — I think it’s what the minister said — to go to a heat pump system, which may or may not work…. Well, it does work in places like Vancouver, Vancouver Island and moderate climate zones. They work quite efficiently. You can save 300, 400 percent on an electric bill. But you’re not going to invest $20,000 in a heat pump system when you still have to invest $10,000 in a natural gas system to supplement it in the winter months.
I’m curious where the minister stands on this, because he’s in charge of B.C. Hydro, which is pushing this program. Meanwhile, most people in rural British Columbia aren’t going to be able to utilize it without having to pay extra. They’re going to still have to go to natural gas. It will be required, and now they’re being taxed more. Does the minister think that’s fair to people in rural British Columbia, who really don’t have a choice?
Hon. B. Ralston: Perhaps the Chair can give some direction. I have a number of staff here on the oil and gas questions. Before those staff leave, I just wanted to understand whether the opposition and the Third Party intend to return to oil and gas questions. This is a Hydro question, for which we have different staff.
I need some direction here just to manage the logistics of staff swapping in and out.
T. Shypitka: No, we have a few more questions. I know the Greens have got some questions. I know the member for Skeena has got a few questions on this. I don’t think the member for Peace River South really was looking for a detailed answer — just whether he understands the complications. It is his ministry, but we can defer that question for when the B.C. Hydro staff get up.
The Chair: Okay. I believe it’s a question between Hydro and oil and gas. He’s got different teams for that.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Ralston: I do want to answer that. Perhaps we can defer that question and continue with oil and gas questions until we’re finished with those so that I can give direction.
I’m not sure what the time is for conclusion of these proceedings. I note that the minister for the next set of estimates is already here, and I think it was anticipated that this might finish at 3:30, I believe, but I’m not sure of that. I’m likely the last person to know.
Interjections.
The Chair: Recognizing Kootenay East.
T. Shypitka: We’ll be going to the end of the day, for sure. Probably now, we can bring in the Green Party leader for some questions on oil and gas.
S. Furstenau: Thanks to the opposition. I’m glad to have an opportunity to ask some questions on oil and gas, following on my colleague’s questions.
I think I’ll start with a curriculum package, and I’ll also be bringing this up with the Minister of Education. There was a school curriculum package developed by FortisBC. It was branded as the Energy Leaders program. This curriculum package promotes LNG or natural gas as the cleanest-burning fossil fuel. It looks that about 2,000 teachers have downloaded these resources. That certainly doesn’t indicate that they’ve all used it. I know as a teacher, I used to look at all sorts of resources. We were always looking for interesting ways to teach our curriculum.
The problem with this curriculum — and I’ve actually looked through it — is, I’d say, it’s not a particularly accurate depiction, necessarily, of things. It promotes LNG and natural gas as clean and beneficial, but we know that scientific studies have looked at the impacts of fracking. We know that scientific studies have looked at the impacts on water, and that methane, which is emitted when fracking happens, is 28 times more potent by weight than carbon dioxide for driving greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
My question for the minister is sort of a high-level one, to start. Why is FortisBC providing curriculum to B.C. students?
Hon. B. Ralston: The Leader of the Third Party poses an interesting question. I’m afraid I don’t have an answer to that question. I think the inclination is to take that to the Minister of Education as, clearly, a question of curriculum or supplementary curriculum. I’m imagining that’s something that should be taken up there.
S. Furstenau: I guess my follow-up to that, then, would be…. There’s a relationship between the ministry and a natural gas provider in British Columbia. There’s a regulatory relationship. If there is information being provided to schools and teachers that isn’t accurate, does his ministry — and he, in particular — have a role, as regulator, to address that?
Hon. B. Ralston: The B.C. Utilities Commission regulates this sector. The ministry doesn’t regulate it. Once again I would say that this is a good question for the Minister of Education.
S. Furstenau: I will certainly be following up with the Minister of Education on that.
A slightly different topic but still related to oil and gas. There was a recent Tyee article that outlined how B.C. has approved a fossil fuel storage and shipping facility near the mouth of the Skeena River, on the north coast. The environmental assessment certificate was provided to Vopak Development Canada Inc. last week. Federal approval is still required.
The development would likely result in 150 tankers being loaded with a variety of liquid fossil fuels — methanol, light diesel, liquefied petroleum gas — and the proposed development would have an impact on the territories of six different First Nations. At least four of the First Nations continue to have unaddressed concerns that have been voiced multiple times over the past year, and consent has not been given. The concerns include impacts to marine life, fish habitat, the effects of a spill, increased rail transportation.
B.C. has stated that the concerns largely exist within the purview of federal jurisdiction. However, during our last round of questions in estimates, before the break, my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands asked the minister specifically about how Energy and Mines will fulfil the actions outlined in the DRIPA action plan. Given the commitment to fulfilling those actions, how do the ministry and the minister justify approvals such as this, in the face of DRIPA and the right expressed in it to free, prior and informed consent?
Hon. B. Ralston: The Minister of Environment and Climate Change and I issued an environmental assessment certificate for the Vopak Pacific Canada project, the project mentioned by the member. It’s a proposed liquid gas storage facility on Ridley Island, near Prince Rupert. We made the decision to issue the certificate, with conditions, after considering a review led by B.C.’s environmental assessment office, which consulted extensively with Indigenous nations, the public and federal and local authorities in making its recommendations.
The project is on federal lands and still requires federal approvals to move forward. There’s a separate process where federal approval is required. Vopak must meet a number of specific conditions and design parameters required under the B.C. environmental assessment certificate should the project receive federal approval to proceed. Provincial requirements include participating in initiatives to manage potential cumulative effects, a greenhouse gas reduction plan and addressing potential effects on community services, infrastructure and community well-being.
Many of the concerns identified by Indigenous nations and the public fall under federal jurisdiction. The Minister of Environment and I have written to federal decision-makers, recommending that they be addressed as part of the federal review approvals and other related actions.
A. Olsen: The First Nations that expressed dismay over this project specifically requested that the provincial government not extend these licences and these permits until they had completed the consultation. As my colleague from Cowichan Valley noted, it requires free, prior and informed consent, which is an important part of FPIC.
Why was it that the Minister of Energy decided to proceed with granting this licence, even though Indigenous nations expressly requested that the provincial government not extend this until the consultation had achieved what we have committed to under the Declaration Act?
Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you to the member for the question.
On April 20, 2022, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy and I issued the environmental assessment certificate for the Vopak Pacific Canada project. Federal approvals are still required for the project to proceed.
Vopak Development Corp. has proposed a new bulk liquid storage facility that would store liquefied petroleum gas — i.e., propane, ethane, butane, methanol, light diesel and/or gasoline. It would include unloading platforms for bulk liquid cargo received by the existing rail loop on Ridley Island, export berthing facilities by a new offshore jetty, and supporting infrastructure and facilities. It’s proposed to be located on Ridley Island, on the territories of the Gitga’at, Gitxaała, Kitselas, Kitsumkalum, Metlakatla and Lax Kw’alaams First Nations, with an approximate project footprint of 38 hectares, entirely on federal lands.
The conditions for the certificate required by the province include development of a greenhouse gas reduction plan, participating in initiatives at the request of the province to manage cumulative effects on this and other projects in the area, and working with the local community and Indigenous nations to prevent negative impacts on community services — such as health care and infrastructure — and community well-being — such as from work camps during construction.
The provincial environmental assessment process by B.C.’s environmental assessment office began on July 26, 2018, and was referred to ministers for a decision on September 23, 2021. So more than three years later. On April 20, 2022, the 45-day limit for ministers’ decisions was retroactively extended. Additional time was needed for the ministers to consider the potential for additional conditions, particularly related to greenhouse gas emissions, and to meet with Indigenous nations and discuss their concerns.
Consensus on the recommendation to issue an environmental assessment certificate was not reached with the affected Indigenous nations that participated in the review. Indigenous concerns about the effects of the project centred primarily on aspects within federal jurisdiction — marine and rail shipping.
I myself and my colleague the Minister of Environment wrote our federal counterparts to highlight the concerns and to ensure federal reviews and actions address them. A federal environmental effects determination under section 67 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, and a review under section 82 of the Impact Assessment Act, 2019, is ongoing. A decision is not expected before the summer of 2022. Federal approval is required for the Vopak project to proceed to additional permitting. All permits would be federal, because the project is on federal lands.
A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the response. The reality of it is that we, the provincial government, in November of 2019, made a commitment to Indigenous people by enshrining every single last article of the declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples into law in this province.
There is an expectation by Indigenous nations that we will stand up and uphold those commitments — 46 of them. One of those is the storage of dangerous materials on Indigenous lands.
The minister may choose to offload this responsibility entirely onto the federal government. I recognize — and I think we recognize — that there are federal permits and federal regulations that have to be met here. However, the nations explicitly asked the provincial government to not extend their permits until their consultation had been exhausted and their consent had been given.
This provincial government has chosen to ignore that and to entirely offload this, removing any aspect of our responsibility being able to undertake it now that we’ve passed it. There is no recourse if the federal government doesn’t, on behalf of the province.
We could have extended that to the Indigenous nations that we have made a commitment to. But this minister and the Minister of Environment have chosen not to. Why has the Minister of Energy and Mines chosen to ignore the request of Indigenous nations who expressly said to hold off on issuing these licences and these permits until the work has been done?
Hon. B. Ralston: Just let me restate that the provincial environment assessment by B.C.’s environmental assessment office began on July 26, 2018, and was referred to myself and my colleague for a decision on September 23, 2021.
Throughout the environmental assessment, the environmental assessment office engaged deeply with the Gitga’at, Gitxaała, Kitselas, Kitsumkalum, Lax Kw’alaams and Metlakatla. Nations were invited to participate as members of the working group, develop collaboratively, comment on environmental assessment documents and meet directly with the EAO, the environmental assessment office, throughout the process to discuss issues and concerns.
The EAO delegated some procedural aspects of Indigenous engagements to Vopak but retained regular, direct communications with each nation throughout the EA process. Extensive efforts were made to seek consensus with nations through the EA, with several designs, processes and conditions proposed through direct engagement with these nations to mitigate Vopak project defects detailed in the assessment report.
The assessment report includes the EAO’s assessment of the seriousness of impacts on the Gitga’at and Kitsumkalum Indigenous interests. Gitxaała, Kitselas, Kitsumkalum and Metlakatla drafted their own assessments of potential impacts to their Indigenous interests using their own methods, which have been included in the assessment report. This approach is respectful of Indigenous decision-making processes while also informing decision-makers of potential project effects on Indigenous interests from each nation’s perspective.
Upon their individual requests, the EAO also engaged with the Office of the Wet’suwet’en and the Gitxsan Wilps Gwininitxw and Luutkudziiwus to better understand their concerns raised over potential impacts to salmon populations from marine or rail spills or accidents. The EAO shared information with the federal authorities under sections 67 and 82 determinations and offered to facilitate dialogue with Vopak should the wilps request it.
The ministers — that is, myself and the Minister of Environment — determined that the potential for adverse effects from the Vopak project that related to matters of provincial jurisdiction on Indigenous interests had been appropriately avoided, minimized or other otherwise addressed through project designs, changes to project designs and conditions.
S. Furstenau: I know we’re down to the last nine minutes for us to be able to ask a few more questions here.
Shell Plc. is studying a feasibility of a major expansion of the LNG Canada joint venture in Kitimat. The eagerness for this is framed within the context of energy supply concerns in Europe. I’m not sure how the geography is going to fit into that, but that’s a question for another day.
The second phase is proposed to use lower-carbon hydroelectricity to power motors for supercooling natural gas to meet B.C.’s climate commitment. This is from the materials. “B.C. Energy Minister Bruce Ralston said the provincial government expects LNG proponents to live up to climate commitments” and “The fact that LNG Canada is eager to move forward is a strong indication that companies see B.C. as a secure jurisdiction to invest in.”
At the same time as nice statements like this are being made — and I recognize that we don’t have the same position as the official opposition on this — we have a governing party that indicates that it’s committed to climate action. The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, came out again this week. The frequency of the reports out of the IPCC is increasing, and the level of alarm is increasing.
The latest missive from IPCC is that we are literally…. We have a matter of months, collectively, to turn around from expansion of fossil fuels globally to reduction. If we don’t make this choice, not only are we going to miss the 1.5 degrees of warming; we are headed for three or more degrees of warming. So the decisions that are being made right now in this province and around the world are shaping the future, and that future certainly doesn’t strike me as being one that is secure.
The forest fires in Arizona and New Mexico right now, the heatwaves in India, the entire year that we saw last year in B.C. — these are not secure futures, and these are increasingly going to be the shape of the future that we’re leaving to our children and grandchildren to deal with. We’re saying, “You know what? We’re just going to talk about secure investment climates and expansion of an LNG terminal,” which already doesn’t fit in the so-called climate plan that this government keeps using as a shield to deflect from these really pivotal questions in 2022 about what future we are shaping in this province.
What decisions are we making, and what are the implications of those decisions? We can’t continue to invest in new fossil fuel infrastructure and think that we’re shaping the future that our children and grandchildren deserve. They don’t go together.
My question to the minister is: one, how does he see this potential expansion of the LNG Canada site, as in what universe does this fit into a climate plan that already doesn’t accommodate the current plans for LNG Canada; and two, what subsidies would this provincial government be giving to that second phase of the Kitimat terminal?
Hon. B. Ralston: The Premier and the government have been clear about the conditions that any LNG project would require to proceed, including this proposed expansion. I think the four conditions are well known, but I’ll briefly recapitulate them now.
Project proposals must include express guarantees of jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians; a fair return on our resource. Proposals must respect and make partners of First Nations, and proposals must protect our air, land and water, including living up to climate commitments that British Columbia has made.
The company has not made a decision of whether or not to proceed. It’s speculated that they may make that decision one way or the other closer to 2024. They are aware of these four conditions.
S. Furstenau: I’ve heard these four conditions since the 2017 election campaign. I heard them every single time LNG came up, and the candidate for the NDP would dutifully rattle off these four conditions. I know them off by heart because I’ve been hearing them for five years. They don’t mean anything. They don’t mean a thing.
Let’s look at LNG Canada and Coastal GasLink. Oh, there are definitely jobs for firefighters. Maybe it meets the conditions for jobs on a temporary basis. How many permanent full-time, long-term jobs? That’d be an interesting question.
Does it meet the conditions for climate action? No. They can’t…. Even CleanBC, it’s acknowledged, has not figured out a way to make up for the fact that it only gets 75 percent of the way to the emissions reductions that it’s supposed to meet. So, no.
Does it meet the conditions for protecting the land and water? Hmm. Well, fracking is a problem. The latest report on fracking certainly identifies that there are some serious health conditions to be considered.
Then First Nations. Well, we know that there’s a pretty significant problem happening in northwest B.C. when it comes to First Nations on the Coastal GasLink project.
To the minister, please don’t…. I’m asking that the minister not tell me these four conditions, but answer the question. If the first phase of LNG Canada can’t be accommodated in the current CleanBC emissions reductions plan, how in the world could the second one be?
You know, this approach of just words and slogans and action plans — we have to operate in reality, not just a nice listing off of four conditions that have been listed off for five years that don’t really mean anything.
The IPCC is begging with policy-makers and decision-makers to pay attention to the fact that we’re running out of time. They don’t care about four conditions. That’s not the thing that’s going to fix this or solve this or help us shape a future that we don’t have to beg forgiveness for.
Again to the minister, could he please explain, without listing these four conditions, how he could possibly see a second phase of LNG Canada coming in, in any way fitting into the already not succeeding climate plan that this government has?
Hon. B. Ralston: I would say this, that the expected emissions from Woodfibre and from LNG Canada phase 1 are accommodated within the existing CleanBC plan, contrary to what the member has said.
On the CleanBC plan, let me read from a former member of this place, Andrew Weaver:
“I am thrilled with the release of the CleanBC roadmap that fulfils our original commitment in CleanBC to…meet our legislated greenhouse gas emissions targets for 2030. The roadmap’s comprehensive, sector-wide approach to emission reduction leaves no stone unturned. It is a generational plan for future prosperity, providing new opportunities for people and businesses. And it’s a plan that signals to the world that B.C. is going to lead the way in the transition to a low-carbon future.”
Then, further, on the issue of Indigenous participation, the project that they’ve spoken of and I’m speaking of, the Coastal GasLink pipeline, has signed agreements with all 20 elected First Nations along the right-of-way. The province has signed benefit agreements with 17 of the 20 First Nations along the pipeline right-of-way.
Each agreement provides Indigenous nations with financial support to address their priorities, such as training, education and employment. Just recently, 16 First Nations communities signed agreements to purchase an equity stake in the Coastal GasLink Pipeline Ltd. partnership.
T. Shypitka: Thank you to the member from the Green Party for the great conversation. It’s interesting. She’s right. We do differ on a lot of things, the official opposition and the Green Party. What we do agree on is the manner in which the minister throws out those four conditions to appease all sides.
It seems like I asked the same questions on promoting LNG in B.C. and how we can do that better and faster. “Well, we’re going to go by these four points.” And then to appease the Greens, he used the same four. It’s interesting.
Going to B.C. Hydro now, I guess. I don’t know if the minister needs a little time to get those folks ready. We could go longer, but we don’t have the time, I guess. I’ll just wait until they get set up.
The Chair: We will just take a five-minute recess. We’ll return at 4:08.
The committee recessed from 4:03 p.m. to 4:11 p.m.
[R. Leonard in the chair.]
T. Shypitka: Welcome to another segment here of this long process of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. We’ll be talking about B.C. Hydro stuff right now.
I’ll just start off with a question that my colleague from Peace River South had. That was on heat pumps. It was a fairly straight-up question. I’ll see if I can articulate it the way he phrased it. Does the minister think it’s fair to all British Columbians north of Hope and, I would argue, east as well — I live in the southeast corner, and it’s relevant there as well — to be taxed more on natural gas to heat their homes when they need an alternate heating source to run a variable heat pump system?
What is meant by that question is that variable heat pump systems need to be in place for those climates that can reach under 25 Celsius. That’s certainly true in my area in Peace and all parts of the Kootenays, for sure. We hit those all the time, so you need a variable heat pump system which incorporates a natural gas system. There’s a higher tax on natural gas. The question is: is that fair? It’s a simple yes or no.
Hon. B. Ralston: Responding to the question from the member for Peace River South, he raises questions about the ability of heat pumps to heat a home in lower-temperature climates. Cold climate heat pumps are designed to operate in colder climates and can continue to provide efficient heating at temperatures of minus 25 degrees centigrade or lower.
In some situations, a system may include or require some sort of supplemental heating. Even at relatively low temperatures, there’s enough ambient heat in the outside air for a cold climate heat pump to heat a home, I’m advised.
What I do want to say is that the province is developing an enhanced CleanBC heat pump incentive for colder climate dwellings. That would include fully electric and hybrid systems. That work is underway and would be announced shortly, I would think.
T. Shypitka: The other part of the problem is the economics. The minister says there’ll be some incentives coming soon on these hybrid systems. But the problem is that with the regular heat pump that’s in the Lower Mainland, costing maybe $6,000 to $8,000, a variable heat pump system up in the north is going to cost you about 20 grand — plus, you have to have the natural gas. I don’t see a big rate of return coming anytime soon for those people that do it. Therefore, they will probably not do it.
The question was a simple one. The minister didn’t answer it. It was: does he think it’s fair to British Columbians to tax them on natural gas when they essentially need it to run hybrid systems? I’ll ask the minister again: does he think it’s fair?
Hon. B. Ralston: Just to respond to the member’s query, let me repeat again that the province is developing an enhanced CleanBC heat pump incentive for colder climate dwellings that will include fully electric and hybrid systems. The budgetary number that’s anticipated is $16 million over three years.
T. Shypitka: I won’t belabour this point too long, but you’d think these kinds of incentives would have come out before the tax went in. I think the answer should be: no, it’s not fair. It’s not fair to tax people on natural gas to heat their homes to essentially live when that’s their only option.
We don’t all live in the Lower Mainland, unfortunately. It’s beautiful down here, a nice temperate zone. But there are folks, many folks like myself, that live in climates that do get below minus 25 quite regularly, and to be taxed on that lifestyle, I guess, in British Columbia, I think is not right. But I won’t go any deeper into that.
I will go into now…. The Office of the Auditor General just came out today with a fraud risk management report for the Site C dam and hydroelectricity project. I’m sure the minister has already seen this report. A first question to the minister: has he reviewed it and accepted the Auditor General’s recommendations for B.C. Hydro on Site C for fraud prevention?
Hon. B. Ralston: The member points out that, I think, this report was issued just this morning, so it is very topical. It’s an examination of the systems that might be in place or are in place to detect fraud. The report doesn’t speak to finding cases of fraud, and that was not the purpose of the report.
It’s looking at fraud risk controls within the organization. The report confirms that Hydro has elements of fraud risk management, including controls to defend against fraud threats. Earlier this year, Hydro implemented a new fraud risk policy that formalizes its fraud risk management program.
The member asked about the recommendations. All five recommendations of the Auditor General have been accepted, and certainly, it welcomes the ideas that have been put forward in order to complete its fraud risk management program. Many of the recommendations are in the process of being implemented, and Hydro will work to implement all of the recommendations as quickly as possible.
I would say, in addition, that all B.C. Hydro employees conduct annual code of conduct training, and B.C. Hydro will add specific fraud risk elements in the next round of training.
Just let me conclude that, clearly and emphatically, B.C. Hydro does not tolerate fraud as an organization. Certainly, one would not expect them to, but it’s not part of the corporate culture. It’s not tolerated at all.
T. Shypitka: That’s reassuring, for sure.
Looking at the five recommendations, No. 5, regularly evaluating fraud risk program management effectiveness. Does the minister expect B.C. Hydro to internally review its own fraud risk program, or will that be done by a third party, independent?
Hon. B. Ralston: B.C. Hydro has an internal audit department, just as the government has an internal audit function within the Ministry of Finance. That unit operates independently. They choose their own audit targets. There’s oversight from the auditor of B.C. Hydro, who in this case is the Auditor General of British Columbia. That oversight function is dealt with in that way.
B.C. Hydro has performed — since this report does deal with Site C — some targeted Site C evaluations. The internal audit services unit that I referred to has audited Site C’s procurement, contract management processes and practices. They also completed an audit of Site C’s payment verification controls in the fall of 2021, and there were no major findings. That, I think, deals with the concerns that are raised in recommendation 5.
T. Shypitka: So B.C. Hydro will internally review its own fraud risk program. I guess the simple question, and the most obvious question, would be: would the minister consider that a conflict of any kind? I know he has highlighted some other areas where this kind of auditing happens. Maybe he can make a comment on that. Why did it take till January of 2022 for B.C. Hydro to approve a fraud risk policy?
Hon. B. Ralston: Let’s deal first with the issue of January 2022. Hydro has had a code of conduct in place and a fraud risk management process, along with that code of conduct. The reason it was adopted then was that the Auditor General said that he wanted to see a fraud risk policy adopted. Notwithstanding — he acknowledged their existence — these other policies and measures, he wanted to see a fraud risk policy adopted by the organization. That went to the board, following his recommendation, and was adopted.
In terms of the reference that the member makes to a potential conflict of interest, the internal audit function is independent and selects its own targets, but there’s oversight of that by the audit committee of the board. The regulator, the BCUC, also has an oversight capacity.
In addition, the auditor of the company, the Auditor General of British Columbia, who happens to perform that function for BC Hydro, also has an oversight capacity. Any issues about those concerns are addressed through that multiple-oversight policy. Given that none of them, I’m told, have suggested that there is a conflict of interest, they’re not concerned about that.
T. Shypitka: That’s what we thought about the B.C. insurance board back in 2018 too — that there’d be no conflict — but Peter Milburn summed that up pretty well.
I’m looking on page 7 of the report. It’s engineering and construction fraud, and it’s fairly substantial. The Auditor General puts out some key suggestions here. He says: “Infrastructure projects are unique, and the larger and more complex they become, the harder it is to compare costs and detect corruption and fraud.” Well, in the case of Site C, it doesn’t get much larger than that. It’s the largest public infrastructure project in B.C. history.
The second point is: “Large infrastructure project relationships and transaction chains are complex, making it easier to blame others or submit false claims for payment.”
The third one is: “Substandard materials and workmanship can be concealed behind other components of the project. Close supervision is required as work progresses.”
Now, the Auditor General also did highlight: “B.C. Hydro’s internal framework of control includes elements of fraud risk management, but it has not established a fraud risk management program for the Site C project.”
Because the ministry has accepted the recommendations from the Auditor General, it suggests that there could have been fraud. There may have been fraud on this site. We don’t really, completely know. We’ve never done an audit. As a matter of fact, in this report, it says: “We did not conduct a fraud investigation. We did not look for potential instances of fraud on the Site C project.”
This would be another question. Why? When we see a project, such as Site C, that has had cost overruns of $8 billion here, in the last little while — and without a proper fraud risk management program in place — one could lean to thinking that maybe there was some fraud. Maybe there were some overruns that were unaccounted for.
We have been in estimates before where the minister equated the overrun, the $8 billion, to be 50 percent COVID and 50 percent geotechnical issues. Maybe, I guess, the question to the minister would be…. How confident is he now that that is the same 50-50 on the overruns — and not, perhaps, some other element, such as fraud?
Hon. B. Ralston: Yes. I thank the member for the question. The passage that the member has read from the report is the writer talking about the general problem in large construction projects. It’s not talking specifically about the Site C project. Yes, there was no fraud investigation conducted. The terms of reference are set by the Auditor General himself. He’s an independent officer of the Legislature, so that’s not something that B.C. Hydro had control over.
I would go back to say that as part of the management processes of Hydro, of the Site C project, the internal audit services conducted…. They audited Site C’s procurement and contract management processes and practices in 2017, and they completed an audit of Site C’s payment verification controls in 2021.
Ongoing oversight, a mature and sophisticated awareness of the fraud risks, audits conducted of those processes over a lengthy period of time…. There’s no belief by Hydro management, based on all of the work that’s been done, all of the insights that have been gained by those audits, that there was any fraud involved in any of the processes at the Site C project.
T. Shypitka: Well, that’s the thing of fraud. You usually can’t detect it, and that’s why you need fraud management programs in place to detect something that you don’t know. I can believe the minister saying they don’t believe there was any fraud, but if that’s the case, then why even have a program in the first place?
I find it hard to believe that $8 billion was due to COVID. There are supply chain issues. I get it. All those kinds of things. But $8 billion is a lot of money.
We’ll slip into a little bit of something else here. Then we’ll get into some energy purchasing agreements, independent power producers — their role, how they play.
It wasn’t long ago that I gave a little bit of a shout-out to the Silversmith generating station of Sandon, B.C. It’s 125 years that they’ve been running — the longest-running alternating current system, I believe, in western Canada, maybe even Canada. Quite a feat, actually. I don’t even know if you’d call them an independent power producer, because they were around before B.C. Hydro even started. I’m not sure how that works.
I’ve got a co-gen plant in Skookumchuck Pulp Mill that takes biomass, in my riding — well, actually, in the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke’s riding. It generates power, puts it into the grid, runs their operations, sustains a mill that’s been there for 50 years, or a pulp mill, on the biomass they take off the floor of the forest — post peelings, bark, things like that. It’s the equivalent of taking about 18,000 cars off the road every year — very climate-friendly. When we’re talking about communities on the north Island that want to get off diesel, these independent power producers I think are very critical to securing our power for the province.
With the elimination of the standing offer program that was offered for B.C. Hydro and those energy purchasing agreements now that are…. A lot of them are coming due. Some of them are 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years long, those contracts, and some of them are coming due — some of them with First Nation communities, some with non-Indigenous communities, as well, and businesses. The sustainability of those communities and businesses is jeopardized by the ending of these contracts or the reconfiguration of these EPAs.
I’ll turn it over, perhaps, to the member for Vancouver-Langara. But first, maybe a question to the minister. Does B.C. Hydro see the standing offer program coming back anytime soon, and what is the role the minister thinks that IPPs play in the province of B.C.?
Hon. B. Ralston: Parenthetically, just at the outset, the member mentioned the Skookumchuck biomass plant. That contract was renewed by B.C. Hydro at a negotiated price, so it continues, with a contract from B.C. Hydro.
In order to answer the question that the member has posed — it’s whether or not Hydro is planning to renew agreements with the independent power projects — I think what’s necessary is to refer to the integrated resource plan. That’s a process whereby B.C. Hydro sets out its long-term goals over the next 20 years and its resource plans, a full sweep of all the energy procurement processes that it might have in place over the next 20 years.
That plan is the primary document to develop the future of B.C. Hydro’s activity. That goes before the B.C. Utilities Commission. Indeed, the application has now been filed. Within that application…. It will be the subject of hearings and, ultimately, a ruling by the BCUC. So it’s a major public document. Within that public document already filed, B.C. Hydro has set out its plans for IPPs, which is what the member’s question is about.
As he says, some of these independent power agreement contracts are beginning to come due from back in the first decade of this century. After 2001, there were a number of agreements executed, and some of those earlier ones, the shorter ones, are coming due now. So what the plan says, and this is public, is that B.C. Hydro will explore the renewal of short-term contracts with up to 19 independent power producers for projects that produce clean, renewable energy.
The intention is that those prices will be negotiated at market rates. I would say that B.C. Hydro is in the early stages of this renewal strategy.
M. Lee: Thank you to the member for Kootenay East for allowing me the opportunity to address the minister in this estimates process further.
Again, through the role that I play for the B.C. Liberal caucus in terms of the Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation area, I talk to a number of the proponents. To lead from what the minister was just referring to, of the 19 independent power proponents for whom contracts are coming due, my understanding is that five to seven of those IPPs are First Nation–led or a First Nation equity joint venture, other participation in these IPPs. In some of these instances, as the minister referred to, these EPAs, electricity purchase agreements, are 20-year terms, which date back to 2024, for example, so they’re coming due in the next number of years.
Can the minister confirm and identify which First Nations for whom these agreements are set to expire within the next two to five years?
Hon. B. Ralston: Projects that may have impact-benefit agreements between independent power producers and Indigenous nations…. So sometimes that’s the case. Unless informed by the nation or the project, B.C. Hydro is generally not privy to the scope of any partnerships or agreements.
The member has mentioned that he’s aware of five to seven projects with Indigenous ownership. Perhaps he could, in the interests of transparency, put those on the record here.
M. Lee: Certainly, I can take the opportunity, Madam Chair, to do that. When I do that, perhaps the minister, then, can respond in terms of the status of each of these EPAs and the arrangements that are being looked at.
These projects relate to First Nations involvement around Cayoose Creek, Squamish Nation, Líl̓wat Nation, Hupačasath First Nation, Shishahi Nation. I think I’ve named five.
The sixth nation is challenging to pronounce, Ka:’yu:’k’t’t’h’-Che:k:tles7et’h’. I could pass that up on a note, if you want me to write these out. I can do that, if that’s easier. Maybe I should have just done that from the beginning.
[M. Dykeman in the chair.]
Hon. B. Ralston: Let me say that as I’ve mentioned, the integrated resource plan has been filed with the regulator. In order to get the mandate to proceed, that process has to be completed. It likely won’t be…. Given that it’s before the Utilities Commission, there’ll be hearings and cross-examination and all that sort of stuff and then time for it to develop a ruling. That probably won’t come forward until 2023.
Hydro is at the early stage of engagement with those projects, as the member said, where the energy purchase agreement is coming due or going to expire in the next couple of years. Those processes are being developed. There’s early engagement with Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants in that process.
That’s where it’s at, at this point. It’s going forward, but to conclude any agreements will require the integrated resource plan to be approved by the Utilities Commission.
M. Lee: From what I heard, the IRP will be approved by the BCUC in 2023. In order to conclude any of the negotiations on new terms, which includes pricing at market price for the EPA, including with these IPPs which were related to First Nations, those agreements wouldn’t be entered into or at least signed into a binding agreement until that IRP is confirmed by the BCUC.
Keeping that in mind, certainly we recognize, as has been noted, that Indigenous power producers are responsible for 13 percent of B.C.’s electricity, and that represents about 80 percent of all independent power producers in B.C.
I have a two-part question for the minister. First is: what is the minister doing to ensure that Indigenous communities are able to build economic capacity and self-reliance from power production — that is, as we go forward, recognizing the makeup currently of First Nation communities involved in independent power production?
Then secondly, recognizing the timeline that we just talked about for EPA and pricing at market price, I’ve heard from Indigenous leaders significant concern relating to that change and the impact that it will have on those arrangements going forward, meaning they will not be economically sustainable to go forward. Has the minister and his ministry done an assessment as to the impact on market pricing on these EPAs going forward, arguably in 2023, and what that will mean for First Nations that are in these IPP EPA arrangements?
Hon. B. Ralston: Just on the issue of Indigenous clean energy opportunities, the corporation, Hydro, is working with First Nations Energy and Mining Council to explore those opportunities. That’s the specialist agency where a lot of expertise about Indigenous energy opportunities resides.
Secondly, I would say, just on the issue of pricing, B.C. Hydro has an obligation to negotiate in a way that keeps prices down on behalf of all ratepayers. That’s a consideration that drives any negotiation that takes place.
Then, finally, each individual contract, when concluded, will have to go before the B.C. Utilities Commission for acceptance.
M. Lee: I certainly appreciate the minister’s response, in terms of the regulatory role and the need for the role of the BCUC, in terms of ratepayers. That is a response which is somewhat indicative, perhaps, of where the priorities stand with the government.
Perhaps let me just pursue it this way, then, just to park that line of inquiry for a moment. Yesterday I had the opportunity to discuss with the minister the DRIPA action plan and, in the case of the Mineral Tenure Act modernization, we had a significant discussion around what that meant. We know, of course, that under item 4.3 of the DRIPA action plan, which states that there will be a co-development of recommendations and initiatives for clean energy initiatives for clean and sustainable energy.
I’ll just formulate the question, because we’re short on time. We had a discussion back and forth yesterday about what a specific action meant in 2.14. Really, on this one…. What is the timing for which this action item will be implemented, whether any resources have been added in order to do so, and what is the scope of this particular action item? Those would be the three questions that I would ask to the minister.
Hon. B. Ralston: I just want to respond a bit to what the member said about the priority of negotiating on behalf of ratepayers and keeping the cost of electricity down. We hear repeatedly from the opposition benches in the Legislature about the soaring cost of living. That’s raised repeatedly. Electricity, B.C. Hydro — it’s an essential ingredient of most household budgets and, indeed, of most businesses.
IPPs make up 25 percent of B.C. Hydro’s electricity supply and about 30 percent of the total planned cost. As of the beginning of this year, B.C. Hydro had 127 electricity purchase agreements with IPPs, which represent approximately $45 billion in future commitments.
This number and those contracts have to be managed in order that B.C. Hydro can deliver, in the long run, electricity, and our goal is to deliver it at below the cost of inflation.
I’m surprised that given the posture that the member and others have taken in the Legislature, he wouldn’t recognize that that is a completely legitimate goal on behalf of the people of British Columbia — to keep the costs of electricity below the cost of inflation, as an important component of the cost of living here in the province. I sense that his priorities are other than this in this area, but that’s a contradiction that he’ll have to justify to the public, perhaps at a future time.
In terms of 4.3 of the plan, the engagement has already begun with the First Nations Energy and Mining Council, with the First Nations Leadership Council. That’s already begun. Full engagement will begin in the fall, and those clean energy opportunities are very much on the agenda in terms of our negotiation with leadership and with individual nations, going forward.
M. Lee: I think the minister would appreciate that, as I mentioned at the outset of my questions here, the reason why I’m standing here and having the opportunity to discuss this in estimates for his ministry is the role that I play within our opposition caucus.
Yes, the priority is on Indigenous peoples and First Nations in this province. I would’ve thought that for the minister and all members of the House, when we unanimously adopted UNDRIP and then had the DRIPA action plan, that was fundamentally a priority of this government.
The contradiction is the fact…. This government has put in place UNDRIP, with the support of all members of the House, and the DRIPA action plan, and it’s co-developing recommendations and initiatives for clean energy initiatives. Recognizing, as the minister….
If we want to throw out statistics, of course, amongst the $45 billion under contract, we know that to date, $6.1 billion has been invested in First Nation–owned or –partnered IPP projects in this province over the last 20 years. Those are investments for which we have 587 ongoing operational jobs for First Nations, and 9,875 development jobs for First Nations. We talk about economic reconciliation beyond the importance of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and First Nations in this province. That’s the priority that I’m speaking to.
As the minister noted yesterday, he and I were both at the First Nations Major Projects Coalition dinner on Sunday night talking about: how do Canada and British Columbia get to the net-zero requirements, the targets? I would’ve thought that this government would recognize that there are greater priorities beyond just affordability. We can talk about affordability, certainly, with the highest gas prices in North America. We know we have alternatives. One of those alternatives is electricity.
I think the question I’m trying to drive to is: how is this minister, and the ministry that he represents, looking to coordinate and remove the barriers towards greater investment by First Nations in clean energy projects in this province? What is it actually doing in order to assist the removal of those barriers, in light of the importance of action plan item 4.3 in the DRIPA action plan?
Hon. B. Ralston: To respond to the member, the program that’s proposed is one of renewal of these energy purchase agreements. That will be the subject of negotiation, and that is, I would think, a completely legitimate commercial practice.
Secondly, what the ministry is doing with the First Nations Leadership Council and their delegated agency, the First Nations Energy and Mining Council, is co-developing Indigenous clean energy opportunities. That’s the very essence of what DRIPA is all about. That process will be co-developed. Those opportunities will be explored and agreed upon, and we will move forward. I’m not quite sure what the member’s objection to that is.
M. Lee: Let’s get a little more specific in terms of the nature and the approach that the government and B.C. Hydro are taking to the EPA negotiations. My understanding is that with what’s being presented and what the approach is to go to market pricing…. I recognize again we just touched on the ratepayers and affordability.
Recognizing that that is the approach that’s being taken here, can the minister confirm whether B.C. Hydro or this government will compensate First Nations if there is any negotiated EPA that puts the operator in a deficit position based on the existing approach that this government and Hydro are taking to those renewals of EPAs?
Hon. B. Ralston: The negotiations, such as they are, are at the very beginning. There has been no exchange of data or pricing or anything like that. So for the member to suggest that compensation is in order seems to me, I would politely say, premature at the very least. The negotiations are just not at that stage. I’m not quite sure where that particular position was formulated, but it’s premature in the extreme at this point.
M. Lee: I’m only conveying to the minister what I am understanding, to date. I appreciate the way the minister describes the current stages, let’s say, in terms of the discussions that might be ongoing and what that looks like. But I can say, directionally, the approach I understand, in terms of market pricing as opposed to costs of service, is going to make many of these projects, in terms of their ability with First Nations to renew under what, directionally, the approach might be looking like from government….
Again, the minister has commented that they will be at market price. That’s causing significant concern amongst many of the First Nation proponents. That is the concern that we are trying to address here. What is the plan that B.C. Hydro and his ministry have to pursue renewable energy as an opportunity for economic reconciliation in light of DRIPA?
Hon. B. Ralston: The member referred to the conference that he and I were both at on Sunday, with the goal of net zero by 2050 and major projects with Indigenous leadership and participation. What I think is clear is that beyond the issues that are raised within the energy purchase agreement sphere, there are other opportunities in hydrogen and biofuels, aviation fuel, marine fuel. Decarbonization opens up huge economic opportunities, and that will be the subject of the discussion with the First Nations Energy and Mining Council as we co-develop a plan for Indigenous energy opportunities.
It’s not simply limited to the EPAs, although I sense that the member is particularly fixated upon this sector, for reasons that may be obvious. I’m not sure. But the opportunities are huge and vast, and we look forward to developing those within the context of the DRIPA action plan.
M. Lee: I think my fixation is really a recognition of what’s been invested in the path under previous governments that have set this form of partnership with First Nations. There is certainly a record of EPAs that have been entered into, investments that have been made into infrastructure. I talked earlier about the $6.1 billion that’s been invested to date.
This government, by its approach, is putting at jeopardy the viability of those projects going forward and putting those assets that First Nations have also co-invested in at risk.
This minister may choose to shift to recognizing that there are other opportunities. When you look at the Pembina report, it cites that B.C. needs between 10.9 and 19.1 terawatt hours of additional energy production by 2030 to meet CleanBC targets.
So agreed, even if 50 percent of this new production were to be diverted to Indigenous clean energy production, this would also provide $8.25 billion, or $14.5 billion in investments in Indigenous communities. By order of magnitude, this is between 46 and 81 times the current budget for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.
How this government treats First Nations that already are under these EPAs and their viability, going forward, is indicative of the partnership, going forward. This is the concern. This is the concern in the approach that’s being utilized.
Let me ask the minister. We know that in 2020, when the government called a snap election in the face of the second wave of the pandemic, there were two significant pieces of legislation that were not brought forward because, as was said by the government at the time, they didn’t have the support of the Third Party.
One of the bills in question would have allowed B.C. to purchase energy from the U.S. rather than Indigenous energy producers in B.C. That was what was included. Now that the NDP have a majority government, is it their intention to go forward with the reintroduction of this bill?
Hon. B. Ralston: The member well knows the future legislative intentions of a government cannot be discussed in this particular forum.
M. Lee: Well, it certainly is a concern, in terms of the limitation of the growth of this industry for First Nations. The ability, of course, that would have allowed British Columbia to purchase energy from the United States, rather than First Nation power producers — and the current pausing of the standing offer program as well — is indicative of what sort of lack of opportunities there are for First Nations to plan forward in light of, as we’ve been talking about as well, the uncertainty about how EPAs will be renewed and what terms.
Those are three factors. Let me go to a fourth one now. The B.C. Utilities Commission had provided a report, their final report, which was requested, in April 2020, now two years ago. One of the recommendations of interest, in terms of First Nations considering their ability to be formulated as an Indigenous utility, is that the UCA be amended to require the BCUC to consider UNDRIP and the economic development needs of a First Nation applying for a CPCN to operate an Indigenous utility on a traditional territory.
I know, from some of my colleagues, that there are projects that First Nations are considering around this province, including in the interior of B.C.
I’m asking the minister: what is the status of the review by this government and implementation, going forward, of the recommendations that are set out, including this specific one? It does have an impact, again, on the planning of First Nations as they consider their own ability to operate as an Indigenous utility on their traditional territory and provide utility service as another option in this province.
Hon. B. Ralston: The report that’s referred to, the report by the Utilities Commission, on Indigenous clean energy opportunities suggested and recommended those opportunities be further studied. The recommendations were fairly tentative, without further study.
That direction or that concern has been moved to the Indigenous clean energy opportunity engagement with the First Nations Energy and Mining Council, the delegate of the First Nations Leadership Council. That’s where it’s being considered. That’s where it will be developed, and that’s where progress on this particular concern will be made.
M. Lee: Well, I would expect that based on the minister’s previous answer in respect to the DRIPA action plan, that will be part and parcel of the further consultation that is going on.
Perhaps just one quick question then. Perhaps I can get a brief reply from the minister. What is the time frame expectation, then, for the consideration of the co-development of those strategies, recognizing that it is a five-year action plan and, again, recognizing the minister’s comment that the report that was tabled with this government two years ago bears further review, discussion and consultation?
Again, if that’s part and parcel with this process, when can we expect the government’s position on the recommendations in the BCUC report? Also, with that specific DRIPA action plan item that I referred to earlier, when can we expect to see those recommendations co-developed under item 4.3 of the DRIPA action plan?
Hon. B. Ralston: The advice I’m being given is that we are working with a partner, which we recognize, but the expectation is that likely this work could be completed within a year.
M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister. I just would note that in the report itself, it does note that there were community input sessions, including with the B.C. Assembly of First Nations at their 16th annual general assembly held in Vancouver in September of 2019, Special Chiefs Assembly in March 2020 and 50 other different First Nation representatives. I presume that there was significant input by Indigenous leaders to this report.
You would expect that, structurally, if the government is considering — which is, presumably, the reason why the BCUC spent over a year formulating this report, from March of 2019 to April of 2020…. There was significant work done by the regulator to consider the recommendations that are well considered and set out for the path forward for First Nations.
I mentioned one other recommendation. Another recommendation that seems to make a lot of sense is that the government of B.C. should consider mechanisms to encourage the development of further economic partnerships between an incumbent utility or incumbent utilities and First Nations. Recognizing, again, the requirements for CPCN and the need, as recommended by the BCUC, that a First Nation, in looking at that path forward…. Their economic needs should be considered. The UNDRIP and, now, the DRIPA action plan should be considered.
What is the minister’s view in terms of a First Nation looking at moving forward with this sort of investment and assessment of their ability to be regarded, potentially, as an Indigenous utility in this province? There is opportunity that First Nations are faced with currently. So while this one-year process, this additional process, is underway, what steps should First Nations be looking at when they’re considering becoming an Indigenous utility?
Hon. B. Ralston: The process that’s underway now was agreed to by the First Nations Leadership Council. Their agency of choice, the First Nations Energy and Mining Council, is the partner. That process is being co-developed, and I think it’s not possible to give advice to an individual First Nation at this point, given that the policy is in process and being developed at that level. I think it would be difficult to give advice to any one of the 203 First Nations in the province as to how they might proceed, given the complexity of the business.
M. Lee: Well, I appreciate the response. In the absence of any other additional clarity, I would suggest that First Nations consider and look at the full details in the report, the lengthy report by the BCUC, including the case examples that they walk through and how things should be dealt with and specific references to CPCNs and exclusive jurisdiction around CPCNs. I think there are some meaningful indicators, let’s say, in terms of directionally, as recommended by the independent regulator, where the government should go in the area of developing Indigenous utilities.
I just have one final question, with the time that I have remaining in this segment of questioning at committee stage. I just wanted to come back to the earlier discussion relating to pricing. Can the minister describe to us what level of consultation, and with whom, Indigenous communities that are impacted, with regard to the pricing of B.C. Hydro’s contract renewal process to go to market prices set, in relation to the U.S. marketplace…? This is the Mid-C pricing.
Again, which First Nations that are affected by this change going forward have been consulted with about this change by government and Hydro?
Hon. B. Ralston: The negotiations that are being contemplated are commercial confidential negotiations, so those would be the counterparties, and that would be the nature of the negotiation/consultation.
M. Lee: Just one final comment in relation to what the minister said. Obviously, we’re talking about the market-based approach, which is going to market price. I would note to the minister that under the DRIPA action plan, there is a distinction-based approach, so I will have the opportunity to talk to the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation as to what that exactly means.
It suggests, of course, that we are concerned about the overall approach that the government is taking with Hydro to market pricing on EPAs and recognition that there also need to be a distinctive-based approach as well for individual First Nations.
With that, though, I appreciate the responses and the time from the member for Kootenay East.
C. Oakes: I want to recognize my colleague from Kootenay East for providing me the opportunity to ask a question today that’s very important to my riding in Cariboo North.
There is a very timely visionary opportunity for the government and B.C. Hydro to connect closely with Barkerville Gold and Osisko mines on the construction route of the transmission line that Osisko is building to the minesite in Wells.
A route that would follow the existing hydro line on Highway 26 would open up a generational opportunity and economic development for the entire Cariboo. It would impact Cottonwood, Troll Ski Resort, the district of Wells and much, much more. There is an incredible opportunity right now to facilitate that discussion as Barkerville Gold and Osisko mines is building that transmission line. They are making the investment.
Our request is that there is an alternative construction route along the existing B.C. Hydro lines that would facilitate significant generational economic opportunities for years to come if there would be the opportunity to get the groups together in a room and look at an opportunity to facilitate the route of the construction of that transmission line.
I should note that we in no way want this process to delay the existing permit that has taken a decade to get to the point where it is, but we’re at a really unique timeline. The company is paying for the transmission line. What we are requesting of government and B.C. Hydro is to look at the route, which could have significant impact on the region at large.
Hon. B. Ralston: I appreciate the question from the member. The Barkerville Gold and Bonanza Ledge project, which is financed by Osisko…. I visited the project. I actually went underground very briefly there. It’s a very exciting project, and it’s proceeding. It’s one of the major mine projects in the province. I’ve also heard the representations, similar to what you’ve said, from the mayor of Quesnel who advised me that there are some — in his view — future economic opportunities, possibly, along that route.
At this point, what I’d prefer to do would be to get back to the member with some more details. We’re not able to answer in the kind of detail that the member is requesting right now. But certainly that’s something that I will commit to do, and we can work together on that.
J. Sturdy: I want to bring to the attention of the minister a community in West Vancouver-Sea to Sky called Lillooet Lake Estates. This is a community of 170 lots that is approximately seven kilometres off the Sea to Sky Highway down the In-SHUCK-ch Forest Service Road with, actually, ironically enough, I think, a 500 kV line running pretty much right on top of the community yet without access to hydro.
These lots traditionally were occupied as recreational properties, so not necessarily on a full-time basis. But increasingly, there’s occupancy on a full-time basis. I think people or the minister may well be aware that the Pemberton area, of which this is part, in the last census, was identified as having a 34 percent population growth. This is an area where there’s much, much interest in housing, in people locating to.
The questions are really about the opportunities for these small communities of Lillooet Lake Estates and Heather Jean estates to get connected to the grid. At this point, they’re running gen sets, for the most part. There is some solar, but it’s a cold, dark place in the winter. That is a really challenging heat source or electrical source. Really, it’s gen sets, propane and firewood, which you’re going to be hard-pressed to get your electricity from.
Interestingly, in 2012, Lillooet Lake Estates was slated to become electrified through the B.C. Hydro remote communities electrification program. B.C. Hydro, in conjunction with the community, completed an entire community electricity plan for Lillooet Lake Estates. The plan assessed the technical aspects of installing the necessary infrastructure for electrification, the financial costs and cost-sharing between B.C. Hydro and Lillooet Lake Estates residents. In fact, they went so far as to actually put a deposit down on advancing the project.
Unfortunately, in 2013, that program was put in abeyance and ultimately cancelled. Eventually, the money, the deposit, was actually returned. Be that as it may — and recognizing that this is an opportunity for affordable housing — there’s a subdivision there, but without it being connected to the grid, it just creates that many more challenges for actually having a sustainable community.
What opportunities are there for this community or other communities around the province that are near but not currently connected to the grid to become connected to clean, reliable electricity?
Hon. B. Ralston: I appreciate the member bringing this forward. I believe we exchanged some correspondence on this issue previously, so I will undertake to follow up on that.
In this particular region, I understand there’s intense interest in real estate. And so the interest of these residents…. I understand, as I recall in the letter, there’s an association that represents the residents. We will turn to the resources of Hydro and get back to the member with a more detailed answer than I can provide at the moment.
I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:18 p.m.