Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:08 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 15 — Infrastructure Projects Act
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act, to order. We are on clause 4.

On clause 4.

Kiel Giddens: Welcome back to committee stage debate here on Bill 15. With regards to clause 4, we started off with the member for Langley–Walnut Grove asking some questions around that definition of “provincially significant” and asked about the threshold. We’ve tried to dive into how that designation is made.

We also had the member for Kelowna-Mission join the debate for the past number of hours and asked about the intentions of the government and the powers that cabinet is actually gaining here.

A serious concern that the opposition has outlined is insiders gaining some sort of a track on provincially significant category 2 projects, and we see a real problem with that. It’s not just the opposition that’s saying that. We’ve heard all along from…. Every successive day, we’re hearing more First Nations speak out; we’re hearing more local governments speak out. Just yesterday, the Urban Mayors Caucus was the latest.

[2:10 p.m.]

Here in Victoria, Mayor Marianne Alto and, in Chilliwack, Mayor Ken Popove have just written an open letter as well, aimed, really, at the government, stating that: “We’re worried about B.C.’s new Bill 15, and you should be too.”

We say that the opposition’s line of questioning in this regard is not without a lot of support out there in the public. People are worried about cabinet’s broad, sweeping authority — and again, I use the words “arbitrary authority,” in this case — to pick winners and losers. Really, when we get down to category 2 projects, naming projects that are provincially significant, we have broad concerns.

The member for Kelowna-Mission outlined very clear concerns on lobbying efforts for provincial projects and what that could mean. We don’t think that “provincially significant” should mean “provincially significant to the NDP.” We think it should be for all British Columbians, and that really has not been established yet in the course of this debate.

So with that in mind, we’re going to just dive into some more questions around category 2 projects and would like to learn a little bit more for the public’s benefit, for First Nations and local government benefit and the general public as well. But we really want to understand what provincially significant projects actually are, what government’s intent is here.

I’ll start off by asking: what objective criteria will the minister be using to designate a project as category 2?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We canvassed this question a few times yesterday, but recognizing it’s a new day and the start of a new several hours of debate, I’m happy to repeat the response I provided yesterday, which is that the detailed eligibility criteria, including objective thresholds, will be established by regulation.

The province had previously publicly announced our intentions around the kinds of projects we believe would be suitable for designation, around designation as provincially significant. However, we also recognize our duty and obligation to consult and cooperate with First Nations and the need to be willing to come to that conversation with a clean slate. That work will be done in consultation and cooperation with First Nations.

That will also create the space for broader engagement with other stakeholders and interested parties throughout the province, including local governments, federal government, environmental groups, industry sectors and so forth.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe just because we have talked at length in our previous discussions about category 1 projects in that regard…. I do appreciate the minister’s repetition of that. But I think category 2 has some extra attention on it, and I think it deserves a little bit more delving into what the criteria actually would look like.

So I’m wondering why…. I appreciate the minister has described that the criteria will be outlined in regulation, but there is just so much uncertainty on what that could look like. Why did government choose not to include the criteria for category 2 projects in the legislation itself? Further to that, could the minister outline some of the examples where provincially significant could be applied?

[2:15 p.m.]

I’ll just repeat my question quickly here. I just would ask again: why did government choose not to include the criteria in the legislation itself, outlined, as opposed to what the minister has described, leaving it to regulation?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It was always our intention to develop a regulation around the detailed criteria for a category 2 project, for projects that would be designated as category 2 projects and deemed provincially significant. In doing so, that regulation would be created in consultation and cooperation with First Nations as well as broader engagement with other interested parties and stakeholders, such as the business sector, local governments, federal government, environmental groups and other key interest holders.

We did, however, publicly disclose kind of a starting framework for discussion on the concept of what projects could be deemed provincially significant, which we have since repeated publicly many times, which is: a project of provincial significance must have First Nations support and provide significant social, economic, environmental benefits to British Columbians and significantly contribute to the priorities of British Columbians, such as public infrastructure, critical mineral supply, food or water security, human health and safety, energy security, post-disaster recovery, trade diversification, access to new markets, supply chain security, replacing U.S. imports, British Columbia’s climate goals and housing.

We had also publicly stated, however, that it would be our intention to explicitly exclude pipelines, LNG facilities, low-barrier housing and overdose prevention sites.

Kiel Giddens: I do recognize that list was provided publicly. It is pretty general. I think a lot of projects could really fit into that list, so I think that’s where some of the questions from nations and governments and other entities are coming from.

As the minister stated, there will be consultation with First Nations, with local governments, with the business community and with other various interested stakeholder groups on this. In the regulation-making phase, will the government be willing to entertain parameters, essentially, that these groups put on government scope, just to ensure that it is more limited? If so, what would that look like?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The regulation could include prescribing conditions, circumstances or prerequisites as eligibility requirements. Certainly, we would be developing all of that in consultation and engagement with the stakeholders that we previously mentioned.

We would be interested in receiving feedback on the types of projects that could be considered for designation, maybe some of the core requirements that need to be met. For instance, an imaginary or speculative project is probably not appropriate for designation. They would need to meet some level of readiness, and what readiness thresholds those are, we would want to hear about that.

There might be financial thresholds that need to be considered. We would want to engage on that question and hear about that. Any co-benefits that should be considered. Certainly, any designated project would need to have the approval and support of First Nations. What does that look like? So all of these questions we would be canvassing through the process of developing the regulation, which will be in consultation and cooperation with First Nations as well as in engagement with all of the other stakeholders that we’ve both described previously.

Kiel Giddens: To the minister: thank you for providing that answer. I think that will be helpful for groups as they’re looking to figure out how to engage government on this topic with their interests and ideas and potential concerns.

Just on that, to follow up from that answer, once these criteria are established, I’m wondering if there will be, essentially, a decision matrix or guideline that will show how the minister evaluates whether a project actually meets that criteria. I assume some sort of a scoring mechanism will take place. Is that something that would be made public? Is that scoring matrix and that framework something that is also able to be consulted on, and will it be public?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I think it would be safe to say that the conversations that we welcome include all of these aspects around the determination for the possibility of a project or eligibility of a project to be designated as category 2. Anything that makes it into the regulation and is important, particularly in our consultation and cooperation efforts with First Nations — that is important, from their perspective, to be put into the regulation…. If it makes it into the regulation, it will be made public. So all of that will be public.

It is important to note that the decision-maker on the regulation is the Lieutenant Governor in Council, so it is passed by the entire cabinet. Any project that is designated under this legislation is also done by OIC. They are also publicly disclosed in the same way as other regulations in OICs.

One other factor that will need to be a fundamental part of the conversation around eligibility for a designation as a category 2 project is whether or not the problems that face the project are actually problems that could be helped in some way by a tool in Bill 15.

[2:35 p.m.]

We’ve repeatedly said that Bill 15 is not a magic piece of legislation. It doesn’t automatically approve any projects. It doesn’t guarantee approval of projects. It doesn’t guarantee positive outcomes on decisions in terms of permitting decisions. This is especially true on category 2 projects.

There is a whole host of reasons why a project might not be viable, might come up with challenges along the way, might not be able to be delivered on time and on budget and all those sorts of problems that projects can come up against. This bill contains six very specific tools. So it won’t address all of those problems. If a project wants to be designated as a category 2 project, it would only make sense for a proponent to seek out that designation if their project could actually benefit from one of these tools.

So that’s another factor that would need to be weighed in the consideration of what might be eligible for a category 2 project, in addition to all of the other factors that we’ve previously discussed.

Misty Van Popta: Okay, so we’re going to reverse backwards on this topic in the sense of criteria and regulation. If we have a project that a proponent came to the ministry requesting to be deemed a category 2, because of needing to use a tool within the toolbox, what kind of criteria or disclosure would happen in the case that a category 2 project — which, again, is a privately owned project — say, becomes insolvent, or there’s some fraud or something like that?

What would be the government process to disclose that project or to reverse out of designating it a category 2?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: For greater clarity, a category 2 project is not only a private sector project. A category 2 project would be any project other than a provincially owned and operated and delivered project — so anything outside of core government. It could also include a project that is delivered by other public entities like the local government, the federal government, a First Nation, a Crown corporation, as well as private sector projects.

But to the point of the member’s question about a designation of a project, should that project need to be de-designated for any particular reason, an OIC by the Lieutenant Governor in Council can also be amended through an OIC by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. It’s the same process to amend or remove a designation as it is to put it in.

[2:40 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: Would that be outlined in regulation, the process for which it would be de-designated? It’s not built into the bill what that process would be.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I really want to thank the member for this line of questioning because I think she raises a lot of important considerations that need to be taken into account in the development of this regulation. It also speaks to the value of this process here.

We have the authority, generally, in government to amend or repeal an OIC without it needing to be an authority that is provided in our legislation. That authority exists. And the regulation would set out conditions that a project would need to meet in order to be eligible. Should those conditions no longer be met, an OIC can be repealed.

I again want to thank the member for prompting these questions, because it will be important for us to also build into regulation, and in our conversations, other conditions that need to be met in order to maintain a designation.

Kiel Giddens: Obviously I’m trying to understand the OICs, and appreciate the minister’s answer.

OIC is a tool that is — and the way that they’re publicized, I think — well recognized in the province.

[2:45 p.m.]

In this case, it might not provide enough information for the public to recognize how a project was actually designated, so I’m wondering if a rationale will be provided for each designation to be included once that process is completed.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The regulation around the eligibility criteria for a project to be able to be considered as provincially significant, or a category 2 project designation as provincially significant, will, as we previously talked about, be developed in consultation and cooperation with First Nations, developed with open engagement with other stakeholders.

That regulation will be made fully public, and the legislation then outlines the kinds of information that must be made public as part of an OIC when each project, or class of projects, in the case of category 1 projects, is designated. This includes the scope of the infrastructure project, the intended purpose of the infrastructure project, the anticipated constraints, if applicable, the name of the proponent of the infrastructure project and any other prescribed details of the infrastructure project.

I know that B.C. Conservatives yesterday were canvassing to some extent the disclosures being required by the legislation under an OIC and expressing concern that this would be too much information to expect to be disclosed of a private proponent project, but we believe that these are important disclosures for the public.

Misty Van Popta: I think yesterday’s line of questioning in regards to that had a lot to do with category 1, but in regards to also category 2, looping back to the anticipated constraints, is there a way to challenge? If the public wants to challenge that something for an anticipated constraint was removed or wasn’t included, whether it be an environmental or a fiscal risk, is there a way for the anticipated list that’s included in the regulation to be challenged by either the proponent or the public if they know that there’s some sort of risk associated that hasn’t been outlined? I’m thinking of….

I know that it has previously been said that “controversial” projects wouldn’t be looped into what are category 2. But that could be perceived differently community by community, so something that might be contentious to a small group of people. Maybe from an upper level of government, it might not be viewed as a controversial project, but to a small group, it might be anticipating protests or otherwise.

When I think about anticipated constraints, is there a way to…? If somebody feels that the list is incomplete about the anticipated constraints, how does that get amended?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I just want to make it clear again, because I know, even if not intended by the member, that there’s often a misperception that having a project designated as a category 2 project and provincially significant somehow allows that project to access a whole lot of benefits across government. It is not the case. That designation only allows those projects to access the six specific streamlining tools of the act.

In the disclosure under 4(3)(c), “constraints” refers to the defined word “constraint” under section 1, which, in relation to an infrastructure project, means a measure that, unless replaced under section 12 or 19, may impede or otherwise interfere with the completion or operations of the infrastructure project.

[2:55 p.m.]

What 4(3)(c) refers to is that we must disclose what constraints the project is looking to resolve with access to streamlining tools within the bill.

As we move through the bill, we’ll also be able to see that designation of a project does not automatically give that project access to all six streamlining tools either. The tools are assigned case by case depending on the constraint that the project is looking to resolve. Thus, understanding the constraint it is looking to resolve is important and also equally important to disclose.

Misty Van Popta: Thank you for that clarity. I understand that much better now.

Yesterday the minister talked at great length about the process for category 1 projects, and when they become a project. After they’ve been funded and such, they are now deemed a project. If we come back, in regard to category 2, my understanding is that a proponent has come to the ministry; it’s already a project at that point in the sense that somebody else is funding it and things like that.

My question comes more to disclosure of a category 2. On the category 1 or provincially funded projects, anything over $50 million needs to be disclosed by the public. Under that threshold, it’s not as transparent.

My question on a category 2 would be in the same vein. What are the disclosure requirements for a category 2 project, especially if it’s under the $50 million threshold? Say you’ve got a little tiny bridge, and a small community requires the ministry’s help with completing it, and it’s under $50 million. Are all category 2 projects going to be disclosed?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Without presupposing the actual thresholds around eligibility for a category 2 project, because of course we have to do that work in consultation and cooperation with First Nations, any category 2 project that is designated under this act will have to follow the disclosures that are outlined in section 4(3).

Misty Van Popta: Just more of a general question, especially when it comes to regional or projects…. Clause 4 does not require any type of regional or local government resolution that they support a category 2 project. I can think of some cases where a project is not deemed appropriate by a local government, but a proponent has come, private sector or Crown or otherwise, to the ministry.

I’m wondering why a piece is not required…. Especially in light of some of the commentary that we’ve been hearing in regard to consultations, why are there not provisions for either local government or council or regional director support for, or objection to, a category 2 project?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The requirements are not set out in legislation. They will be set out by regulation. The requirements for a category 2 project to be deemed provincially significant will be set out in regulation. Through the development of that regulation, we certainly expect and hope to hear from local governments as to what kind of thresholds we need to consider, including a level of broad support and so forth.

I will also note that sections 10 to 20 talk extensively about how we will work with local governments to collaboratively come to creative solutions or help resolve disagreements and so forth, in a step-by-step escalating process.

I’m really looking forward to canvassing those sections because I know there will be a lot to learn from the member.

[3:05 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: We’re spending a lot of time on clause 4, but clause 4 is a central provision of Bill 15. Over the last 24 hours, we’ve canvassed a variety of questions and issues, and I have a lot of questions still on clause 4.

I want to start by thanking the minister and thanking the minister’s senior staff for all the time and effort that is going into answering these questions. We have our differences. Sometimes you’re surprised we have differences, but I just want to emphasize that we’re bringing these questions in good faith, and we really appreciate the effort and the time that is going into this.

For this afternoon, this evening and yesterday, I certainly don’t want you to take anything from my comments and demeanor at times that I don’t fully appreciate the great effort that’s going into having what is an important democratic process.

I’m going to provide a bit of context for a series of questions. Yesterday, the Premier received an open letter on Bills 14 and 15 from the First Nations Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, essentially three of the most important, long-standing governance councils for First Nations and Indigenous people in B.C.

In the last paragraph of that letter, the leadership council, UBCIC and the B.C. Assembly of First Nations stated:

“We were dismayed with your summary,”

that’s the Premier’s summary response,

“at the May 15 meeting that you will not withdraw Bills 14 and 15 to allow for meaningful consultation between our government and First Nations in B.C. over the summer on necessary amendments. We need you to understand that there are 204 First Nations in British Columbia, and while you may find support among a select few, who we wish well, your refusal to withdraw the bills will have serious impacts on the First Nations and many First Nations relationships with your government. These impacts could well be irreparable.”

It is in that context that I’ll be raising a variety of questions in relation to clause 4.

I just want to make the point that we’re in a time allocation framework right now, where we in the Green caucus sought and requested evenings till midnight, Fridays, weekends, extend the session to allow the full amount of time to actually deliberate on this bill. Because of time allocation, we’re probably ending up loading questions into clause 4, although it is a key clause, that we would, in the normal course, raise later.

The point that the nations are making is that you either deal with the nations now or you deal with the nations later. I understand the motivation to move this legislation through and to have it passed and have royal assent by Thursday at 4:30.

We know the Premier is in Asia next week, and I’m sure the Premier would like nothing better than to be able to say: “We’ve passed legislation related to trade barriers and tariff response. We’ve passed legislation to streamline and accelerate renewable power projects. We’ve passed Bill 15, which will allow us to streamline the approval processes and designate provincially significant infrastructure projects, private or public, to take advantage of the six tools in this legislation.”

[3:10 p.m.]

That will be announced in parts of Asia and other stops on the Premier’s trip or in meetings with the Prime Minister or other Premiers. The message will be: “Well, we’re open for business.”

But you’re not, because the next question will be: “Have you got First Nations in British Columbia on board with these bills, particularly Bills 14 and 15?” And the answer will be an emphatic no.

What will happen is that as regulations or development projects are designated, there will be litigation. I mean, the communication from the nations is clear. These impacts could well be irreparable. The trust has been broken.

What we’ve been saying is we need an exposure bill. The government has the ability, with the support of the Green and Conservative caucuses, to actually stop this process, to take this out of time allocation, to take the summer months to do the work and restore the trust with nations and then be able to say to people and agencies and organizations that the Premier is meeting next week that we’ve taken the first step, that over the summer we’re going to build the consensus with First Nations and address local government issues, and that in the fall, we’ll be finalizing this legislation. That would be just as effective a way to say that we’re open for business.

On to the legislation. There are several aspects to clause 4 that relate to reconciliation, to core territory, to prior consent on private projects, to prior consent on public projects and to analysis of whether, in fact, clause 4 is consistent with UNDRIP.

I’d like to begin by discussing the issue of consent in relation to clause 4. I want to also touch on the Declaration Act. Once again, let me quote from the representatives of 204 First Nations in this province.

“Section 20 in Bill 15 and section 13(2) in Bill 14 are the only provisions that refer to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the Declaration Act. Neither of these provisions state that the legislation cannot be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with the protections of the Declaration Act or UNDRIP. Rather, they merely adopt the definition of Indigenous peoples from the Declaration Act.

If the intention behind these provisions is to set out a requirement that the legislation not be interpreted inconsistently with the Declaration Act or the UN declaration, amendments to the wording are required. If that was not the intention, we do not understand how you could make statements that were made to that effect on May 15.”

My first question to the minister is: will you amend Bill 15 to make it clear that clause 4 — and all the rest, but let’s focus on clause 4 — has to be interpreted consistent with the Declaration Act?

The Chair: Thank you, committee members. We’re going to take a brief two-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:14 p.m. to 3:19 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act, back to order. We are on clause 4.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’m pleased to rise to respond to the last question of the member for Saanich North and the Islands. I can confirm that section 8(1) of the Interpretation Act does apply to Bill 15.

[3:20 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: In the same letter from First Nations across the province, despite the Premier’s statement suggesting that consent from First Nations would be a prerequisite to projects, it is clear on the face of the bills that they do not contain a requirement for consent from First Nations before a project can proceed or, as in the case of clause 4, be designated for streamlining.

At the May 15 meeting, the Premier clarified that future regulations would set out that a private project can only be designated for fast-tracking if the First Nation in whose “core territory” the project is located consents to the designation. Having this requirement in a regulation is materially different than having it in the underlying legislation. The Premier’s comments about consent being part of the bills is hard to understand if the intention is to put such a requirement in regulations.

This is more than just semantics. If the consent required is not set out in the legislation, it will be much easier for future governments to change the regulatory requirement as opposed to amending a statutory requirement. And I would just add that this has been at the heart of much of the debate around these bills. The ability of the Legislature, which represents 55 percent of the population of British Columbia in the Conservative and Green Party caucuses, would have no direct role in that process. Legislative oversight would be replaced by cabinet decision-making.

My question in relation to clause 4 begins with the question of reconciliation. I’ve heard, certainly from numerous ministers and from the government on repeated occasions, that the B.C. NDP government is committed to reconciliation with First Nations. Is that a fair statement?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

To the minister, would you agree that designating a project as a category 2 project under clause 4 that is not supported by the First Nations in whose territory it is located would not advance reconciliation?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We believe that any project that is to be designated as provincially significant as a category 2 project must have the support of First Nations.

Rob Botterell: I’ll note for the Chair that within the first week of being a rookie MLA, I was alerted by the minister that it would be very important that I stand up immediately or I’d lose my opportunity to ask a question.

The Chair: Excellent guidance.

Rob Botterell: I’m still learning, Madam Chair, but I’m getting there.

Where I would like to go next with the questions is…. The Premier has indicated and the minister has indicated that the prior consent of First Nations for private category 2 projects would be required to have them designated, if the First Nations in whose territory the project is located have consented. In effect, prior consent is required to designate private projects as category 2 under clause 4.

However, it is noted in the letter that the language is not clear, and having that type of consent designation and regulation does not provide the certainty that First Nations are seeking because of the much easier ability to amend and adjust regulations.

My question to the minister is: will the minister amend the legislation to include a clause requiring prior consent of First Nations in whose core territory a project is located prior to having it designated as a category 2 project?

[3:30 p.m. - 3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We attempted to table an amendment yesterday that would have required for government to consult and cooperate with First Nations in the development of a regulation around the criteria of a category 2 project. This includes the defining of consent and participating First Nations around that question. It was not accepted.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister. That wasn’t my question. My question was whether the minister is prepared to amend the act to provide a requirement for prior consent for the designation of a First Nations in whose core territory the project is proposed before it is designated as category 2.

So my request, just to be clear, and I may have confused matters, because I referenced in this legislation…. My question is whether the minister is prepared, as requested by 204 nations in the province through their representatives, to make an amendment to the act to require prior consent of nations.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It would be important for us to consult and cooperate with First Nations around the definition of consent and core territory, and that work will be done through the development of the regulation.

Rob Botterell: Let me ask the question another way. Are you prepared, Minister, to work with First Nations, as per the interim approach, to develop an amendment to the act that your government would be prepared to introduce to make prior consent of nations in whose core territory the project is proposed a precondition to designating a project as a provincially significant category 2 project?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Could the member repeat his question one more time? I want to make sure that I capture it and hear it accurately.

The Chair: Can you please repeat the question?

Rob Botterell: Is the minister prepared to work with First Nations in accordance with the Interim Approach to Implementing the Requirements of Section 3 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, prepared by the Declaration Act secretariat, dated October 2022, to use that approach to work with First Nations to develop and introduce an amendment to Bill 15 to make the prior consent of First Nations, in whose core territory a project is proposed, a precondition to designating a project as a provincially significant project, a category 2 project, for the purposes of clause 4(1)(b)?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We will consult and cooperate with First Nations on the development of a regulation associated with section 4(1)(b) in accordance to the interim approach.

Rob Botterell: Just to be clear, the minister’s response relates to the development of a regulation, so that necessarily infers that the minister is not prepared to entertain an amendment to the act as opposed to the development of a regulation.

[3:45 p.m.]

I won’t belabour the point. I’ll simply note that in the record and move to the next question.

The letter from the leaders representing the 204 nations across the province expressed concern about the words “core territory.” I’ll quote from the letter.

“As was expressed at the meeting,” so that’s the meeting with the Premier, “we remain quite concerned by your statements that a project must be in a First Nations core territory before it can be designated for fast-tracking. This concept echoes the postage stamp approach to Aboriginal title that has been roundly rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada and has been rejected by First Nations from the outset. No explanation is provided as to what core territory means nor who will determine whether a project is or is not in a First Nations core territory.”

Let me just add a bit more context, and then I’ll go to my question. Whether the government establishes, working with First Nations through the interim approach, a free, prior and informed consent provision related to designation of projects as category 2 under clause 4…. Whether that is done through act or regulation, the same issue arises: what is core territory?

The 204 nations are making it quite clear in this letter that that is not a concept that they understand or support. It’s a foreign concept, and I can say from my 25 years of practising law that it’s true that the Supreme Court of Canada has roundly rejected that type of approach.

Nevertheless, the interim approach does say: “It also suggests the possibility for Indigenous peoples to make a different proposal or suggest a different model as an alternative.” Initiating the development of an amendment to the act or an amendment to the regulation using the interim approach would enable First Nations to participate in the development of something that First Nations could support and that would be in accord with their preferred approach to defining the scope, content and impact of free, prior and informed consent for designation of a project.

My question is…. When the Premier met with the nations, the Premier used the specific words “core territory,” so the Premier and the minister must have had some sense of what they thought core territory means for the purposes of consent. My question, then, is: what is meant by core territory?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I think the member has succinctly outlined why it is important that the development of the regulation around a designation under section 4(1)(b) needs to be done in consultation and cooperation with First Nations.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

The meeting with First Nations that led to this letter was presumably intended to address the concerns of the nations. I’m sure it was a respectful meeting and a candid and frank discussion. But, respectfully, the minister and the Premier must have some concept of what core territory is. How can one expect First Nations to support legislation where the commitment for prior consent is undefined?

Let me give you some examples. Salt Spring Island, within my riding. There are 14 nations that have Salt Spring Island in their territory. They’re all in overlap. That would be an example where there would be no requirement to get prior consent because all of the nations are in overlap.

If the definition of core territory is territory that is not in overlap, there’s no territory that is not in overlap. So there’d be no requirement to get consent of those 14 nations — although they may well have very important rights, title and interests — because core territory is basically a foreign concept.

[3:55 p.m.]

The Premier and the minister must have had some definition to go on. I’m sure that prior consent for projects in core territory was not something that was dreamt up on the spot. The minister and the Premier are well respected, knowledgeable, experienced and choose their words carefully. I hold them in high esteem. They must have had a reason. They must have had a definition in mind.

So to the minister: is it true that you had no definition for core territory in mind when you raised it with the representatives of 204 nations?

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The requirements around consent in relation to the designation of a project under Bill 15 will be developed in consultation and cooperation with First Nations.

The Chair: The Chair calls a recess for 15 minutes until 4:15.

The committee recessed from 4 p.m. to 4:18 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act, clause 4.

Rob Botterell: For the purposes of clause 4(b), category 2 projects, as you’ve noted, there would be regulations developed in relation to provincially significant infrastructure projects. That would include provisions related to working through the interim approach with First Nations, provisions related to consent.

Would those consent provisions — I know we’ve discussed private projects — also provide for prior consent on public projects being considered for designation under clause 4(1)(b)?

[4:20 p.m. - 4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We are open to all conversations around the designation of category 2 projects as we work to develop regulation in consultation and cooperation with First Nations.

Rob Botterell: When Bill 15 was drafted, did the minister or did the government prepare an analysis of Bill 15 on whether or not it is consistent with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: An analysis was completed.

Rob Botterell: Sorry. I think I heard that analysis has been completed. Could the minister make that analysis available?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The analysis was legal advice. The member is a lawyer. He’ll know that all legal advice is privileged information.

Rob Botterell: There’s a significant lack of openness and transparency in relation to Bill 15. It is at the core of concerns being raised by representatives of the 204 First Nations in this province, local governments and others.

[4:35 p.m.]

The lack of clarity, the opaque nature of the legislation is the reason that we’re here asking numerous questions, because on the face of it, the legislation doesn’t answer those questions. There is always the option, as someone familiar with the law and someone who led the team that developed B.C.’s freedom-of-information legislation, to waive privilege and provide this information.

This is a fundamental issue for First Nations across this province. If there’s analysis on whether or not Bill 15 is consistent with UNDRIP and the legal advice is that it’s compliant or if the legal advice says it’s not compliant in certain ways, that’s work and advice that the taxpayers of British Columbia have paid for. That’s information that is vital to First Nations being able to understand the connection that the government and its legal advisers see between Bill 15 and UNDRIP.

Will the minister seek to have privilege waived so that the public and First Nations across this province can understand what that analysis says about whether or not Bill 15 is consistent with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous people?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I do not have the authority to waive privilege.

Rob Botterell: Would the minister then consider requesting that the Attorney General, Niki Sharma, give a direction to waive privilege?

The Chair: Just a reminder, Member, that we don’t use names.

Rob Botterell: I apologize.

[4:40 p.m. - 4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The information is subject to solicitor-client privilege. I don’t have the authority to waive that privilege.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

The response of the minister is unresponsive to my question in the sense that I didn’t ask whether the minister has the authority; I asked whether the minister would request that the Attorney General waive the privilege. And you know, in fairness, I don’t know that there’s too much benefit in pursuing this line of questioning, because my expectation is the minister is not going to respond to the question.

So let me move on. But before I do, let me highlight the reason that a request to the Attorney General to release the legal advice, legal opinion analysis, of whether the act is in compliance with UNDRIP is germane.

In this province, on this bill, there are grave concerns being raised by the representatives of 204 nations across the province, by local governments, by many others. But in the case specifically of First Nations, the concern — and the concern the nations are bringing forward in a sincere, good-faith manner — is that this act does not comply with UNDRIP and the Declaration Act.

The minister has the legal advice that will settle that question in terms of whether or not it is consistent or whether or not the minister was acting…. And in the absence of that information, everybody fills the void and they sort of decide.

[4:55 p.m.]

There are a number of scenarios. One is that Bill 15 is entirely consistent with UNDRIP and with the Declaration Act. Another scenario is that it is not consistent with UNDRIP and the Declaration Act; and there are, just hypothetically, five things that would need to be done to the act in order to bring it into compliance. A third scenario might be that it’s not in compliance. By not having that information, we’re all left to speculate. That just creates uncertainty, mistrust and an inability to pull together a consensus around this legislation.

So we’re left with an unanswered question that just reinforces the concerns that First Nations and others have about this legislation. Of particular importance is the rush to get this legislation to royal assent on Thursday afternoon this week at 4:30 before the minister is in Asia or wherever the trade mission is and be able to speak to it.

What we don’t know is whether the minister and her advisers decided to proceed with the legislation knowing that it was not in compliance with the Declaration Act or whether it was. That’s a big concern. I mean, in terms of spending of money, as my colleagues raised yesterday, the issue comes up: well, if you’re confident it’s compliant, then you should be confident to be able to seek to have the legal advice and analysis released.

I’ll leave it there. This is a very unsatisfactory answer to a simple question that would resolve a lot of uncertainty around Bill 15.

I have two or three more questions, and then I’ll turn it to my colleagues. I want to talk about one specific category of, potentially, provincially significant category 2 projects, and that is mines. An audit published in the Royal Society of Canada journal, FACETS, brought together researchers from Simon Fraser University and the University of British Columbia to examine 27 B.C. mines granted environmental assessments since 1995 with plans to open by 2022.

What we hear from industry and from politicians on a fairly regular basis is: “Oh my god, we need to accelerate and streamline permitting for mines because they just take years.” Well, this audit found that of 20 delayed mining projects, the most common cause of delay was economic factors like commodity prices, not red tape. B.C. mines were found to take an average of 3.5 years to go through environmental assessment — far less than the 12- to 15-year timeline cited by Canadian industry and politicians.

That study’s available. It’s not subject to privilege, and if it was, it would need to be waived because everybody would be asking what’s their source of data and be able to understand that.

So how does that relate to clause 4? First of all, there should be no reason to designate any mines as provincially significant infrastructure projects because they’re not suffering delays as a result of red tape. So my question to the minister is: will the minister take steps to exempt mines from Bill 15?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The member had a number of components involved in his question. First, I do want to state again, as I have many times before, that we are confident that nothing in Bill 15 runs contrary to our obligations under DRIPA or the Constitution Act.

[5:05 p.m.]

To the member’s second question, I want to clarify that Bill 15 does not resolve the economic conditions that may impact projects. What it does is provide tools to help streamline government processes without reducing environmental standards or reducing government’s commitments to First Nations.

Rob Botterell: The Mineral Tenure Act, which bears direct relation to Bill 15 and the designation of projects, is one of the oldest pieces of legislation in B.C. and one of the first colonial-style tools.

The province committed to reform the Mineral Tenure Act prior to the Gitxaała court case. The province committed to this work as part of the DRIPA action plan. The province promised to repeal and amend the Mineral Tenure Act by the fall of 2026, yet no stakeholders have been consulted, and the province has not met with anybody about the legislation.

How will the province reconcile their commitment to reform the outdated Mineral Tenure Act with passage and implementation of Bill 15, which provides several tools for projects that would be designated to be expedited? To be more specific, how can work on implementation of Bill 15 proceed in relation to mines when the Mineral Tenure Act is in the process of being completely revamped?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The Mineral Tenure Act is about prospecting, which is far, far earlier in the project development pipeline than the state of a project would need to be in order to benefit from seeking designation under Bill 15.

In short, the prospecting phase of any sort of mineral extraction project would be far, far too early for that kind of operation to be able to demonstrate a significant benefit to British Columbians.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister. That concludes my questions on clause 4. I understand my colleagues have some other questions to raise.

I once again wanted to thank the minister and her senior staff for answering the questions and taking the time.

I’m learning all sorts of new expressions as a rookie MLA, so I just want to say that I’m finished with questions on clause 4. Woot, woot!

Kiel Giddens: I just want to thank the member for Saanich North and the Islands for his diligence. I know, as he says, he is a rookie MLA, as am I. But his thoughtful questions and diligence are definitely noted and are very much appreciated.

I also want to echo his comments on thanking the minister and the staff from the ministry. I do think you’re providing a valuable public service for being here, so thank you. And to the minister, I appreciate the real respect for this process that she shows, and it’s very much appreciated.

[5:15 p.m.]

I want to just maybe comment on a couple of the things that the member for Saanich North and the Islands has said. Certainly he has asked some questions regarding the concerns that First Nations have really brought forward and something that we’re hearing loud and clear, certainly, and we’ve talked about that. Category 2 projects are an area that seems to be a real point of concern for First Nations.

But local governments are also really concerned with, as the member for Saanich North and the Islands eloquently put at one point, the consistent lack of openness and transparency to Bill 15. And that’s, I think, partly why we continue to ask for clarity around category 2 projects and clause 4 as a whole. This designation is important to note. This is a powerful tool that the government is requesting public ability to undertake.

Local governments, as I said earlier today…. I mentioned UBCM and their comments and then later referenced the Urban Mayors Caucus, who represent many of the largest municipalities in the province, including Prince George, Kelowna, Chilliwack, many of the Lower Mainland municipalities and Victoria here in the south Island.

Comments from Mayor Ken Popove from Chilliwack and Marianne Alto from Victoria…. I want to read into the record a quote from an open letter that they provided: “What the province calls speeding up approvals and alternative permit authorizations looks more like overriding and dismissing. This legislation provides cabinet with the power to overstep local jurisdiction, including municipal bylaws and permitting, for the purpose of moving forward provincial priority projects handpicked by the Premier and cabinet.”

So as I look into clause 4 here, and at that really broad, sweeping category 2 power we’re looking at, I think local governments need to understand what steps actually are going to be taken. We’ve heard about some of the First Nations steps but I’d like to….

On category 2 projects specifically, I’m wondering if the minister can provide a little bit more information to local governments on how impacted communities will be made aware before a designation occurs, how they’ll be consulted on that designation and what ability they’ll have to have a say in that process.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: A number of pieces that I think are relevant to the member’s question.

First, the development of the regulation around the eligibility criteria for a project to be considered for designation as provincially significant. That regulation will be developed in consultation and cooperation with First Nations under the interim approach. However, it will also create the space to engage more broadly, including with local governments. So we look forward to those engagements.

[5:25 p.m.]

Secondly, it’s important at this point to also reinforce that category 2 projects are not only large private sector projects but rather also those projects delivered by Crown corporations, by federal government, by First Nations and by local governments as well.

I’ve spoken to many mayors and local government leaders that actually see a lot of opportunity to work with our government through the authorities provided in this bill on projects that they also want to see move forward, be they category 1 projects, so those projects that are developed by the province, or their own priorities. As examples of projects that local governments deliver: treatment plants, water treatment plants, utility projects, community amenities like community centres.

It would be important for us to hear from local governments as to the kinds of projects that they deliver that they would like to see potentially have access to the tools available in Bill 15 so that the regulation is able to take that into account. We’re hoping to have lots of engagement from local governments to that effect.

In terms of once a regulation is set and we’re now into operation of the bill, in order for a project to be able to benefit from the tools available in Bill 15, they would have to meet a level of project readiness. We’ve said all along that we’re talking about real projects that are underway, not speculative projects that could exist in the future.

That means that they have a lot of work to do in order to get to that place. They will have to have had done their…. Again, I won’t speculate on the exact quantifiers in the regulation, but they need to have a level of project readiness. If they are deemed a provincially significant project, section 4 lays out the details of that project that would need to be released as part of the OIC, including for subsection 3(c), anticipated constraints.

We’ve referenced this word before. It’s defined in section 1. Constraints refers to a constraint that is removable under sections 12 and 19. Those sections relate to local government processes and basically mean that the proponent will have had to figure out what opportunities there were to streamline processes relating to local governments.

In order for them to establish what those opportunities are, they would have had to work with the local government and already be in active conversation with the local government to determine what those opportunities are for inclusion in the disclosure if they want to access tools, which we’ll discuss in later sections, relating to those constraints as defined under section 1.

In order for them to have that disclosure, they will have had to already been engaging with local governments.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

I recognize we’re talking about projects that will be at a significant stage of project development. But I guess I’m just trying to understand before…. Putting aside the project development but turning more directly to the decision for the designation, is it something perhaps that by regulation there could be a formal notice period to local governments that could be prescribed by regulation?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It is not our intention to catch local governments unaware. The proponent of a project would have had to be already talking to local governments, and we, as a ministry, would also need to do our due diligence to fully understand the project and assess the applicability of the tools to the situation. We could only do that by talking with the local governments directly.

Kiel Giddens: I do sincerely hope that that can occur, to make sure local governments are aware of and actually support a designation as well before…. I know that the way it’s written, the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes a decision on the recommendation of the minister, but really making sure that it’s at the recommendation of also…. That input from local governments and First Nations, I think, is also very critical in this case, especially for category 2 projects.

With that in mind, one of the things that local governments have mentioned to me is that…. Looking forward in the bill, looking at the part 4 powers, the word that they used was…. They’re worried those powers will actually bulldoze official community plans. That’s something that they’re very concerned about.

In relation to clause 4, I’m wondering why it wasn’t included, or perhaps maybe this was something contemplated. I would like to understand further. Why doesn’t clause 4 require a local government or a council resolution or a regional district board motion of support before a local project can be designated as a project to be supported under category 2?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: It is probably a good time to reinforce that the designation of a project as provincially significant under category 2 here, under section 4, does not in itself do anything for the project. It has to be assigned certain tools, and those tools are laid out in future sections of the bill.

There are six streamlining tools that a category 2 project could access. Again, as I said earlier, a category 2 project would not automatically access all six tools. They would be assigned on a case-by-case basis, depending on the challenge that they are facing.

Of the six streamlining tools, five of those tools actually point to provincial processes, and only one tool affects a local government process. Of the six tools, however, two of them do involve local governments. You’ll be counting on your fingers now. There’s an overlap here. That’s because one of the tools, which we can canvass in more detail later on, is a tool that local governments can use to request the province to look at our requirements.

The example of the official community plan is an example that we have used on a number of occasions. What it refers to is that tool that allows for a local government to ask the province to waive a provincial requirement that we have placed on a local government.

There is a process that we have set out in the subsequent sections around that tool, and it does include some of the elements that the member is asking about.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for to the minister for the answer.

Turning to subsection (4)(b), and talking about the prescribed details of the class of infrastructure projects, I’m wondering if the minister could explain in a bit more detail what constitutes a prescribed class of projects. It would help if the minister could provide some examples of what that would look like.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I answered this exact question yesterday. I’ll provide the response again. It is a different day, after all. Section 4(4)(b) refers to a class of infrastructure projects designated under category 1. They would be a group of similar projects. The example I provided yesterday was all publicly delivered modular classrooms.

[5:40 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for clarifying. We want to make sure that it was in line with the discussion yesterday. I wasn’t sure if there was anything in relation to category 2 projects that that prescribed class would cover, but I think I understand the minister’s answer there.

Going back a little bit more to subsection (3), the description…. We’ve talked about a number of these already, including constraints, and spent quite a time on that topic in particular.

At this point, I would like to move an amendment to that portion and would like to table that today.

The Chair: We will take a short ten-minute recess while we achieve copies.

The committee recessed from 5:41 p.m. to 5:56 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: I now call the committee back to order. Members, we have an amendment to clause 4.

Would you like to make remarks on the amendment?

Kiel Giddens: I move this amendment to clause 4(3):

[CLAUSE 4 (3) by adding the underlined text as shown:

(3) A designation under subsection (1) (a) (i) or (b) must include a description of the infrastructure project that sets out the following:

(a) the scope of the infrastructure project;

(b) the intended purpose of the infrastructure project;

(c) anticipated constraints, if applicable;

(d) the name of the proponent of the infrastructure project;

(d.1) the budget of the infrastructure project;

(d.2) a timeline of the infrastructure project;

(e) any other prescribed details of the infrastructure project.]

On the amendment.

Kiel Giddens: The reason we’ve done so is really about transparency. As I’ve said all along earlier, part of the concern with Bill 15 overall has been a transparency problem and that is that local governments, First Nations, the public, businesses still have a hard time understanding the entire scope of this bill.

Let me be clear. This amendment is not going to change the Conservative caucus position on Bill 15, but we do feel that this would strengthen the overall clarity for the public. I know in this particular section we’ve talked about concerns on anticipated constraints. Having private businesses provide some of those to government potentially could have problems. We’ve gone down and canvassed that road. But this is something that we do think is needed to be added in there.

Obviously this particular section talks about the scope of the infrastructure project, but that doesn’t necessarily demand that the actual budget and the timeline of a project is going to be included. I know we’ve talked about a lot of infrastructure projects. We’ve canvassed them in question period a fair bit — we did even today. I know that the Minister of Transportation will go down a list of all these projects, and a lot of them — actually, in fact, nearly all of them — are neither on time, nor are they on budget.

So transparency into that process is very important for both category 1 and category 2 projects in this case. We want to make sure that, obviously, that’s clear, especially projects led by government.

But I think also the private sector, when we do have those projects that are designated as category 2, we need to make sure that it’s clear that when government is saying they’re going to fast-track a project, let’s make sure that we know what that budget is, we know what that timeline is.

[6:00 p.m.]

So then we’re actually holding government to account on permitting and what they’re saying. If it’s a project of significance, as the government is saying, well, the proof is in the pudding in that case, because it needs to be shown that this has had any value whatsoever.

But by and large, when we hear from First Nations, when we hear from local governments, transparency about this bill and trying to provide more clarity is something that we’re trying to inject into the process. I think this amendment does add some additional detail that will be useful for project proponents, for the public, for local governments, for First Nations and those who might have an interest in what Bill 15 means overall in this province.

So with that, I hope others will continue to support this amendment. I appreciate the time, Madam Chair.

Misty Van Popta: Just to add a few additional comments.

In the disclosure and the transparency of project delivery are schedule and budget. I think it could also just be an interesting metric to have is that if we’re fast-tracking projects, regardless of who’s a proponent, whether it’s a provincial project or a category 2 project, fast-tracking or unlocking some of these tools may result in improved schedule times, which would result in cost savings to a project.

So I think it’s prudent that we know what the estimate is at the beginning when it’s being designated so that we can track at the end if fast-tracking is ultimately creating…. I mean, on the government side, I think it’s great if we’re unlocking some of this, and it’s going to end up…. Unlocking some of these risk points would result in the schedule being saved. It fits on critical path being able to track that. But on the private sector side, if proponents are coming, they’re being deemed a category 2. If they’re saving money and saving schedule, it’s something that needs to be transparent. So that’s why I would be supporting this amendment.

The Chair: If there are no other members who wish to speak to the amendment, then we can take a short recess for the minister to deliberate on her response.

The committee recessed from 6:02 p.m. to 6:07 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: All right. I call the committee back to order.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I want to start by expressing appreciation for the member of Prince George–Mackenzie for this amendment. I will say off the bat that, having heard the member speak in favour of the amendment, it was helpful to understand the intention behind the amendment and thus allow us to deliberate on the intentions on this amendment.

For clarity, we will not be supporting the amendment. However, it is not because we don’t think that there is merit behind the intention. I want to provide that context now. In releasing the information for budget and timeline of an infrastructure project, category 1 projects are already disclosed publicly. Category 1 projects, being projects that are provincially delivered…. We already have disclosure processes in place for these kinds of projects, so it’s already captured elsewhere.

When it comes to category 2 projects, particularly private sector projects that could be designated category 2, the member for Kelowna-Mission yesterday provided a very rigorous defence of commercially sensitive information. I think the execution of this amendment is challenged in that way.

In deliberating with our team, there is also uncertainty around what is meant by budget and timeline. Is the timeline referring to the start to the end of the project? To various phases of the project? Substantial completion? There’s too much uncertainty there for it to be built into legislation.

That being said, though, we absolutely agree that metrics are important. We will be working, in consultation with First Nations and in engagement with other business sectors, to understand what those metrics should be as part of the development of our regulation.

[6:10 p.m.]

If additional disclosures on projects are required for the designation of projects, it can be captured under clause 4(3)(e) as well. It does not necessarily need to be built in to the clause 4 as presented in this amendment. It could be captured under clause 4(3)(e), if required, on a case-by-case basis.

We will not be supporting the amendment because of the uncertainty around the budget timeline, the duplication of process around category 1 projects and the potential for release of commercially sensitive information.

However, we’ll be considering this as part of the development of regulation, and we agree that metrics are absolutely important. Government will be working towards gathering that.

The Chair: The question is the amendment to clause 4.

[6:15 p.m.]

There are two minutes remaining. Are we in agreement to waive time? Okay. Fantastic.

[6:20 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 6
Kooner	Dew	Boultbee
Mok	Williams	Botterell
NAYS — 6
Brar	Kang	Higginson
Routledge	Ma	Chow

The Chair: Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make the casting vote. In accordance with recognized parliamentary customs, the Chair votes against the amendment to keep the bill intact in its original form and as adopted at second reading.

Kiel Giddens: I know that the amendment didn’t pass, but I hope that the discussion around that can help inform future discussions and regulation and disclosure. It sounds from the minister’s comments and the course of the amendment debate that, I do think, that’s something that will be taken into account, which we appreciate. So it would be something that I would like to follow up on after all this is completed to understand how that process is going to go, if that’s acceptable.

Just a few more questions with regards to clause 4. I know that there has been a little bit of discussion on mining projects, so just understanding the scope of resource development projects, in particular. I come from a resource-dependent community, obviously.

One of those really important kind of…. A project that is often overlooked is actually the access roads. I’m wondering, under this authority of category 2 or category 1, I don’t know how resource roads could fit into this…. In particular, category 2 — could a resource road be designated as provincially significant and, in effect, have a reason to be maintained and built and completed at a high standard?

I’m thinking of the fact that the Association for Mineral Exploration has raised a lot of concerns about backcountry access closures and their ability to get new access into areas that would be required for mineral and mine development in more remote areas. There are a number of mines even in my own riding where this would be the case.

[6:25 p.m.]

I know north of Mount Milligan — the mine that’s operating right now by Centerra — they have projects to the north of there that are actually in other stages of development that potentially could be designated as a category 2 project. But the access is limited, and there would need to be some sort of a potentially permitting kind of constraint to be taken care of. So I’m wondering if a resource road could be included in this designation.

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I actually find this line of questioning to be really helpful. I recognize that in the format that we are doing this debate, the comments from members have to usually be framed in the form of a question. But also, I will say, I’m very eager to hear more suggestions from members around kinds of projects that they would like to see be potentially eligible for a category 2 designation.

The most accurate answer is that we wouldn’t know for sure until the regulation is set, because we anticipate that the regulation may include some quantitative thresholds, like around the size of the project. So it’s unclear at this point whether an access road could qualify on its own as part of a larger project that the access road is intended to actually provide access to.

But what I believe I’m hearing — and the member can let me know if I’m correct or not — is that the member would like the scenario to be considered as part of the development of regulations around eligibility criteria for a category 2 project.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the minister’s response. I’m glad that the feedback is useful, and hopefully that can continue.

As the minister was speaking, I was trying to picture the types of projects that I could envision. The one that came to mind, though, was one that I think would be out of scope because it’s an LNG project: the Ksi Lisims LNG, which is in Nisga'a territory.

So I think that would likely be out of scope. A major mine would probably be a better example. It’s something maybe to consider down the road, certainly. I appreciate the thoughtful response there.

Maybe another one, just to understand. Obviously, B.C. has different projects that are regulated by different jurisdictions as well. Obviously, a CER-regulated project, for example — federally regulated…. We have the Port of Prince Rupert and other federally regulated entities as well.

I just wanted to confirm. Can those projects on federally regulated lands, such as a cross-border project or a port, for example….? Could projects within that context be designated as category 2?

[6:35 p.m.]

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Providing a project in the context that the member has raised meets the eligibility criteria set out by regulation. The answer is yes. Those projects could be designated as provincially significant projects.

However, we would want to keep in mind the confinements of the scope of the tools that are available to such projects through designation. For instance, none of the tools of Bill 15 affect federal regulatory or permitting processes.

All this being said, however, I think it’s also worth noting that in the federal government’s throne speech today, they revealed their intention to pursue and catalyze — I think is the word they used — projects of national significance.

We look forward to working with the federal government to better understand their intentions around projects of national significance and where it makes sense for us to work together.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the chair. I guess we know it’s been a long day when we’re cycling through back to the same seat, but welcome back, sir. And thank you to the minister for the update.

I actually didn’t catch any of the throne speech yet today, federally, so I appreciate hearing that. It looks like we’ll all be trying to understand the provincial and national significance and what all that means. That’s a lot of discussion to come in that regard, I guess.

Maybe I’ll move on. I appreciate the minister confirming that these projects that are federally regulated would still be captured. I think that’s useful for the public.

I’m going to move back to a topic that we covered a little bit in category 1 projects, but I just wanted to make sure that it’s clear for category 2, specifically.

Is there a sunset clause or limitation on the duration of a project’s designation status, or is that something that would be prescribed by regulation?

[6:40 p.m.]

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you, Chair, and welcome back to the chair.

There is no sunset clause in the legislation. The designation of a project will be done through regulation, keeping in mind that designation in and of itself does not actually do anything for the project. It’s about access to the tools and the use of those tools that will be defined as part of the OIC.

[6:45 p.m.]

A completed project that has completed the scope of the infrastructure project might still be designated as such but have no access to tools. It would exist in name only.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the minister’s response. I think in talking about category 2 projects, understanding the total duration of that designation matters, for private sector projects in particular, I would say, in this case, just because it could present a material change to the project if a designation had to be rescinded or anything like that.

I’m wondering if the minister could describe an example of circumstances that might warrant an amendment, or a rescission, of a designation perhaps. Along with that, if an amendment or a rescission is made, if the minister could also just add, the public disclosure or transparency requirements…. Would it be the same as the original designation decision, or what would that look like?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The eligibility criteria will be set out in regulation. The conditions that the designation is being issued under would be set by OIC under section 4(3) and release the details under 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). If a project was no longer eligible, or the conditions on the project had changed beyond what had been set out by OIC, then the OIC could be amended or repealed.

The disclosure around an amended or repealed OIC would be through the same mechanism as the original OIC. An example of this might be, let’s say, a mining project that has met all of the eligibility criteria, and the scope has been set out in whatever way it has been set out. Halfway into the construction or the development of the mine, they wish to seek an amendment on the scope of the mine.

[6:50 p.m.]

That amendment would have to be reassessed, because it is a change to the scope of the infrastructure project, and the OIC would either be amended or repealed depending on whether or not that project is still eligible, and supported, for the designation.

Kiel Giddens: I do think the mining example would be a good one to just discuss a little bit further in this case and that potential for an amendment, but more importantly, probably, a rescission by some sort of a decision.

The reason is that I’m wondering if the…. Say in that mining example something material changed with the project and there was a decision to rescind and it was mid-construction. If it were midstream and the project were to be rescinded, how would the contractual obligations and things like that be looked after?

I think it could impact investor certainty. If they see a change in the status of the project from the province, maybe that injection of capital doesn’t happen from private equity or something like that. Then, all of a sudden, we have these environmental obligations that maybe are not being met and whatnot. The province would have to put other environmental orders and things like that on.

I know this is kind of an elaborate example, but I’m just going down the rabbit hole of the case of a rescission being made mid-project in some way and of what challenges could arise from something like that. Is that something that the minister could respond to?

The Chair: Thank you, Member. I’d just like to mention that I was sitting in on this discussion earlier when your colleague the member for Langley–Walnut Grove asked very similar questions. I would hope that you would perhaps reframe your question or ask a different one. Thank you.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do believe that was in relation to category 1 projects as well.

The Chair: No, this was in regard to category 2, when she specifically spoke about subclause 4(1)(b).

Kiel Giddens: All right. Thank you, Chair, for the clarification.

The Chair: You’re welcome.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe asking the question in a different way, how can the public have confidence that decisions on projects of provincial significance are not going to undermine environmental regulations or laws or, for that matter, the obligations to First Nations in that case?

[6:55 p.m.]

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you so much, Chair. I appreciate the guidance from earlier.

I must admit, in the process of listening to the question, I worry that I might not have quite fully understood where we landed on the question. I’m going to provide a response, and I invite the member to ask another question if I did not get that last one right.

I think I understand where the member is trying to go with this. The order in council will set out a description of the project as well as the tools of the project. The tools are set out for each project on a case-by-case basis. Those tools are also subject to the terms and conditions and restrictions in respect to an authorization of use of those tools. Those are laid out in other sections following this section.

[7:00 p.m.]

If there was a material change to the project, it would be necessary for government to reassess the project. I’ll leave it at that.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe just to finalize this line of questions I’ve been on…. It is possible that if designation was rescinded, that proponent may disagree with that decision. I’m wondering what legal recourse they would have if they disagreed with the decision to…. They may have other counterparty liabilities that they’re trying to cover, and they may want to understand if there’s some sort of legal mechanism with the government, or if it’s just through the courts or some sort of a judicial review process.

If the minister could describe that, that would be helpful.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: As is often the case, the recourse would be judicial review.

Kiel Giddens: I do think it’s important to understand that for businesses. I said that was kind of the end of the line of questioning. I consider this a bit of a different…. Similar topic, but it’s for a different purpose.

Obviously, First Nations or local governments could also disagree with a designation. I’m wondering if the minister could outline the process for them to challenge a designation and what that legal process, if it did get to that point, would look like as well.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I was wondering if the member could clarify his question. Is he referring to entities like local governments or First Nations that object to the province’s designation of a project as provincially significant, or is he referring to local governments or First Nations as project proponents that wish for their projects to be designated as provincially significant?

[7:05 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I was talking about the former, but actually, the latter would be quite helpful as well, if the minister can answer both of those. I hadn’t even considered that scenario. But the minister did describe, obviously, that that is something that local governments…. I recall that discussion we had earlier, so it does make sense that that could be how….

If they disagreed with a project being named as a category 2 project, what would be the recourse for them? That would be the main question I have, and if there are any comments on that latter point, that would be useful.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I want to preface my response by saying that it is government’s intention to be as clear and transparent as possible in the eligibility criteria for a category 2 project to be designated as provincially significant. It would be prescribed by regulation that would be developed in consultation and cooperation with First Nations and with the broad engagement of all parties.

In the designation of each project, government would endeavor to do their due diligence so as to prevent the scenario that the member is referring to from happening. So that would be our intention. We would hope to do all this to ensure that the designation can be strongly justified.

That being said, in the hypothetical scenario that government finds itself in the situation that the member describes, then the recourse for any entity — in both scenarios that are being canvassed, the former versus the latter — would be judicial review.

Kiel Giddens: We’re talking in hypothetical scenarios here, but I certainly hope that that does not occur, because that would obviously be a huge impact to First Nations with limited capacity. Local governments — same thing. Their capacity is very limited. This would be a huge cost for taxpayers and for nations. I really hope that that does not occur.

[7:10 p.m.]

One other group that could potentially have a challenge could be…. If a project is designated as category 2 in particular, and if an adjacent landowner has a project that is something that they maybe disagree with…. We do have these cases around the province where a project happens in a landowner’s vicinity and it actually devalues their property.

This something that local government zoning and planning and regional district planning is…. All those processes usually take place where landowners, neighbours, other businesses have that kind of ability to have their say in a process. But if a neighbouring adjacent landowner has a problem with a designation, and, in fact, they have had harms, including a devaluing of their property by an alternate process approval here, what sort of recourse would they have? Would it still be the same as the other cases — a judicial review?

The Chair: Member, I’ve given a bit of latitude here. But I feel that this line of questioning is getting a bit repetitive, in the sense that you are now going into various groups and asking which groups will have recourse. The minister has given an answer with respect to the type of recourse that would be available.

Perhaps you might be willing to reframe the question in a way that couldn’t apply to every single group. Thank you.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you, Chair. I guess part of the reason I ask is that the neighbouring landowners aren’t a group that we have talked about. I don’t want to belabor this point too far. I don’t have a number of questions on this. This is actually the last one in this particular line of questioning.

The reason I’m saying…. It’s not about NIMBYism or those types of things that are brought up in this context. But it is important, I think, particularly in this case where financial implications for a landowner…. I’ll use the example, say, of a wind farm that could be designated as provincially significant. There’s a neighbouring rancher that maybe has a challenge, obviously, on their property. They want to know what recourse they have to challenge a designation if they disagree with that provincial designation. What recourse would they have?

I think, Chair, if you may, this is the last question I have in this. But that example, I think, would be helpful because there are those types of scenarios in the province that could certainly happen.

[7:15 p.m.]

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate we have a very diligent Chair in the House right now.

Keeping in mind that section 4 is about designation of projects and that designation of a project does not in itself do anything for a project, it is the use of the tools that could enable a decision to be reached sooner.

In the scenario that the member is providing, under section 4, it would be difficult to imagine how the designation of a project in and of itself could devalue anybody’s land property. However, if a landowner — if any individual or entity — wanted to challenge the designation of a project, then they could go for judicial review.

Kiel Giddens: I do think that it does materially change a project if it’s been designated as category 2. It does significantly. If we’re trying to fast-track it, I think it does make a difference. But I appreciate the minister’s clarity there.

Just one question I neglected to ask earlier that I just want to ask, so I don’t forget about it. Could a project first receive category 2 status and then, later, be reclassified as category 1? Is that possible? Is that something that the minister could comment on?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We cannot think of any example where that would occur.

Kiel Giddens: I want to wrap up clause 4. We’ve been talking about this clause for quite some time, all day yesterday and quite a number of hours today. But really, this has been a very consequential clause to the bill. This is where a lot of the public concerns have been that we’ve heard about, that the government has heard about, that have come up.

We had the House Leader for the Third Party, the Green Party, and us in the Conservative caucus…. You’ve seen us aligned in a lot of this, our positions on these things. You don’t typically see…. You wouldn’t think you would see the Green Party and Conservatives aligned, but we actually do share a lot of values around things like democratic accountability and oversight, not to mention conservation of our environment and things like that. But that’s a side topic.

But I think fundamentally what we do share is that democratic accountability. Part of our concern with Bill 15 overall is that the Legislature is very much shut out of the process. These projects, as they’re designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, are a cabinet decision that becomes, really, in their hands. So we’re asking…. The public has to trust the government to be making these decisions, the cabinet to make these decisions. That brings with it concerns.

[7:20 p.m.]

I think there are concerns that we’ve heard. I’ve quoted Marianne Alto and Ken Popove from the Urban Mayors Caucus extensively, and they’ve said specifically, and I’ll quote: “Local governments are keenly interested in fast-tracking infrastructure projects, especially schools, health care facilities and housing, and we want to help the province do that work.”

That’s something we all can, I think, agree on. I think we want to see some of these projects fast-tracked. There are probably ways that that could have been done other than Bill 15.

I’ll go on to say, and I’ll quote again: “The province says we can trust them, but we know that we can’t give them a blank cheque.” In saying that, I go back to the fact that the Legislature is the accountability mechanism. This is our democratic oversight where all of us as legislators have our say. We’re doing that as part of this process, which is good, but we will be shut out of the later decisions of this.

As MLAs, we won’t have decisions to be made on which projects will be provincially significant. That will be solely within the hands of the Premier and cabinet. That blank cheque is just something that we still very much have concerns with as official opposition. The Third Party has as well.

My final question for clause 4. I’m wondering if the minister will commit today to table a report in the Legislature, a consolidated report, each fiscal year listing all active designations, their stage of completion and any cabinet-approved amendments, regulations, certificates or certificate alterations related to both category 1 and category 2 projects.

[7:25 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: All project designations will be published on B.C. Laws. Every permitting ministry has its own online site where all permitting decisions are also published.

We take the member’s point, though, that that information is, although easily searchable, not necessarily collated in the way that the member describes. We think that’s a very good, useful suggestion, and we’ll certainly explore ways to collate the information in that way.

But it is all publicly disclosed. In terms of category 1 projects, the member may be interested in knowing that project updates are provided and issued as a report through the service plan every year, annually. That will continue to be available to all members of the public.

The Chair: Shall clause 4 pass?

Interjection.

The Chair: We’re going to take a five-minute recess and come back with the division call. We’ll come back at 7:33 p.m.

The committee recessed from 7:27 p.m. to 7:33 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act.

[7:35 p.m. - 7:40 p.m.]

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote. The question is on clause 4.

Clause 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 6
Kooner	Dew	Boultbee
Mok	Williams	Botterell
NAYS — 6
Brar	Kang	Higginson
Routledge	Ma	Chow

The Chair: Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote. In accordance with recognized parliamentary procedure, I’ll be voting in favour of clause 4 to keep the bill and clause in its original form as adopted at second reading. Thank you.

We’ll take a brief recess of three minutes and come back. Great. Thank you, everyone.

The committee recessed from 7:42 p.m. to 7:46 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act, back to order.

On clause 5.

Brennan Day: I do have a few questions regarding clause 5, specifically section 1. This is regarding how this bill relates to powers between various the ministry departments, specifically with other departments, like water and land, that may have concerns.

I’ve been moving through a bunch of development projects across the Island with a bunch of people, and we’re having serious issues on consistency of the policy that’s being brought forward by those departments. So there is going to be a series of questions here just regarding how those will be settled under this bill.

Cabinet is going to have broad discretion to designate major infrastructure projects under this bill. What mechanisms are going to exist to reconcile contradictory assessments from within ministry departments, like water and lands, when it comes to issues?

[7:50 p.m.]

Disagreements between biologists and Water Act officials, for instance, are very common ones that we’re seeing across the province for something like wetlands before a project is designated. I’m just wondering what process is going to be used specifically here to clarify that.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: For greater clarity, section 5 doesn’t get into the details of particular tools. It is only about the assignment of tools to designated projects. But to help the member perhaps assess where he would like to delve deeper into the various tools, I’d like to provide a broader answer to the member.

The tools in Bill 15 won’t necessarily help to resolve all of the underlying challenges that the member is observing in permits for permitting processes of other ministries. But we can imagine — well, not just imagine. We can see opportunities where the use of certain tools in Bill 15 could also, on a permit-by-permit basis, provide greater clarity for a specific permit.

What I’m referring to is this: the use of the qualified professional certification process. In order for a qualified professional certification process to be used, a permit would have to be identified, and then clear standards and objectives for the achievement of that permit would have to be set out. In doing so, that would allow a qualified professional to make the assessment.

It would also then be a clear standard and objective that the ministry itself would apply to that permitting process, so we can see how the use and the development of the framework for the use of some of these tools could then also help to streamline, on a longer-term basis, that permit within the ministry.

[7:55 p.m.]

I will note that this work would be done collaboratively with those ministries, and we would identify which permits would go through these tools. That’s an example of how some of these tools might help, what the member is describing. The qualified professionals tool is described in greater length in section 6.

Brennan Day: I think that’s the perfect lead-in to, actually, part of the challenge that we’re seeing here in the qualified professionals. I’m working through another one, so I can use an active example to sort of set the stage. I think it’ll make things a little easier.

An employee of water and land, a biologist, has made a determination that undermines a qualified professional under the definition given in this act, in this particular case and a few other examples. They’re trying to apply legislation and qualification using U.S. standards to their definition of an active wetland. In this case, we have from the ministry itself: “Under the Water Sustainability Act, there’s a requirement for water bodies, such as the one in question, to be connected to a stream or water source.”

I note that WSA staff has indicated that no authorization under section 11 would even be needed to fill the pond. They’re saying, “Well, this doesn’t qualify,” but their own biologist, who is a registered professional, says that it does. It challenges here…. This is a member of that department. It does not demonstrate adequate knowledge of wetland science. So they’re overriding the qualified professional as outlined here.

I’m wondering how in those cases that gets resolved. If there’s a discrepancy between a ministry determination and the qualified professional on one of these qualified projects, how does that then get settled by your ministry, which would be the overriding ministry or cabinet in this case?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The scenario that the member is describing sounds very frustrating for somebody who is trying to navigate the system. I do want to be able to get into that line of questioning shortly, but respecting the clause-by-clause debate, it’s best canvassed in section 6 where we can really talk about the qualified professional reliance model more clearly. Section 5 is about the assignment of tools to designated projects, and it only refers to the assignment of those tools. It doesn’t go into how the tools work.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the previous member for asking a specific question there. I understand that we’ll save some of our questions on qualified professionals and understand the minister’s answer.

Maybe we’ll ask a bit of a different one related to 5(1)(a). I’m wondering if it’s the intention that the ministry would publish the designation of a public registry for every one of these statutory permits that, under 5(1)(a), has been replaced by a consultant certificate so that neighbours know which safeguards have changed. If there’s a rule that has changed, it would be good to understand how that publication of that notice would happen.

[8:00 p.m. - 8:05 p.m.]

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Pardon me, Chair. A question came to my mind that I need to confirm with my team.

Chair, thank you for your patience. Thank you for the patience of the members of the opposition. It is becoming a late hour, and sometimes our brains aren’t quite as quick as they were in the beginning.

The tools and the permits that the tools will be eligible to be used for will be set out by OIC and assigned to those projects, so it will be publicly disclosed in the OIC.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that clarification from the minister. I do recognize it’s a late hour. I myself just had to go take a break to go eat a sandwich. The BLT is my go-to when I need to just get something really quick. Just letting folks know.

In any case, I appreciate the minister’s answer on that. I might move on.

[8:10 p.m.]

I think we may save some of our questions along this line for clause 6, because I think it will get into it as I keep diving into these questions further on this. I’m going to ask a couple more general questions about clause 5, given that we’re talking about authorizations in that time frame.

Project proponents, in looking at it, often get into timelines on that, and that’s the first question that they typically ask. I’m wondering how long it will typically take for a project to receive authorization under this clause. How long will it take for a determination to be made and for that authorization to be given? Is there a timeline that’s contemplated, I guess, on the issues in this clause.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Can the member clarify: is the question around timelines for the designation of the project and the assignment of the tools, as under section 5?

Kiel Giddens: I think that’s correct, but maybe I’ll frame it so it’s easier to get where I’m coming from.

For example, in reference to the Environmental Assessment Act, there are legislated timelines. There tends to be a stop-start kind of process, but ideally, we’d have a hard timeline.

If we are in fact trying to get authorizations — especially, for example, any terms, conditions, restrictions and respective authorizations to have those happen — is there some sort of service delivery timeline that can be expected for that decision to be made?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I actually heard two different questions in the member’s last remarks. I’ll try to address what I can.

If the question is, “How long does it take for a project to receive an authorization under section 5?” it should be clarified that an authorization under section 5 is the authorization of a project to access the tools, not the decision point of those tools.

The process is the second part of what I heard from the member. If the question is, “How long will it take for a decision to actually be made on a permitting process?” that’s dependent on the tools. We can talk about that on a tool-by-tool basis in future sections.

[8:15 p.m.]

When it comes to authorization of the use of the tools, it really depends on the complexity of the project. We would need to determine and assess the project against the eligibility requirements for designation. We would need to understand the permits required — and the constraints, if applicable, that the project is facing — in order to have a fulsome understanding of the tools that could apply. That process, particularly if it involves constraints relating to local government decisions, would need to involve conversations with the local government.

The timing would be different, depending on how large and how complicated the project is, but the timeline for authorizing a designated project to access tools under section 5 is different — once you have the tools and you have accessed these tools — from how long that tool takes to reach the decision.

Misty Van Popta: When I’m looking at section 5(2)(c), the thing that I would like to just get into understanding a little bit better would be the word “restrictions” in accordance with this clause. How I’m reading it — I’m going to assume you’re going to correct my understanding of it — is that the LG could, in theory, put restrictions on the use of a professional certification.

Am I correct in reading it that way? If not, could you give an example of when subclause (c) restrictions would ever be enacted?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Yes, section 5(2)(c) allows for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, in the authorization of designated projects, to use certain tools, to also “...include terms, conditions and restrictions in respect of an authorization under this section.”

[8:20 p.m.]

A hypothetical example might be helpful. Let’s say under section 5, a project is authorized to use a qualified professional certification for an amphibian salvage permit, for all amphibians except the western toad, because it is a species at risk. That would be a restriction under section 5.

Kiel Giddens: Just following up so that I understand. Given what the minister just described — and it was helpful to have that specific example — could clause 5 feasibly be used to add conditions beyond what’s already required in, say, an EA certificate or even in just permitting conditions that already exist? Is that the case?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: No, section 5(2)(c) is only in respect to the authorization for a designated project to be able to access or use tools.

Kiel Giddens: Just looking at the overall clause, I’m wondering if…. Just trying to understand how it would work, as well, but could a project that has already begun work be forced to stop or reapply for new authorizations under this regime? Could that be something? If they already have their permit authorizations and then these powers in the clause are used, would they have to go reapply again to get new permits or would their existing permits remain valid?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: No, a project does not need a tool. Because they already have a permit, then they don’t require the tools.

Kiel Giddens: Actually, I think we’ll leave it at that.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

Brennan Day: A little quicker this time.

Interjection.

Brennan Day: She did warn me.

Now we’re back to the qualified professionals. I sort of preambled it before. I won’t go back into that. We know that oftentimes qualified professionals are in opposition to, potentially, ministry professionals on specific issues or definitions in their interpretation.

So given section 6 gives considerable weight to certifications issued by qualified professionals, but we see that sort of disagreement internally within ministry staff that routinely challenge or override the findings, how does the…?

Brennan Day: So how will those contradictions be reconciled effectively through this? We know it happens very regularly. There’s a series of questions that sort of stem off of this, so we’ll start there.

[8:25 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: There are currently pockets of government that do some delegation of statutory decision-making to qualified professionals. When we’re talking about qualified professional certification in Bill 15, it is a new model designed through Bill 15. We are not talking about what I described previously, where pockets of government currently use qualified professionals to perform some delegated decision-making. So it’s different.

Under Bill 15’s qualified professional certification, the way the system would work is if a project proponent was authorized to use a qualified professional certification for a specific permit, that qualified professional would be the one certifying instead of a statutory decision-maker.

[8:30 p.m.]

So it isn’t the case where a project would go through both routes and then there would be some discussion at the end. It’s one or the other.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

In order for a qualified professional certification to be useful, permit by permit the ministry would have to work with the existing permitting ministry to identify, for that permit, clear standards and objectives against which these decisions and these certifications can be made.

There is a process. Qualified professional certification is not something that can immediately be implemented upon royal assent. There is work that has to be done in order to set that standard and then decide which qualified professionals could take on that standard. Then as a project proponent, you could ask to go through that route instead of the current route.

Brennan Day: I think that sounds like a fantastic idea across the board, honestly. You should take that to some of the other ministries. I think that would be a great start in clarifying some of the mess that we see with permitting.

I guess, the question I’m going to ask, then, is about transparency of qualified professionals. We know, especially in certain cases under the list…. I was here and we reviewed that, so I won’t re-litigate what exactly each qualified profession is.

There are significant shortages. So what would stop a project from basically binding up and conflicting out the majority of the qualified professionals available? And how are we going to…? How would you reconcile the inherent conflict of interest if a project owner is paying a qualified professional versus the balances we have right now with having, sort of, that check with ministry being able to override?

[8:35 p.m.]

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Qualified professionals would need to be determined on a permit-by-permit basis because we would want to make sure that they actually have the qualifications to be able to make the decision, that they would have the experience and expertise. We would expect the qualified professional…. We will be developing a registry of qualified professionals that could be engaged to provide the certification.

All of these details are actually available in section 28, as well, but I’ll kind of talk about it more broadly here. In order to be on the registry, not only would a person need to have the experience and the expertise, but we would also want individuals to be a professional under a regulatory body — a regulatory body that has a code of ethics, registration and government oversight; for instance, a Professional Governance Act professional. They would have expectations around conflict of interest, in order to maintain their professional designation as well.

[8:40 p.m.]

Brennan Day: Can you go into a bit more detail on the registry? So it’s not a conflict-of-interest registry, just to specify that. Would there need to be a conflict-of-interest registry as part of this? I mean, if they’re governed under a body, that’s fine, but how do you determine…? If they’re working on multiple different projects, potentially under the same ministry, in this case, if it’s under Transportation or Infrastructure on one of these packages…?

I feel there’s a huge issue for conflict of interest in choosing the same qualified professional, for the same reason that you aren’t able to do that on regular projects, because you have ministry oversight. The ministry is passing that oversight over to a qualified professional designation under that.

How are we certain that we’re not cherry-picking the same qualified professional that’s going to say yes, even if it’s in conflict with other ministries?

[8:45 p.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Thank you to the member for the question.

The registry, which is spoken to in more detail in section 28, is a registry of qualified professionals that government has pre-qualified to be able to make a decision. They would be engaged by a project proponent, but in order to stay on the registry, they would have to abide by government’s standards for existing on the registry. That includes their ability to assess projects according to our clear standards and objectives for a certification of a permit.

We will be setting up a compliance and enforcement regime to ensure that everyone on the registry is complying to the standard. If a qualified professional is demonstrated to not comply with the standards and objectives that we have set out, they will no longer be allowed to be on the registry. If a qualified professional wanted to be on the registry, they must demonstrate their ability to be a trustworthy qualified professional in that regard.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 8:46 p.m.