Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Tuesday, October

31, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 29 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 29; J. Sims in the chair.

The committee met at 1:39 p.m.

On clause 3 as amended (continued) .

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 29, Environmental Management

Amendment Act.

[1:40 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: In 91.82(2), it states that "a director may order a responsible person to prepare

and submit a decommissioning and closure plan for the specified facility" in the circumstances

described under subsection (1). In what instance would they not, and why is this not

just a requirement for the director?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think I answered this question already. I used an example of low-risk operations.

I used the example of agriculture, but I'm wondering if the member has something more

specific that she is trying to find out.

R. Merrifield: Thanks, Minister, for asking for the clarification. I think what we're trying to ascertain

is that sort of fair process and to eliminate as much subjectivity as we can out of

the legislation as possible to make sure that everyone is kind of eyes-wide-open and

understands what's required of them.

In this particular clause, they may do it. They may not do it. It feels a little bit

more obtuse or vague than maybe what was intended. Just looking for clarification.

Hon. G. Heyman: As I've stated before, as we develop the regulations and policy, we will be consulting

with potentially affected operations. As with most pieces of legislation, we have

the legislation. The regulations will get more specific about what kinds of factors

would be applied for each relevant piece of the legislation that would require more

specificity, and then policy would provide guidance to the statutory decision–makers

about how to apply those criteria in a fair and consistent manner.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister. I understand what the minister is saying, but in that clause

91.81(1), it does have already in it "subject to the regulations," so why wouldn't

it just state "a director will, subject to the regulations, order a responsible person"

rather than "a director may," allowing for a director to, I guess, choose rather than

"will" apply the regulations in due course?

Hon. G. Heyman: I may be wrong, but I think we're saying the same thing. The legislation says, "subject

to the regulations, the director may," and that is because the regulations and, subsequently,

the policy on how to apply the criteria in the regulations, all of which will be subject

to consultation and all of which will be guided by principles of administrative fairness,

which are important both for administrative fairness and to ensure that decisions

that are made withstand any judicial review or scrutiny….

[1:45 p.m.]

In that context, the regulations will help determine the layout of the criteria. The

policy will cover the application of the criteria about whether or not the director

will require something that the legislation says they may require subject to the regulation.

R. Merrifield: Do I understand correctly that in all circumstances where the director is regulated

to do so, the director will apply the regulations and order a responsible person to

prepare and submit a decommissioning and closure plan?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: We will now take a recess.

The committee recessed from 1:46 p.m. to 2:02 p.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

J. Sims (Chair): I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 29, Environmental Management Amendment Act.

We are at clause 3 as amended. Shall it pass? We were in the middle of a question

having been asked and an answer being developed.

Hon. G. Heyman: When deciding to order a decommissioning and closure plan or financial assurance,

the director would be following an objective framework for decision-making and will

make a risk-based determination on the site-specific activities.

This approach is meant to ensure consistency of application of principles to ensure

that requirements are not unreasonable but are consistent, are paying attention to

the risk of the particular activity, as well as the potential liability of the public

should a D and C plan or financial assurance not be required. In any event, if the

decision is one that the proponent thinks is unreasonable or not fair, they can appeal

to the Environmental Appeal Board, which is the standard administrative fairness tribunal.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for that very complete answer. You anticipated my next question,

which was perfect, how one would appeal. So that was perfect.

[2:05 p.m.]

My next question is on when a decommissioning and closure plan must be prepared and

submitted by. Is there a specified time frame that is given? What kind of time periods

does the minister envision for facilities that were used for differing scales of industrial

or commercial use?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. Because the complexity required of a decommissioning

and closure plan for a particular site or operation may vary quite widely — depending

on the size of the operation, the level of risk, the materials, chemicals, etc., that

may be part of the process — we would not specify that in regulation.

That would, again, be a decision that the statutory decision-maker, the director,

would make based on the information relevant to the factors I just outlined.

R. Merrifield: Will these plans be made available to the public and shared with local governments

as well as First Nations, Indigenous peoples or Indigenous governing bodies? If so,

what requirements are there for information sharing?

Hon. G. Heyman: With respect to First Nations, they would need to be consulted on the development

of the decommissioning and closure plan in the first place. That answers that part

of the question.

With respect to general public access to the decommissioning and closure plan, I expect

we would post that on a ministry website for easy public access. We may include a

provision for exclusion of pieces of information if there was something sensitive

about them with respect to commercial interests or trade. To be honest, it's hard

for me to imagine what that would be, but we have to allow for the possibility.

R. Merrifield: Understanding that the Indigenous nations would be consulted, would they also not,

then, have access to the full plan? Just because they're consulted doesn't necessarily

mean that they would be in agreement with everything that became a part of that plan.

Is that not correct?

Hon. G. Heyman: The purpose of the consultation and collaboration with First Nations would be to reach

agreement, to have them agree, by addressing legitimate points that they raise or

concerns that they raise, that the decommissioning and closure plan is sufficient.

It is our goal as government to ensure that it is sufficient and that the public interest,

as well as their interest, is protected.

In any event, they would have access to the final plan, both prior to posting and,

of course, once it's posted, along with everyone else.

[2:10 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: Under subsection 91.82(4), how will it be determined if a plan is sufficient? What

are the required components of a decommissioning and closure plan?

I'm just going to ask rapid-fire questions around it and ask the minister to answer

as he sees fit. Will there be inspections or an evaluation process? If so, is there

an appeals process? If the responsible person has had a qualified professional prepare

such a plan, are they able to challenge the director if there's disagreement over

the sufficiency of the plan?

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, the reason we can't possibly spell out every single detail in either the legislation

or the regulation is that every situation is different and requires a decision — which

is why we have the statutory decision–makers, as well as the qualified professionals

who will work directly to create the decommissioning and closure plan.

If the director had questions about the plans submitted or signed off by a qualified

professional, they would engage with them to clarify any questions. If the qualified

professional believed that the director was requiring something not necessary, they

would undoubtedly have a back-and-forth about that.

One of the purposes of the decommissioning and closure plans is so that when there

are regular site inspections by members of my ministry, they have the D and C plan

as a reference, to ensure that anything required to be on site or done during the

period of operation is on site or done — and, during decommissioning and closure,

that it is being done in accordance with the plan. That's what the inspectors would

be looking for.

If at any point, the responsible person — or the qualified professional, on behalf

of the responsible person — had a difference of opinion with the statutory decision–maker

about what was required or with an inspector about any report or order that was written

about compliance or non-compliance with the elements of the plan, all of that can

be appealed to the Environmental Appeal Board.

R. Merrifield: Could the minister explain the intent behind subsection 91.82(5)?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The purpose of sub (5) is simply to ensure that we minimize the risk of harm to the

environment, in the context that a decommissioning and closure plan is being prepared

in any event, to ensure that it is a fulsome plan and not in any way potentially proscribed

by specific substances that are mentioned in the act either as prohibited or allowed.

Again, this is an enabling clause. The director may choose to do that or may also

choose not to. It will depend on the circumstance.

R. Merrifield: That was not very clear.

I'll ask again, maybe for further clarification. In what situations would the powers

given by this

section be necessary, "…even though the introduction into the environment

of a substance or thing that is addressed by a decommissioning and closure plan is

not prohibited under this Act or is authorized under this Act"?

Hon. G. Heyman: While I can't necessarily give all the circumstances in which this would apply — or

I would be a statutory decision–maker, maybe — I can say that an operation may have

a very specific authorization to discharge waste, with conditions.

That is different than when the site is being wrapped up under a decommissioning and

closure plan. In that instance, there may be chemicals or other substances on site

that need to be addressed by the decommissioning and closure plan, as part of site

wrap-up, and that did not have a permit for discharge because it was not the intent

to discharge them. But they may in fact be stored on site, which is exactly what's

happening with Neucel.

R. Merrifield: Understanding that we're just using this as an example, but just to further clarify:

the chemicals that Neucel had stored are not prohibited under this act. Is that…?

Am I understanding that correctly?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I'm using Neucel as the example. There are a variety of chemicals and toxic substances

on that site, very close to a marine environment, that were never authorized for discharge

because it was never the intent to discharge them into the environment. However, as

a result of neglect of the site, the tanks in which many of them were being stored

are badly corroded. They are at significant risk of discharge.

That is what a decommissioning and closure plan is intended to address. Of course,

Neucel doesn't have one.

R. Merrifield: So those chemicals were prohibited under the act?

Hon. G. Heyman: They were prohibited from discharge into the environment, but they were not prohibited

for use in the particular industrial activity on site.

R. Merrifield: I'm not trying to be too detailed. What I am trying to assert or understand is just

to make sure that we don't have the possibility of scope creep. We don't have a director

that goes on…. All of a sudden the decommissioning closure plan is much larger and

much more extensive than what is required under the regulations.

Again, I'll harken back to just that fair and equitable application of the legislation,

understanding that a lot is being left to regulation and that this is an enabling

act. My concern is….

This clause could be read to, basically, include anything else that a director may

see fit. Is that the understanding?

Hon. G. Heyman: The purpose of the Environmental Management Act is to prevent the discharge of pollutants

into the environment through legislation and regulation.

The purpose of Bill 29 is to ensure that decommissioning and closure plans will be

in place where the risk is high enough to warrant them and that appropriate bonding

takes place to ensure that they're either implemented or government is in a position

to implement them if the owner defaults.

What would prevent scope creep, as the member has characterized it, or a director

acting capriciously or in some way that is not consistent with regulation and policy

— the even application of the regulations and policy across multiple operators — would

be appeals to the Environmental Appeal Board. That system works.

R. Merrifield: Moving on to 91.83.

[2:25 p.m.]

In the event that the director orders a specified facility to be decommissioned and

closed — according to the submitted and, hopefully, approved plan — would the public

be notified in any way? Local governments or Indigenous governments?

Hon. G. Heyman: The short answer is yes. It's the ministry's policy to post orders on the ministry

website. There's no reason why we wouldn't treat the decommissioning and closure plans

in exactly the same way.

R. Merrifield: What happens in the event that the responsible person doesn't have the resources or

financial capacity to execute the decommissioning and closure of a specified facility

and the bonding that's in place is insufficient?

Hon. G. Heyman: Government would ensure that the work was carried out to prevent the discharge of

contaminants and pollutants into the environment. If the amount of bonding was not

sufficient to cover that, the act, as we have discussed previously, allows government

to pursue the accountable person, which would exclude anybody without a legal or beneficial

interest in the operation, for the difference in costs. We would do that through court

proceedings.

R. Merrifield: Regarding the report that is to be submitted to the director following the decommissioning

and closure of the facility…. What form is this report to take, and what will be required

to be included?

I'll just tag on my next two questions, in the interests of time. Will the report

be a matter of public record, or would the public have to FOI the document?

Hon. G. Heyman: The regulation will describe and outline the general parameters of such a report,

the kinds of things that should be included or could be included. The director will

tailor the requirement to the specifics of the operation — they'll all be a bit different

— in accordance with the requirements of the regulation.

All of this will be publicly posted on the ministry website and will not require an

FOI.

R. Merrifield: Fantastic news.

So 91.84 states that a director may require security under this clause. Can the minister

explain in what situations security will be provided versus when it may not be? How

will this provision be applied in a fair, even and impartial manner?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The principles of administrative fairness will continue to apply in the development

of guidance for the amount of surety that needs to be posted.

The principles of the surety will be that we want to ensure that it's applied in a

fair and consistent manner, that it protects the public from any residual liability

that can be foreseen in the costs of decommissioning and closure and that we maintain

competitiveness while ensuring that, to the extent that we're able to determine, the

responsible and accountable person is paying 100 percent of potential costs. We are

not overstating those costs as a way of requiring more money than may be needed, which

would impact the viability of the industrial operation.

R. Merrifield: In 91.84, it actually states that "at any time after a decommissioning and closure

plan for" a facility is submitted under

section 91.82, the director can "order a responsible

person to give security."

Could a director say, "No, we don't need security," and then subsequently turn around

and say: "We do need security"?

Hon. G. Heyman: Potentially, that scenario could take place, but if it did, it would be based on new

information or new assessments of risk than what was available to the decision-maker

in the first place.

R. Merrifield: Excellent.

On the issue of providing security, can the minister detail just how the amount and

form will be determined? Will there be some kind of formula?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I can't detail what the considerations would be because that will be developed as

part of the regulation, through consultation with industry around the various scenarios

in which it would be applied. It will essentially be risk-based. But what that looks

like in detail, I think, we'll leave to the development of regulations and the subsequent

consultations.

R. Merrifield: I've already noted that the more we leave to regulation, the less we can actually

dig into what it means.

But I'm going to continue on and just ask: why has it been designated that the responsible

person will be required to give security, as opposed to what's under 91.87 where the

cost recovery is specific to what is defined as an accountable person?

Hon. G. Heyman: We use the term "responsible person" to designate those people responsible for preparing

the decommissioning and closure plan and posting surety. The term "accountable person"

is intended to be used in situations where the bonding is insufficient or something

else has happened that has raised costs and government has to pursue some person or

entity for those costs. That's why we use the term "accountable" in that situation.

R. Merrifield: So if a person leaves the ownership structure or management and then is otherwise

no longer a responsible person, would the security then be returned to them and a

new one sought?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I don't think government has any interest in being a third party on a commercial transaction

where either the transfer of shares or interest or the transfer of ownership overall

takes place with a corporate entity or among owners of a corporate entity or transfer

shares from an owner to a prospective future owner.

Once the surety has been posted, I think, we should leave it to those parties to determine

the value and cost of the transaction and ensure that they account for that liability

or that surety that is held in the costs of the transaction to either transfer shares

or transfer ownership overall.

There are a number of reasons that I can think of why government wouldn't want to

be part of that. One of them is the administrative cost to government in a transaction

from which we get no direct benefit. The other one is if we return surety to someone

who had to post it before they began operation, without having received the surety

from the new owner of the operation, we could be caught in the middle with a big liability.

R. Merrifield: For sure. There definitely would have to be a timing of all of this.

I certainly don't think that the government would be held in the middle. I think it

could actually have new bonding being put into place before the old bonding is released,

but then, that can be dealt with outside of that. In fact, in some cases, the government

has double bonding before they actually have to enact it.

The concern is that then the responsible person that has the bonding put up…. Could

that not be somewhat onerous to having a transaction actually take place? And if we're

talking about 40-, 60-, 80-year industry, would that not then actually be a disadvantage?

Furthermore, and I'll just go to the logical conclusion. The accountable person that

actually enacts the decommissioning and closure plan with the bonding in place — could

they not be responsible for much larger amounts than what's actually put in place?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: To the member's question, one of the mechanisms in the act and in the decommissioning

and closure plans created under the act would be for commitments of regular work and

remediation during the time of operation, which would lessen the overall costs of

decommissioning and closure at the end of life, and therefore, lessen the amount of

assurance that needs to be put up.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, inspections would determine if those conditions in

the D and C plan were being met, and if they weren't, we would take appropriate action.

We would expect that there is a surety, given that the parties in the transaction

take care of the transfer of that surety either as a liability or as a potential asset

of return should the D and C plan be implemented fully by the owner.

In the case where there is an irrevocable line of credit or something else that can't

legally be transferred then, in that situation, we would probably look at a system

where the new owner provided a replacement irrevocable letter of credit and then return

or release the first one.

There is within the Mines Act…. We would have to do some conversation with our colleagues

in EMLI to see how this works. Usually smaller mines will post the entire amount that

is required. In some cases, larger mines may have letters of credit, and I'm sure

there is a process in place in that sector that works, and we would probably lean

heavily on it.

R. Merrifield: In previous conversation about the bill, we actually talked about there being ongoing

reviews. If there's a bonding or security put in place by a responsible person who

is no longer present, a review is done with the new ownership, let's say, and all

of a sudden that number changes, how would you actually go about changing that?

I do think that the minister…. This latest provision of having some way of changing

that surety, I think would be the only plausible or reasonable expectation for a new

owner coming in.

Could the minister just confirm that those ongoing five-year reviews that were going

to be handled — that might change the amount of bonding that's put into place — would

necessitate having a change in the actual original responsible person if there is

something like an ownership change etc.?

Hon. G. Heyman: When we engage on regulation, we'll determine the appropriate time frame for periodic

reviews of decommissioning and closure plans. At the time we do that, we would also

review the amount of surety or bonding that was required to implement that plan whether

it was the same plan or an amended plan.

I would say whether it's the old owner or a new owner, if additional surety or bonding

is required, it is the same impact on the operator whether they are old or new.

[2:50 p.m.]

If it's a new owner, we would require the new owner to post the additional bonding

or surety. If the concern…. I'm not sure the member is asking this, but if it saves

another question, I'll answer it anyway.

If the concern of the member is that it might not be fair to the new owner to all

of a sudden be subject to a review that requires further bonding, I think knowing

what the legislation requirements are and taking that into account are all part of

the due diligence that I would expect a prospective purchaser to apply in their negotiations

for a price.

R. Merrifield: Doesn't that unduly disadvantage the first responsible person who put up the security?

Let me give the minister a for-instance.

There's a change in ownership. There's a decommissioning and closure plan put in place

and security provided. The ownership changes in, let's say, year 40. I'm just using

that as an arbitrary number, but it changes in year 40. The new owner has no desire

whatsoever to see that amount reduced. Wouldn't it actually almost have an unintended

consequence of not having that new owner take the same level of responsibility as

the first owner? If the first owner is still liable for that security, then why would

the new owner even abide by the ongoing maintenance, etc. that needs to happen? They

just can take it from the security that's already posted.

I just see this as getting incredibly messy. You could also have three different ownership

changes and not have the same person that actually posted the security in the first

place. Would that not be harder to actually track down or retrieve?

I'm looking at this as.... Why would the government, even through regulation...? I'm

not asking for another amendment. But why wouldn't the minister state that the intent

would be to work with the new owner to get new security in place to actually always

have the responsible person with the security be the one that's tied to that decommissioning

and closure plan?

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

I've already outlined that if the bonding is in the form of an irrevocable line of

credit that can't be transferred, we would have to put in place arrangements to get

a new one and then release the old one.

But in the case of.... Say an operation has been going for 40 years, and there's a

new buyer, and there is, in fact, bonding and a surety in the form of cash, plus a

system of ongoing remediation that's required by the decommissioning closure plan.

[2:55 p.m.]

I would expect that in a commercial transaction, that surety, if the current owner

and the new owner assume that they are meeting the requirements of the decommissioning

and closure plan and will continue to meet them, that that surety is an asset that

the seller would want to be compensated for in the commercial transaction.

The job of lawyers and accountants associated with supplying the information necessary

for the commercial transaction to take place or the share offering to be considered

would factor all of that in. If they didn't, that's why they have malpractice insurance.

R. Merrifield: Would it be safe to say that having this type of security in place will inflate the

value of any sale or purchase moving forward?

Hon. G. Heyman: I'm operating from the premise that the public, First Nations and investment banks

have an expectation that industrial operations are cleaning up as they go and are

putting in place the resources and the plans to clean up any externalities that result

from their operation, rather than putting the cost of those externalities on the public

or making the payment for cleaning up those externalities the subject of messy lawsuits.

I think there is that expectation in the investment community.

I would not characterize the requirement to compensate for a held asset in the form

of surety when you're buying an operation to be inflating the cost, because if this

was a brand new operation that a potential buyer was starting up, they'd be required

to post that surety themselves. This will be the new cost of doing business in British

Columbia, i.e. ensuring that funding is in place to pay for the cleanup of any externalities

if the proponent or the operator does not do so themselves on both an ongoing and

end-of-life operation. If they do what they say they're going to do and are required

to do, they will get that money back.

R. Merrifield: I agree with the minister that there is absolutely an expectation from industry, the

private sector, the various associations and investors that we do run in a way that

stewards our environment properly.

This bill is basically, in the minister's words, is the new cost of doing business

in B.C., which is we're going to pay for it twice. We have to put a surety in place,

and the minister has already articulated it could be in the form of an irrevocable

letter of credit or cash. Well, I'll tell you that investors and investment banks

and financiers, etc. — those two are the same. They're one and the same, whether it's

cash or whether it's a letter of credit, they're treated as equal in the eyes of a

financial institution.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Either way, you have that money in place. That is supposed to be sufficient for that

decommissioning and closure plan, but any good company is also going to pay for the

decommissioning and closure plan to occur, which means that your money is being held

up while you are paying for that closure. So yes, you are paying for it twice. The

minister is absolutely correct in that you get that money back, but you have paid

for it in advance, as it were, as a surety that it will be done.

[3:00 p.m.]

If those transactions are to occur and not have that paid for by the new entity, then

they have to compensate the original responsible person for that amount, which then

leads to having to pay for it twice. It will escalate the value of all of these fairly

large institutional industry facilities.

My question to the minister again is: can you give assurance that there will be a

mechanism within regulation that allows for that surety or that security to be transferred

to a new owner?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think I was pretty clear. I don't think the government has to put in place a mechanism.

If the existing owner is selling their operation, they're going to value all of the

assets of that operation. It may be a trucking fleet, it may be a physical plant,

it may be the resource, and it certainly would be the value of the surety being held

in trust. If that is a surety that can be transferred, they would get their money

back as part of the sale by ensuring that it is properly valued as an asset. That

is quite appropriate.

In that case, what is happening is that instead of the buyer putting up money for

a surety and government accepting that and relieving the operator of a surety, which

actually just exists in the case of cash as cash, the buyer is compensating the former

owner for the value of that. Then they benefit from having that surety registered

against the operation.

R. Merrifield: Will this provision be retroactive on current permit holders should they be required

to provide a decommissioning and closure plan?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: This amendment bill, once it becomes part of the Environmental Management Act, will

apply to existing — i.e., in operation — operations, as well as new operations. The

regulations will be developed in consultation with all industry to determine how it

is.

I would say that in our consultations with industry, the need for this was understood.

It was well received, and they are looking forward to engaging with us on the regulations

to ensure that they're applied consistently, fairly and with respect for the individual

circumstances of each operation.

R. Merrifield: In the case where a security was not required — the minister and I had canvassed a

particular case already — and let's say that that particular facility was sold, would

the risk increase with a new owner? Could one assume that they would need to then

put security in place if it underwent new ownership?

Hon. G. Heyman: Theoretically, it could. If the new owner, for instance, had a history of abandoning

sites at the end of operation, we would consider that a risk and factor it into a

review of the surety required.

R. Merrifield: So is it safe to assume that each new owner will have to then reapply for some sort

of…? Like, how would the ministry actually assert that new requirement?

Hon. G. Heyman: The regulation will determine the period of time between reviews and the circumstances

in which a review might be required. So it is conceivable that in developing the regulation

through consultation, we might require a review of the decommissioning and closure

plan and, hence, the surety on the transfer of all or a substantial portion of ownership

or assets.

We will leave that to the development of regulation, but the guidance documents, once

these decisions are made will be publicly available to any prospective buyers. Staff

in the ministry will be available to answer any questions they might have regarding

that, as they're making their decision or negotiating a price.

R. Merrifield: It might be safe to assume that over the next couple of years, there won't be very

many transactions as everyone waits to have the regulation in place and then applied,

and then to see if they are indeed going to be required to have that security put

into place.

I'm going to leave that, in the interest of time, and keep moving forward. If the

minister wants to respond to that, he's more than welcome to. I would welcome any

response.

I'm going to go to 91.85, however. How will it be determined if the minister is satisfied

that a person has failed to comply with an order as per 91.85? What would constitute

reasonable grounds in this case?

Hon. G. Heyman: In response to the unanswerable question that the member for Kelowna-Mission put forth,

I would not make that assumption.

I think responsible operators will assume that they understand the nature of the decommissioning

and closure plan and the nature of their reputation. If, however, the prospective

owner was, say, the previous owner of Neucel, they might not jump at the opportunity

to purchase something, and that might not be a bad thing, considering the track record.

[3:10 p.m.]

On the member's question, I would exercise the authority. By receiving a report and

recommendations from inspectors in the environmental protection division, I likely

would have been briefed on the process of inspections and discussions that had taken

place up to that point. I would likely — or the minister would; I know I would, because

I do it all the time — ask questions of clarification about the report.

At the end of the day, I would exercise my discretion responsibly, with administrative

fairness principles in mind, as I'm constantly reminded to do by the legal team.

R. Merrifield: The minister mentions the inspections process. Is it safe to assume that that would

be done as per the regulation in terms of an ongoing, regular process? Just who would

that be, that would be doing those inspections?

Then, just to piggyback, how would that process be documented? The minister talks

about a brief. Is that all open documentation in terms of the findings of the inspections

as well as the brief to the minister?

My assumption is that there would be the same appeal process designated as per the

rest of the act as well. I'm just asking for the minister to confirm.

Hon. G. Heyman: The inspections would be regular. The frequency of them would likely be determined

by the assessment of risk of the operation.

If, however, there were specific concerns raised or reports made about activity that

was considered questionable or had the potential to result in adverse impact on the

environment, we would inspect, in all likelihood, in that case. The inspection would

be carried out by compliance officers of the compliance branch of the environmental

protection division.

[3:15 p.m.]

All of their inspection reports are publicly posted, as is any documentation around

escalating compliance, whether that is a warning letter, a repeated warning letter,

an administrative penalty, etc.

In terms of the material that I would use under 91.85 to make a decision, anything

that grew out of an inspection report would obviously have been posted; advice that

I may be given verbally or otherwise would not be posted. But any decision that I

made and the reasons for that decision would be in a formal letter, and that would

be public.

R. Merrifield: Could the minister just confirm that the appeal process that we have been discussing

throughout is the appeal process that would be used in this particular situation as

well?

Hon. G. Heyman: The appeal process would be exactly the same as we've discussed.

R. Merrifield: Perfection.

Under 91.86, what will the criteria be for determining a facility as an abandoned

one?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think in its simplest form, "abandoned" would cover an operation that has ceased

to operate and where the owners or their agents have ceased to exercise care and custody

of the site.

The reason that we want to further define it in regulation is to ensure that we cover

any nuances or eventualities that may also require us to determine a facility to be

abandoned. For instance, on closure or ceasing of operation, we require a series of

reports to government, and if we're simply not receiving those reports and there is

no response to government requests or government communication, that might lead us

to consider it abandoned.

R. Merrifield: Could the minister describe what types of notice will be provided and to whom?

Hon. G. Heyman: Just for clarification, Chair, could I ask the member for Kelowna-Mission to be a

bit more specific about what we would be giving notice of?

[3:20 p.m.]

Is it that we consider a facility to be abandoned? Because if so, presumably, if we

are in contact with an operator who we're requiring to undertake certain actions and

they're not doing it or not responding…. If they're not doing it, we have mechanisms

in the act to achieve compliance if they're not responding or if they've ceased care

and custody.

I'm not sure if the member is suggesting that we then give notice to the proponent,

who has failed to meet their legal obligations or protect the public interest or the

environment, that we're entering the facility that they've abandoned in order to secure

it. I'm not sure that's the best use of time.

R. Merrifield: I'm not sure which the minister was referring to as not the best use of time — to

answer the notice or to…. Okay, I will clarify then.

If a facility has been abandoned, will there be notice given, and to whom will the

notice be given if it has been determined to be abandoned?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think what I was referring to was we wouldn't want lose the time required to secure

a facility by a notice period, to be more specific. But we would give notice, if we

determined that a site had been abandoned, to local governments, to First Nations,

and, if we had a way of contacting the proponent or the operator, we would notify

them as well.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much to the minister for the answer.

Can the minister outline why subsection 91.86 (4)(

b) is necessary, even if that responsible

person is acting under the direction of government?

Hon. G. Heyman: If I understand the member's question correctly, and it was to do with 91.86 (4)(b),

it's because the responsible person is, in fact, the accountable person. In every

other instance, it's someone who is exercising the responsibility that the responsible

person has failed to exercise.

R. Merrifield: I don't know if that answer completely satisfied. This is talking about: "No legal

proceeding for damages lies or may be commenced or maintained against the government,

an employee of the government or a person…."

That doesn't apply to the responsible person, whether or not the responsible person

is acting under the direction of the government. So legal proceedings could come against

a responsible person, even if they were acting under the direction of the government.

Would the government not be responsible for any direction given to the responsible

person?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I think, for the member, the context is important here. We're talking about, in 91.86,

an abandoned facility. In the case of an abandoned facility, the responsible person

has abandoned their responsibility to comply with both the act and the obligations

they undertook in creating a decommissioning and closure plan and posting a surety.

What sub (3) says is that if somebody — an employee of the government, for instance

— goes into the operation, flips a switch, and something unfortunate happens because

they flipped the switch, they cannot be sued for that.

In the case of a responsible person, we are talking about the person who had primary

responsibility for carrying out the actions in the first place. They are now operating

under direction of government because they abandoned their responsibility. But they

are still responsible.

R. Merrifield: But this is holding them responsible for actions. They're acting on behalf of or under

the direction of the government. So how would they…? I'll use the minister's example.

What if the responsible person was told by the government to flip the switch, and

then something bad happened? So why, if a government employee does it, flips the switch,

nothing bad happens, but if it's a responsible person, now suddenly we have someone

that's liable for it?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think the better way to look at it, from my perspective, is that we may need a responsible

person who has knowledge of a site to go in and conduct certain actions because government,

government employees or other people may simply not have the knowledge to carry out

some work that needs to be done.

[3:30 p.m.]

The responsible person, in the course of that action, may do something wilfully or

not wilfully that creates a problem that could result in a court case. If we do not

include the language in (b), we will be giving the responsible person, basically,

a pass against court action.

If, in the member's specific example, government said: "Go flip that switch…." First

of all, I would expect the responsible person to have enough knowledge to say why

they shouldn't flip the switch and government to respond. But let's assume, in the

worst-case scenario, that doesn't happen. The responsible person flips the switch

because an official of government insists that they do so. I would expect that to

be a very plausible and useful defence in court.

R. Merrifield: I'm trying to look at both the amended 91.87 as well as the original. Also, I think

that most of these questions are still relevant.

With regards to the accountable person, will this be the person who also signed off

on the decommissioning and closure plan that's on record?

Hon. G. Heyman: Maybe but not necessarily so.

R. Merrifield: You were supposed to say "responsible person," Minister.

If there's a change in the responsible person for decommissioning and closure plans

over a period of time, and there's a relatively new responsible person who may be

there at the time that operations cease, is there any legal requirement for them to

be made aware of these submitted plans so that they can be held liable for cost recovery?

Hon. G. Heyman: A requirement of permits would be that the responsible person, whether it was the

responsible person at the filing of the decommissioning and closure plan or a subsequent

person who meets the definition of a responsible person, has knowledge of all the

requirements of the permit and operation, including the details and requirements of

the decommissioning and closure plan. That would include any ongoing remediation or

interim actions that would be taken to lessen the amount of work or liability at the

end of the plant's life.

R. Merrifield: How will debts from the accountable persons be recovered?

Hon. G. Heyman: The bill has provisions that allow government to pursue payment in court.

R. Merrifield: Does the bill actually allow the government to pursue outside of Canadian jurisdiction?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I think the bill allows us to pursue in jurisdictions outside of Canada. It would

depend on the laws of the jurisdiction whether we were actually able to effectively

do that. The fact that the accountable person may be in a jurisdiction other than

Canada — and we might not have the ability to pursue through court action — would

likely be a factor in determining how much bonding was required.

R. Merrifield: What if an accountable person transfers their personal assets at any point following

the abandonment of a facility? How will they be held liable if there is no personal

property in their name to place a lien on?

Hon. G. Heyman: That's an important question. While I can't give a precise answer to what will ultimately

be in the regulation…. That is exactly the kind of discussion we're having with the

Ministry of Finance and the Attorney General with respect to what kinds of provisions

should go into the regulation to safeguard the public interest against eventualities

like that.

R. Merrifield: What if an owner or several of the owners or responsible persons who are deemed accountable

declare bankruptcy but others do not? Will the remainder of the costs be divided amongst

the latter?

Hon. G. Heyman: There may be varying circumstances that don't result in a single answer, but it will

be laid out in the regulation. In this case, we'll also look at what our companion

ministry — Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation — does in instances like this in

terms of their own bonding policy for major mines.

R. Merrifield: Why is it that each accountable person is jointly and separately liable for the debt

under (2) of 91.87? In previous clauses referring to a responsible person, it's "an"

or "the" specifically with regards to providing security?

Hon. G. Heyman: In the case of a responsible person, responsible for the decommissioning and closure

plan and the posting of the surety…. It's prospective, and it's sufficient to allow

the responsible persons to determine how they're going to do that themselves.

In the case of an accountable person — we are talking about

an act after the fact

— responsibility and accountability for covering any difference in decommissioning

and closure costs between the surety and actuality…. Saying "jointly" or severally

gives government a full range of options to recover costs.

R. Merrifield: I am going to end up moving on here, but I do want to just draw the minister's attention

back to even our earlier conversation. We were canvassing just even on the

definitions

at the very beginning.

[3:40 p.m.]

I asked the question: What would happen if owners of a shell company are not within

Canadian jurisdiction?" The minister answered: "In some ways, the member has gone

right to the heart of the need of this legislation." Here I am, again asking the question:

what happens if they're not inside this jurisdiction? Now it's being discussed as:

"Okay, well, in regulation, we'll figure that out."

The ultimate goal of this legislation is to make sure that the responsible people

pay. My concern is that we'll add bureaucracy in time and cost without the necessary

teeth to go after those that might be required. I understand — and obviously, our

party was definitely part of having a polluter-pays regulation — but I guess my hope

would have been that we would have seen more of that in the legislation and that we

would have understood the teeth a little bit more and had not just left it to regulation.

I'll go on and note that I really hope that in regulation, we'll see the necessary

responsibility given to the companies that need to pay — not just the good companies,

which would have been compliant anyway, being left paying extra — and that we're not

actually able to go after the bad actors within the industry.

Clause 3 as amended approved.

On clause 4.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill 29, the Environmental Management Amendment

Act, 2023, to amend as follows.

[ CLAUSE 4, by adding the underlined text as shown:

Section 92 (1) is amended by adding the following paragraphs:

(d.1) respecting the exclusion of persons for the purposes of the definition of “owner”

section 91.8 (1);

(d.2) respecting the determination of whether an employee has a legal or beneficial

interest for the purposes of

section 91.8 (2) (b);

(d.3) respecting the exclusion of persons for the purposes of

section 91.8 (2) (c);

(

e) respecting the authority of a director to make an order under

section 91.82 (2)

[decommissioning and closure plans] , including, without limitation, imposing restrictions on that authority;

(

f) for the purposes of Division 2.2 [Decommissioning and Closure of Facilities] , respecting the activities or level of activity that constitutes ceasing operations;

(

g) respecting the preparation of decommissioning and closure plans, including, without

limitation,

(

i) respecting the matters that must be addressed by, and the information that must

be included in, a decommissioning and closure plan, including, without limitation,

(

A) if the activities at a specified facility are authorized by a permit or approval,

requiring the inclusion of information respecting the actions that are planned to

meet each requirement of the permit or approval,

(

B) requiring the inclusion of a

summary of the actions proposed for the purpose of

decommissioning and closing the specified facility,

(

C) requiring the inclusion of site plans, and

(

D) requiring the inclusion of information respecting the presence of substances capable

of causing pollution,

(ii) respecting the form of a decommissioning and closure plan,

(iii) respecting the inclusion in a decommissioning and closure plan of the estimated

costs of the proposed actions summarized in the plan,

(iv) establishing requirements for the certification of a decommissioning and closure

plan or the certification of a part of a decommissioning and closure plan,

(

v) establishing a process for consultation and cooperation by responsible persons,

during the preparation of a decommissioning and closure plan, with Indigenous peoples

whose rights or interests may be affected by the plan,

(vi) respecting consultation by responsible persons with local governments during

the preparation of a decommissioning and closure plan,

(vii) requiring a decommissioning and closure plan to be accompanied by information

about consultations or cooperation referred to in subparagraphs (

v) or (vi), and

(viii) requiring a decommissioning and closure plan to provide for long term monitoring

of the specified facility for which the plan is prepared;

(

h) respecting the reviewing and updating of decommissioning and closure plans, including,

without limitation, specifying circumstances in which a responsible person must update

a decommissioning and closure plan and submit the updated plan to the director;

(

i) requiring responsible persons to report to a director respecting changes or events

in relation to the specified facility for which a decommissioning and closure plan

has been submitted, including, without limitation, changes in ownership and changes

in the operations at the facility;

(

j) for the purposes of

section 91.83 [decommissioning and closure of specified facility] , respecting

(

i) the authority of a director to make an order under

section 91.83 (

a) or (b), and

(ii) the decommissioning and closure of specified facilities, including, without limitation,

specifying

(

A) the actions that must be taken to decommission specified facilities and carry

out reclamation, remediation or restoration of the land at specified facilities, and

(

B) the standard of clean up that must be achieved;

(j.1) respecting the exclusion of persons for the purposes of the definition of “accountable

person” in

section 91.87 (1);

(

k) respecting the costs referred to in

section 91.87 (2) [cost recovery if government

carries out decommissioning and closure].]

The amendments are in my name on the order paper. Copies have been distributed and

supplied to the Chair and the Clerk's office. These are all with respect to regulation-making

powers, and they are consequential amendments to the amendments made to clause 3.

On the amendment.

R. Merrifield: Again, I'm just going to acknowledge the minister in appreciation and gratitude. I

really appreciate his determination to get this legislation right.

I wanted to publicly commend his openness in submitting this amendment — this one

and the previous one — in response to our debate and the concerns that I had raised

previously. I just want to commend that.

I do have some questions on this actual amendment.

The Chair: Go ahead, Member.

R. Merrifield: I'm just going to move right along, then.

[3:45 p.m.]

On (d.1), when we previously discussed the definition of "owner" and who may be excluded

from regulation, the minister suggested the government as one example. Now that government

has been excluded from the definition of "responsible person" and therefore also from

the definition of "accountable person," can the minister provide more examples of

whom he may intend to exclude from the definition of "owner"?

Hon. G. Heyman: An example might be a local government. Another example might be people who might

be caught by a broad definition but who don't have a substantial enough interest or

control to warrant the imposition of requirements. For instance, there may be a secured

creditor who may or may not exercise control or impose requirements regarding activities

at the facility.

R. Merrifield: How will both the "legal and beneficial interest" be defined? Could the minister specifically

signify what the intent is here and how expensive it will be, especially with regard

to beneficial interest? I'll just refer the minister to the questions that were canvassed

earlier this morning.

Hon. G. Heyman: I think a legal interest is, essentially, defined by the courts. I think a beneficial

interest is a right or expectation of something of value. We intend, as we develop

the definition, to be consistent with the act to which the member referred earlier.

Just to give an example of what….

[3:50 p.m.]

I think the member also asked: would profit sharing be a beneficial interest? I think

yes. Would share ownership be a beneficial interest? I think, clearly. Would other

things such as stock options be a beneficial interest? Perhaps.

The reason for the possibility of further exclusion is to allow us to set up policy

to determine if the beneficial interest is actually significant enough to matter,

to hold somebody accountable. In many cases, it won't be, but we want to work through

that.

R. Merrifield: My hope would be that if an employee has a profit-sharing plan….

Usually, if you look at profit-sharing plans, they're based on key performance indicators

that would have everything from safety to environmental sustainability to their workforce

and employee satisfaction as part of their criteria. And hopefully, if they earn $10,000

extra at the end of the year, that wouldn't be taken into account with respect to

being a responsible person, or an accountable person, when the corporation might be

hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars.

Could I have the minister's assurance that that will certainly be taken into account?

What I don't want to see happen is that we limit or restrict an entity's ability to

hire the best people.

Hon. G. Heyman: It is not our intention to capture beneficial interests that are insignificant, and

we will develop policy to reflect that.

R. Merrifield: Thank you for the minister's assurance on that particular point.

With the additional persons, does the minister intend to exclude…? This is on (d)(iii)

now, on the new amendment. Does the minister intend to exclude as responsible persons

through regulation, then, only? Can the minister provide a few specific examples to

indicate the intent of this change?

Hon. G. Heyman: We've already clearly excluded, in the amendment to clause 3, an employee who has

no legal or beneficial interest in the profits resulting from the activities taking

place at the facility. That

part is clear.

Then further, we say "a person excluded by regulation." That would allow us to develop

regulation-supporting policy that ensured that even though somebody had, technically,

a beneficial interest, if it was insignificant with respect to the size of the operation

or the size of the liability, we would not be wringing blood from a stone.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

I'm going to (j)(

i) now.

[3:55 p.m.]

Why does the minister view this as necessary regulation-making authority, given the

changes that were made earlier to clause 3?

Hon. G. Heyman: We actually had a lengthy discussion when we were developing the amendments, and we

simply put it in for greater certainty.

Amendment approved.

On clause 4 as amended.

R. Merrifield: We're going more into the regulatory-making authorities here. What is the timeline

for the development of each of these proposed regulation-making powers, and what will

the process be? Will it include representatives from not only within government but

also industry, local governments and Indigenous peoples?

Hon. G. Heyman: Once the bill has achieved royal assent, which presumes it will pass, we will commence

consultation with industry, re-engagement with industry, with local government, with

First Nations, with the public, with other interested parties. We don't have a fixed

time frame, but our intention would be to allow for full consultation, thoughtful

regulation drafting, but getting it done in a timely manner so the bill can move ahead

and achieve its purpose.

R. Merrifield: Regarding the proposed new subsection (1)(e), what regulations is government considering

with regards to the authority of the director's power to make orders regarding decommissioning

and closure plans?

Hon. G. Heyman: It would simply be to give greater clarity and direction through regulation to the

director on what should be considered in the content of decommissioning and closure

plans, authorities with respect to the requiring of sureties but also being clear

around the boundaries of the authority of the director.

R. Merrifield: What types of limitations may be necessary for the director, that were just indicated?

"Boundaries," I guess, is how the minister referred to it. Why is it that they're

not laid out in this legislation?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer to the member is because that level of detail, which may be required to

change on occasion, is almost always and, certainly, generally done through the development

of specific regulations following fulsome consultation.

R. Merrifield: Could the minister provide a practical example just of how that might look or how

the director's authority might be anticipated to be limited or structured?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think the most useful example I can give is that the regulation might require the

director to apply conditions that are specific to the site in question or the nature

of the operations being conducted on that site, which would effectively be a limit

on the authority of the director as well as direction on what the director should

do in requiring certain things.

R. Merrifield: Okay. That was a little bit vague still, but I'll just move on.

How will the development of regulations respecting the activities or level of activity

that constitutes ceasing operations be done? Will it be consultation with different

sectors? Will there be different regulations? Will it be specific to different regions?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think, to the member's question, there will be some basic principles that are dictated

by the words of the act itself, as they must. There may also be other factors to do….

It could be regional. It could be the nature of the operation. It could have to do

with attempts to communicate. It could have to do with whether anyone is actually

in care and custody of the site.

There may be other factors we haven't thought of, so the purpose of the consultation

will be to get a range of opinion and, hopefully, a consensus of opinion about what

should be included and what shouldn't.

R. Merrifield: Could the minister provide some level of detail as to the preparation of decommissioning

and closure plans? Will there be a standardized form for decommissioning and closure

plans across all sectors, or are there going to be differences between each of the

different sectors?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I think it's reasonable to expect that there would be a common set of outcomes in

terms of preventing adverse impacts to the environment or release of contaminants

into the environment that would guide the development of decommissioning and closure

plans, but there likely would not be a common template that would be appropriate for

different sectors, different sizes of operations, different geographic locations,

proximity to waterways, proximity to the ocean. Those are all unique circumstances.

I think the important thing is that there will be clear outcome expectations, and

D and C plans would be designed in the specific circumstance to achieve those outcomes.

R. Merrifield: If the decommissioning and closure plans are site-specific and deal with the unique

characteristics and circumstances but have, obviously, as the minister stated, common

shared outcomes within all of the different industries, etc., how does one or the

director, etc., ensure fairness and evenness in terms of application?

Hon. G. Heyman: If we understand that the purpose of a D and C plan is to avoid negative outcomes,

then I think the process would be the director would sit down with the responsible

person, or the qualified professional identified by the responsible person, to discuss

the nature of the operation and the potential risks within that operation or that

particular site that could compromise the desired outcomes or lead to undesirable

outcomes of release of contaminants or pollution and then work on a plan that met

those.

In addition to that, I think the general principle of consistency across not just

a single decision-maker…. But if there's more than one decision-maker reviewing these

plans, there's a consistent application of principles and approaches that involve

not overly onerous requirements but requirements that are sufficient to achieve the

outcomes that are desired.

That would be directed by policy guidance documents that would be developed within

the ministry and be publicly available.

R. Merrifield: Would these policy guidance documents be akin to like a best-practices guide? If not,

would there be a best-practices guide?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think policy guidance documents are common throughout government and ministries

in a number of instances where there is discretion for statutory decision-makers,

but we want administrative fairness to apply.

I think, really to the member's direct question, the purpose of a policy guidance

document is in fact to outline what is best practice.

R. Merrifield: What is meant by the requirements for the certification of a decommissioning and closure

plan or the certificate of a part of a decommissioning and closure plan? Could the

minister provide some practical examples regarding this?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: To the member's question, in all likelihood, a qualified professional would be certifying

that a decommissioning and closure plan, or a particular element of a decommissioning

and closure plan in which they have expertise, has met the requirements, and the regulation-making

authority to establish the requirements would be what guided the qualified professional

on whether or not to issue the certificate.

R. Merrifield: So the certificate is issued by the qualified professional and then just given to

both the accountable and responsible person as well as the ministry?

Hon. G. Heyman: The certification is not necessarily a certificate. It is a form of communication,

in some form, from the qualified professional, where they have determined that the

plan, or the part of the plan they're certifying, meets the requirements that are

laid out in regulation, and that would be communicated to the responsible person as

well as to the government.

R. Merrifield: Could the minister outline his expectations for what a responsible person will be

required to do regarding consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples whose

rights and interests may be affected by the plan?

Hon. G. Heyman: This particular subclause reflects our commitment to the Declaration on the Rights

of Indigenous Peoples Act that legislation, particularly legislation that we are currently

introducing or developing, aligns with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples.

[4:15 p.m.]

The regulation itself, or the part of the regulation that is referenced here, would

likely be developed in consultation with Indigenous representatives of First Nations

and clearly outlined for proponents about appropriate methods.

In other words, not a quick phone call or a letter or, "Here's what I'm doing," but

meaningful consultation — an opportunity for an affected First Nation to get the information

they need, have access to plans to determine whether their interests and rights are

sufficiently protected and respected. All of that would form part of a consideration

by government.

R. Merrifield: Will Indigenous peoples be able to require changes to the plan? And will the responsible

person be required to accept those changes? Could that override the qualified professional's

planning?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think "requirement" is the wrong word in this instance. In other words: would First

Nations be able to require a particular change?

I think what the regulation would indicate is that the proponent, likely through the

qualified professional, would engage with the First Nation — answer questions, explain,

quite possibly respond to legitimate concerns.

Ultimately, if there is a consensus between the nation and the responsible person

and the qualified professional, that information would be reported to the director,

the statutory decision-maker. If there wasn't, that information would also be considered

by the statutory decision-maker, who might ask for additional work to be done, additional

discussion and consultation, or may simply make a determination.

R. Merrifield: Could the minister confirm…? Are there to be regulations regarding consultation and

cooperation with Indigenous peoples after the preparation of a decommissioning and

closure plan is complete?

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer to the member is no, because the regulations need to be completed, including

this part of the regulation, before decommissioning and closure plans can be created

in accordance with the regulations.

R. Merrifield: This

section refers to "Indigenous peoples," and presumably, that includes Indigenous

governing bodies, but it doesn't state that explicitly. Is there a reason?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: This subclause refers to consultation with First Nations who may have rights and title

on the land, but we also often consult cross-border across the borders that have been

established as national borders by respective governments with, for instance, tribes

in the United States who have interests as well. That's what this piece refers to.

R. Merrifield: Similarly, can the minister provide what his expectations are of a responsible person

with regards to consultation with local governments during the preparation of a decommissioning

and closure plan? I'll also ask specifically: why is the word "cooperation" not included

under the new 92(1)(g)(vi)?

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer to that is that while we think consultation and cooperation with local

governments are important, the constitution and the courts have established very clearly

that there is a different level of rights and title that reside with First Nations

that must be respected.

E. Ross: Just to follow up on an answer that was given by the minister in relation to the clause

being questioned by my colleague here from Kelowna-Mission. Did I hear correctly that

the government is — not considering; I don't want to say "considering" — actually

implementing a consultation process with tribes from the United States in relation

to this bill? Because I haven't seen that language in any other bill that I can recall.

Did I hear that right?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. We're not implementing it through this bill.

We're reflecting it in terms of what we would expect of the responsible person. We

currently consult with tribes across borders for permitting of various operations

and environmental assessment processes if they have rights that will be impacted.

For instance, impacts on transboundary waters would be an example. We do that, and

we have been doing that for quite some time. The level of consultation depends on

the rights of the particular nation or nations and the level of impact.

E. Ross: Thank you for that answer. I don't think that's specified in this wording. I understand

what the transboundary agreement is. In fact, that's the issue in terms of the mining

issues going on in northeastern B.C. right now, and I know it's an issue in terms

of the selenium that's actually leaching into the United States from a Canadian mining

operation.

That's got more to do with federal jurisdiction. I know there's a working group at

the provincial level, but if push comes to shove and you can't resolve that, then

the feds come in and take over, which is actually what's happening right down in the

Kootenays.

Don't you think that the wording should be more specific, then, in the transboundary

agreement so that nobody gets confused in the same way I did? In the answer that was

given, I thought it was clear that the minister inferred that rights and title that

needs consultation and accommodation, as per

section 35 of the constitution, will

be afforded to First Nations in the United States. I think we get a hold of this right

now because once this becomes legislation, then you've got to go to court to define

this and specify exactly what you meant.

As far as I know, if you have a right in B.C. as a native living in the United States,

you've got to come up and you've got to prove that right in a court. But that's for

a specific right like, say, a specific right for hunting or gathering. That doesn't

necessarily mean that you have the Aboriginal rights and title that was given to First

Nations in Canada by the case law under

section 35 of the constitution.

Is there clarification, in terms of the answer that was just given, in terms of consultation,

that it's being given to the First Nations from the United States?

Hon. G. Heyman: The member is correct that

section 35 rights of the Canadian constitution apply in

Canada. Notwithstanding that, it has long been the practice of the government of British

Columbia to consult with tribes who may experience impacts on transboundary issues,

whether it is from mining or other operations.

[4:30 p.m.]

The context of this is that we are talking about a requirement of consultation that

the government of British Columbia, through regulation, will place on the responsible

person to consult with First Nations in Canada and potentially with tribes in the

United States, depending on the location or the impacts. We will get specific about

that in the regulation, which will be developed in consultation with pretty much everybody.

What this clause does is enable that regulation to be written or, in fact, require

that it be written and that it deal with the specifics.

It's important to note that this requirement of consultation that will be outlined

in regulation for the responsible person is a requirement that the government of British

Columbia places on the responsible person, who will then provide information of the

statutory decision–maker about the result of that consultation, both in terms of any

changes or guidance it gave to the development of the decommissioning and closure

plan. It will be, obviously, known by the statutory decision–maker if the nations

or tribes in question considered the consultation adequate or the result adequate.

It is then the statutory decision–maker who will make the decision for which government

will be accountable, for meeting the requirements of the constitution, by considering

whether, on the development of a plan that government is going to approve or not approve,

or require changes to, it met the requirements of the constitution.

E. Ross: Thank you for that answer, Minister. I agree. But this is an overarching document

talking about consultation, and we haven't even covered accommodation yet.

What you're talking about is delegating responsibility to a third party, which, according

to case law, you can't do. You just said: "In the regulation, we'll talk about how

the proponent will actually include this, and then the government will decide on whether

or not that was honourable consultation." You can't delegate the honour of the Crown

in terms of consultation.

I think it's important that we be clear right from the get-go, to draw lines around

what you actually mean by consulting First Nations in the United States. The minister

mentioned it outright. It's specific to transboundary agreements.

I know there is at least one case where it was proven that a First Nation from the

United States had hunting rights in B.C. That was proven because of the boundary that

wasn't there before we re-established all this case law. That was a pretty specific

case.

To punt this issue down to regulation and to administration, it's not right. That's

not what case law says. The administration of the government is just…. They're just

administration. It's actually the Crown represented by the ministers that have the

duty to First Nations under

section 35 of the constitution.

If we don't address this now, based on the answer given to my colleague from Kelowna-Mission,

you're opening the door to watering down the rights and title of First Nations in

B.C., to First Nations from Alaska, to First Nations from the Lower 48 in the United

States.

Respectfully,

section 35 of the constitution was defined over 40 years of being in

court from First Nation leaders in B.C. and Canada. They did that for First Nations

rights and title for First Nations in B.C. They didn't do it for anybody else. Now,

if a First Nation wants to include their brothers and sisters from the Lower 48, that's

up to them.

I canvassed this a couple of years ago in terms of the same issue. To my understanding,

the Crown's response back then was: "Well, if a First Nation allows another First

Nation member to come in and hunt, that's really their prerogative. That's their right."

In this case here, to say that a third party will take on the duty of the Crown to

consult at the regulatory level is fundamentally wrong. That is not what I understood

in reading the case law, whether you're talking about Haida or Mikisew Cree or even

Delgamuukw.

[4:35 p.m.]

I'll ask it again. Do we need clarification to say that when we're going to consult

First Nations from the United States, we have to be clear that that's only in respect

of issues related to transboundary-type agreements or specific cases where it's proven,

in terms of, say, a hunting or gathering or a social and ceremonial purpose under

section 35 of the constitution for those First Nations living in the United States?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for Skeena for both the points and the questions. I know the

member is extremely knowledgeable, both from his perspective of studying legislation

and court case outcomes, as well as living them, frankly.

I want to state clearly that we are not, as government, delegating our responsibility

to consult with British Columbia First Nations through this legislation or through

any future regulation. We're not intending to, and, frankly, we can't. We can't delegate

that responsibility. It's been established by the Supreme Court. We can't do it. We

don't want to do it. That's not what we're doing here.

What we are doing is somewhat akin to a process we set up in the Environmental Assessment

Act, 2018, which we developed in collaboration with the First Nations Leadership Council.

Believe me, those discussions were exhaustive and took place over ten months.

[4:40 p.m.]

The outcome was, with the full support of the leadership council, that we wanted proponents

to engage with affected First Nations with rights and title and interests that could

be impacted in British Columbia at an early stage, to help inform the design of a

particular proposal, rather than leave it to the end and end up in court without government

having a full understanding of the interests and points of view and rights of the

nations that would be impacted.

We thought it was better to do it early, frankly, because we would avoid lengthy delays

and litigation. Similarly, in this, we want to be sure. We want to set out, through

regulation, a requirement for responsible persons to engage and consult with First

Nations in British Columbia early to ensure that concerns that they have are reflected

in a decommissioning and closure plan, or, if they're not, that the statutory decision–maker

will know about that clearly, so we can, as government, ensure that we meet our constitutional

and legal obligations.

The reason that we would consult with tribes on transboundary issues is not because

they have rights and title in Canada that are akin to the

section 35 rights and title,

or the rights under the DRIPA act in B.C. that we have ascribed to and know belong

to First Nations in British Columbia.

What we are trying to do, because they do have interests that courts will consider,

is consult with them to avoid being sued by tribes on transboundary disputes or sued

by the U.S. government on their behalf. We will make those differences clear in the

regulations. But I think and hope that you've heard my explanation very clearly today.

The requirements for a decommissioning and closure plan are all pursuant to the waste

discharge regulation as well as the Environmental Management Act. But even if we wanted

to, which we don't, we cannot delegate our responsibility to consult and expect for

a minute that that would stand a legal test or a moral test.

E. Ross: Thank you to the minister for basically repeating what I just said.

I do understand the issues around transboundary. Based on a previous comment from

the minister to my colleague from Kelowna-Mission, I think it's very important that

we address that issue in this legislation now and don't leave it vague for a regulatory

body to make the same mistake I did or maybe even a First Nation member from the United

States to make that same mistake.

Right now the Alaskan First Nations are basically using the transboundary agreement

for exactly this purpose. I do know that the transboundary agreement in terms of the

selenium issue down in the Kootenays area has been turned over to the federal government.

It's been taken away from the provincial government's working group, and it's all

because of the confusion around rights and title. I will take a quoted word from what

the minister just said: "The interests of a First Nation in the United States," I

get that, "in a transboundary situation." I get that.

If the impact from a B.C.-led project is actually going over the border into the United

States — I get it — you should not only consult First Nations down in the United States.

You should actually consult the regulatory bodies and then the states themselves,

not just First Nations.

What I'm talking about here is specifically characterizing it in this legislation.

Do not leave this to regulation. Make it clear to First Nations that

section 35 and

the consultation that we're talking about is for natives living in Canada — period.

Then you can go on to say: "Well, in a transboundary situation, we will address the

interests of First Nations and even non–First Nations in the United States."

[4:45 p.m.]

Once we start talking about that in terms of rights and title, in terms of what I'm

seeing up in Alaska right now, when you start to loosely throw around that word "consultation,"

inevitably, it leads to accommodation.

Accommodating First Nations right now…. The minister just recounted the early consultation

of proponents, but we wrote the book on early consultation. That's how LNG Canada

came to be. That's how the forestry issues came to be in B.C. It didn't come from,

basically, government saying: "Yeah. You've got to do it." They were kind of forced

to do it by case law. It just was a natural fit.

Everything we've seen up to today was because industry got it. "We'd better go talk

to them before we file our application." So it's really nothing new, but I think we've

got to be clear and start distinguishing the rights and title versus the interests

of First Nations in the United States. We've got to be clear on the word "consultation."

I'll ask again, and I'll sit down. I think I've made my point, but I'll ask again:

does the minister think that we really have to be clear in terms of what we're talking

about, in terms of First Nations interests that live in the United States that are

specific to transboundary agreements? Should we include this in this legislation to

be clear?

Hon. G. Heyman: I appreciate the member's comments. I understand his concerns, but I will differ with

the member slightly in terms of the cause of the federal government interjecting themselves

into the transboundary dispute in the southeast.

I think that was driven not just by tribes in the United States, or even primarily

by tribes in the United States. It was driven by state governments and state representatives

to the federal government, who pushed the U.S. federal government to, if you'll pardon

the expression, make a federal case out of it. We have what we have.

This clause is an enabling clause, as well as a requirement for us to develop a regulation

that spells out what the requirements for consultation will be by the responsible

persons. It does not delegate authority. That authority will still be government's

authority, through the statutory decision–maker.

I have been very clear about the difference between constitutional rights and title

for First Nations in British Columbia and the transboundary interests that could be

impacted, in some cases, by a proponent on tribes in the United States. They are different.

They have legal status in Canada for B.C. tribes. Absent a contrary decision by the

court — and there may be, as the member knows, other decisions that would impact that

— case law is clear.

The decisions of the Supreme Court are clear. The DRIPA act in British Columbia is

clear. I think the regulation is the appropriate place to spell out the differences

and to do that as we develop the regulation in consultation with First Nations in

British Columbia, who are the ones we will consult about this particular regulation.

We will be guided very, very significantly by the advice that we get from the nations

and Indigenous governing bodies in Canada about what should be clear in that regulation.

The Chair: Just a reminder to members to address through the Chair. Thank you.

[4:50 p.m.]

E. Ross: I agree with the minister in terms of how the legislatures from the United States

got involved, but initially it was First Nations. That's what's happening in Alaska

right now. I think this becomes more and more confusing as we go along if we're not

clear from the outset. And that's what I'm asking: to be clear in terms of what we're

talking about in terms of the United States First Nations versus Canadian First Nations

under the Constitution of Canada and all the pursuant case law, by the way.

I will make one comment. DRIPA is not clear. DRIPA is an interpretive aid. It's not

enforceable in law. If we're going to use that argument, it's not going to stand up

in court. I mean, the B.C. government just got through arguing with the Gwa'sala First

Nation that DRIPA is not enforceable, and the B.C. government won. So to use DRIPA

as some type of document that can actually reinforce the position of First Nations

in B.C. is actually, according to case law, wrong. You can go through the Supreme

Court itself and look at B.C.'s arguments in that respect.

I'll leave my comments there. I just think that we've got to make a clear distinction

about what we're talking about in terms of the interests of First Nations of the United

States versus rights and title interests that really demand consultation and accommodation

for First Nations in British Columbia and Canada.

Through the Chair, of course.

Hon. G. Heyman: I appreciate the comments, but I will simply repeat that decisions of the courts have

been clear in Canada, in British Columbia. There is nothing in this legislation that

either does or is intended to give rights that belong to First Nations in Canada and

British Columbia to tribes that are not covered by those court decisions.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister, for the answers to those questions.

Going back a little bit on the future regulations, will future regulations regarding

long-term monitoring include requirements for ongoing consultation and/or cooperation

with Indigenous peoples and/or local governments?

[M. Dykeman in the chair.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The decommissioning and closure plan development requires consultation with First

Nations, and the content of the plan, including the requirement to include monitoring,

will be guided by that consultation.

In some cases, the nations may say, "We want to be part of the monitoring" or "We

want to meet with the monitors" or "We want to be updated by the monitors," and others

may simply be satisfied by how the monitoring is laid out or the standard requirements.

I'm not sure what the outcome of that will be, but I trust that the creation of the

plan in consultation with nations with title and interests will dictate that.

[4:55 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: Regarding the new 92(1)(h), can the minister provide a practical example of some circumstances

which may trigger the review of a decommissioning and closure plan?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. Examples might be a change in ownership,

might be a change in scientific knowledge about the route of impact or toxicity of

certain substances. It may be a change in available technologies. It might be impacts

brought on by climate change of which we were not aware when the decommissioning and

closure plan was created.

R. Merrifield: Will these regulations require that updated plans undergo the same requirements, respecting

cooperation and consultation, that we previously canvassed?

I understand from the minister that the review would not necessarily — with this aspect,

specifically updating or reviewing — be viewed the same as the preparation of.

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer is yes, depending on the level of complexity or detail of a change. I think

that would also dictate the level or complexity of the required consultation, but

the answer is still yes.

R. Merrifield: The regulation-making authority under the proposed 92(1)(

i) speaks of reporting to

a director respecting changes or events in relation to the specified facility for

which a decommissioning and closure plan has been submitted — so changes in ownership

and changes in the operations of the facility.

Could the minister provide some examples to demonstrate what changes in the operations

are anticipated to be captured under this regulation?

Hon. G. Heyman: It could be a change in the types of works being undertaken at the facility. It could

be a general change in methods or technologies or operations generally.

R. Merrifield: Could the minister speak to what types of regulations will be brought forward under

the proposed subsection (1)(j)?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: It could be a range of things. It could be — for instance, if they are replacing infrastructure

— that the director would require the removal of old infrastructure. It could be methods

that are required, or physical equipment or containment facilities that are required,

with respect to toxic substances or contaminants. It could be measures that need to

be put in place for the protection of workers or of the surrounding community. It

could have to do with noise, odour or gas escapes. Those are some examples.

R. Merrifield: Could the minister also speak to what types of regulations will be brought forward

under this proposed subsection (1)(

k) regarding costs — and then, subsequently, also

debts?

Hon. G. Heyman: So (

k) could refer to the types of costs for which we are authorized to seek cost

recovery, rather than simply being open-ended and leaving the impression that we can

ask for whatever we think we're worth. It might also be specific to what avenues are

available to government to recover costs.

T. Shypitka: I'm kind of late to the party here a little bit, but I'm picking up some information

that I just needed some clarification on.

Under this clause, if what I'm hearing is right, a proponent or a project that goes

through environmental assessment, all the bonding, consultation and everything that

goes along with reclamation after the mine's life or other project's life, this piece

of legislation will then put that into question with other governing bodies, other

agencies or First Nations that may have not been part of the environmental assessment

in the first place. Am I hearing that right? Is this bringing in other proponents

that weren't involved in the EA originally?

Hon. G. Heyman: This amendment to the Environmental Management Act has nothing to do with existing

environmental assessment certificates, the environmental assessment process or existing

permits. It also doesn't cover sectors — for instance, major mines which have bonding

requirements — that are contained in different pieces of legislation.

It simply requires consultation going forward, for projects that are currently in

operation or that may be in development, to develop decommissioning and closure plans

and to consult with interested First Nations on the contents of those plans.

T. Shypitka: A little bit clearer then. For major mines and operations that have security and bonding

for reclamation work, this will not touch any of that, from what I've heard.

I would just like to get a sense, though — I realize this is not part of the EA process:

when a project does do all the homework to get a project online, they have to go through

an EA. This sits outside of that.

[5:05 p.m.]

Is there a conflict there, when the proponent does all the work and does all the reclamation

and bonding necessary? Then with this legislation, they have to go, perhaps, outside

of the people that they talked to during EA, different agencies.

The minister can set me straight here. I'm fearful that this may be the moving of

the goalposts that industry hates to see. They do the work, and then, of course, they

think they're set and ready to go. Shareholders. Every investment is made, and then

here's something now that's going to add another layer of cost and uncertainty to

a project. Is that in any danger here with this legislation?

Hon. G. Heyman: I don't believe so. The reason is that currently, if a proponent receives an environmental

assessment certificate, they then go on to various forms of permitting. It is not

normal, although I suppose it's not inconceivable, that an environmental assessment

certificate could require some surety, but I don't see that happening — particularly

with this bill in place.

In any case, we certainly wouldn't replicate the process in two different places.

That would have an undesirable result for efficiency of permitting, which is a goal

and an activity that this government is actively pursuing. What I can tell you is

that industry, with whom we've consulted extensively, support the principles and goals

of this bill and look forward to working with us through consultation on the regulation

development to spell out exactly how it will be implemented.

T. Shypitka: The principle of the bill, as the minister said, is an honourable one: the user pays.

I don't think anybody is going to argue with that. My only concern is that those proponents

who have done the right and fair thing not have another layer of cost or uncertainty

with what this legislation could bring forward.

If the minister is saying to me now that there will be no additional costs or uncertainty

associated with this legislation, to those proponents that are in process right now

or in the middle of production right now, then I'm fine with that. If he just wants

to confirm that, that's great.

Hon. G. Heyman: I don't believe that that this bill will introduce any uncertainty for those operations

that have not been required to put forth any kind of surety to ensure that decommissioning

and closure is undertaken in a responsible way.

There may be some cost in putting that surety forward, but without that, the alternative

is exactly the opposite of the principle of the bill, which is leaving taxpayers on

the hook. That is the impact.

T. Shypitka: Thanks to the minister. Is that not the responsibility of the Crown or the ministry,

through the environmental assessment, to ensure those bonds are in place for any project

going forward? Why do we have to come back to another possible layer of cost? The

minister says no uncertainty, but with a layer of costs, that would possibly be an

uncertain element.

[5:10 p.m.]

The question to the minister, I guess: wouldn't those certainties that come with reclamation

or decommissioning be done through the environmental assessment office, and if not,

why not?

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, there are many operations in B.C. that are covered by the major mines

legislation. What this bill is doing is bringing other operations in line with those

requirements.

Not every operation requires an environmental assessment. There are thresholds. I'm

pretty sure the member is not suggesting that we want to expand the number of proposals

that go through a full-blown environmental assessment.

The Environmental Assessment Act provides for the imposition of conditions. Those

conditions may well cover, in scope, something that is akin to…. A decommissioning

and closure plan, in effect, generally does not require bonding to that effect.

In any case, I can assure the member we're not intending to have two sets of requirements

with two sets of bonding to cover the same operation for the same outcome. That is

not the intent of the act, and that's not what we're going to do.

T. Shypitka: I'm misunderstanding something here. I'm sure what I was hearing from the minister

is that there will be security requirements, through a decommissioning plan, that

need to be put forward by a proponent or somebody that's in operation right now.

I think it's going back to…. So 114 operations may be in play right now. I'm getting

that from my colleague here. Those proponents right now have a sense of security.

They've checked all the boxes. They've done the work. This legislation now puts it

outside of what they've done already and could bring those extra costs.

The minister has said already that it's not the intent…. He's pretty sure that it's

not going to happen. But what certainty does that bring to industry on that not coming

to fruition on these projects? They need some assurance.

I'm getting mixed messages. First of all, I heard it was not going to be extra requirements

or extra costs or extra certainty. Now I'm hearing something a little bit different.

I've kind of run out of questions, because I've asked them already. I'll ask it one

more time. This requirement of these proponents is now outside the environmental assessment.

We've established that. Does that not, then, constitute extra costs and extra uncertainty

for proponents? They've already done their job and already done their work. Now they're

going to be facing this.

This is the changing of the goalposts that industry hates to see. I'm just getting….

I want to hear a confirmation from the minister saying that will not be what this

legislation represents.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Chair, I'm not sure I said what the member thinks I said.

What I will say is…. First of all, there's a range of projects out there that currently

hold environmental assessment certificates, some of them very old and which may have

had a very different quality of conditions put on them. Some of them may well have

closure plans that were a required condition of the assessment certificate. In that

case, the lion's share of their work will have been done.

They may have to consult with First Nations on meeting the requirements of this bill

once passed, but that is not surprising. Governments put new conditions based on new

knowledge all the time.

In the case of major projects with environmental assessment certificates…. All of

those that are major mines are already covered under the major mines legislation and

aren't impacted by this legislation. They're covered. It's done. It's other operations

that will be covered by this legislation.

In our consultation with industry, we received pretty, as I said, uniform feedback

that the principles of the legislation are supported. They understood the need for

it.

Frankly, for the vast majority of operators in British Columbia who operate responsibly,

who believe it is important to operate responsibly and to clean up or prevent any

pollution associated with their operations…. They welcome the prescription of clear

standards to be met as well as standards that will apply to everyone, including the

small number of bad actors — I don't want to keep picking on Neucel; well, maybe I

do — like Neucel, that give everyone else a bad name and create problems for them.

We have consulted at length. People in industry accept that what we're doing is necessary.

I look forward to working on the regulations to implement this legislation with them

but do not see it as a major problem.

Clause 4 as amended approved.

On clause 5.

R. Merrifield: What is the time frame for the regulations to be completed?

Hon. G. Heyman: I can't put a specific number of months or a time frame on the development of the

regulations, but our intent is clear.

Once the bill is given royal assent, we intend to do a fulsome consultation to ensure

that interested parties, including industry, which will have a lot of information

about how to make this work efficiently, are consulted, that we meet our obligations

to First Nations for consultation and that, frankly, we do so in a timely manner so

there is no uncertainty about what the impacts of the act will be.

R. Merrifield: I'll just ask the minister again. Could the minister put a range for a time frame

on the consultation and the regulation development that he's specifying today?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Again, I can't make a commitment. Things happen, but we are working toward a goal

of having the regulations finalized and proclaimed no later than the end of 2025.

Clause 5 approved.

On the title.

R. Merrifield: The title is going to pass. I just want to say a couple more things; that's all. Don't worry

about the title. I'm going to pass it. I have no power to not pass it.

I think you heard from my colleagues as well as from myself today, and over the course

of second reading as well as throughout this committee stage, that we're very supportive

of the polluter-pay principle. We are very concerned about the environmental stewardship

aspect that this bill affords, so we want to support that and really laud that.

We also want to be eyes wide open on industry and the impact on industry, and to make

sure that industry isn't disadvantaged. While we are very supportive of polluter-pay,

not necessarily of industry pays twice.

I appreciate the minister and staff that have been very patient over the course of

the last few days. I very much so appreciate the due diligence that's gone into this

bill as well as the amendments.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that

Section A reports Bill 29 complete with amendments.

The Chair: Members, the question is that the committee rise and report Bill 29 complete with

amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:22 p.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada