Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 2:09 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects
(Streamlined Permitting) Act
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members.

I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 14, Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act to order.

[2:10 p.m.]

Before lunch, the member for Surrey–White Rock had moved an amendment to clause 8 to replace “prescribed” with “level 3.” It’s been ruled that the amendment is in order.

Is there any debate on the amendment?

for Surrey–White Rock had moved an amendment to clause 8 to replace “prescribed” with “level 3.” It has been ruled that the amendment is in order.

Is there any debate on the amendment?

On the amendment.

Larry Neufeld: This amendment proposes to eliminate the ability of government to add any project they choose under division 3, level 3 streamlining. If government believes that they need to add another project to level 3 streamlining, it is very easy to add as an amendment to this bill.

Currently, this government does not designate any project for level 3 streamlining, and so this amendment would require them to bring in an amendment which would designate a project with level 3 streamlining levels.

As we saw with the carbon tax bill this session, a bill can be brought before the House and passed in one sitting day. Eliminating this requirement does not inconvenience government. It only continues to ensure the supremacy of parliament.

Hon. Adrian Dix: It made me think how people would feel about a Bastille Day legislative session, but in any event, the member knows that the proposed amendment simply doesn’t work. It’s all very well. I understand the principle of what the opposition is doing, so I don’t want to be unfair. We’ve seen amendments such as this from other members as well. I understand the political point they’re attempting to make.

But removing “prescribed” and adding “level 3” would mean that there would be no way to identify projects that would be level 3 streamlined projects. Presumably, that’s the intent. Level 3 streamlined projects, by definition, need a means to identify projects — or else this and other sections of the bill would be effectively redundant — which the member’s amendment removes.

This would mean no projects would ever be level 3 streamlined and completely defeat the purpose of the bill, in terms of streamlining renewable energy project regulation. So the amendment doesn’t work.

I would just say, in principle, that we want to proceed. We’re going to be debating the level 3 process over the next number of sections, and I look forward to that debate with members of the opposition. But this amendment effectively opposes the legislation, opposes the intent, which members of the opposition have done at second reading and, presumably, will have opportunity to do again. It takes away the meaning of the bill’s successive sections.

Yes, we want to proceed with wind projects. We want to proceed with solar projects. We want to proceed with renewable projects, such as the ones we’ve identified and, yes, more in the future. We want renewable projects to be treated the same way that we’ve been dealing with natural gas projects for 25 years, and we want to do it the same way we’ve dealt with hydrogen projects — an amendment similar to this, unanimously supported in the Legislature.

So I oppose the amendment, and I suggest members vote against it.

Trevor Halford: Yeah, I thank the minister for his remarks, but it’s not going to be no surprise to the minister.

We’re talking about guardrails, right? I think that part of the challenge is that we’re seeing in this room — we’re seeing downstairs; we’re seeing in the House; we’re seeing outside; we’re seeing on the front lawn; we’re seeing everywhere — that there is clear overreach by government, in terms of this legislation and others that are before the House, which I won’t speak to right now.

It is a very dangerous situation for us to be in. The minister’s quite rightfully talking about future projects, but we’re talking about a government, a cabinet, that is going to decide who wins and who loses. That’s what they’re doing in this legislation and other legislation.

The minister knows our opposition to all of this, but what we are trying to do, in good faith, is put forward amendments that curtail that power, put restraints on that power. That is the simplicity of this amendment.

I’m not surprised by the minister’s comments. This government welcomes amendments. I think that’s good. It’d be nice to see them support one. But with that, we on this side will be supporting this amendment.

[2:15 p.m. - 2:20 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, we do have everybody here. Do I have consent to waive the remaining time?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Before putting the question, I remind all members that only members of Section C or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is: shall the amendment to clause 8 pass?

Amendment negatived on the following division on the following division: YEAS — 6, NAYS — 6. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

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

The question now is shall clause 8 pass.

Larry Neufeld: I have no further questions on clause 8.

Clause 8 approved.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m wondering. We stood down clause 7. I think we’re ready to go back to it now. Members are ready to debate it. I would ask consent for us to go back to clause 7.

The Chair: We will go back to clause 7.

On clause 7.

Larry Neufeld: I would like to recognize and thank the minister and his staff for providing the statement that was read out before the break. That is certainly appreciated, and I’ll try to keep duplication to a minimum wherever possible.

There are a couple of things that I did want to clarify, though, as a means of getting it into the record. As we’re all aware, these types of things could be looked at by justices as far as to determine what the thought process was.

[2:25 p.m.]

With respect to clause 7(2)(c), which references ERAA section 34.2, my question is: what protections remain in place to protect the public from industrial trespass?

to protect the public from industrial trespass?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It has to do with the need for those rights in this case. All of the laws dealing with trespass would continue to be enforced in any event, which are other laws than this.

Level 2 streamlining project proponents will need to reach an agreement with any private land owners whose land they need to access. The surface rights board, which the section refers to, will not be able to order entry.

Essentially, with respect to the laws on trespass, that’s not a change.

Larry Neufeld: Follow-up to that…. I appreciate the answer; I do agree. In my previous career that was one of the most significant components of my work, dealing with the absolute need to stay within a surveyed right-of-way.

My concern with removing this section is that if a pickup truck is driven onto private land, does that remove the ability of the regulator to enforce the rules, and then force the landowner to go to civil means to execute that?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Say B.C. Hydro in this case…. We’re talking about level 2 here, as a proponent. There is the capacity for B.C. Hydro — although I don’t think it certainly would be necessary in these cases — to use its expropriation powers, which are not dealt with in this bill in any event, which they simply have. With respect to private land rights, as opposed to Crown land rights, they would do so by agreement, so landowners would effectively be protected.

This is just ensuring that a section of the existing legislation, which really isn’t intended for this purpose, isn’t used for that purpose. So that’s the purpose of the legislation. The landowner’s rights would not be affected by this.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for that answer. Just to clarify, though, there would be no recourse for private land owners against B.C. Hydro using the energy regulator. They would have to go through civil recourse.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I don’t think it’s an issue of recourse. If B.C. Hydro didn’t have the agreement they wouldn’t be able to go on, right? Otherwise, if they had a contractual agreement with B.C. Hydro, under any circumstance they’d have recourse to their contractual agreement. That’s the circumstance of this provision.

Larry Neufeld: Just to clarify, I wasn’t talking about expropriation or moving into…. It was, again, going outside of the surveyed boundaries. Again, in my previous life, that was an exceptionally serious offence.

Again, just clarification. B.C. Hydro has the plot of land, agreed with the landowner. No problem; that’s okay. But if they do drive off of the site into someone’s crop, are they left to civil recourse only?

Hon. Adrian Dix: There would be civil recourse.

You know, I hesitate to say B.C. Hydro wouldn’t do that, because I don’t think they would. If they did do that by some form of accident — things happen out in the world — they would be responsible for that. So there would be civil recourse, but also the recourse to B.C. Hydro making good on what happened.

[2:30 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for the answer, Minister.

I’m going to move on to section 7(2)(d), which references

the recourse to B.C. Hydro making good on what happened.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for the answer, Minister.

I’m going to move on to section 7(2)(e), where it references section 40(e) of the ERAA. On this particular one, I am curious. I do appreciate the thoroughness of this response that was provided to me in writing. I do.

Now that we’ve identified that the energy regulator is not responsible for regulating the infrastructure itself, my question is: who is responsible for regulating the infrastructure?

Hon. Adrian Dix: That would be the BCUC and B.C. Hydro’s responsibility under the B.C. Hydro Power and Authority Act.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer, Minister.

Moving on to Bill 14, section 7(2)(h). Again, this is something that rings very, very true to my previous life. With respect to…. I’ll include (2)(g) in the same question. I do understand the rationale, and I do appreciate the rationale, for eliminating these two clauses from this legislation, as it is not overly applicable.

What I would say, though, or my question would be: with removing the dormant and orphan site provisions, what protection remains for the public with respect to final decommissioning, closing decommissioning, causes should there be extenuating circumstances where these facilities are left in place?

Hon. Adrian Dix: With the forgiveness of the committee, I’d just refer to section 13(c) of the legislation, which we’ll get to shortly. It addresses the regulation capacity with respect to orphan sites. What we didn’t want to have is duplicate parts of the legislation, but it’s there, and we’ll get to it when we get to section 13.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Moving on to Bill 14, section 7(2)(i), which references ERAA section 49(1)(a) and (4)(d) and (e). Obviously, we’ve talked about this, and it is clearly understood that a level 2 project does represent a power line. I believe that we’ve established the identity of that as both high tension and possibly other power lines.

My understanding is that…. Perhaps I do need to re-read this section. I meant to do that over lunch. But I will ask the question at this point, with forgiveness if it is redundant. With the powers being available to level 3 streamlined projects, is there…? I’ll withdraw that question.

I’m going to move on to Bill 14, section 7(2)(j), which references section 51 of the ERAA. Again, while I certainly appreciate the intent of why this clause was eliminated, my question would be: in the event of an incident on a rural, unpaved road or a Forest Service road, would this not be an appropriate clause to maintain?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: This provision does talk about highways, roads and other areas.

Hon. Adrian Dix: This provision does talk about highways, roads and other areas. They were developed, and the reason we are not applying them here, to address potential hazardous conditions around pipelines and oil and gas facilities regulated by the BCER.

In the circumstances described by the hon. member, the Ministry of Transportation would have jurisdiction to do just what he’s asking to do. The BCER would continue to have, though, those responsibilities for natural resource roads, which are obviously differently regulated in the province.

In the circumstances and the concern he’s expressing that power and authority still exists, and it would rest with the Ministry of Transportation.

Larry Neufeld: Once again, to establish it clearly on the record, does that include forest service roads?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes, the BCER would have responsibility for forest service roads, as I described the distinction in the Ministry of Transportation roads and the natural resources roads. The BCER would continue to have that authority.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for the answer, Minister.

My next question to the minister would be: by exempting all of the sections that we’ve chatted about, what time contraction is expected to occur from the initial call of power to completion and operation relative to what it would have been before this bill?

Hon. Adrian Dix: As described throughout, really, these are sections of the ERAA that don’t and should not apply to these projects, so it’s neutral in that respect, except it doesn’t apply especially specifically designed provisions for the oil and gas industry to these projects, to level 2 projects. In that sense, it just makes sense, under the law, not to apply provisions that aren’t intended for that purpose and wouldn’t work properly.

Whether these particular provisions affect the timelines is hard to say, but we’re passing legislation here, and we want it to be effective and understood and not to apply provisions that shouldn’t apply.

That’s the purpose, as we’ve gone down…. These are quite technical, as we’ve gone through them, and are described. They really say, in the case of a number of these provisions that are essentially designed for the oil and gas industry or really aren’t appropriate for a level 2 project, that they wouldn’t apply.

That makes sense for the regulator and everyone dealing with the law not to have legal provisions that are not needed, not necessary and, really, are inappropriate for the purpose.

Larry Neufeld: Again, thank you to the minister for that answer.

I’ll make this a broader question then. What is the hope of the ministry with respect to Bill 14 as far as a reduction in timeline from inception to completion of these projects that are included?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, understanding that timelines are not just dependent on the regulatory process, they can be dependent, as we know, and the member will know…. Projects in the private sector, for example, everywhere, sometimes they’re dependent on other circumstances. But we think that this form of regulation has proven its effectiveness over 25 years, in the oil and gas sector, so having the same style and same type of regulation for a renewable sector would makes sense.

That’s not, as some, I think, sometimes suggest, any kind of revolutionary change, but I think it makes sense. We did the same thing for hydrogen previously.

This is better regulation, specialized regulation, that will allow the regulator also to move more quickly in addressing it because of that expertise and because it’s a single-window regulation. So we think that’s useful. We can talk about, and we’ll talk about, the provisions with respect to environmental assessment when they come up.

[2:40 p.m.]

That also has advantages, as a member will know, and as I discussed and put it on the record at second reading — the lengthy environmental assessment proposal timelines of wind projects, which we’ve now done in a number of cases. We know the issues and so on. So there’s that question which we can get into when we have that discussion. So I think this is better regulation.

That also has advantages, as the member will know, and as I discussed and put on the record at second reading. There are lengthy environmental assessment timelines of wind projects, which we’ve now done in a number of cases. We know the issues and so on. So there’s that question which we can get into when we have that discussion.

I think this is better regulation; it allows more streamlined regulation, and it allows us to get to decisions more quickly. How it deals with individual projects, of course, remains to be seen, but I think the experience in oil and gas — we had that experience from the immediate period after the legislation was proclaimed and put into force in the late 1990s and then going forward; then the act was significantly amended and redone in 2008 — has been positive.

It’s not because the regulator doesn’t say no and yes; it says yes and no all the time, but because we’ve developed expertise, understanding, a committed group of 300 professionals at that regulator. This was true in oil and gas.

One of the reasons it was done in oil and gas — I’m embarrassed to say I was there when it was done, working in this building, a long time ago — and part of the reason it was effective, I think, was because of the nature and the regular applications for projects, which were much smaller and many more of them. Having a single regulator, and not multiple regulators, all the time was good for government regulation and good for the industry regulation.

Similarly here, I think this will be very effective, and I believe it will prove that effectiveness over time.

Donegal Wilson: Yeah, I appreciate the highly technical conversation we’ve been having. As a new person to this file, I can tell you it’s been above my head a few times. So please bear with me if I ask some more layman-terms questions around what’s happening within this bill.

The first thing: you were telling us a lot about what was happening, and you were speaking about it as if it’s a regulation. Is this regulation, or is it law? I thought the act made it law, and regulation lived in a separate document.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the BCER is a regulator; that’s what I was referring to. We’re establishing — as we did in 1998 with the Oil and Gas Commission, further legislation that affects the regulator. In 2008, the regulation that affected the B.C. Energy Regulator changed the name and also did what we’re doing today for hydrogen and for renewable projects.

That’s a regulator; it’s established in law. This is the law that’s the basis for a set of regulations that are often very specific, in oil and gas, to the needs of that industry, for example, and there will be one specific to the requirements of renewable energy.

Essentially, what we’re doing here is doing exactly what we did 25 years ago for oil and gas, on the regulator side of things, the B.C. Energy Regulator, through a single-window regulation, to hydrogen in 2022, under a single regulation, and now for renewable resources, under a single regulation. It’s one regulator for industry, one regulator for First Nations and life-cycle regulation.

So we have, at the beginning of a project, the same regulator for early works as we have through the potential remediation at the end of a project’s life — which is, obviously, a shorter time frame, in terms of oil and gas, than it would be for these projects. Nonetheless, that’s important. When I talk about a regulator and its job in regulating an industry, that’s what I mean. In this case, it’s the B.C. Energy Regulator.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Boundary-Similkameen. Just a reminder that we are discussing clause 7 at this time.

Donegal Wilson: No, it’s just because he’d said it so many times. From my previous hat, regulation was something controlled by government; it didn’t come through the Legislature. Legislation was something debated here in this House. So I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that.

Related to clause 7, I’m wondering how to word this. You’ve chosen to introduce this bill with these transmission lines as having a significant green light. I’m wondering: what is the red tape that you’re trying to get around? What was preventing us from building these? Were the 15 sections of the act preventing us from getting these power lines built?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, section 7 deals with the current provisions of the ERAA and their application to level 2 projects here. That’s what it deals with specifically. With respect to the North Coast transmission line, the B.C. Hydro project, the North Coast transmission line is a parallel line.

the current provisions of the ERAA and their application to level 2 projects here, so that’s what it deals with specifically.

With respect to the North Coast transmission line, the B.C. Hydro project, what the North Coast transmission line is, is a parallel line to the existing line, essentially, from Prince George to Terrace. Ninety percent of the right-of-way is there already. What we want is not to have multiple ministries dealing with the regulation but to have an energy regulator that is dealing with transmission lines and then will deal with the other transmission line to ensure that the law is appropriately enforced on that line. That obviously leads to increased efficiency for B.C. Hydro.

B.C. Hydro, because of the nature of the project…. I’m not going to get into speculation about whether it would be an EA or not, but probably not because it’s essentially a parallel line on a parallel right-of-way. But conceivably B.C. Hydro, you could argue, might have to go into environmental assessment. This law also deals with those issues for B.C. Hydro.

This speeds up the regulatory process for a transmission line that’s in the public interest for electricity that’s needed in the northwest of the province. The member will know that one of the issues in the northwest of the province — where the people of B.C. have a lot of ambition for projects, whether they be the Port of Prince Rupert, whether they be energy projects or hugely critical mining projects, mineral projects and mining projects — is that there’s insufficient electricity that’s produced in another part of the North going to the northwest.

Our transmission lines disproportionately…. I think you’ll hear this from a lot of people who live in the North. You have energy that’s produced in the North, say on the Peace, and it’s heading down to Vancouver, or it’s heading down to Penticton — well, probably not. There are differences in there, but it’s heading down to southern B.C. The value of that line is that, and we’ve discussed that.

Well, the North Coast transmission line is not the desirability of it. There’s a difference. The government supports the line and the opposition does not, which is a discussion. But we’ve been straightforward that we supported the line. We’ve debated that. We debated that before the election. We introduced it in the legislation. This is a fairly straightforward process that we put in place.

The opposition has different views on that, and that’s part of the public debate that we’ll have. But we think B.C. Hydro we should proceed with this line. It’s great news for the people of the northwest, and people in the northwest deserve this access to clean electricity in our system.

Donegal Wilson: I used to live in Smithers, actually, for 15 years, so I understand the needs of the people in the North.

You really focused in on the transmission line and specifically the one line from Prince George to Prince Rupert. Is there an instance of a different kind of level 2 project that could fit within your definitions?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yeah, principally. I think the other line we’ve spoken about…. I know everyone follows these debates, but for people that are watching this, there are three Houses going on right now.

We have talked about the North Montney, which affects the member’s colleague’s region more than the northwest one does — the member for Peace River South. Those are proposals around the electrification of the Montney and natural gas in the Montney, which have all kinds of advantages both for the public interest, for economy of B.C. and for the industry. That is another proposal that it would apply to.

The purpose of level 2 is that you have a transmission line, unlike the wind projects, which under level 3, which we’ll get to in a moment, have life-cycle regulation. Generally speaking, a transmission line, once it’s completed, falls under other regulation, including the B.C. Utilities Commission, which regulates B.C. Hydro, for example, and other energy providers, other utilities in the province.

That’s the reason why we have the distinction between level 2 and level 3. Then you would have an overlap of regulation, which is the opposite of our intent, obviously, with the legislation.

[2:50 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: But those level 2 projects are still lines. There’s no other type of project that could fall under level 2? They’re only transmission lines?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I don’t think so, no.

Donegal Wilson: Do we have any project

transmission lines?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I don’t think so. No.

Donegal Wilson: Do we have any project applications for transmission lines? I know you referred to a couple, but do we have other projects that will be sitting there and not be fast-tracked for transmission lines?

Hon. Adrian Dix: B.C. Hydro is always building out transmission. It’s an important time. When we have more generation, there’ll be more transmission, inevitably, but that involves application for the projects going forward. But those are the two projects that we envisioned at the moment.

Donegal Wilson: But with no sunset clause on this legislation, I mean, we don’t know what the future will hold. So how will those applications be…. Is there a decision matrix for whether they will be fast-tracked or remain within the red tape that the other ones exist in?

Hon. Adrian Dix: If there are major transmission lines in future that potentially this government in the far future, after the ’28 election, or other governments — we’ll see what happens — wish to pursue, and they meet the need, certainly the public interest need that North Coast transmission line, the North Montney line and others do, then it could apply to them.

I’d just suggest to the member that when you’re talking about the building out of transmission capacity, there’s much more than the legislation that’s involved. Obviously, all of us want all the standards that are applied now to safety and all the other issues to continue to be applied, so that’s not a change. And we would want to transport clean electricity around the province, so that would be an opportunity, potentially, for a government in the future to do, absolutely.

And that’s a good idea. That’s the intent of the legislation, to allow for a different regulation of clean energy projects, whether they be transmission projects or projects such as wind and solar and others that are listed in clause 1, which we’ve had extensive discussion of already. So I won’t go back to that discussion.

But this is applying the same regulatory system that we’ve applied for a long time in B.C. with an excellent regulator that does its job very well and is acknowledged to do its job very well in general.

Donegal Wilson: I appreciate the answer.

I’m not sure that I actually got that there’s going to be some form of decision matrix where a project either gets this or it doesn’t. Will all projects that are for line infrastructure be considered fast-tracked, or will there be projects that are still going through the old way?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The intent is for transmission lines to fall under this umbrella. It distinguishes them from level 3 projects, which the committee will be discussing shortly.

Donegal Wilson: Are there any guardrails around level 2 projects to ensure that only power transmission lines are included.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, we did discuss this at some length yesterday, but I’m happy to talk about it again.

The purpose of level 2 regulation here is that these are projects that are otherwise regulated, including transmission lines as they function as transmission lines, for example, by the BCUC and B.C. Hydro’s case.

There may be some circumstances in which they might fall under a level 3 line if it’s a private sector proponent, under some circumstances. But basically, the intent of level 2 is to deal with natural resource permitting, and that’s what it does.

[2:55 p.m.]

It puts that under a single regulator, which makes sense for the public interest and for the building of the province.

Donegal Wilson: Clause 7. Does it only have implications for land owned by the

it puts that under a single regulator, which makes sense for the public interest and for the building of the province.

Donegal Wilson: Clause 7…. Does it only have implications for land owned by the Crown? Or does it also have implications for private land? How would that be handled?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yeah, for example, the Land Act applies, really, to public land or Crown land, so it applies there.

But as noted, the section really deals exclusively with the ERAA. If you have a linear transmission line, it will go through public land, Crown land and private land. That’s typically the case with a long transmission line such as this, and different acts apply to both. There are some acts, like the Land Act, which only apply on Crown land. There are others that affect private land.

The idea of the legislation is to have a single regulator dealing with natural resource permits, as I’ve noted, and that’s what the section does. That’s what the bill does. The particular section, obviously, is just…. I’ll just refer to sections of the ERAA, which don’t apply to renewable projects, largely because they were developed to deal with the oil and gas industry. That’s the purpose of the actual section.

Donegal Wilson: I’m assuming that it’s kind of a similar answer for grassland tenures, grazing tenures and, also, guide-outfitting tenures and anything that would be impacted? I think you said that most of them are pairing the same line, but I mean, this is an open legislation. There could be lines anywhere.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, you’re saying, again…. The question has nothing to do with the clause in question. But I think we’re trying to be as broad as possible in responding to questions from the opposition.

I’d say that under a number of legislative instruments, notification requirements are there, and they would be held responsible in an opportunity to make submissions to the regulator there.

The purpose here is to make the regulator the B.C. Energy Regulator and not, say, multiple ministries. For the purposes of the rules and laws in question, that’s what’s required here. It’s the B.C. Energy Regulator that will do that work, and that’s the reason why the legislation was put in place — in part for oil and gas 25 years ago, for hydrogen three years ago and for these bills with different levels of regulation that are appropriate to different types of projects.

Projects that require life-cycle regulation, we’ll be getting to shortly. We haven’t got there yet in the bill, but we will. Then level 2 projects, which require a different form of regulation, have different provisions in the statute, so that’s what we’re doing here.

But this section deals specifically with parts of the ERAA. It doesn’t deal with any of those questions or parts of the ERAA that don’t apply.

Donegal Wilson: One of the things that we’re talking about is that the need to have a permit is removed. All of these questions relate to things that were included for a permit holder, so I do think they’re relevant.

[3:00 p.m.]

Yeah. I will say that if we’re removing the permit required, section 21, out of…. Am I lost here? Why is everybody looking at me like I’m lost?

permit holder, so I do think they’re relevant.

I will say that if we’re removing the permit required, section 21, out of…. Am I lost here? Why is everybody looking at me like I’m lost?

I might have jumped ahead. My apologies. Section 21. Yeah, we’re on 7, right?

The Chair: A reminder that we are on clause 7 currently.

Donegal Wilson: Yeah, so clause 7(1) is to remove permit required. A lot of the notifications and things that I brought forward live within the permitting process. So if we’re taking out the permitting, how are we going to ensure that those things still happen?

And I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear on that, but I do believe that I’m speaking relevant to the clause.

The Chair: Do you have a question, Member?

Donegal Wilson: Now you got me flustered. Yes, I do.

The Chair: Take your time.

Donegal Wilson: It also includes how those permits would be cancelled. So what mechanism would be in place if there was a project that for some reason it needed to be cancelled or the permit needed to be changed, but there’s no permit now? What does that look like?

Hon. Adrian Dix: All the regulatory statutes and the laws would still apply. Doesn’t change any of that.

Donegal Wilson: So removing the need for a permit doesn’t remove everything within that section that they had to do to get a permit?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, as noted to a number of other questions, level 2 is about the natural resource authorizations. The transmission lines are otherwise regulated, and that’s why the bill is constructed under level 2 that way. And our discussion of level 2 is centred on this question. And I appreciate the member’s questions, but that’s the continuing answer to that. And so that’s the specific nature of level 2 regulation.

Level 3 regulation is life cycle regulation. And again, we’ll be getting to that shortly. But that’s the answer we’ve been providing for some time.

Trevor Halford: I just want to clarify. I think I understand what minister is saying, but can the minister give an example then of where it would be in the project where “Section 21 [permit required] of the primary act” does not apply in relation to a level 2 streamlined project? So where would we see that invoked? How would it be invoked?

And I guess just if the ministry can give an example in the projects where we would see “Section 21 [permit required] of the primary act does not apply in relation to a level 2 streamlined project.” Even an example of said permit.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Let’s talk about the North Coast transmission line. Assume it’s built. We require natural resource authorizations, which the BCER would deal with, which are surface requirements essentially. So we’d need those permits to build the line, and we’re centralizing them, bringing them together in the BCER.

But the actual operation of the transmission line — that’s under other regulation. That’s why there’s a different form of regulation here. So it would be likely for that line, B.C. Hydro operating line, the BCUC that would provide that. So you don’t want a duplication of regulation. That’s all. So it’s the distinction between the natural resource permits required to essentially build the line and the ongoing regulation, which is not with the BCER.

With the windmill, the windfarm, that would be different. There’s ongoing and life cycle regulation by the BCER. And that’s the reason there’s a distinction between level 2 and level 3.

[3:05 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: So with the example the minister gave just now, a lot of these projects would require different permitting from across ministries. I’ll give an example for the northwest transmission line which the minister just cited. I’m assuming

Trevor Halford: With the example the minister gave just now, a lot of these projects would require different permitting from across ministries.

I’ll give an example for the northwest transmission line, which the minister just cited. I’m assuming, at some point, there would be permitting required from MOTI, the Ministry of Transportation. Are we talking about exemptions on other permitting — whether it be if transportation was required, a permit from Ministry of Transportation?

Are we talking about exemptions there as well? Is that what this clause is referring to?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No.

Trevor Halford: Okay. I’m just trying to clarify, then. So when we say section 21 permit required of the primary act “does not apply in relation to a level 2 streamlined project,” can the minister give an example of a permit that would not be required on the specific transmission line that he just referenced?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It is a distinction.

Again, another example. I was just looking for some examples.

A permit to operate a transmission line comes under the B.C. Utilities Commission Act — essentially, the BCUC. The permit to operate the wind farm comes under this legislation, the BCER. That’s the distinction, really. It’s a distinction between types of projects.

You don’t want duplicative regulation. That’s why level 2 and level 3 were created. We’ll be discussing level 3 shortly, about the nature of that regulation, but this is level 2.

Nothing’s being taken away here. It’s just that the ERAA doesn’t apply to this project now, in those permits, but they are permitted, nonetheless, and authorized under other legislation.

You don’t want to duplicate that. That’s the reason we have level 2 and level 3, because level 2 doesn’t require the same life-cycle regulation.

Trevor Halford: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

[3:10 p.m.]

Can the minister list, then, the permits that would not be required under a streamlined level 2 project? Can the minister provide to the committee a list of all permitting that would be exempt from the clause that we’re discussing, 7(1)?

permitting that would be exempt from the clause that we’re discussing, 7(1).

Hon. Adrian Dix: We operate a lot of transmission lines today, so all the existing authorizations will continue to exist. You don’t need a list. That’s how we operate these projects today.

We’re talking about the construction of these projects. That’s why we have a different kind of regulation for, say, a transmission line than a wind farm, which has life-cycle regulation.

Trevor Halford: I understand that, but it reads here: “Section 21 [permit required] of the primary act does not apply in relation to a level 2 streamlined project.” I understand the minister is talking about duplicity, and I get that. The challenge that I’m having here is we’ve spent a fair amount of time talking about consultation.

The government can defend their consultation record on this piece of legislation and others, and I would defend against that. But that being said, when we have clauses like this one in front of us that look like we are bypassing permitting, then we are also bypassing another level of consultation.

So I’m asking…. The minister is talking in generalities. I’m talking about very specifics. What permitting is getting exempted on this specific clause? I understand level 2, level 3. Okay, I get that. I’m talking about the specific permitting that is no longer required under this section, this clause, this section right here.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’ll just go to the Energy Resource Activities Act to assist the hon. member — section 21, which is the section referred to here. “Subject to section 23, a person must not carry out an energy resource activity unless (a) either (i) the person holds a permit that gives the person permission to carry out that energy resource activity….”

This is applied elsewhere in other statutes, so it’s not needed. We’re not adding a statute to these projects that already exists.

If you look at the Energy Resource Activities Act, we wouldn’t be applying new permitting requirements on transmission lines that don’t exist now. Since they are authorized in the B.C. Utilities Commission Act in their operations, we don’t need to do that. It’s just simply avoiding duplication. There’s no lack of access or exemption from existing permitting or authorization processes. None.

Trevor Halford: I’m just trying to clarify from the minister. Based on the minister’s answer just now, it’s all about duplication. So there would be no circumventing any permit whatsoever on a level 2 streamlined project. The minister is saying today that this is just about getting rid of redundancy, so no permit would be bypassed. Not exempting any permits. This is just strictly about redundancy.

My question is: is there any permitting…? We can talk about the northwest…. We can talk about the transmission line. Is there any permitting that is going to be exempt based on this clause and section right now on a level 2 streamlined project? Or is the minister saying that it’s all just basically eliminating redundancy?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’d just frame it differently. It’s not creating redundancy. They’re already regulated now. We’re not going to add new and duplicative regulation to this type of project, which is already regulated now, amongst other places, under the B.C. Utilities Act.

Trevor Halford: I guess my struggle with this, again, is that I’m asking specifically what

of regulation to this type of project, which is already regulated now, amongst other places, under the B.C. Utilities Act.

Trevor Halford: I guess my struggle with this, again, is that I’m asking specifically what permitting is getting eliminated in this specific clause. I have not heard one example of a specific permit that would be getting eliminated in this specific clause.

I would expect…. I know the minister does his due diligence before committee. I would expect that he would know a permit that this clause would be eliminating.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Nothing. Nothing’s being removed. Nothing’s being eliminated. We’re not adding a new and duplicative regulation on something that’s already regulated, and that’s the purpose here.

It’s true. It’s fairly straightforward, as I see it. Nothing is being removed. No current requirements are being eliminated.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Surrey–White Rock.

Trevor Halford: Thank you, and welcome to the fun, Mr. Chair.

Then I guess I’d ask it this way. Why would level 1 require clause 21, and level 2 does not?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the member’s question is wrong. Level 1 doesn’t require that.

Donegal Wilson: I have one last question on this.

We’ve had a lot of talk about the intent of what you were trying to create with this work. Do you see the opportunity, or do you see weaknesses that future governments may leverage the broad powers within this bill to take it places that were not your intent?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I can imagine a whole bunch of things that a Conservative government might do that I would not see as desirable. I think that goes without saying.

The law and the regulatory structure here is a law and a regulatory structure based on 25 years of experience that previously was supported by opposition parties, legislation that was brought forward by previous parties, the previous B.C. Liberal government as well, and this legislation makes sense.

When we brought in the legislation to create the Oil and Gas Commission and the B.C. Energy Regulator in 1998, you might have imagined that legislative initiative would be changed, but it wasn’t because it was good legislation that came forward and suited the needs and the public interests of the province. It would be my expectation that this legislation will do the same.

As I say often to my colleagues as well…. People have this concern. You bring forward legislation, and what if the other people are in charge? What happens with it? Well, if there’s a majority government, regardless of the party, things will happen that the opposition disagrees with.

This legislation is based on decades of experience. It’s applying a regulatory framework, and we’ll talk about the other question of environmental assessment later in the bill, that makes a great deal of sense to apply the same kind of regulatory environment that works in other energy fields to renewable resources. That’s what we’re doing. I think that’s a good thing. I believe in renewable energy. I think it plays an important role.

I disagree with the member about the…. I appreciate the warning about the threat of Conservative government, but I would say that this is good legislation with clear intent. It would be possible for future governments to change legislation. That’s what happens when they come into office. I might disagree with that, but I think this legislation, given the role of the B.C. Energy Regulator, is good legislation and should get the support of all members of the House.

[3:20 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: I just want to loop back to our last question around level 1 and level 2. It was stated that for level 2 projects, section 21 permit required does not apply. The statement made was that for level 1 projects, it also doesn’t apply. But it doesn’t state that in the bill, under division 1.

Is there a reason? We don’t even know what those projects are at this point.

level 2 projects, section 21 permit required, does not apply. The statement made was that for level 1 projects, it also doesn’t apply. But it doesn’t state that in the bill, under division 1.

Is there a reason? We don’t even know what those projects are at this point.

Hon. Adrian Dix: We did debate level 1 extensively yesterday, and I do invite the member to review the Hansard of that.

I would say that it doesn’t need to apply to level 1 because of the application of the ERAA, and we discussed that yesterday. I don’t know if I need to get into another extensive response on that, but we did have an extensive discussion on the purpose of level 1, the purpose of level 2, and we’re soon to have a discussion of the purpose of level 3. We had a good discussion. Excellent questions were asked, and hopefully good answers were provided.

But in the case of level 2, I’ve explained that the purpose of that relates to…. The reason we have level 2 is that those are specific projects that are also regulated in their operations once they are built by other regulators.

Donegal Wilson: The question was why subclause 7(1) applied to level 2 projects and not level 1, and the response we got back was that it also applies to level 1.

But I don’t see that in the act, so I’m asking for clarification how that statement was made or if there’s a correction.

Hon. Adrian Dix: In the debate on level 1, level 1 doesn’t deal with operations. It’s a transitional mechanism, as we discussed extensively in the debate on level 1. It doesn’t apply to operation and therefore isn’t required, as stated earlier in this debate at some length and repeatedly.

Donegal Wilson: So section 21, just to be clear, does not apply to level 1 projects.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, of course we’ve dealt with level 1. It’s not the section, but no is the answer.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 9.

Larry Neufeld: Clause 9. We have done a lot of conversation around Bill 14 being a streamlining bill originating from a much, much lengthier bill, the ERAA. One of the things we talked about, even just recently, was around updating and eliminating definitions that didn’t make sense or didn’t necessarily apply, given the rationale around the need for this bill.

Clause 9(a): “The definition of ‘energy resource activity’ in section 1(2) of the act is….”

Sorry, I’ll go right to my question. My question to the minister is: why was the definition of “spillage” not updated in this legislation?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We had a discussion yesterday about spillage with respect to a previous section.

[3:25 p.m.]

Essentially, the definition of spillage is expanded here to include renewable activities. It doesn’t change. It’s not updated, but it’s expanded in the sense that it doesn’t just apply to oil and gas but it applies to renewable activities, and that’s the circumstance here.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister. My next question is with respect to clause 9

but it applies to renewable activities, and that’s the circumstance here.

Larry Neufeld: My next question is with respect to subsection 9(b)(ii). It references section 49 of the ERAA, and specifically, subsection 49(4)(g). I see no reference to that in the version of the document that I obtained from online in this building. So I would ask for some clarity on this reference please.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’ll refer the member to section 49(4)(g) of the ERAA and his copy of 49(4)(g). I’ll just repeat it: “That a person control or prevent the escape of petroleum, natural gas, water, waste or other substances from a well, pipeline or facility.” That’s the provision. This would add renewable resource projects to that definition and the items that are regulated.

Larry Neufeld: I do stand before you with some chagrin on my face. I apologize for that little bit of confusion. That is, in fact, there, so my apologies.

My next question is with respect to subsection (b)(iv), which references 97(b). This, perhaps, is something that I would like to allow the minister at his choosing to make a statement, as I know that this is one of the things that has come up as matters of concern. The way that it’s written is around potential overriding of the Local Government Act and Community Charter. I was wondering if the minister might choose to expand on that section and make a comment around the application.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, in 97(b), it’s a similar answer to the previous one. This is an existing provision, largely for the oil and gas industry, that’s expanded here to renewable energy projects. It just ensures that the safety provisions and setbacks can be maintained. Now, it should be said that this provision of the existing act has not been used.

That reflects, I would argue, the very good relationship between the B.C. Energy Regulator and local government, which I think most people would acknowledge. With that said, it does exactly what the previous section we discussed, this previous question, says. It simply applies a provision that’s already in legislation to renewable projects, which is the purpose of the legislation.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

The next question I would have would be with respect to section (v), which references section 111 subsection (1)(h)(i) of the ERAA. My question is…. Again, if the minister chooses to comment, please clarify why this section was not replaced with respect to renewable projects.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Again, just to take the…. We’re on a tour of section 111 of the existing act. The section allows the board to make regulations respecting the carrying out of an energy resource activity. That’s the existing act, right? Some of these are clearly pipeline-related, for example, so they’re specific to that, and they wouldn’t apply anyway.

In this case, the regulations respect the “construction, operation and abandonment of a facility used for the purpose of producing, gathering, processing or storing petroleum, natural gas, water or a substance referred to in paragraph (d) or (e) of the definition of ‘pipeline’ in section 1.”

What this does is add renewable projects to that regulatory structure. That’s what the legislation does. That’s the intent here. That’s what it does.

It’s part of life-cycle regulation. That’s a regulation that exists for oil and gas, say. Because it could apply to a renewable energy project, we are amending this provision of the act to make sure that that’s added to the list of projects in the existing act.

Jeremy Valeriote: Apologies if there’s any duplication. I heard section 21 of ERAA, a question about it under the previous clause, but I do need to ask: why don’t these level 3 projects need a permit under section 21, ERAA?

Hon. Adrian Dix: They do, and we’ll be addressing that in the next section.

Jeremy Valeriote: Without having the cross-referencing that my colleague has, can the minister explain why 9(b)(iii) and (v) are included in clause 9 but were not included in clause 7?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Because we’re talking about the difference between level 2 and level 3 projects. We discussed this in the discussion of level 2, which were largely talking about transmission lines that are otherwise regulated in their operations. Level 3 projects apply differently. We’ve moved on to that section of the act, and that’s why.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you for that.

For these level 3 projects that require ERAA permits, the B.C. energy regulator process outlines consultation and engagement, and the BCER has a constitutional obligation to consult and accommodate.

What we’re looking for is the legislation to set out proper engagement and consultation measures. Can the minister outline whether these would be done by regulation or what that would look like?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, there are obligations under both the Constitution Act and under DRIPA around consultation — all Crown agencies. BCER does a particularly good job of this, I would say, in terms of its consultation, in all evidence from Treaty 8 First Nations.

Those are constitutional requirements. We don’t need new regulations. We have the constitution; we have the DRIPA requirements. Those are in place.

in all evidence from Treaty 8 First Nations, but those are constitutional requirement. So you don’t need any new regulations. We have the constitution. We have the DRIPA requirements. Those are in place. Obviously, we have policies to fulfil that, and the B.C. Energy Regulator does a notably good job of dealing with that.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Larry Neufeld: With respect to clause 10, I'd like to take us to 10(b), which references section 34(2) of the ERAA.

I know I stated this with the level 2 projects, but removing the requirement for permission to work off site…. Or am I misinterpreting that? But I believe that that is what is happening there. My concern is: what replacement requirement is in place to protect the public from industrial trespass?

Hon. Adrian Dix: This is not a trespass question. It's different than subsurface rights, as the member will understand. That's what the member is referring to. Maybe that's where his experience is.

This is not about trespass. It's about right of entry. What that requires is that right of entry for a private land owner requires the private land owner’s consent.

Larry Neufeld: Okay. I will accept that answer, as I may have made an error there.

I'd like to thank the minister for that answer.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

Larry Neufeld: With respect to clause 11 — and I know we did talk about this yesterday — and with respect to earlier sections of the bill, I went through this again last night, and I'm unable to identify a formula or a series of rationales that are available for public review whereby we can understand the process of how the amounts of the fees are determined.

Is that something that we can get light on, please?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Two things. For the member of the opposition, we just passed section 10, but we'll do a similar chart with respect to section 10 which parallels section 7 for the member, just on all those changes, just to lay those out on the record for him, should that be desirable.

With respect to this question, BCER has long-standing experience setting fees and levies in the oil and gas context. Developing that in the hydrogen context. BCER work closely with industry to keep them informed of proposed new fees or levies to allow proponents to ask questions and plan for charges. Information is also shared with stakeholders and First Nations in advance of setting new charges. BCER will do the same when setting fees and levies under this new act. That's the process, and it's a process that's been in place for 25 years.

In addition, just on the general section, because I know the member will have other questions, BCER cost recovery regulations are subject to Treasury Board review prior to being made by the BCER board of directors. There's that constraint as well.

[3:40 p.m.]

Like other provincial agencies that use cost recovery mechanisms, the BCER is subject to a financial accounting through provincial accounting standards and the application of legislation such as the Financial Administration Act and the Budget Transparency and Accountability

review prior to being made by the BCER board of directors. There’s that constraint as well.

Like other provincial agencies that use cost recovery mechanisms, the BCER is subject to financial accounting through provincial accounting standards and the application of legislation such as the Financial Administration Act and the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

I will say that single-window regulation can obviously save regulated industries significant amounts of both money and time — and that’s the purpose of it — by consolidating application preparations and submissions. That’s part of the purpose of single-window application and the development of fees.

The key question here…. I reflect on this, given the debate that occurred on some of these questions about the creation of fees, regulations, retroactivity and everything else. The intent here was straightforward. We didn’t want the oil and gas industry to be subsidizing the renewable industry.

If you’ve got a self-regulating body that sustains itself through fees and you create a new activity, you don’t want the existing, regulated industry to think, “Now we have to pay for the regulation of wind farms,” or something. So we’re creating a set of fees and then applying them to the work done before application to ensure that the part of the B.C. Energy Regulator dealing with renewable activities is not cross-subsidized by its oil and gas activities. I think members would generally support that.

As actions, as we develop — once the legislation is passed, assuming it is — the regulations and the work and the capacity to deal with renewable activities, we need those that are applying for those activities to pay for that, even if it has occurred before their applications, so that the renewable energy people are paying for the renewable energy stuff and the oil and gas people are paying for the oil and gas stuff. That’s the purpose of these sets of things.

There was a whole discussion in the House that we won’t get back into about retroactivity and the rule of law and all these things that were said about it. That’s its purpose, and that’s what it does.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for that response.

I guess, more specifically, what my question was around…. I know I caught myself this morning not being as clear as I could be. My question is specifically around: should the public not be made aware of how these fees are calculated and what these fees are?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I agree, and those things will be public. But the people most affected here…. Remember, it’s not taxpayer money paying for this regulation. That’s something that, broadly speaking, members on both sides of the House have supported over time with the functioning of this legislation.

It’s the proponents who are paying for their regulation. So obviously, we consult extensively with the industry about the appropriateness of fees and the appropriateness of the regulation. But when you have a B.C. Energy Regulator that has been created — and has been for 25 years — to regulate the oil and gas industry, and that regulation is paid for by fees to the oil and gas industry, you want to consult those paying those fees.

Others will, of course, know about that. I guess the public debate will be: “Well, is the B.C. Energy Regulator spending money efficiently? Is it overcharging the industry or the renewables industry?” That’ll be part of the discussion. It’s why we need to consult industry, because we want the regulation to be effective and efficient.

The 25-year history of this organization is that the regulation has been effective and efficient. We want, as it takes on these new responsibilities for renewable resources, for that to be true as well for this new industry under regulation.

Trevor Halford: I think I know the answer to this, but I just want to clarify from the minister. On the specific projects, who is setting the actual fee amounts?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: The board of directors will be setting the fees — as I discussed, and I know I’m going to repeat it — subject to Treasury Board approval. So there’s an oversight here. They’d be setting fees for

Hon. Adrian Dix: The board of directors will be setting the fees, and as I discussed — and I’m going to repeat it — subject to Treasury Board approval, so there’s an oversight here. They’d be setting fees for particular activities and regulatory activities.

So it’s not project by project when I say this wind farm has this set of fees, and that wind farm has that set of fees. The cost recovery will be done, obviously, for activities, for regulatory activities of the B.C. Energy Regulator.

Trevor Halford: Is it the board that is setting the fees? Correct?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think it would be the board that would be setting the fees, but they have to be approved at the Treasury Board level to maintain the application of provincial statutes and as an oversight, surely, based on the recommendations of the outstanding CEO in this case, Michelle Carr, who the member will know, but the board would be setting it on behalf of the BCER, undoubtedly under recommendation of the staff.

Trevor Halford: So what I’m trying to clarify is: who’s got ultimately the ultimate authority here? Is it the board? Because it sounds like it’s going to be done through the approval of Treasury Board.

So it’s fine that the board can administer the fees, the recovery of the fees. I understand that. But when it comes to the implementation or setting the fees — right? — is that done through the direction of Treasury Board?

Hon. Adrian Dix: So it’s a BCER board regulation. It does have to be approved by Treasury Board, as you’d expect. We do this with all cost recovery regulators now and have been doing this for the BCER and its predecessor, the same organization, the Oil and Gas Commission, for some 25 years.

That approach will continue to be the case with this new group of activities that are regulated by the BCER.

Trevor Halford: Under this, could exemptions be possibly made? So if, for instance, a wind farm came forward that was primarily First Nations–owned and they were looking for support in that process, would the ministry, would government under this legislation consider reductions of fees, subsidy of fees or anything in that matter?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The answer is no.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

Larry Neufeld: I do understand that the revenue from the fees that are collected will no longer be paid by the Ministry of Finance out of the consolidated revenue fund. Can we have the name of the new fund?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, it would go to the operational account of the B.C. Energy Regulator. That’s a matter of…. This is self…. This is regulation that’s funded by the regulated, in this case, so the fees go to the BCER and to its funds. They’d be managed and produce annual reports. Of course, they’d be received and are subject to debate in the Legislature.

We discussed the BCER briefly in our estimates, as we would in future years. So that’s where it is.

Larry Neufeld: I feel like I should know this, but I honestly don’t. Is there an audit or a process in place?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Absolutely, yes.

Scott McInnis: I’m pretty sure I know the answer to this question, but in the administration of fees or the fees that are set in a partnership

Hon. Adrian Dix: Absolutely, yes.

Scott McInnis: I’m pretty sure I know the answer to this question, but in the administration of fees or the fees that are set in a partnership that is primarily…. Let’s just take the 49-51 percent First Nation owned. Will there be any directive as to the rubric or the payment of fees by the proponents, or is that up to them to figure out?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The applicant pays the fees.

Scott McInnis: Just to clarify. Thank you to the minister for that. The applicant pays the fees, but there are no specific guidelines within the fees as to shared partnerships and who pays what component of the fees and who doesn’t.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The applicant…. The composition of the ownership of a particular project…. It’s the project that is responsible for paying the fees. The applicant is responsible for paying the fees, so if something is owned 51-49, I would presume, on one side, it’s a cost side of their ledger, and it would go forward that way. That’s how that’s how they’d pay the fees.

Trevor Halford: We’ll get to clause 14 in a little bit here.

When we’re talking about the separation or not going through the EA process anymore and the fees that are subjected to the proponents there, has the ministry calculated the short-fallen funds that the EAO could expect as a result of this collection of fees, going forward?

Hon. Adrian Dix: There is not a shortfall. What it allows, I think, in terms of environmental assessment, where there’s significant projects coming forward of various kinds…. We’ve been asked in the House about the Ksi Lisims projects before environmental assessment and others.

What it does is allow the Environmental Assessment Office…. If it had, I don’t know, 20 wind projects to deal with, would have all the costs associated with that. There’s not a shortfall of fees; it’s also a reduction in the requirement to spend money on those projects.

Environmental assessment is an important agency of government. They’re making significant steps while maintaining high standards to produce, in terms of outcomes and timelines, better results. I would argue that would help them, although that’s not the principal intent of the legislation. The intent of the legislation is to ensure that renewable energy projects are built.

I would say, though, this doesn’t apply to section 11. It’s obviously a different office. I know the member understands that, but I don’t think that issue of shortfall in fees elsewhere is a significant question, although, presumably, that’s a question he could ask of the Minister of the Environment in estimates.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

Larry Neufeld: At the at the risk of, perhaps, bordering on redundant, I think there was enough concern around this question that I’m wondering if the minister would consider just restating one final time as to how this section works.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: This is about supporting the functions of the BCER: the life-cycle regulation, the compliances enforcement. There are application fees that deal with application processes, but we also have life-cycle regulation. I heard that often in the House — the importance of life-cycle regulation, the importance of having

supporting the functions of the BCER, life cycle regulation, the compliances enforcement.

There are application fees that deal with application processes. But we also have life cycle regulation. I heard that often in the House, the importance of life cycle regulation, the importance of having, for example, funds established to pay for, as we say, orphan sites, as we do in oil and gas when we do that. The member is familiar with that, and so that is paid for through fees in the administration of the act by the B.C. Energy regulator, and this would be a parallel process for renewable energy.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer, Minister. I believe you had answered it previously. But I think in the spirit of completeness, and the fact that just keeping everything organized for folks to find in the transcript later on, I would follow-up with, again — it’s no offence here; I believe you have answered this in the past, but I think that in an interest of completeness, perhaps I can ask — why does subsection (a) revert back to fiscal year 2024?

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I mean, this is principally to the North Coast transmission line in fiscal 2024. Obviously, the BCER, as you would expect, is preparing itself to deal with…. In preparation both for the legislation and preparing itself to deal with that. And that has some costs to the BCER as it prepares itself.

And so the question is who pays for that again. Should it be the oil and gas industry? Well, I think we’d all agree that shouldn’t be. That would be in the case of the North Coast transmission line ultimately. In that case, the applicant might be B.C. Hydro that would be paying for that.

But just allows them to recover those funds. When you have a cost-recovered agency, and there are costs, you have to have a mechanism for recovery of those expenditures. That’s why it’s retroactive — not any other reason — and it’s a very limited amount. But there is some expenditure and process, and we can’t charge the existing regulated industries for that, for that very professional job the BCER would do.

And so a lot of that discussion, all that discussion of retroactivity, comes down to that really. And it’s important to just be clear about that, and that’s why it’s in the legislation the way it is. It’s in the legislation the way is to make sure that we have life cycle regulation where the regulated is paying for their regulation, and that’s the principle of the bill.

Larry Neufeld: I’d like to thank the minister for that answer. And again, there was no offence intended by asking to repeat. I think it’s very important that people do understand that. Thank you very much.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

Larry Neufeld: With respect to clause 13, this again, I think, is perhaps more of a completeness in the way of follow-up, as I know that perhaps not in this chamber but in other chambers, we have discussed this particular aspect.

But under clause 12, section 13(1)(b), can the minister confirm whether the bill’s power under this section can be delegated to any B.C. government employee?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The answer is no.

[4:00 p.m.]

The Chair: At this time, we will take a five-minute recess. I have four o’clock precisely on my watch, so if everybody could be back in ten. Let’s make it ten. Sure. Absolutely — 4:10 it is. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 4 p.m. to 4:13 p.m.

I have four o’clock precisely on my watch, so if everybody could be back….

Interjections.

The Chair: Ten? Let’s make it ten. Sure. Absolutely — 4:10 it is. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 4 p.m. to 4:13 p.m.

The committee recessed from 4 p.m. to 4:13 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 14, Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, back to order.

Scott McInnis: I’m looking at subclause 13(2): “A regulation may not be made under subsection (1) in relation to provisions of an enactment respecting engagement with Indigenous peoples, as defined in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.”

I’m just hoping the minister could please give some insight into the consultation that they conducted to make sure that there would be no conflicts with the declaration here in subclause (2).

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: This is obviously the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It’s important in central legislation. I was just saying that the regulations in this section explicitly can’t affect that act. That was, of course, a drafting decision that the government made

Indigenous Peoples Act is important in central legislation. So I was just saying that the regulations in this section, explicitly, can’t affect that act.

That was, of course, a drafting decision that the government made and I obviously support and brought through and introduced in the House. And I think it makes sense in terms of the centrality of that legislation and addresses at least one issue, if it were not in place, that First Nations might have, for example.

Scott McInnis: Just to clarify, if I could, are there specific sections of the Declaration Act that could be in conflict with subsection (2), and that’s the reason that this is in this part of the legislation anyhow?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No. It would be stopping us and ensuring that regulations were not made that would impede the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. So it’s slightly different than…. It’s not affecting…. This is a provision or bill that’s designed to make regulations to make the application, the ERAA, work for renewable energy projects, but one thing you can’t do is affect those duties respecting engagement with Indigenous people that are in the Declaration Act.

Scott McInnis: I believe the minister has answered this, and I’ll try to be very succinct. When we’re looking at clause 13 — or any other clause, but specifically clause 13 because that’s what we’re looking at — the Declaration Act would supersede anything that would be made as far as regulation goes here for clause 13 in this legislation.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, it says that a regulation could not be made, and so I don’t think it’s necessarily an issue of superseding here. It just says that a regulation could not be made. That’s the straightforward intent of the act.

Larry Neufeld: With a small amount of indulgence from the minister, I do want to back up just for half a second as I neglected to ask the question under one of the previous clauses. With respect to a level 2 project, is there any preclusion either through the legislation or through the ministry that would not allow a level 2 project by someone other than B.C. Hydro to be approved?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No. We’re talking about a type of project.

For example, just in theory — because this is not the case — we had a Fortis project in their electricity system, a transmission line that Fortis was doing from a new dam that Fortis built. And then level 2…. The Fortis project would be regulated in the same way by the B.C. Utilities Commission as the hydro project. In terms of its tariffs and the regulation of the line, it would be in a similar category, Fortis would be.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer. One thing that did creep into the back of my mind, and perhaps just an opportunity to confirm this, is that…. With the level 2 designation, would there be any — I’m trying to think of the correct word to use — perhaps perception that there’s less regulation because it is a Crown corporation? Perhaps you’ve already answered that, and I don’t know if you did want to….

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I think we have more regulation, in effect, or at least more independent regulation. The BCUC system in B.C., which obviously deals with Fortis but also B.C. Hydro, is different than in other jurisdictions with similar government-owned hydro systems. Now, that regulation has become quite a bit more efficient, on the direction of the current chair of the BCUC, Dr. Mark Jaccard. All of that said, that’s a different form of regulation than is elsewhere.

[4:20 p.m.]

The member will be quite familiar with the Alberta energy market, which is a different energy market and a different form of regulation, although effective, but it has its own complications there.

Ours is quite specific. We’ve got the BCUC, which is a specific regulator, regulating B.C. Hydro but also Fortis

The member will be quite familiar with the Alberta energy market, which is a different energy market and a different form of regulation, although effective, and it has its own complications there. But ours is quite specific. We’ve got the BCUC, which is a specific regulator, regulating B.C. Hydro, but also Fortis and also others.

So in that sense, we have — we won’t call it more regulation — different regulation, and, I think, quite effective regulation, which ensures that the public interest is protected independent of government, independent of B.C. Hydro, reviewing important decisions, including the Integrated Resource Plan. For example, B.C. Hydro, the next one will be tabled later on this year.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you for that answer. I think it is important for it to be on the record, that the public is aware of what was just stated.

Jeremy Valeriote: For subsection (1), I would like confirmation that I’m reading it correctly. I will get better at this. But can the minister confirm, given the sections that are of the ERAA that are quoted, that this subsection (1) effectively disapplies this whole process to potential pipelines?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Pipelines aren’t a renewable resource.

Jeremy Valeriote: Section 7(2), “Powers of commissioner,” and section 10: “Minister may order independent audit.” What’s the intent behind these two powers given to the minister?

Hon. Adrian Dix: What we’re doing is fitting the renewable projects into an…. Energy Resource Activities Act largely regulates oil and gas. So this provides the legal instrument, because there’s a lot of activities in the requirements to deal with oil and gas. If there are requirements that need to be dis-applied to renewal projects, that can happen — or reapplied.

[4:25 p.m.]

We discussed in previous sections, I think 7, a whole bunch of provisions of the act that are dis-applied, but it may be the case that they would need to be reapplied. This allows this to occur in the legislation. So that’s the purpose of the section that the member’s referring to.

Larry Neufeld: The Leader of the Third Party mentioned something that strikes me as very interesting.

they would need to be reapplied. This allows this to occur in the legislation, so that’s the purpose of the section that the member is referring to.

Larry Neufeld: The Leader of the Third Party mentioned something that strikes me as very interesting. The minister answered no to it but…. Being able to use this legislation for a pipeline that was restricted to only renewable energy…. Are there provisions within this law to license renewable energy only as a streamlined project?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I mean, existing oil and gas pipelines are regulated under ERAA now, and I don’t see any other new pipelines to which this would apply. I think the Leader of the Third Party was asking about oil and gas pipelines. I’m guessing that’s what he was asking about. That’s how I took the question. I don’t think there are other pipelines.

Again, I guess you could envision technology in the future where you do that. But largely, we’re talking in this space about transmission lines to move the energy and renewable projects. So I don’t think that a pipeline as we understand it now, which is really for the oil and gas industry, would apply here. And that’s why I gave the answer I did to the Leader of the Third Party.

Larry Neufeld: I do appreciate the minister’s response. And I do understand, and I would agree with him; I would have taken that question in exactly the same way.

My question is slightly different. I’m thinking in terms of Fortis with the hydrogen that they’re looking at completing. Something of that nature. I’m not suggesting or not pushing necessarily that we apply this to traditional pipelines, but is there the flexibility there where we could encourage that type of activity through a streamlined process?

Hon. Adrian Dix: That’s kind of what we did when we moved hydrogen under the act. We moved it under the B.C. Energy Regulator, in the case of hydrogen, because we saw the opportunities and the value in an industry…. It’s not a nascent industry, but it’s a coming industry. To have the same form of streamlined regulation has huge potential advantages. The member and I have discussed that.

Some of those advantages haven’t become as clear as quickly as possible. But nonetheless, they’re there. So the hydrogen as a source is already dealt with under the ERAA. Obviously, oil and gases as well, now all these renewables will be as well.

Scott McInnis: I know the minister knows that there’s significant concerns from First Nations Leadership Council around this bill and relating to section 13 specifically. I’m just hoping the minister can elaborate a little bit related to clause 13, the Lieutenant Governor in Council making regulations around the act.

Can the minister just delve a little bit into what framework or what rubric they have set in place as far as consultation with First Nations when it comes to making these regulations?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I went through this yesterday, but I’m happy to go through the expectations now. This includes the broad regulations, not just on this section. I know the member is the critic, so we didn’t have an opportunity to have an exchange on this.

The Lieutenant Governor in Council regulations will be developed first, and they are primarily the turning on of the relevant provisions of the ERAA for renewable energy activities. That’s what we call level 1, in a general sense.

Then the board regulations will closely follow, including technical elements, specific environmental considerations, incorporation of cultural information and design and decommissioning requirements.

Regulations that follow will be in stages. Phase 1 will establish the BCER as the primary permitting agency for the North Coast transmission line. Again, that’s not in this section, but just to give it broadly. BCER will have delegated authorities for provincial natural resource authorizations — and we’ll talk about those in the coming sections — needed to authorize early works.

Phase 2 will be by the fall of 2025. BCER will be established as the primary regulator and permitting authority for wind and solar energy projects, and wind and solar energy projects will require a construction and operation permit from the BCER. Then phase 3 will establish the robust regulatory framework.

As we discussed yesterday, funding is being made available — essentially, Declaration Act funding — for First Nations participation and consultation with all of this, which will be central, so we’ll be able to clearly communicate with affected parties. We also anticipate that the developing of the regulations, which I said for early 2026, will provide time for deeper consultation with First Nations.

BCER’s planning for First Nations engagement on these regulations is underway, including technical considerations, environmental protection and project requirements for First Nations consultation. BCER will be providing these opportunities starting in the spring of 2025 — spring meaning before June 21 or whatever the day is that the spring ends.

The province and BCER have initiated development of a consultation and cooperation plan for regulation that includes the input received through consultation on the legislation. A series of workshops and correspondence to initiate this next phase of consultation on regulations is intended to be initiated following royal assent, which — I don’t want to get ahead of myself — might be Thursday.

Scott McInnis: I do appreciate the answer from the minister.

I just want to be clear for the record here, specifically related to clause 13. The bill is the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act. I think we can assume, just by the general push-back, specifically from the UBCIC, at this juncture of the proceedings of this bill that there’s going to be, potentially, some issues raised around these regulations.

I’m just wondering how the ministry plans to deal with those regulations, because the idea with the bill…. Again, I’m coming back to clause 13 here with the specifics to regulations. How are they going to address concerns that will undoubtedly come up in regards to creating these regulations?

[4:35 p.m.]

Will the ministry be setting strict timelines with nations, as far as having those concerns addressed, to move forward with what is a streamlining act? I’m just hoping the minister can provide a little clarity around that.

having those concerns addressed and to move forward with what is a streamlining act. I’m just hoping the minister could provide a little clarity around that.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think it’s fair to say every conversation is different. Some of the projects are different in that respect. We went through yesterday in some detail.

I think what I’ll do is I’ll just share with the member the consultation that went forward on the call for power that generated these projects and generated the call-for-power framework, which we’ll see repeated shortly in a second call for power. That included, for example, 31 information sessions, 42 individual First Nations meetings, 99 First Nations engaged, 2,500 individual pieces of feedback received that went into that process.

On the North Coast transmission line, which is a different process…. It’s a linear line. We’re working with multiple First Nations along that line on our common efforts on the North Coast transmission line that are significant. As you know, the government has given priority to the possibility — it’s not arrived yet — of First Nations equity participation, which would be unusual since it hasn’t happened before on a B.C. Hydro line.

There’s extensive consultation on the projects that are affected. On the regulations, there will be different conversations with different groups, obviously both different interests in terms of the 204 First Nations across the province which will have inevitably different interests, I would argue, but also with the FNLC and the UBCIC and others, to go through those processes, to have an exchange of information.

There’ll be funding provided for participation in that regulatory process which will be useful, Declaration Act funding. That’ll be useful for those groups. I think we’ll arrive at a regulatory structure that works for everybody.

I just want to say just broadly that we’re talking about our proposals, at least initially, the application of those proposals, those projects, that are so far, at minimum, 49 percent First Nation–owned.

Obviously, those First Nations that owned projects may have different views than those that don’t in that discussion, so it’s important to have a discussion that hears and engages with everybody. But I think this legislation seeks to have renewable projects built, renewable projects that have a significant, in every case so far, First Nations involvement. Not necessarily in the future. The member might be right to say that, but it would be our expectation in the next call to power that that would be true as well.

That’s a process that British Columbians can be quite proud of, and communities can be, because it means that projects are actually owned in community and not by a company, even if it’s a Canadian company from another province or by an international company.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that he is expressing his due diligence in the consultation process and the development of this legislation, but it’s quite clear that the leadership council isn’t thrilled with the legislation as it sits here today.

The minister has made it clear that under subsection 13(2), there won’t be any regulation made which conflicts with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. But I think it’s fair to assume — and UBCIC generally speaking has voiced some opposition to this — that there will be some conflict with the Declaration Act and the regulations that are being drafted under clause 13 and perhaps throughout the whole bill.

[4:40 p.m.]

I mean, some of these projects potentially will be on sensitive hunting, fishing, medicine-gathering, traditional medicine-gathering grounds. And I think First Nations have made it very clear to this government in the process of drafting this bill that they’re not going to be pushed into making decisions in a hurry.

It’s also clear that the Declaration Act

potentially will be on sensitive hunting, fishing, traditional medicine-gathering grounds. I think First Nations have made it very clear to this government in the process of drafting this bill that they’re not going to be pushed into making decisions in a hurry.

It’s also clear that the Declaration Act, which this government has said that they will not come into conflict with, clearly states that consent is required.

In potential conflicts between drafting regulation and the Declaration Act, how is the government going to deal with streamlining regulation quickly, as it hopes to do, but also honouring the Declaration Act, which it says it’s going to follow strictly, when consent is required?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, there is consultation throughout this process: consultation on the call for power; consultation on NCTL; consultation on the legislation, as there has been; consultation on the regulations; and then consultation, importantly — and this is important for communities as well, not just for First Nations communities but for other communities of people — on the permits themselves, that address some of the issues the members talked about.

Yes, that’s an important process, and yes, we are moving forward with legislation that is designed to facilitate projects that are in the public interest. Those projects — we’ve talked about it now — that are a majority, and owned by, First Nations. So section 13, which applies to section 13 regulations for a specific reason, that makes sense, saying you can’t affect that requirement for consultation.

But I think you’re going to see throughout the process…. It’s not just that we get to the regulation then consultation ceases. The B.C. Energy Regulator has 25 years of working with First Nations — in particular, because of the geographic location of oil and gas resources in the province, with Treaty 8 First Nations.

That happens…. When I meet with the Saulteau or West Moberly, they know the B.C. Energy Regulator staff by name, both the field staff and the CEO — the Doig River First Nation, all of them. They know them by name because of the nature of the day-to-day work that the B.C. Energy Regulator does with First Nations. Of course, these acts apply to the issuing of permits as well.

There is consultation throughout the process. It’s not that there’s consultation on the regs, and then that ends, and then we just go make decisions without consultation. That process continues. That’s part of the ongoing work of the B.C. Energy Regulator in oil and gas, which they’ve been doing for some time; in hydrogen, which they’ve been doing for a much smaller period of time; and now will be doing with renewable resources.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister.

I know the minister mentioned these projects being in the public interest, and he referenced some communication between the regulator and specific nations. But there are a lot of different groups at the table here. Not everybody agrees on processes and regulation all the time.

I want to circle back to: if there’s a regulation which is drafted by the government — which, again, I think in the theme and the spirit of this bill, is to move these projects forward quickly; it’s called the streamlining act — how is the government going to deal with nations that, I think it’s fair to….

I don’t want to get too in the weeds with hypotheticals. I think it’s fair to assume that there’s going to be pushback along the way, when it comes to the Declaration Act and nations having some concern about that bumping into regulation that’s going to be drafted by this government.

[4:45 p.m.]

Again, will the government be creating standards to move these projects ahead in the public interest, such as timelines around various nations potentially having to give consent to this regulation, or will the government push ahead in the public interest? I just want to get some

standards to move these projects ahead in the public interest, such as timelines around various nations potentially having to give consent to this regulation, or will the government push ahead in the public interest? I just want to get some clarity on how that process is going to look.

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’re going to work through the process. Usually when someone says they don’t want to get into a hypothetical, it’s immediately before they ask a hypothetical question. I do that myself. So I don’t want to…. I’m not being critical of that.

We’ve got to do the work. That’s what we’re going to do, just as we did the work on the call for power, as we’re doing the work on the legislation, just as we’re doing work on the regulation, and then the day-to-day work that the B.C. Energy Regulator does in consultation and working with First Nations, particularly in Treaty 8 territory and other places as well.

Obviously, this legislation will take the B.C. Energy Regulator other places — in particular, the northwest, with a significant number of new First Nations who will not just be involved along the line but potentially co-owners of the project along the line, which is obviously a significant fact in that discussion. We’ll see how that goes. That work is continuing on as well.

I’m never pessimistic. We have to work closely, hear people, hear their concerns, respond to their concerns. I’m confident that we’ll work our way forward and achieve the goals for the public and also for First Nations. When you have these projects…. I know the Leader of the Opposition expressed views on these projects, on First Nations–held projects and the projects themselves. But I don’t share that view. I have a different view. I’m positive about the projects.

I think, for the First Nations involved, when those projects are done…. You start to receive revenue when the turbines start spinning, and there’s going to be a lot of interest in that as well, as there is in other values that First Nations and other British Columbians hold dear. We’re going to have a process and seek support.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate that. You know, with all due respect, the Leader of the Official Opposition’s view on this is really irrelevant, because it’s not his bill, and it doesn’t really matter.

This is about the government’s framework and the government’s process that we’re discussing here today. The minister’s made it very clear that there won’t be any regulation that conflicts with the Declaration Act. So my question is…. The minister talks about the process and the work. Well, I’m trying to pull out some detail of what that process is and what that work will be, when….

I don’t think it’s hypothetical at all to presume that there’ll be conflict between the Declaration Act and the drafting of regulation. What is that process to work through that, and what is the work that needs to be done in order to streamline these processes under clause 13?

The Chair: If I can remind members that the only people I’m hoping to hear speaking is the staff and the members and the minister.

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’re going to be consulting on these regulations as soon as the act is passed, assuming it is. Again, I never want to…. What’s the expression? There are a whole bunch of agricultural ones about counting chickens, but I’m not going to do those. I’ll seek consultation on that question as well.

I think, when the legislation is passed, we start with the regulation process. Not just ourselves but First Nations will have a voice and a role in how that process is proceeded with, and I’m confident we’ll arrive there, just as we arrived there in the call for power process, just as we’ve arrived there in other processes.

[4:50 p.m.]

I’m confident we’ll be able to do that, once the legislation passes. We, obviously, can’t have consultation on the regulations before the legislation passes. Once it passes, then we’ll be

process is proceeded with, and I’m confident we’ll arrive there, just as we arrived there in the call-for-power process and as we’ve arrived there in other processes.

I’m confident we’ll be able to do that, once the legislation passes. We obviously can’t have consultation on the regulations before the legislation passes. Once it passes, we’ll be proceeding immediately after that to engage with people.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister. I think that’s the challenge that’s presented now: to the leadership council, it doesn’t feel like the consultation process has been overly extensive. That’s why we’re seeing so much backlash.

I just want to bring up that the Declaration Act requires consent; that’s much different from consultation. When we’re talking about the drafting of regulations in clause 13, undoubtedly those regulations will come into conflict with the Declaration Act. Will the government, no matter how long it takes, require that consent under the Declaration Act? Or will they proceed with their process of consultation?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I have a more confident view than the hon. member. I think that what we have is legislation that adopts or applies the rules that have been applied for a quarter-century in often daily consultation with First Nations by the B.C. Energy Regulator in the oil and gas space. This expands it out to the region, because the majority of the projects here, of course, are not in the Peace.

Only two of the wind projects that we’re talking about are in Treaty 8 territory — one with the West Moberly, and one with the Saulteau. There are others in the Nicola Valley, the north Island, Kelowna, Prince George, etc. All those decisions involve other rights holders — none in Squamish yet, but we can always aspire to that.

So I’m confident. As we have consistently through this process, we have to work our way through that, as we have in other cases. I’m confident that with this bill — which applies a principle that has been in place for a long time, and a regulatory structure that has been in place for a long time — we’ll achieve success in arriving at regulations that work in this area, as they have in others. I’m confident we’ll find support.

Scott McInnis: I do appreciate the minister’s confidence and optimism around this, but it’s quite obvious that for First Nations, there’s some unhappiness around the process that has led us to where we’re at today.

I’m going to try the question in a different way. Will the ministry require First Nations consent around all regulation under clause 13?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I believe we’re going to achieve support — for the legislation, for the regulations and for the regulatory structure — by working with First Nations and others who will be interested in the legislation. I expect that to happen, and we’re going to work hard to make it happen. We know what that takes: it takes significant effort.

We’re also talking about legislation that’s relatively very important but that has a limited focus. It applies an existing regulatory framework that’s working well, including with First Nations, to a new activity: renewable energy. It does that.

[4:55 p.m.]

Then it makes, as we’ll see — for specific projects, all of which have significant First Nations ownership — changes and exemptions from the environmental assessment process. We’ll get to that later on. I feel that we’re going

and then it makes, as we’ll see — for specific projects, all of which have significant First Nations ownership — changes and exemptions from the environmental assessment process. We’ll get to that later on.

I feel that we’re going to achieve that success together, and I’m looking forward to getting started. But that will depend on how MLAs in the Legislature vote on the legislation at third reading.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the minister. He’s good at what he does, but we’re not talking about passing the legislation. You know, we’re talking about clause 13, which is the drafting of regulation.

So I just want to try one more time. Will any and all regulation that’s drafted…. It specifically states this in clause 13 in Bill 14 — any and all regulation. Will that require First Nation consent, as it does in the Declaration Act, which it says in clause 2 will not be affected under this bill?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Again, we’re talking about the development of regulations under this bill. I think what we have is a bill that puts forward a regulatory framework that is well understood, that’s been in place for a quarter-century, that First Nations, in one area of the province in particular, are well familiar with, that supports the building and construction of projects, principally at the moment, which have First Nations equity interests.

I think we’re going to be able to come together on the discussion of regulations. I’m confident. I’m not negative and pessimistic about this. I’m confident and positive.

Scott McInnis: Sorry, Madam Chair. I have to try this one more time, because again, the minister’s….

The Chair: I’m beginning to feel like we’re kind of going round and round a bit, so if you’re able to reframe a bit or move on to another question.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate that, Madam Chair. I would move on, but I don’t feel like there’s been an answer given to the question, so I just want to try one more time.

The Chair: Okay, you’ve said one more time twice now.

Scott McInnis: I promise this’ll be it, if we get an answer.

The Chair: All right, duly noted. Thank you.

Scott McInnis: Again, subsection (2) says that regulation — and I’m paraphrasing here — will not be made which is in contradiction to the Declaration Act.

My question to the minister, again, is: because that is the baseline of clause 13, will regulation that is drafted for Bill 14, which is what we’re talking about here in clause 13…. No matter where the project is, where it is in British Columbia, will that those regulations require First Nations consent before they’re approved by this government?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I said that work will start the day after the legislation, the work in cooperation as per the Declaration Act and consultation with First Nations to seek support for regulations and to work and develop regulations together.

It’s pretty straightforward. We’ve got to do that work, and I’m confident we’ll achieve success for all of the reasons that I’ve stated. This is an existing regulatory framework. There’s obviously strong First Nations community support for projects that have equity ownership for First Nations. In other words, in the case of those projects, First Nations have made applications to the calls for power to win those projects, and they’ve done so because they have outstanding bids into that process.

I’m very confident that we’re going to be successful.

Jeremy Valeriote: I may be taking us backwards a bit here, but I do want to question the base assumption that my colleague is working under.

The minister’s assurances and talk of co-ownership and familiarity with the B.C. Energy Regulator doesn’t replace the consent requirement in the legislation.

I want to read into the record from an open letter from the First Nations Leadership Council to the Premier yesterday:

[5:00 p.m.]

“After closely reviewing Bills 14 and 15 again following our meeting with you, we are deeply concerned and confounded by these statements, as these assurances are not contained in the bills. Section 20, Bill 15 and Section 13(2) in Bill 14 are the only provisions that refer to the Declaration Act.

“Neither of those provisions state that the legislation cannot be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with protections of the Declaration Act or UN declaration. Rather, they merely adopt the definition of “Indigenous Peoples” from the Declaration Act. If the intention behind these provisions

13(2) in Bill 14 are the only provisions that refer to the Declaration Act.

Neither of those provisions state that the legislation cannot be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with protections of the Declaration Act or UN declaration. Rather, they merely adopt the definition of “Indigenous Peoples” from the Declaration Act.

If the intention behind these provisions was 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. How does the minister respond to that criticism over the wording?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I would say the whole point of our relationship here is to engage. I’ve taken the member…. I think he was here when we talked about this process, the process for the call for power that was profoundly informed by the relationship with First Nations, the work that was done to ensure that we had successful bidders in that call for power that met our joint interests for affordable electricity but also for First Nations involvement in projects. The development of the legislation, the engagement there, then the development of regulations will form the same basis.

That doesn’t mean, I suppose, that there won’t be questions. There will be questions throughout the regulation-making process and concerns and discussion. And in the day-to-day application of the act, there will be the same thing. The BCER, as an agency of the government of British Columbia, which has passed the Declaration Act, deals with its responsibilities in that every day. And generally speaking, is regarded to do that quite well by the First Nations that deal with it. I know that because they tell me that.

I think we’re going to have an ongoing process of engagement. And there will be more criticism and letters. And we’ll engage and respond and work with First Nations, some differently than others because there will be different views sometimes amongst First Nations, as there are amongst 204 nations, you would find that there would be some difference in view as well, as there will be maybe amongst the FNLC or UBCIC.

The key, I think, is to get to work and do the work together and that is what I’m always committed to do and that is reflected in how the call for power process is going, the hard work we’re doing on NCTL and other work that we’re doing.

Jeremy Valeriote: I feel like we’re talking around the subject here.

I understand the co-ownership model, the call for power, some of the ongoing engagement, but really, what does this section 13(2) actually achieve functionally? How does it relate to the Declaration Act beyond just the definition of Indigenous Peoples?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think including it in the legislation ensures an understanding of intent, but the Declaration Act applies. It was passed by the Legislature of the province just like the Financial Administration Act applies, or the Constitution Act applies.

[5:05 p.m.]

Like any of the foundational pieces of Legislation we have in the province, it applies. So the purpose here within this legislation is a straightforward reminder of that application.

But the member is right that even

Act applies or any of the foundational pieces of legislation we have in the province. It applies.

The purpose here within this legislation is straightforward — a reminder of that application. But the member is right that even if it was not in this section, it would still apply. The fact that it’s in the section indicates the central importance of the Declaration Act legislation.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

Donegal Wilson: I’m sorry. I hope I didn’t cut off the leader of the other party, because he looked at me like I had a question. I’m sorry, as I didn’t on the last clause.

I am wondering: what analysis has the province done to ensure that removing environmental assessment requirements does not cause or will not cause environmental damage with these projects?

Hon. Adrian Dix: With respect to the North Coast transmission line, I think it would have been our expectation that the Environmental Assessment Act would not apply to that project for the reasons we’ve discussed previously — 90 percent of the same right-of-way and so on.

But we are engaging in an environmental protection plan with the nations, which is being co-developed with the nations, in that case, to ensure that that project is successful environmentally. Obviously, on an existing right-of-way, you’re essentially just putting in a second transmission line, and that has environmental impacts that are understood.

That doesn’t mean we’re not addressing the question, because there’s the other 10 percent that is not on the right-of-way. There’s the co-development of the route that we’ve been working on with nations and so on.

With respect to wind projects, as we’ve said — and it was part of the legislative debate that the member and I took part in — wind projects have been through environmental assessment in B.C. They’re fairly standard. We understand the impact.

We feel that, especially, the localized conditions are dealt with in the permitting process that will be, of course, supervised by the expert permitting of the B.C. Energy Regulator, applying the laws of the province with respect to permitting — whether it’s the Wildlife Act, the Water Act, the Agricultural Land Commission Act or other acts.

Donegal Wilson: Just for clarity then: the level 3 projects would still be required to have the permits in, I think it was, section 20 of the other act?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Let’s make a distinction. We’re talking about the environmental assessment provisions. I want to be clear, and you’ll see in the application there, that that applies to NCTL and, potentially, other transmission lines. It applies to wind projects — identified and prescribed wind projects in the future.

Wind projects. It’s not all level 3 projects that one would envision, right? In this case, the elimination of the requirement for environmental assessment for NCTL and wind projects is what the section does and is intended to do. So not just level 3. There might well be other level 3 projects — for example, solar projects or others — which would also trigger environmental assessment.

What we’re talking about specifically here are wind projects. This was announced in December and discussed in January and then in February and brought in with this legislation. It’s wind projects.

[5:10 p.m.]

We understand the impact on the environment of wind projects. We understand them because we’ve done a number of environmental assessment reviews. We believe that the important issues that can affect individual projects and local communities will be dealt with

We understand the impact, on the environment, of wind projects. We understand them because we’ve done a number of environmental assessment project reviews. We believe that the important issues that can affect individual projects in local communities will be dealt with through a standardized and streamlined permitting process that would apply to all projects. The laws apply to all projects and will continue to.

Donegal Wilson: Earlier in our debate, though, one of the things that was happening was that permitting wasn’t required. Under the Energy Resource Activities Act, clause 21, we were removing permits. If we don’t require permits and we’re also bypassing the environmental assessments, where is that permit that you’re referring to and that has those catches in it?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I think we’re returning to the debate on clause 13, and I’m always happy to do that. It’s one of my favourite clauses, no doubt.

I would say that in that case we’re talking about level 2 projects. We’re talking about level 2 projects that are otherwise regulated — transmission lines that are otherwise regulated by the BCUC. None of their obligations on transmission lines — we do build them all the time in B.C. — are changed by this legislation.

So I don’t agree with the member’s analysis, in any event, for level 3 projects. Of course they have to go through permitting, and they will.

Donegal Wilson: You answered it, right at the end: that those level 3 projects are going through permitting; they’re not exempted. Thank you.

I was speaking to clause 14, which is specifically around the Environmental Assessment Act, and that’s where this went. It started out that you said that we didn’t need the Environmental Assessment Act, because it was covered through permitting. Then I was looking back: didn’t we say we were exempting things through permitting? That’s how I’ll loop that back.

Is there a long-term plan to harmonize environmental assessments with a single-window permitting process for other types of projects?

Hon. Adrian Dix: This specifically applies to the projects that are listed, other potentially prescribed wind projects that we’re talking about — wind energy projects and the transmission line projects that are indicated. That’s what we’re talking about. So the answer to that question is no.

Donegal Wilson: What is the win by removing environmental assessments? How long does it take currently for a wind energy project to get through environmental assessment in B.C.?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I dealt with this at second reading stage. I went through the projects. I’m happy to provide that information to the opposition. I would say, in a general sense — if you look at the projects that have actually happened, which is a good way to look at it — it’s approximately three years in environmental assessment for projects if we know their environmental footprint.

We understand the projects. We’ve gone through a number of environmental assessments. We feel that the permitting process that is being put in place.... Remember, the focus of the legislation is to establish single-window permitting by the B.C. Energy Regulator, who’s responsible for all of the natural resources acts and all of the acts required to do life-cycle regulation in these projects. That’s the purpose of the legislation: to do that. That’s the intent of the legislation. That’s why we went this way.

In terms of environmental assessment, I think I went through the projects. I’m happy to share, with the opposition, the length of time of projects in environmental assessment, because I think it’s generally interesting. It’s one of the things that, frankly.... I’ve said this publicly: you’re talking about projects that take significantly longer in environmental assessment than they take to build and construct.

I think most people would say — we’re reviewing the Environmental Assessment Act — that there are issues around that. This bill assists in that, in a couple of ways.

[5:15 p.m.]

Ironically, it assists with that by removing, potentially — depending on what the result of the next call for power is for wind projects — a lot of projects from environmental assessment, meaning that everything else can move more quickly, which is an incidental thing and not really important to the legislation. It also indicates our need for the electricity, our understanding of the issues involved and our desire to move forward with a better regulatory regime for renewables. This is what we’re doing.

can move more quickly, which is an incidental thing and not really important to the legislation but also indicates our need for the electricity, our understanding of the issues involved and our desire to move forward with a better regulatory regime for renewables, which is what we’re doing.

Trevor Halford: I know this might be a bit repetitive for the minister, but he probably got it off the top of his head. Can the minister list the wind energy projects that will be exempted from the EA process?

Hon. Adrian Dix: What I’ll do here, because this is a public document, is I’ll just share it with a member afterwards. Would the member like me to read them off?

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Okay, sure. I’ll put the nearest town, as opposed to the site of the project, just to give you a sense of where it is.

There’s a project in Merritt: project size, 94 megawatts; resource type, wind; First Nations partner, the Upper Nicola Band; the proponent, the IPP partner, Elemental Energy; the project name, the Boulder and Elkhart wind project. That’s one.

The Brewster wind project, that’s two, which is…. The First Nation partner is the Wei Wai Kum First Nation; 197 megawatts; nearest town, Campbell River.

Three, Highland Valley wind project; First Nations partner, the Ashcroft Indian Band; 197 megawatts; nearest town, Logan Lake.

Four, the K2 wind project. The IPP partner there is Innergex. The First Nations partner is the Westbank First Nation. That nearest town is Kelowna. That’s 160 megawatts.

The Mount Mabel wind project. The First Nations partner is the Lower Nicola Indian Band, 143 megawatts, near Logan Lake.

The Nilhts’I Ecoener project. The First Nation partner is the Lheidli T'enneh; 140 megawatts; nearest town, Prince George.

The Nithi Mountain wind project — the Stellat'en First Nations, 200 megawatts, near Fraser Lake.

ShTSaQU solar project. The Oregon Jack Creek is the First Nation partner. It’s near Logan Lake. That’s a solar project, so that doesn’t apply here, just to be clear with this exemption. But I just wanted to list it off so the member would have list. The exemption from EA doesn’t apply here, it’s what I meant to remember, I think he understands it.

Stewart Creek wind project — West Moberly First Nation; 200 megawatt project size; nearest town is Fort St. John.

Taylor wind project, EDF Renewables, Saulteau First Nation, nearest town is Taylor.

Happy to share that with the hon. Member, if I could. Does that work for him?

Trevor Halford: Did the minister meet with any of the proponents prior to the public announcement that they would be for forgoing the EA process — proponents or registered lobbyists for the proponents prior to them being publicly announced that they would be exempt from the EA process?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’ll just take you through the days.

The announcement was made, I’m guessing, on a Monday. It was early in the week in December. We’ll get the member the exact date. We made the announcement of the projects. At that announcement, I indicated that wind projects would be exempt from environmental assessment. I did meet with proponents of the projects a couple of days later.

Trevor Halford: Did the minister, anybody from the minister’s office, anybody from the Premier’s office that the minister is aware of meet with any of the proponents that the minister just listed, or registered lobbyists for those proponents, prior to the minister making the announcement that they would be exempt from the EA process?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No, and there’s a very good reason for that. I didn’t know who the winning bids were until essentially the day of the announcement. What we had was a call for power, I’d say to the member, a call for power which has

[5:20 p.m.]

be exempt from the EA process?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No, and there’s a very good reason for that. I didn’t know who the winning bids were until essentially the day of the announcement.

What we had was a call for power, I’d say to the member, which has an independent fairness oversight to the project, as you’d expect for calls for power that ultimately involve $6 billion worth of projects. You would expect that. There was no discussion with any proponent in the call for power by me.

Now, of course, I’d just become minister before that. I’ve met with some of the First Nations on tons of other issues, as the member can imagine, but not about this. Made the decision to announce the EA portion initially, which is now found in this legislation, the day we announced the projects. Essentially, we announced the project list at that time.

Trevor Halford: I understand that the announcement was made in December. Cabinet was announced sometime in mid-November. I don’t have the exact date.

My question would be whether the current minister, the former minister, the Premier at the time — the Premier currently — has ever met with any of the proponents, or any of the registered lobbyists of proponents, prior to the announcement, specifically on exempting for environmental assessment?

My question is: has the minister, the former minister, the Premier met with any of the successful bidders here prior to the announcement that the minister made in December?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The answer is no.

Trevor Halford: It’d be understanding, then, that the former minister, current minister, the Premier have never been lobbied by any of the groups. There’s no calendar meeting. There’s nothing. The minister has never, or the former minister has not, met with any of the groups that are listed in the document that the minister just produced, that lists the successful bidders of the power call.

None of them have ever met with the minister or the Premier. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think the member was asking on the issue of the EA exemption, which is the subject of this. I think what he’s asking is: were we lobbied on the question of the EA exemption? Not whether we’ve ever met with the Saulteau First Nation, because of course, I’ve met with the Saulteau First Nations many times, as Minister of Health, amongst other things, right? The answer to that question is no.

We made the decision to proceed in this way. Obviously, we don’t lay out what cabinet discussions are or anything like that in this House, but it was certainly my strong view that we needed to proceed in this way.

I became the minister, I think, on or around November 18, and the government made that decision when we announced the projects. We couldn’t have known who was winning the projects, because we didn’t know who would win the projects. That’s an announcement and a process set up for B.C. Hydro. A decision was made by B.C. Hydro that, essentially, we found out of the day. We knew we were announcing things, but the successful proponents came out of a independent process that was run by B.C. Hydro, that was supervised by independent groups.

Trevor Halford: These groups come into the building often, and I think that’s a good thing, right? When we’re able to meet with stakeholders and find out what they’re doing and find different ways on how they’re supporting inside the community, that’s positive.

I guess my question would be to the minister is this: what would the minister say to the groups that are going to be coming in that weren’t successful? Again, I keep talking about winners and losers. In this case, we’ve got nine successful projects, basically holding a lottery ticket that they now are bypassing the line or the entire process for environmental assessments. Other groups? No — so have and have nots.

[5:25 p.m.]

There are different standards that are going to be around that. There are safety standards. There are different levels of consultation that they’re going to have to meet. There are different enforcement levels, right? It’s a

for environmental assessments. Other groups? No. So haves and have-nots.

There are different standards that are going to be around that. There are safety standards. There are different levels of consultation that they’re going to have to meet. There are different enforcement levels. Right? It’s a completely different playing field.

What message would the minister give to a wind farm proponent that would come into his office and say: “Why am I playing by a different set of rules?” Maybe that proponent has First Nations support. Maybe they have really strong community support. But what message would the minister say to that proponent who would say: “I’m going to be going through this process; my competitor is not”? What’s the rationale for that?

Hon. Adrian Dix: What we were doing, what we announced in December was that we wouldn’t be proceeding with the environmental assessment on wind projects. First these and then others.

The act at that time, the regulations at that time, exempted wind projects that were under 50 megawatts. That was the threshold previously. We were making a decision about a class of projects that are wind projects, so it’s not the case that some wind projects are benefiting and others aren’t.

If the member is talking about the call for power, there were 22 participants in that call for power and ten winners. It’s not a golden ticket. I just think that’s totally wrong. I won’t characterize members in tandem.

I think he’s…. He would understand and I would understand that the proponents worked hard on those projects. First Nations worked hard on those projects. They made a competitive bid in those projects. They met the criteria of the call for power, which I’ve shared with the opposition and which we’ll be sharing with the opposition for the next round in a couple of weeks.

They came forward with projects that are 45 percent lower, in terms of cost, than a similar call for power in 2009. That’s a tremendous achievement. It’s not a winning ticket.

We need the electricity. We did a call for power for IPPs, in this case, with significant Indigenous ownership, and they met the criteria. Yes, they won the bids because they were good bids, and there was an independent oversight on the bid to ensure that the process was handled properly, and it was conducted properly by B.C. Hydro.

That’s how people got not a winning ticket but the ability to deliver electricity for British Columbians and deliver resources and results to First Nations communities and others. I, for one, think that’s a good process.

It’s not the first call for power in the history of British Columbia, as the member knows. We’ve discussed that in previous estimates. We won’t relive those debates, but we’ll have that. It’s not the first call for power, but it was, I think, put in place scrupulously.

You asked about those who didn’t succeed. B.C. Hydro, as you would expect, would meet with all of those. There were key determinants, but obviously, the cost to the ratepayer is a key a key element here. We’re talking about projects on average. The average level cost $6 cheaper than a similar call for power in Quebec, so they were competitive, and they achieve the other goals of the call for power.

That’s the process, and that’s the decision made by B.C. Hydro. We can help determine what the calls are where we go forward, but once you establish your call, you need to set clear rules and it needs to be handled ethically. And it was, and nobody that I have heard of has suggested otherwise.

Trevor Halford: Here’s the problem that I see with the minister’s answer, and it’s quite obvious.

Yeah, we’ve had prior calls to power before. That’s well documented. None of those calls to power exempted in a complete regulatory process. They all went through a rigorous regulatory process. Was it perfect? No. Has it been enhanced in the meantime to some degree? Yes. So that’s issue No. 1, that none of those calls exempted an EA process.

Issue No. 2. They can put together their bids, and I’m sure they were very strong. None of these have been built — not one.

[5:30 p.m.]

We are talking about bypassing an entire regulatory system, right? The minister can say…. He can tout all he wants, but at the end of the day, you’re bypassing

We are talking about bypassing an entire regulatory system, right? The minister can say…. He can tell it all he wants. But at the end of the day, you’re bypassing an entire act that others are having to adhere to. There are ramifications with that. Okay?

Consultation is part of it. There’s community engagement. There’s enforcement. There’s collaboration. None of that is spelled out in this bill whatsoever. It doesn’t exist. “Trust us. We’ll figure it out as we go.”

Nobody, except maybe some of the proponents here that are successful, is trusting this government on this piece of legislation. So when we’re talking about exempting wind farms, and the minister said it’s not a golden ticket, they are going to the front. There is no line for them. They don’t have to line up in a queue because there’s nothing to line up to. It’s gone. The process is now…. It’s exempt.

I’ve been a part of projects that have gone through environmental assessments, okay? Yes, there are ways to improve that. But there are guardrails in place for a reason, right? You go to California and see wind farms for miles. I guarantee you that everybody that lives in those towns, whether you’re just outside of Palm Desert and you’re on your way to Coachella…. Not everybody’s happy about that. But there’s room for input.

When you go up to Tumbler Ridge and you see these wind farms, they’re massive. But there’s been engagement that’s been done. Could it have been improved upon? Absolutely. That’s what we’re here to do. But the minister refutes the angle of having a winning ticket here. The challenge is a lot of these wind farms aren’t going to be built in the next six months.

This government’s been here for eight years. Could have got a lot of wind farms, could have got a lot of other projects built in that eight years. There’s a bit of panic set in. It’s like when my kid decides he’s going to do a project on the last day and he’s had about four months to do it. I can tell that sense of panic. And I can tell that sense of panic across the aisle.

They’re like: “Oh no, what do we do? We’re lacking power, we’re lacking infrastructure projects, and we’re lacking credibility.” This isn’t the way to do it. It’s clearly not.

We have a list of questions here, but I think that the most damning one is: where, in this piece of legislation — we’re talking about section 14 — are the guardrails in place in terms of bypassing an entire environmental assessment act?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m interested to hear the member from the opposition talk about the Environmental Assessment Act. We started the session, and the opposition proposed a bill. It says — the Conservative Party of B.C. — the bill should suspend all but the essential requirements in the Environmental Assessment Act. They want to gut the Environmental Assessment Act.

I don’t mind asking questions and answering questions about what we’re doing. They want to gut the Environmental Assessment Act — energy projects immediately provide a ten-year extension to already-permitted pipeline projects. They immediately provide that exemption, contrary to all rules in the environmental assessment process. That’s their position. They want to gut the Environmental Assessment Act. They do. It’s not me saying it. I’m reading from them.

[5:35 p.m.]

Then they’re here talking about the essential nature of the Environmental Assessment Act. What this is…. I made it clear on wind projects that we had gone through environmental assessment on significant wind projects. I’ll share the numbers with the members. The wind projects under 50 megawatts are already exempted.

What this is: I made it clear on wind projects that we had gone through environmental assessment on significant wind projects. I’ll share the numbers with the members. The wind projects under 50 megawatts, already exempted.

We did give the direction that we understood environmental impacts of wind projects and that the significant local issues that might happen with a particular project would be dealt with through the application of the law and the permitting process and that we would move to a single-window regulation.

But you can’t say, if you want to gut the Environmental Assessment Act, which the opposition does…. And that is a fair position. This is a public debate. They can take that position, that we should also suspend all but the essential requirements for development permits. Well, that’s their position. Gut the entire Environmental Assessment Act.

Now we’re hearing interesting questions about the sanctity of the Environmental Assessment Act from the same MLAs. Well, um, we can have that debate, and I have laid out the reasons why the government is proceeding the way it is. The opposition can disagree with those reasons.

The opposition can oppose, which it does, the North Coast transmission line. The opposition can oppose, which it does — in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, which I won’t use, because they’re profane, what he thinks of wind farms.

We can talk about all those things. All I would say is that this is a crucial moment for the province and that as Minister of Energy, I’m proud to represent a government that is building renewable energy in this time, that’s joining other jurisdictions, like Quebec, in doing this. It’s using renewable energy projects. It’s building them all over the province. It’s building them with First Nations ownership, of 51 percent in cases. I’m very proud of that.

We’ve said the reasons why we want to exempt as a class, not just these projects, but as a class, wind projects now over 50 megawatts in the same way as we previously did under 50 megawatts. But we also believe in the Environmental Assessment Act, and I don’t agree with the opposition that we should gut it, which is what they proposed at the beginning of the session.

There’s a disagreement, and I think that’s fair, but I have laid out my strong position that B.C. needs to build out further energy capacity, that we need to build out further renewable capacity. We’re proceeding with multiple measures to do this, and this bill supports that effort.

The Chair: I’ll just remind all members that we are on clause 14 debate, as opposed to second reading debate. If we could keep our questions towards clause 14 and carry on in that vein, I’d be appreciative. Thank you so much.

Trevor Halford: So if we’re exempting for these projects the Environmental Assessment Act…. I’m talking about section 14, but if in section 14 we’re going to exempt the Environmental Assessment Act, where in this piece of legislation is consultation listed off for the projects that are 1 through 9 that the minister just listed a short time ago?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I went through the extensive 16-month process of consultation around the call for power in which the projects were selected. So as I say that, then consultation will occur now in the permitting process.

Trevor Halford: That level of consultation for the call for power is completely separate from what a level of consultation from an environmental assessment office would be. They’re completely two different things. I would assume the minister would know that. So where, again, is the level?

If these projects are being exempted, where is that level of consultation? I’m not just talking about First Nations consultation. I’m talking about local government consultation. I’m talking about community consultation. Where is that level of consultation going to be made up?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The BCER has a 25-year record of consultation, including with First Nations, but others. They’re an agent of the Crown, and as an agent of the Crown, they have a duty to consult that’s well-established.

[5:40 p.m.]

They have a record of consultation, which I have not heard in all the second reading speeches and all the statements in here, a record of consultation that is recognized everywhere over the past 25 years, so the member

as an agent of the Crown, they have a duty to consult that’s well established. And they have a record of consultation, which I have not heard in all the second reading speeches and all the statements in here. A record of consultation that is recognized everywhere over the past 25 years.

The member may characterize that as he wishes, but that duty to consult is there with the B.C. Energy Regulator. And the purpose of the legislation, in addition to this section on environmental assessment, is to do, as we’ve done with oil and gas, as we did with hydrogen, move regulation to a one-window regulation with the B.C. Energy Regulator.

Trevor Halford: What does it look like? What does that consultation look like? When does it start? When does it end?

We know in the EA process there are guidelines, there are certain days that are allotted, there can be extensions, there can be all that. It’s legislated. Again, this is: “Trust me. We’ll figure it out as we go. Together, we’ll figure it out as we go.”

No way. This is the problem with this bill. It’s getting made up as they go.

It’s a simple question. The minister is foregoing consultation. I’m not just talking about First Nations consultation. I’m talking about local government consultation. I’m talking about consultation with hunters and guide outfitters and trappers and fishers. That level of consultation is gone. And the minister cannot stand up here and point to where it is going to be or how it is going to be done.

It’s a clear question. Where is it? Does it exist? If it doesn’t exist, then just say it doesn’t exist. Because it’s not here.

And he can talk: “Well, we did consultation when we did the call for power.” That’s not proper consultation. Did they consult the hunters? Did they consult the trappers? Consult guide outfitters? Consult community leaders? I don’t know. Doubt it.

So again to the minister, where is the consultation going to exist? How is it going to exist, since these projects will no longer be required to fulfill that level of consultation that is set out by the environmental assessment office?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, as noted, this legislation, the elements of the legislation were announced on the EA at the December announcement of the successful proponents in the call for power. And then the Premier subsequently announced around the North Coast transmission line that it would move to the B.C. Energy Regulator. I subsequently announced we’d be moving renewable projects to the B.C. Energy Regulator. We’ve delivered legislation in this House, which the opposition was calling for. They said: “Well, where’s the legislation?” Well, here it is. And we’re having a significant debate on that.

I’ve gone through in detail the consultation that we will be doing on the regulations. This is not a matter of theory. It’s a matter of 25 years of experience how the B.C. Energy Regulator consults on a daily basis on permits.

Now in the oil and gas sector, it has a 25-year record of experience, one that isn’t challenged by the opposition, in fact. It is recognized. In fairness, there are members of the opposition that have been challenging on this question, so I don’t want to lump in my friends in the B.C. Green Party with that argument…. But a record of consultation on permits and others that is excellent. So it’s not a theoretical consultation. It’s 25 years of lived experience with that consultation under multiple governments and multiple partisan stripes.

In short, this is what the legislation envisions doing, which is doing what we said it would do, which is exempting the North Coast transmission line, which has a different environmental process and these wind projects and future prescribed wind projects as from environmental assessment and with the understanding — which I said clearly on the day I said it; it’s clearly in the legislation multiple times; I’m saying it now — of a significant process of oversight by the B.C. Energy Regulator in the permitting process.

[5:45 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: That non-answer was a pretty good answer. Because he doesn’t know. Or he knows that it doesn’t exist.

of oversight by the B.C. Energy Regulator in the permitting process.

Trevor Halford: That non-answer was a pretty good answer, because he doesn’t know, or he knows that it doesn’t exist. It’s one or the other. Right?

The fact is that I asked a very specific question. Where is the consultation? He’s talking about the regulation consultation. We get that they really messed that up, and they’ve got to go and do that tenfold. It’s accurate. They’ve said it on every single bill, that they did inadequate consultation — on 14, 15, 7. I can go down the list.

But we’ll stick with 14. I’m not asking about the…. I’m asking about the specific projects. Where is that level of consultation on the specific projects? There are guidelines within the EAO set out.

You put your application in. Section 13 lists off the different nations you need to have consultations with. There are different stakeholders you have to have consultations with. There are specific windows for when those consultations can happen. There’s input. There are open houses. There are different things that allow that feedback and that dialogue to happen.

Nowhere in this legislation addresses how that will be made up. I know it’s uncomfortable, but I’m going to ask again. Where is that?

Again, I’ll say to the minister: I’m not just talking about First Nations consultation. I am talking about consultation when it comes to guide-outfitters. Okay? It can be somebody that has a trapline. All that consultation did exist, if they wanted it or not, inside of the Environmental Assessment Act.

This no longer is the case for these projects that the minister has listed. Fair. But then defend it. Where is that level of consultation? When does it start? How does it end? What’s the process?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’d just say, when the members opposite were going to gut the Environmental Assessment Act — that was just three months ago — I’m not sure what consultation they were talking about then to automatically extend permits without any process, as they were proposing then. I’d just say that’s interesting.

We’ve had five wind energy projects that are under the threshold, that didn’t require EA approval. But they go through, and many of these issues that the member talks about exist.

There is, in terms of application in the primary act, the Energy Resource Activities Act…. Since he wants to know where consultation exists — section 22. It exists there. That will apply, obviously. What we’re doing is applying that act in those provisions, turned on to deal with consultation by the B.C. Energy Regulator, as it is with oil and gas. That consultation routinely exists, often on individual projects in the absence of environmental assessment.

[5:50 p.m.]

The B.C. Energy Regulator is well suited and has demonstrated a capacity to deal with issues of consultation with First Nations and with others and will continue to do so.

We heard a lot in the Legislature about different acts — the Heritage Conservation Act and other acts — where the opposition was making arguments that were simply not true about the

to deal with issues of consultation with First Nations and with others, and we’ll continue to do so.

We heard a lot in the Legislature about different acts — the Heritage Conservation Act and other acts — where the opposition was making arguments that were simply not true, about the nature of the regulation. Hopefully, we’ll get a chance to discuss those in detail shortly.

The consultation notification provisions are in the primary act. They’ll obviously apply to renewable energy projects, the B.C. Energy Regulator and now wind projects.

Previously there was a 50-megawatt threshold. Now there will be no threshold. We’ll be exempting from environmental assessment because these are fairly standard projects which have gone through environmental assessment multiple times, and we know the issues. We’re dealing with those through the consultation and involvement of a permitting process that has requirements on the prescribed applicant, and we’ll continue to do that.

But yes, we believe in the need to promote renewable energy, and this bill is in favour of that. And, hon. Speaker, it’s not me that says it. It’s the opposition that says they’re against renewable energy projects consistently when we raise it. I don’t need to remind them of the words used by the Leader of the Opposition — because they were profane, and I don’t like to use them in the Legislature — about wind energy projects.

That’s his view, and that’s fair enough, but we have a different view, and we think this is important for the future of B.C., and we’re proceeding.

Jeremy Valeriote: I think my concern here is that bypassing these environmental assessments and the public consultation that comes with them risks undermining a democratic process. Citizens expect to have a voice in decisions that affect their communities and the environment, and the minister knows that reducing these processes can lead to disenfranchisement, can lead to increased tensions between the government and communities, particularly those with reasonable concerns, can stifle public discourse and discourage citizens from voicing their concerns.

I have probably a different concern from my colleagues around this. I think wind farms are beautiful. On the other hand, I don’t have a ranch that is about to have one placed on it. But I think they’re a sign of progress. However, without this kind of consultation and social licence, we risk a backlash that means that these are the last nine wind projects built and we go back to burning fossil fuels.

If citizens perceive that their input and concerns are being ignored, they might become disillusioned with the political process and less likely to participate in future consultation or even democratic activities like voting.

This lack of public input can exacerbate divisions within society, leading to polarization, which we’re already seeing. The minister has quoted the leader of the opposition on this. Issues related to energy development, environmental protection and Indigenous rights can hinder collaborative approaches to governance.

All that said, and leaving the consultation part of the environmental assessment aside, I’m going to quickly transition into a different piece of the environmental assessment.

In my backyard, the environmental assessment certificate conditions — certificate and the conditions associated — are what the B.C. Energy Regulator uses to build out their permitting. Is the minister saying that we’ve learned everything we need to learn from the first few wind projects that have been through the environmental assessment and there’s no need to adapt the permitting? We’ve now set that in stone? How will this permitting work without the environmental assessment to establish what permits are needed?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Under permitting, the regulator does apply conditions — right? — and puts in place regulations and standards and ensures that those standards are followed.

[5:55 p.m.]

The member will know — at least, I’ll note from my most recent meetings with his constituents on some important other energy issues — that the existence of the environmental assessment process does not insulate one from criticism of those processes.

I won’t get into the project I’m thinking of, but I think the member knows which one it is.

most recent meetings with his constituents on some important other energy issues — that the existence of the environmental assessment process does not insulate one from criticism of those processes. I won’t get into the project I’m thinking of, but I think the member knows which one it is in his constituency.

I think there’s another part and another frustration that I hear from members from all sides of the House exists — that we’ve got to proceed. Climate change is not a temporary emergency. It’s an emergency for our planet, for our province. We’ve seen elements of that. How do we respond to that? Well, one of the ways we respond to that, and it’s economically valuable to do it, is displacing fossil fuels by building clean energy.

This bill, for example, which puts renewable energy in a single-window regulation…. Set aside whether you like the regulator or you don’t like the regulator, it’s a good idea. We’re giving it the same standards we do, by the way, to a fossil fuel industry that the member is occasionally critical of. I think that makes sense.

I think proceeding with these projects, not going through three years of environmental assessment during a time when we need to electrify, to build out energy resources and to address climate change…. I think it’s a pretty good thing to do.

One of the issues in other jurisdictions, one of the criticisms of government, is not delivering on public projects in the public interest. Sometimes that can be hospitals or schools. Sometimes that can be energy projects, as it is in this case. I think there’s an expectation that we should deliver, that we should address climate change, that we should address the economic needs of the province. And Bill 14 is about that.

It’s also about bringing a measure of justice as the projects reflect. These projects, the level of Indigenous participation, First Nations ownership of $3 billion in equity — that’s astonishing. And there’s more coming, because there’s going to be a second round.

The member says that this will be the only round. No, no. We’ve announced it. We’ll see it soon, and I’ll be sharing the call for power with him soon. We need to continue to proceed.

This is determined action by government which, I believe, is supported by people — action on the climate and action on building a stronger more self-sufficient economy in BC.

Scott McInnis: Just a couple of questions, I think, on my end.

For the record, to be clear, are there any of these projects that are related to clause 14 that will be bypassing the Environmental Assessment Act…? Are any of those projects currently on Treaty 8 territory or territory that is recognized as having Aboriginal title?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I just I shared the list with the opposition. I don’t know if it’s one of those questions where you’re supposed to answer one way while we all know the answer.

There are two projects. This question was asked before, yesterday and today. One is the principal First Nations proponent is the Saulteau First Nation, and the other proponent in Treaty 8 territory is the West Moberly First Nations.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer, just making sure.

Can the minister just confirm that there was consent given by the nations where there are projects going on either treaty or title land to bypass the environmental assessment process, as is in clause 14.

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’re talking about the projects, and, of course, as the members opposite can tell, I’m happy to talk about the projects. We went through, in the process of the development of the call for power, an extensive consultation process.

[6:00 p.m.]

An advisory committee was set up under the auspices of a provincial First Nations organization to guide the process, to make sure people had access to information. We had competitive bids. They had a requirement for 25 percent First Nations ownership. They all came through at basically double that, one at 49 percent and the others at 51 percent.

Then, with respect to issues that

to guide the process, to make sure people had access to information. We had competitive bids. They had a requirement for 25 percent First Nations ownership. They all came through at basically double that, one at 49 percent and the others at 51 percent.

Then with respect to issues that others may have outside of that, obviously there’s a permitting process, which will be defined by the regulations that we’ll be starting, hopefully, on Friday. That process will be ongoing.

Trevor Halford: I just want to clarify how enforcement will be done, right? Enforcement can happen during the construction phase. It can happen after the construction phase, once it’s in service — so compliance.

Typically, when somebody receives a successful EA certificate, they are given a list of criteria that they’ve got to meet. How will that be done? Again, we can pull up previous wind projects that would have maybe five, 50 different requirements that they’d have to meet. How is that going to be executed in this process?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I shared this information with the House yesterday, but I’m happy to do it again.

The BCER maintains a comprehensive compliance management system to identify, coordinate, track and continuously improve compliance management activities. CMS is an integrated framework of people, policies, processes, information and tools used to ensure conformity with requirements, legal, regulatory and permit conditions.

BCER’s comprehensive approach to safety and compliance begins with the application, technical regulations and standards at the design phase. Application review of a project can continue through the construction, operation and eventual decommissioning of that project, supported by compliance inspections and a range of enforcement tools.

Safety and compliance management is carried out by various teams throughout the organization, including engineering, environmental stewardship, geology, archaeology, and compliance and enforcement.

Jeremy Valeriote: Madam Chair, I’m going to invoke my rookie status and make a radical suggestion that we take a dinner break that is lengthy enough to actually eat, sit down and eat, increasing confidence that we’re going to get through this by 6:50 p.m. tomorrow.

I’ll leave that with you, and then I’ll preview my next radical suggestion, which is going to be opening those curtains for the evening.

[6:05 p.m.]

The Chair: Okay, getting back in order in this committee. We shall recess until 6:30.

The committee recessed from 6:05 p.m. to 6:31 p.m.

The committee recessed from 6:05 p.m. to 6:31 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act. We are on clause 14.

Jordan Kealy: I have a couple of questions for the minister. When it comes to engagement, we’ve heard some previous things. You know, it’s great that we hear so much consultation when it comes to First Nations, but in my region, when it comes to these wind turbine projects, we already have them in our region.

We’ve experienced side effects of having certain industries. When it comes to concerns that citizens have that are relevant to these projects going forward and sidestepping the regulations that are currently proposed to be dismissed, when it comes to proper consultation with public and with local governments, right now a lot of people have major concerns that these projects will go unchecked.

Can I please have an answer as to, if this does go through, how you are going to communicate properly with the communities and their local governments, as well as my constituents?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Good to be back. You know, it felt like a long break, but it didn’t end up being as long as I thought it would be.

To the member, obviously in the permitting process, which is significant, some of the projects — for example, wind projects that are in this region — have been under 50 megawatts and there was no EA in those projects because the EA didn’t apply to those projects.

There are still permitting processes. The intention of the legislation, as the member knows, but I’ll just repeat it here, is to move renewable projects to a one-window regulation.

The good news in his constituency, of course, is the B.C. Energy Regulator kind of sees Fort St. John as its hometown. So it’s very involved, very connected to the community, has regular consultations on the very significant issues in the oil and gas sector and works with communities in those areas very successfully. And I’m sure it will do so in this case.

You’ll see this in the foundational act. You see there’s consultation and notice periods and there are opportunities to ensure, as you get permits consistent with the laws of the province, that people will be able to express their views on those permits.

Jordan Kealy: My question to the minister is…. It’s great that you bring up the Energy Regulator and that they’re situated in Fort St. John, my hometown.

[6:35 p.m.]

I currently have a lease road on my property. The reclamation process has failed two times in a row, and it is very difficult to try and navigate the system even under the current regulations. Right now, when it comes to expediting a project like this, especially with

situated in Fort St. John, my hometown. I currently have a lease road on my property. The reclamation process has failed two times in a row, and it is very difficult to try and navigate the system even under the current regulations.

Right now, when it comes to expediting a project like this, especially with large-scale processes, how do you plan on engaging and protecting constituents that will be affected by these projects?

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the member notes…. I’m not aware of his relationship with the B.C. Energy Regulator, but I think it’s highly regarded in his region, in his community — 300 professionals in all disciplines who work significantly from archaeology to all other areas, engineering, all other areas of involved in the permitting and regulation of process.

There’s a detailed process and a comprehensive compliance management system that identifies and tracks and continuously improves compliance management activities. I’ve spoken about it at length in the Hansard record. I’m sure the member can find that.

We have an energy regulator that has been in place in his region for 25 years managing the permitting process and the public interest, the interest of communities. But especially, because of the nature of the community in Peace country and Treaty 8 country, it does an excellent job of connecting with communities, and that will continue to be the case.

The permitting process will allow the public to express its views on permits, and the notification process, which is enshrined in law, will ensure that they’re informed.

Jordan Kealy: Thank you very much to the minister.

My next question is in regards to when we look at the consultation with First Nations, and I think it’s great that there is ownership that’s local, that it stays within our own economy and contributes to infrastructure.

But in regards to how coalition contracts regulate and control businesses within our area, it creates an unfair divide that if you can’t get a coalition contract with First Nations to be able to work on these projects, to help build and construct them, you are not a viable business partner and can no longer qualify for being able to actually help with these projects in the construction and being able to contribute to the local infrastructure.

Is there something that’s in place to address that scenario, where you actually have equal representation among businesses?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, thank you, and we don’t proceed too far on this. This is obviously beyond the scope not just of the section but of the legislation.

The member will know that on the list of successful proponents in the first call for power, the 2024 call for power, we have proponents who are world-class. In the case of Innergex wind power companies that are partnered with First Nations in the community, that’s good news, in a general sense. Often an IPP would not have any local ownership at all, so when there are profits, when there are returns, those will stay in community, and that will be a positive thing.

I think the questions he’s asking and the concerns he’s asking about his community — I don’t dismiss them, but I would say that those are issues that are broader and certainly not taken up in this legislation. I appreciate him raising the point and using this forum to raise the point, but they’re really not relevant to the legislative response I have.

[6:40 p.m.]

The Chair: Just a reminder to the member and to all that we are discussing, right now, clause 14.

Jordan Kealy: I’ll save my other questions for when it comes to the next clause.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Peace River North. Just a reminder to the member and to all that we are discussing right now clause 14.

Jordan Kealy: Thank you very much. I’ll save my other questions for when it comes to the next clause.

Scott McInnis: At this time I’d like to propose an amendment to clause 14.

The Chair: Would you like to speak to it now member?

On the amendment.

Scott McInnis: I would. In clause 14, I move that Committee of the Whole, Bill 14, intituled Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, to amend the following, clause 14 by adding the underlining text as shown:

“Despite subsection 1, a streamlined project is subject to an environmental review process that includes public notification and a public comment period of not less than 30 days as prescribed by regulation if any of the following conditions are met: (a) the project is located within five kilometres of a First Nation reserve or privately owned property, (b) the project is situated on or directly adjacent to land that is within the agricultural land reserve or designated under the Heritage Conservation Act, (c) the project is situated on or directly adjacent to Crown land that is subject to an existing lease, licence or other Crown land tenure granted for recreation, grazing, guide outfitting or similar purposes, and (d) the project exceeds a generation capacity of 50 megawatts.”

I think we’ve canvassed a lot of good questions here this afternoon, and we’ve had some discussion around the need…. Obviously, we need power in this province, but it’s also very important that we have public input and we respect various aspects of the public, when it comes to…. Whether it’s guide outfitting or private property, ranching, these kinds of thing, anglers people who own angling businesses, etc. — that their concerns are heard within this process before the environmental assessment process is bypassed in certain situations.

I hope all members will consider this amendment to be very reasonable in allowing for that space for all members of the public to have that 30-day period specifically to provide their input on these specific projects before they move ahead.

It’s not…. You know, 30 days is a reasonable time, I think, to address some concerns and hear feedback from the ministry around this. As my colleague from Peace River North pointed out, there are several areas around this province where there are these wind projects, which are located very close to where people live. I think it’s very, very important that we take into consideration their perspective on this before we before we move forward.

Once again, I just hope all members would consider this to be a very reasonable amendment to clause 14, and I encourage everybody to vote in favour of this amendment.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I don’t support the amendment, but I make one important point for the Chair to consider. The member has suggested that essentially an environmental review take place of projects greater than 50 megawatts. Let’s set aside all the other things they talked about, which is a nice interesting show about the issue.

Currently projects up to 50 megawatts are exempted from environmental assessment. So an amendment that simply can be satisfied by voting against the section is not, in my view, in order. In other words, it’s contrary to the intention of the section.

I realize the members are opposed to the section, so I don’t say that to be argumentative. I just simply say that the whole purpose of the section is taken away by the amendment, which is not the purpose of an amendment.

The Chair: Members, we’ll take a, we’ll take a brief recess now to review the amendment.

Scott McInnis: Can I speak to the amendment?

The Chair: We’re going to first review it for admissibility and make copies, and then there’ll be an opportunity for further debate after the brief recess. Thank you so much.

The committee recessed from 6:44 p.m. to 7:02 p.m.

The committee recessed from 6:44 p.m. to 7:02 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The Chair: Good evening. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 14, Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, back to order.

We’ve reviewed the proposed amendment to clause 14, and in reviewing the amendment, it’s not clear to the Chair that the proposed amendment to clause 14 is a direct negative. Therefore, it is the Chair’s view that the amendment is in order.

Are there any additional debate or comments?

Ian Paton: I’ve seen many amendments come and go in this room and other meeting rooms, and many on our side have been turned down. This one is to me….

Everyone in this room, everybody in this building, should look at the consultation process, the transparency process, the openness to deal with First Nations, farmers and ranchers. We’re simply asking for an environmental review process that includes public notification and a public comment period of not less than 30 days, as prescribed by the regulations, if we meet certain criteria.

One is simply if the project is within five kilometres of a First Nations reserve. Pretty simple. I mean, that’s not too much to ask — 30 days of consultation so that we could submit our feelings on this wind power or renewable energy project.

Two, if the project is situated directly adjacent to or on agricultural reserve land — again, giving the opportunity to farmers and ranchers to view their comments.

Three, if it’s directly adjacent to Crown land that is subject to an existing lease, licence or other Crown land tenure granted for recreation, grazing, guide-outfitting or similar purposes.

I’ve been dealing for several months with the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association. They have asked for a letter. I’ve got the letter in my hand, dated February 21, asking for a meeting with the minister about these issues. I don’t know if he has ever sat down and had a meeting with the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association.

I’ll quote from their ask. They said:

“I’m writing to you on behalf of the members of B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, who have raised concerns regarding proposed projects for wind and solar power that are either approved or being considered in their areas throughout the province.

[7:05 p.m.]

“Our main concerns are more in the process and transparency and lack thereof that has taken place in moving these projects forward. These projects will take place on Crown land, which our members have tenures on. We feel there are two main areas of focus that our members and the voters

throughout the province.

Our main concerns are more in the process and transparency, and lack thereof, that has taken place in moving these projects forward. These projects will take place on Crown land, which our members have tenures on. We feel there are two main areas of focus that our members and the voters of B.C. deserve an explanation for and for the opportunity for consultation and transparency.

The lack of consultation and engagement with local residents and tenure holders, informing them of the projects, their locations and the possible impacts to them and their community. It is unreasonable not to engage in consultation and information sharing with all the residents and stakeholders in the province.

So I think it’s a simple ask that we give people in this province, farmers, ranchers and First Nations, the opportunity with this amendment to at least have 30 days for their input before this gets charged forward.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I met with the cattlemen at length on this legislation on May 6, just to be clear about that point. It doesn’t mean that they were satisfied with the meeting, but we had a frank exchange of views, which I think is important and which the member knows I’m always prepared to do with people around the province.

With respect to this proposal, the intention of the amendment is straightforward. This would apply, effectively, to an environmental assessment process on all projects over 50 megawatts. Well, there’s no environmental assessment projects under 50 megawatts now. The intent of the amendment is clear.

I note to the hon. member, who spoke very passionately the position of this party to gut the Environmental Assessment Act that they presented in February — to gut it. So I do think that this discussion…. And that wasn’t made with consultation. That was intended to be immediate and to exempt from environmental assessment rules a number of oil and gas projects in the province. That was their position.

Our position is pretty clear. We’ve gone through environmental assessments on winds projects. We’re setting up a robust regulatory regime around renewable energy projects led by the B.C. Energy Regulator that’s consistent with what’s happened in the oil and gas industry for 25 years, including recognizing an important role for the agricultural land reserve in that regulation by the B.C. Energy Regulator over 25 years.

So we don’t agree. We have a legislation that says these projects will be exempt from the environmental assessment process. We just don’t agree. I don’t agree with the amendment, and I’ll be voting no on the amendment.

Larry Neufeld: I did want to address the comments that we have heard this evening around proposals to gut the environmental assessment.

I myself and, I know, many of my colleagues are very interested in having projects built. This province has suffered extensively from economic investment leaving the province because it’s too challenging to get projects built here. I find that to be a challenge as a businessman myself, particularly one that lives in a resource-wealthy area. That’s a real shame to watch that happen.

With respect to the desire to see renewable energy and renewable energy projects, absolutely, I’m in. I’m in both feet. I absolutely am. But I believe in choice.

So I’m not opposed to this bill. Well, I’m sorry. Yeah, I see. Someone was listening.

Interjections.

Larry Neufeld: Okay, so I will cut it a little more short then.

I will say that I find this amendment to be more on the reasonable side than others might see it. It is a 30-day consultation period, and based on what’s happening in the world and particularly with what we’re hearing in the public around this bill and another one that’s before us now, I think it’s a reasonable compromise at this point. I will be supporting it.

Trevor Halford: We’ve been at this for a number of hours now. We’re going to continue to be at it for a number of hours. I think one of the big challenges here is that in any of the minister’s answers, he has not laid out at all how consultation will occur on these projects.

[7:10 p.m.]

So either he doesn’t know or it’s not going to happen, but we are offering a very clear amendment here on how that could happen. The minister acknowledged…. That’s great that he met with the cattlemen

so either he doesn’t know, or it’s not going to happen. But we are offering a very clear amendment here on how that could happen.

The minister acknowledged…. Yeah, that’s great that he met with cattlemen, but it appears that they left that meeting probably feeling more frustrated than when they went in. I don’t know. But there has to be criteria. There has to be a framework. There has to be a window for input to occur. None of the minister’s answers here have illustrated that whatsoever.

I know that we’re not just hearing from these groups. I know the minister is hearing from these groups. Other ministers are hearing from these groups. And nothing that this government has said on Bill 14 has been satisfactory in terms of what we’ve talked about today.

I don’t understand why this is such a hard concept — consultation. The ability to provide input on projects. And the criteria that existed before was clear. Could it be amended? Could it be changed? Could it be a better situation? Of course.

But right now, what we’re seeing is a closed window, and the minister is basically just saying: “Well, we’re going to figure it out as we go along. We did consultation during the call for power.” He cannot get up and clearly illustrate how consultation will be executed on these projects.

I think British Columbians have a very hard time with that. Well, I know they do. And the minister knows that too. They are struggling with the fact that if something is happening in your municipality, whether it’s going to impact your small business, your big business, your livelihood, your cattle, your other livestock — even if you’re not going to get the answer that you want — there should be an ability to have that dialogue.

We’re trying to help here, but the minister cannot clearly articulate how that dialogue is going to occur. We’ve had legislation before that illustrates how that dialogue has to happen. It’s legislative. That is now being stripped. And not one single answer the minister has given here has shown how that consultation will occur. There’s nothing.

And so again, this amendment goes a long way in addressing some of that. And the minister said that he’s against it. But again, the minister has said time and time again…. He has used the word “consultation,” but he has not once in this entire process illustrated or showed how this bill, Bill 14, will execute proper consultation for the projects, the successful projects, and the British Columbians that it will affect. Not once has the minister been able to stand up and illustrate how that consultation will occur.

So if you’re a trapper and you’re going to lose your trap line, I have not seen once how the minister will say: “You can have input on how this project will be built, how we may mitigate some of your circumstances.”

If you have a hunting license, if you’re a guide outfitter…. None of this, nothing in here, would give any of these groups any satisfaction in terms of having input or being able to illustrate to the regulator, to the province, to cabinet, to the minister responsible how some of these projects maybe even enhance their businesses or their life or their surroundings, but in many cases, how they might provide more challenges.

[7:15 p.m.]

We’ve we had that before. That’s gone now with this. So again, this is why I’m supporting this amendment. It makes sense. But it would be very good for the minister if the minister doesn’t

provide more challenges. We had that before. That’s gone now with this.

Again, this is why I’m supporting this amendment. It makes sense. But it would be very good for the minister…. If the minister doesn’t like this amendment, then table another one. Put one forward that actually illustrates how consultation can be done. Right now it’s non-existent. It’s trust us. Where do you send that email in to? When’s the open house? Who are the staff that I’m supposed to talk to? That was all laid out before. For these projects, it will be gone. So again, that’s why I’m supporting this amendment.

It’s important that…. The minister says he meets with everybody, and I take him on his word at that. I’m sure that he does. But is he going to meet with every specific person that has a concern with these nine projects, personally?

Is he going to take that input, and is he going to shape some of the conditions that come with this? We’ll talk about that after the amendment. Is he going to shape some of the conditions on those projects based on that input that he’s getting from cattlemen, that he’s getting from First Nations, that he’s getting from trappers, that he’s getting from local governments. Maybe he’s getting it from a rotary club, I don’t know. But at least they have that ability to have that dialogue within a prescribed time frame.

That’s the key part. It’s not open forever, it’s a prescribed time frame. Is that really going to….? Is that 30 days going to blow these projects up? The government’s had eight years to get some of this stuff done, and they haven’t. They’re panicked, and I get that. But we’re talking about a 30-day window. Again, the minister has not gotten up once and properly showcased how proper consultation will occur on these projects.

This is a start, and if he’s not going to support this amendment, I challenge him to put forward an amendment that will address the concerns from the thousands of British Columbians that are saying: “What are you doing? You’re doing this in my backyard, and I don’t even have a voice. You’re affecting my livelihood. You’re affecting licences that have been in my family for generations.” We’ll figure it out as we go. That’s not good enough. And I don’t…. Nobody is saying, except for this minister and cabinet, that this is good enough.

Like I said, it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing, but come on, if you’re not going to support this, then put something forward that people can actually understand and that’s got some credibility to it. Put forward something that says: “This is what we’re going to level in terms of consultation.”

This is…. There’s nothing in here that I could sit in my riding or a colleague’s riding and say: “This is what I think they mean by consultation. This is going to be your ability to actually have input. This is how you can show the challenges that this projects going to have on you.” That existed. That’s gone now, once this legislation passes. It’s a constant thing from government. “We’ll figure it out as we go. We’ll do consultation….”

The minister talks about consultation on the on the call for power. Did that include all these groups? Is that at is that the government’s standard of consultation now? Before these projects were even announced to be successful, we’ve already done the consultation.

We have a clear amendment in front…. The minister’s already said, albeit before he even actually physically saw the amendment, that he wasn’t going to support it, but that’s fine. I wasn’t expecting him to, and that’s his prerogative. Then at least step up and put something forward that actually gives British Columbians the ability to say: “You know what? There’s a window here where we can have input.” This does it.

I’m going to proudly support my colleague’s amendment here, because it’s the right thing to do. This is where the level of frustration is coming from. You can take example after example. The decisions have been made, but then we’ll talk to you.

[7:20 p.m.]

We’ll start building, but then you come and talk to us about how this is going to affect your business. You’re a trapper? Well, once it’s under construction, maybe we’ll squeeze you in, and you can illustrate to us why this isn’t feasible for you. You a guide-outfitter? We’ll have that conversation

Okay? So we’ll start building, but then you come and talk to us about how this is going to affect your business. You’re a trapper. Well, once it’s under construction, maybe we’ll squeeze you in, and you can illustrate to us why this isn’t feasible for you. You’re a guide-outfitter. We’ll have that conversation, but the decision’s been made.

The whole thing on part of the EAO process was that you had that input put before a decision was made. That’s why you had the open houses. That’s why you had the window of consultation. That’s why you had section 13. That’s why you had all those elements there. You could take all that, and you could make a decision. You could also make recommendations, or you could have criteria listed for said successful project that they had to meet prior to a certificate. That’s gone with this.

Again, we’re talking about a specific window of consultation. That’s basic. But if he’s not going to support this, at least put forward something that he would support that allows people to actually have a voice. Right now, nobody does except for the Premier and a few ministers. That is where the frustrations come in.

Jeremy Valeriote: I won’t repeat some of the points that have been made. From my point of view, this amendment is highly supportable. From my point of view, it is the bare minimum. At least with an EAO process, the proponent would be expected to respond to the comments. There would be some back and forth.

This is strictly a one-way public comment period. It’s not asking much. We’re being told that the B.C. Energy Regulator might undertake a process like this. We’re not really sure. It might be regulated. It might not. I think a little bit of assurance that people can be heard….

I did go on an extensive monologue earlier about the risks of people not feeling consulted and what that could do to the process. So I will support this, and I think it’s the bare minimum. I think within 5 kilometres of a reserve or private property is the least that people can ask to be expected to be engaged.

Jordan Kealy: I’ll support this amendment as well. Being an independent, I won’t be able to vote on it. But I think when it comes to the community engagement, it’s definitely very straightforward and clear that the communities feel like they do not have input on this in a proper fashion, especially when you look at the Taylor project and what the Peace River regional district has brought forward for their concerns.

When you look at certain considerations of when it comes to reclamation and recycling of certain aspects of these projects…. A wind turbine blade. Where are you going to put it when it hours out? We already have blades up there. They’re not going in our landfill. It’s just like the Site C dam when it comes to their work camp. That wanted to get put into the landfill as well. There’s only so much room in that landfill.

Bypass the regulations to be able to pretty much affect the farmers. I hear that there are very large lobbyists that you’ve talked to, like the cattlemen. But there’s a lot of other farmers that are around that area, a lot of people that are around that area that are affected by setback distance when it comes to these projects as well, especially when it comes to how they might affect their animals or when it comes to noise. These are all things that people need to be able to have this input on, and this would give them a time frame to be able to voice those concerns.

The concern was brought forward about the lack of maps and how they were going to implicate with transmission lines, power lines, how they cut through farmers’ fields. I think that’s also another major thing that has to be addressed. It’s been very clear that the local governments in my region feel the need to be able to have this representation and consultation and that it hasn’t happened.

The other scenario, when you look at certain ones of these projects…. I don’t know if it’s just the analysis of the wind turbines that you’re looking at with your call for energy. But also, when it comes to future calls for energy, those specific projects and how they can have implications in other manners when it comes to agriculture, hunting, camping, wildlife migration when it comes to animals as well. Also when it comes to trap lines that have been brought up previously.

[7:25 p.m.]

These are key activities that people have to be able to have this consultation on going forward, and I support this amendment.

Ian Paton: If you’ll allow me to speak one more time, I’d like to give you an example. I heard that one of them was going to go on.

that people have to be able to have this consultation going forward and I support this amendment. Thanks.

Ian Paton: If you’ll allow me to speak one more time, I’d like to give you an example. I heard that one of them was going to go on Loon Lake Road — in that general area. A rancher friend of mine just purchased a ranch with about 250 acres of Crown grazing land along Loon Lake Road.

Ranchers know the land a lot better than the engineering company that’s going to come and plunk these wind tower turbines down on their land. If they come in on Loon Lake Road, I said to my friend that just bought this ranch…. He said: “Well, where are they going to put it?” I go: Well, I don’t know, but they’re going to waltz in and they’re going to say: “This is where we want to put this wind turbine on your grazing land with your cattle grazing on the lease tenure that you have.” And I would say, well, is it going to be near a dugout where the cattle go to drink? Is it going to be near a creek where the cattle go to drink? Is it going to be near a dam where we have a reservoir for water? Is it going to be around a lot of trees that provide shade for the cattle?”

So this would at least give the rancher a 30-day window of an opportunity to sit down and talk to the engineering firm that’s going to put up this turbine and say: “Look, could you please move it 400 metres to the west or to the east? It would be better for my cattle so that it’s not right near my drinking dugout or trees that are going to provide shade for my cattle.” That’s just one simple example of a 30-day opportunity for the farmer or rancher to at least sit down and talk to the engineering firm that’s going to install this wind turbine.

The Chair: The question is the amendment to clause 14. Shall the amendment pass?

[7:30 p.m.-7:35 p.m.]

The Chair: Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section C, or the duly appointed substitutes, are authorized to vote.

The question is: shall the amendment to clause 14 pass?

Amendment negatived on the following division: YEAS — 6, NAYS — 6. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

The Chair: Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote. The Chair votes against this amendment, to keep the bill intact and in its original form and as adopted in second reading.

The question is: shall clause 14 pass?

Interjections.

The Chair: So ordered. We’ll let people shift and take a moment.

Thank you, Members. Now that there’s staff back in the room, could we get unanimous consent that we’re still discussing clause 14?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Chair: Okay.

Recognizing the member for Surrey–White Rock.

Trevor Halford: I’ll just start off with a quick question. Given clause 14 here, the application of the Environmental Assessment Act, does the minister still believe that these projects will have adequate consultation, with the removal of the Environmental Assessment Act for these projects?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes.

[7:40 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: Can the minister clearly illustrate how that consultation will be done?

Trevor Halford: Can the minister clearly illustrate how that consultation will be done?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member knows that under the current act, which guides the B.C. Energy Regulator, there are substantial and established regulations for consultation and notification. I expect the regulations will mirror that, because it’s the same act and it’s the same regulatory framework. We’ve gone over that in detail multiple times on multiple sections.

The member doesn’t agree with the bill, and I appreciate that, but we’ve gone over the consultation with respect to the regulations; the consultation that appeared on the bill; and the consultation that will happen in each of the permitting processes that occur, of course, now in a well-established regulatory process over time. We’ve gone into that in detail a number of times. The member disagrees with that.

This section of the bill deals with the application of the Environmental Assessment Act, and I’ve laid out clearly why the government is taking the action that it’s taking.

The member, notwithstanding his political position to gut the Environmental Assessment Act, doesn’t think that it’s appropriate for us to take the action to exclude certain projects from the act under the conditions of this bill. That’s a difference of opinion on this clause in the legislation. I appreciate that difference of opinion.

Trevor Halford: I can’t disagree with what I don’t know. The question is: what is it? Can the minister lay out…. He’s talking in generalities. We’re talking in specifics of projects — nine specific projects that the minister read into the record. I will say into the record: not once can this minister outline how proper consultation will occur.

He just voted against consultation. Okay? He just voted against a 30-day window for farmers, ranchers, guide-outfitters, trappers, First Nations, everybody to have input for 30 days. He voted against it. That’s his prerogative. He did that.

I’m asking a very clear question here, which he can’t answer. But I’ll ask it again. What is it? He said he has answered it. What is the level of consultation? When will it happen? Who will be consulted? Who will be doing the consultation? I’m not asking for an answer in generalities. It’s a very specific question. Clause 14, removing the Environmental Assessment Act, which outlines clear guidelines for consultation….

Again, can the minister give a very clear answer on how that consultation will occur on each specific…? I’m not asking him to go project by project. He can pick one if he wants, or two or three. I don’t care. All I care about is getting an answer on how proper consultation will now occur.

[7:45 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, appreciating the section that’s in place and the detailed responses that we’ve given on the regulation-making process, including timing of that process, the order we’re doing it in, the detailed answer I gave on that yesterday…. And I appreciate the member may not reflect in Hansard. So if he’s referring the development of regulations, that’s what we’re doing.

The BCER has a significant process that’s in place now, so we don’t have to look to some mystical or new regulatory process. We have that. People are aware of it and know about it. And apparently…. The member will be aware that that regulatory structure has been in place for a significant period of time. It’s the role of applicants, of course, to engage with interests of parties, to have their application informed by the views of those parties.

When permits are received — that’s when the review and the consultation occurs. Who? Those impacted. How long? Of course, it depends on the complexity and the interests involved. That’s the basics of regulation. Our regulatory process is well-known. We’ve answered detailed questions on throughout the sections of this bill.

Trevor Halford: Okay. I guess I’m struggling here then. I guess I’m misreading it. I apologize. I may have missed an answer over the last two days. We just had the Agriculture Minister vote against letting people in the agricultural sector actually have a window to be able to be consulted.

He’s talking about a process that exists within the BCER for consultation. What is that consultation process? So now that we’re taking out, on clause 14, the Environmental Assessment Act, — this is not a hard question — can the minister detail what the consultation project is?

Where’s the paper with the projects? There we go. We’ll pick one. We’ll do the Brewster wind project. What is the consultation process for the Brewster wind project? When does it start? When does it end? Who’s able to be consulted?

That’s a pretty specific question for this specific project, given that clause 14 will eliminate the Environmental Assessment Act. There we go.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, as I’ve noted to the member, under the ERAA, there are detailed requirements for consultation and notification and regulation which this will mirror.

[7:50 p.m.]

The member asks: are the regulations written yet? No. We know but the requirements for consultation and notification are because they’ll mirror that. I can provide that to him, and it shows it in detail. And I’ve given that answer a number of times before.

So I’m happy and referred to the act and referred to the other legislation. This is an area of regulation that’s occurred in permitting

or consultation notification are because they’ll mirror that. I can provide that to him, and it shows it in detail. I’ve given that answer a number of times before. I’m happy and referred to the act and referred to the other legislation.

This is an area of regulation that’s occurred in permitting for some 25 years. The regulatory requirements will apply to all projects in the class, so we don’t need to talk about an individual project, nor would that really be appropriate for me to do. It would apply to all projects in the class, and that’s what it’s doing. We have a detailed application of how this works over 25 years.

Some of the changes that put that in place were put in place under a B.C. Liberal government that he supported. I appreciate his support in this committee, the Environmental Assessment Act. I also appreciate his position outside the committee that the act should be gutted for all projects. That’s his position. That’s the position of the Conservative Party of B.C. He’s a member of the Conservative Party of B.C. in this Legislature, and we hear him speak on behalf of the Conservative Party of B.C. all the time.

If he disagrees with his leader about the proposal to gut the Environmental Assessment Act, it would be interesting for him to express it here. But I don’t think he’s expressed that view, so we’ll assume that’s the case.

The detailed requirements replaced under the ERAA will be mirrored in many respects under this, but there will be, of course, significant consultation that I detailed in an earlier answer to an earlier section of the bill about the regulations.

Trevor Halford: If it’s very detailed, I don’t understand why it’s so hard to talk about. Again, the minister is talking in generalities.

Okay, I’ve asked…. Let me pick another project here. I’ll do the Taylor wind project. What is the consultation process for the Taylor wind project? When does it start? When does it end? I’m asking for specifics. How long will it be?

Okay, there have been regulatories in place for 25 years. We’ve heard that answer from the minister multiple times. I am asking a very specific question. The minister can say: “Well, it’s not appropriate to talk about specific projects.” It absolutely is appropriate. This is part of the problem. Now we’re being told that we can’t talk about specific projects that they’ve publicly announced, in terms of consultation? Are you kidding me?

It’s because the minister does not know the answer. If it works better, we can take a recess while the minister goes and finds out what the consultation process is for one of these specific projects. I don’t care which one it is. Pick one. But can the minister please outline how consultation will work. When does it start? When does it end? It’s not a hard question.

You are eliminating the Environmental Assessment Act from these projects, which outlines consultation. So, what’s coming in its place? All the minister has talked about is process and regulations that have existed for 25 years and this and that. Great.

“What are you talking about?” is my question to the minister. Where is the actual consultation framework? I don’t understand why this is so difficult. Because if he cannot answer it, then I just assume that it doesn’t exist.

So if we need to take a recess while the minister figures out what consultation is for the Taylor wind project, that’s fine. We can do that. But this is a specific question. What is the consultation process for the Taylor wind project? Has it already started? Where can people send emails in to? Who is quarterbacking it? When do the open houses start?

This isn’t hard. Those details were all answered under the Environmental Assessment Act for specific projects. They’re choosing to take that out. That’s their prerogative. But what’s in its place? That’s a very specific question. Again, what is the consultation process for these projects? That’s it.

[7:55 p.m.]

The Chair: I have been listening very carefully to the debate, and we’re allowing a fair amount of latitude as well. I have noted a repetition in the question. I have heard a response.

I’ll let the minister respond, but just a reminder that if you perhaps don’t agree with the response, that’s not a grounds for

a fair amount of latitude as well. I have noted a repetition in the question. I have heard a response. I’ll let the minister respond, but just a reminder that if you perhaps don’t agree with the response, that’s not a grounds for repeating the question.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, hon. Speaker, I give a lot of latitude for snide at this time of night, so I’ll just let all that stuff go. I’ll just say that on this on this section of the bill, we have….

As the member knows, this is an enabling bill. The regulations are developed pursuant to this bill. There’ll be regulations and requirements for consultation notifications. Those have been detailed and are laid out and already produced. They will mirror the existing regulatory process, which I’m happy to share with the member — the existing regulation. I just asked for it so we can…. I’ve given this share of the answer before, in the act and in the regulations. That’s how it will work.

We know how it will work, because it’s worked over decades. The member has never raised it in the Legislature, never expressed concern about the regulations around oil and gas, around the ALR or any other issue, in the Legislature. He hasn’t.

Interjections.

Hon. Adrian Dix: It would be in Energy estimates, as the member knows. It would be nice to have a discussion. I’m happy to have a discussion.

Those requirements are clear. Consultation will be laid out in the regulatory process for the application to this sector. They’ll be conducted by the B.C. Energy Regulator, which has been engaging in such consultation and notification regulation for decades now, and we will act on that basis.

This is a set of questions that we’ve answered a number of times. The member doesn’t like the answer, but that is the answer. He can continue to ask whatever question he likes, of course.

Jordan Kealy: I don’t think it’s an unreasonable question at all to the minister that…. In my region, when it comes to this Taylor wind project, very specifically, the regional district itself is struggling trying to deal with this scenario and the consultation that isn’t being done with the constituents in the areas to address the cumulative effects and impacts, the effects on surrounding neighbours to the project, even when it comes to the property valuations when it comes to the degradation of when these projects go through. These are all items that have to be properly communicated.

I personally don’t think it’s a snide remark in any way, and I’m not repeating anything previously. I was just using the one comment that was made.

I think my community would love to hear an actual answer to how they’re going to be properly communicated with when it comes to their concerns.

The Chair: Members, I have I have now noted that the debate is repetitive, and I ask that you pursue a new line of questioning.

Recognizing the minister.

Jordan Kealy: Perhaps, I’ll give it one more try for the members, and I’d be happy to share a document which describes in detail…. It would be great. I don’t want to do all of the members’ filibuster in form.

As the member knows, and as members know, under the Energy Resource Activities Act, there are requirements for consultation and notification regulation. Those are publicly available, and the member’s office could easily find them. The library will get them for him in five minutes if they so require. I’ll be happy to provide them to the opposition.

What they show is a detailed process, now under the Energy Resource Activities Act, the requirements for consultation and notification, which is a detailed regulation of some 23 pages. It defines, for example…. There’s an interpretation section, and it applies the application of the act — who must be consulted or notified, who must be consulted. It’s the answer I’ve been giving, for the last couple of days, and so on. They provide….

In the terms of the development of the regulations under this act, that has yet to happen, as the member knows, and I appreciate that. This is a pretty good test of that.

[8:00 p.m.]

It will require the consultation we’ve described in the development of the regulations, so it may not be exactly the same. It just tells you how the B.C. Energy Regulator deals with notification and consultation. That’s the answer I’ve been giving for some time.

tests of that. It will require the consultation we’ve described in the development of the regulation. It may not be exactly the same, but this tells you how the B.C. Energy Regulator deals with notification and consultation. That’s the answer I’ve been giving for some time.

Trevor Halford: I’m happy to review that document. I know it’s a public document, so I thank the minister for bringing that in. It’ll probably lead to further questions, and I’ll table that now.

We’ve seen wind farms approved before under the Environmental Assessment Act in, I think, some ridings that have members that are currently sitting here right now, listening to this discussion. When they receive that certificate, they come with a number of conditions that have to be met prior to construction, during construction and after construction. Are those conditions no longer going to be happening? How will those conditions be written? Who will be making those conditions? How will they be enforced?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The regulator can apply conditions before construction, during construction and after construction. We went through in detail, and I’ve answered this question a number of times, as well, about the comprehensive compliance management system that the B.C. Energy Regulator has.

That’s some of the process, members will know, in the application — for example, in the ALR, which we’ll be getting to in a future section, and others. The B.C. Energy Regulator has been doing that for some time and has an established record for dealing with it. So that’s what happens.

We’ll have the opportunity to discuss those provisions later on in the legislation. But I’ll just say that there’s a process for notification and consultation that exists. Then in terms of conditions, the regulator is in a position to apply such conditions at each stage of the process.

Trevor Halford: When we look at projects that are going to be exempted from the EA process and we’re talking about specific conditions…. Those conditions were issued publicly. They were posted. There was compliance. There was enforcement with those.

With this change in terms of regulation, will those be…? When would those…? For a specific project, they’ve already been approved, right? So we would know when we would get those from an environmental assessment. They’d be posted on the environmental assessment website. You click on the project, and you see the list of conditions that come with that project.

Are there any lists of conditions that have been put forward on these nine projects that have already been greenlit by this minister?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, no, because they haven’t gone through the permitting process.

Trevor Halford: Yeah, I understand that part of it. But again, when would these be posted? If we’re not having the Environmental Assessment Act, where the lists of conditions come up, who is actually doing the enforcement? Previously, it would be done under the environmental assessment office. Some of the permitting, I am aware, comes from the OGC, and they do their own enforcement, things like that.

I’m specifically talking about the exemption of an EA certificate. Where are those conditions going to be seen, and who will be doing the enforcement on those specific conditions?

[8:05 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: The BCER posts major project permits. If you want to go see the LNG Canada permits, you can see them now.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The BCER posts major project permits. If you want to go see the LNG Canada permits, you can see them now. And the conditions that are applied to those permits, which can be considerable, that’s under the B.C. Energy Regulator. The member will know, of course, that there are, I think, a number of wind projects where environmental assessment doesn’t apply because they’re under 50 megawatts, and that permitting process is happening differently because it hasn’t been, up to now, a single-window regulator.

Trevor Halford: The minister’s entirely right, but I can also go onto the B.C. environmental assessment office and I can see the conditions for LNG Canada on that website as well. So those conditions for the environmental assessment for LNG Canada, do those match exactly what’s on the Energy Regulator’s? Are they the exact same conditions?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’re putting in place a comprehensive permitting system for wind where you will see those conditions laid out in permits that are offered. So if the member is saying, “Well, you’re not putting projects through environmental assessment,” well, that’s correct, just as we don’t put wind projects under a certain threshold now through environmental assessment. And they’re permitting in the present is in a multiministry permitting processes, as you expect. Those permits are provided through that process here. On a major project such as these, the B.C. Energy Regulator would be posting the permits based on its permitting system and the conditions that apply to them. And those would be, of course, publicly available.

Trevor Halford: The minister, I know it’s…. I’m not asking him to do it tonight, but is he able to give an indication? Let’s just ask one. My colleague’s here. We’ll ask about the Taylor wind project. Where is the Taylor wind project in the permitting process right now with the Energy Regulator?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, those projects, all of them are at the pre-application stage. So the B.C. Energy Regulator is starting to do that work. Remember the law is not in place yet. But they’re starting to do the work and preparing to do that work as they are preparing on the North Coast transmission line, where there was more work. That was an answer to a previous question by the member for Peace River South with respect to that project.

So the projects are at pre-application stage, and the B.C. Energy Regulator is preparing to receive them, assuming that the Legislature approves, of course, Bill 14.

Trevor Halford: Is there any cost associated with that work?

If they’re in the pre-permitting stage, have the proponents put forward any monetary funds as they are in the pre-permitting stage? Have they paid any fees?

Hon. Adrian Dix: This isn’t relevant to the section, but we had a detailed discussion of this about two hours ago. I’d say to the member that I’m happy to answer his question though. I don’t think the questions are repetitive in any way.

We created under previous clauses the ability for the B.C. Energy Regulator because the principle here is that the B.C. Energy Regulator, its oil and gas regulation, of course, is paid for by the oil and gas industry. We wouldn’t want the oil and gas industry subsidizing the renewable energy industry. So as a result of that we’ve created a capacity for the B.C. Energy Regulator — and that’s the retroactivity that we have talked of in the second reading stage — that they can go back and ensure that renewable energy proponents and renewable energy projects pay for their regulation.

We had quite a detailed discussion of that, and I recommend to the member that he review Hansard.

[8:10 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: The minister just provided a bit of an answer there in terms of how the oil and gas sector should not be subsidizing or using that money for wind farms, yet there’s preliminary work going on in the permitting stage by the Energy Regulator for these said projects that the minister has tabled, that I’ve referenced, so somebody’s paying for it, right? And if they haven’t put any money into the pot yet, then it’s probably the oil and gas sector that’s paying for it, I would think. The minister can correct me on that. But if the preliminary work has started

by the Energy Regulator for these said projects that the minister has tabled and that I’ve referenced. Somebody is paying for it, right? If they haven’t put money into the pot yet, then it’s probably the oil and gas sector that’s paying for it, I would think. The ministry can correct me on that.

If the preliminary work has started — again, I’ll go back to the question; it’s very simple: has consultation started on any of the projects that this pre-permitting work has started on?

Hon. Adrian Dix: If that’s not the case, they’re going to recover that money, and that’s the principle. It’s why we put in sections of the bill to allow them to do that, dating into even the previous fiscal year for the North Coast transmission line to ensure that the Energy Regulator recovers that money from the proponents.

Trevor Halford: I asked specifically: has consultation begun on any of the projects where preliminary permitting work has started?

Hon. Adrian Dix: As I answered, all of the applications are at the pre-application stage, and of course Bill 14 hasn’t passed yet.

Trevor Halford: I’m very much aware that Bill 14 has not passed. I am now aware that pre-permitting work has now started to occur on the projects that we are talking about. If pre-permitting work is starting to occur, then I could assume that consultation may be starting to occur. It’s just a yes-or-no question to the minister.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I said, repeatedly, “pre-application,” and the member asserts that I said “pre-permitting.” I’m sorry, but that’s not the same thing. If you draw a conclusion based on saying something I didn’t say, that’s a problem. I’ll just say what I said: it’s at pre-application stage.

Obviously, the B.C. Energy Regulator is preparing for its new responsibilities, as you would expect any professional organization to do. That’s what they’re doing, but we’re not at the consultation stage. We’re at the pre-application stage of the process.

Trevor Halford: Has the minister heard directly from stakeholders on their concerns about the environmental assessment office being shut out of these projects? These projects are being exempted, so I can guarantee — because we’ve met with them, we’ve heard from them — that a number of organizations have significant concerns about this specific clause, clause 14.

In terms of the minister’s meetings with them, whether they be environmental groups, First Nations groups, or landowner associations.... Well, we’ve already talked about the cattlemen; it could be guide-outfitters.

I guess what I’m trying to get at here is that with the exemption of the environmental assessment office or the act from this piece of legislation, for these specific projects, has the minister felt that he has sufficiently met with enough groups to have formed an opinion on the justification for the exemption of the environmental assessment office when it comes to these projects?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I’m satisfied, and the member knows I’m satisfied that this is the right direction. I said in December that we were going to proceed this way. We followed that up with further analysis to proceed this way in January, and then in February to deal with other elements of the legislation, because the North Coast transmission line wasn’t dealt with in my remarks in December.

[8:15 p.m.]

We’ve met and discussed this, of course, with the Climate Solutions Council, which gives me advice on climate change issues. I’ve heard from and met with other groups like the cattlemen, who had disagreements with the legislation. I’ve heard, and the members have read into the record, comments from the First Nations Leadership Council

We’ve met and discussed this, of course, with the Climate Solutions Council, who gives me advice on climate change issues. I’ve met with other groups like the cattlemen who have disagreements with the legislation. I’ve heard, and the members have read into the record, comments from the First Nations Leadership Council that expressed their concerns. We’ve met with clean energy groups and other energy groups who have been supportive of the legislation.

I’m confident that the legislation is the right path and that as we continue the consultation with groups and hear groups in the development of regulations, we’ll hear more and have people be able to get access to more information, accurate information but also to engage in their views on what the regulation should look like.

There’s obviously a different view from the government, from me, that the member has. That’s fair enough. That’s the democratic debate. His view on this legislation is that we don’t think we should proceed in this way. But he’s also, in his caucus, proposing legislation to gut the Environmental Assessment Act. Those are two views that they’re putting forward, and it’s legitimate, I suppose, to be contradictory sometimes.

But let’s acknowledge the deep contradiction in what the opposition is saying here. They made it very clear — their position on the Environmental Assessment Act. They want to gut it. They made their views very clear on the Declaration Act. They want to repeal it. There’s no equivocation there. It’s a foundational view of the opposition. They want to repeal the Declaration Act, and they want to gut the Environmental Assessment Act. I have a different view on those questions.

We made our intentions clear in December, and we followed through with legislation that reflects those views but also sets up a strong and profound regulatory regime that has proven over time its value and worth for the environment, for agricultural land, for heritage conservation and for economic development in the province. That’s what the legislation does.

Trevor Halford: A little bit of revisionist history here with the minister, and that’s fine.

You talk about the environmental assessment office, and you remind the minister…. The minister may not have checked the Hansard from when we did the debates and the estimates with the Minister of Environment. We can already see a gutting of the environmental assessment office right now. It’s happening. There’s a reduction in staff, and now you have a minister that has actually completely sidelined the environmental assessment office and the Environmental Assessment Act for specific projects. They can sigh all they want, but that’s accurate. Right?

At the end of the day, what we were seeing now is a government that continues to pick winners and losers. When you look at the Environmental Assessment Act in itself… And here’s the problem with what the minister is saying. It’s that we have companies, some of which are public and some of which, since the announcement’s been made — some of these companies are up over 50 percent stock price. One company up 26, another company up 44, another company up 23.

The challenge is that when a government is sitting in a cabinet room picking winners and losers, who is going to be successful? Who is not going to be required to do proper consultation? Who is not going to be required to go through a rigorous permitting process? That’s what this legislation is. That’s what this is. That’s what Clause 14 is all about: exemptions.

He has referenced getting the environmental assessment process. He has blown it up. There’s no need for it for these nine projects, and there’s room in this bill to increase that dramatically as long as they deem it to be renewable energy.

[8:20 p.m.]

Again, to the minister, it’s very clear to me that he struggles with the fact that exempting these projects from an environmental assessment review comes with extreme risks

to be renewable energy.

Again, to the minister, it’s very clear to me that he struggles with the fact that exempting these projects from an environmental assessment review comes with extreme risks — not only that, the risks of court challenges.

We’ve seen this government get spanked in court because they don’t do proper consultation. The Premier’s record in court, I think, if he was batting that on any Major League Baseball team, he would’ve been sent down for assignment a long time ago. This government does not have a good track record when they get put in a courtroom. What do you think this legislation is going to do? It’s going to do exactly that.

The minister could not articulate a clear path for consultation. He cannot articulate a clear path for conditions. The only thing he’s been able to articulate is who wins and who loses. There are no circumstances where we can…. We don’t support this bill. But based on the minister’s lack of answers….. This section is…. And the fact is….

We challenged the minister. If he didn’t like the amendment that my colleague put forward, then put one better up. Clearly, he cannot illustrate a way that proper consultation can happen. We don’t feel it, and, more importantly, the people that have the most at risk don’t feel it.

On this particular section, none of the minister’s answers have given any comfort to the fact that they are eliminating an entire Environmental Assessment Act in office and saying: “Trust us. We got it from here.”

I don’t have a question, but if you want to put this section to a vote, then we can do that.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I obviously don’t agree. We’ve been answering detailed questions for some hours, and there is a detailed consultation and notification regime at the BCER that the member is well aware of. Just saying that he doesn’t like the answers doesn’t mean the answers haven’t been given and that there isn’t a detailed experience in this regard. He knows it.

As for his position, it’s the position of the Conservative Party of B.C. that the Legislature should immediately implement a bill to suspend all but the essential requirements in the Environmental Assessment Act. That’s their position. We can talk about…. This is not a road to Damascus here. This is just not consistent with that position, one that they’ve taken on other issues as well.

We, of course, have made a decision that we made clear, with respect to environmental assessment. We’re putting in a robust permitting regime based on a permitting model that works for projects, that works for the environment, that works for agricultural land, and we put forward amendments in the form of a bill in this Legislature that will be good for B.C., good for the public interest and good for communities. I ask members to support the section.

The Chair: The question is shall clause 14 pass?

Division has been called.

[8:25 p.m.-8:30 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, since everybody is here, do I have consent to waive the remaining time?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section C or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote. The question is: shall clause 14 pass?

Clause 14 approved on the following division: YEAS — 6, NAYS — 6. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

The Chair: Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote. The Chair votes in favour of clause 14 to keep the bill intact in its original form and as adopted on second reading.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned. Thank you.

The committee adjourned at 8:33 p.m.