Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate, Bill 38, Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued Committee of the Whole, Bill 36, the Health Professions and Occupations Act.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 40, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act (No. 2).

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

[2:55 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 38 — INDIGENOUS SELF-GOVERNMENT
IN CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
AMENDMENT ACT

(continued)

K. Paddon: I’m happy to continue speaking to Bill 38, the Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act, and I just have a few more comments that I think are important that I’d like to share on behalf of what I’m hearing in my community as well as what I’ve had the privilege of learning over the course of my career.

Just to catch it back up, to bring it back to where we were, Indigenous children involved in the provincial care system need to be able to stay connected to their families, to their communities, to their culture, but under the current laws, that just isn’t a reality. Despite the best efforts of many, many professionals, many people who care very deeply about the system and who endeavour every day to serve the children that are in their care, the system itself is, in fact, rooted in racism.

The child welfare system, which is rooted in colonial laws, has been focused on the removal of children and has, traumatically, resulted in a disproportionate number of Indigenous children and youth in care. For myself, as a parent, I can’t imagine a topic, an area of life, that would trigger in me more passionate response than around my children, and I know that I’m not alone in that. My family around me, chosen or biological, would feel that same passion. They are equally committed to my children.

I have had the benefit — and we know this from research, and we know this from feedback — of a benefit, by virtue of how I look and the community to which I have been assigned, that just has not been there for Indigenous families. I think it is critical to recognize that this is a truth, and it’s a truth that’s been shared repeatedly with us.

Like I mentioned before, this is despite work and research and best efforts and a true heartfelt commitment by people who work within and around the system. These changes are long overdue, and I’m very, very excited that there are some First Nations who are already on the path. There are four First Nations who have been in conversation and are prepared to assume this jurisdiction. One of those communities is Sts’ailes First Nation, and they are in Chilliwack-Kent.

I can’t tell you how excited I am to see people coming home, to see the benefit of the culture and the focus of taking care of these children, not only the children but the families, and an approach that is truly aware not only of the current situation but of situations past and that can begin to rebuild these systems that, for immeasurable time, were supporting families, were supporting children and were working.

These communities took care of families, of children, just like we know it takes an entire community, just like we know it takes an entire village. To come in with colonial ideas and attitudes and say: “This doesn’t meet a standard….” Children and families were supported in these First Nations for time immemorial, on the land.

I cannot express how happy I am that this bill addresses some of that. For me, as a parent and as a community member in Chilliwack-Kent, as someone who has seen, sometimes, the need for protection of children — it’s a devastating and sad thing — but also the reunification of families…. To know that this focuses all of that attention and provides a path forward for that jurisdiction to be reclaimed where it should be — my words can’t describe that.

[3:00 p.m.]

I would like to, for the purposes of this, just share the words of Grand Chief Stewart Phillip from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. They said:

“The colonial era of the province controlling child welfare must come to an end, and this legislation cannot be passed soon enough. This legislation holds the promise of finally affirming the inherent rights of First Nations to ensure our children are with their families, communities and people. It brings me incredible joy to think about this change in my lifetime and for my grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

“As Indigenous peoples, we have the right to exercise self-determination over our children, and we are glad this is finally being recognized through law.”

I’m going to end my remarks there, because I don’t think I can say it any better. I could speak so long about the good that can come from this work. I’m just so grateful.

I appreciate the time today. I look forward to hearing support from across the chamber.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Saanich North and…. Oh, okay.

Member for Skeena.

E. Ross: Thank you to the House Leader for sitting down and allowing me to speak.

Interjection.

E. Ross: You’re not an Elder, are you?

A. Olsen: No, you are my elder.

E. Ross: We’re speaking here on Bill 38, the Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act.

This is, like all Indigenous issues, something that not only did I try and address as a chief councillor as well as an elected councillor. I actually grew up with it. I live on reserve, in Kitamaat Village. That’s where I was born and raised. I still live there today.

When I say live with it, I mean people in your family are experiencing what we’re talking about here, meaning children in care. What we’re talking about here is children going into government care.

I’ve heard all the lofty speeches talking about self-determination and self-governance in terms of Bill 38, but nobody has really talked about the reality of what happens on the ground in these First Nations communities.

A little bit of information here. When we’re talking about First Nations communities, we’re not just talking about First Nations villages like what I live in. We’re talking about new communities in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. We’re talking about new communities in urban settings — in Terrace, in Prince George, all across British Columbia — what we refer to as off-reserve First Nations people.

Anything that’s got to do with First Nations people, especially vulnerable First Nations people, has always been one of the most stressful topics I’ve ever come across. When we’re talking about self-governance and self-determination…. I’ve always tried to make it a point to make this House understand that’s exactly what we’ve been trying to do for the last 20 years but not specifically in these kinds of bills. A lot of progressive First Nations took a different route.

Yes, section 35 of the constitution was there. Yes, the case law was there. But the whole push to engage in economic development, as outlined by the courts of B.C. and Canada, was really the pathway for many First Nations to address their own issues on their own terms, including what we’re talking about here, Bill 38, the Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act.

That’s why it was so disappointing to read the Hansard and to understand that a lot of members in this House that are now sitting on that side of the House opposed LNG without even understanding where LNG came from in the first place. The idea of exporting LNG to Asia did not come from the B.C. Liberals. It came from my band, the Haisla. It took seven painful years to convince the government of the day that this was the right thing to do not just for us but for the province, for the region, for the country. Now we’re starting to see the results of that.

[3:05 p.m.]

Self-determination without bills like this is a reality for bands like my own. Self-determination for bands like the Kitselas is becoming a reality because of their push to be involved in forestry. That includes old-growth logging. That includes mining. The turnaround that LNG development has done for many First Nations has now given them the ability to do what we’re talking about here, in terms of Bill 38, without the need for Bill 38.

Economic development, under section 35 of the constitution, has done more for First Nations than any other government program in the history of Canada or B.C. If you don’t believe me, come visit my community. Come see everything that we’re doing in terms of programs that do not need government funding.

The only thing missing out of this was the capacity and the revenue to do it on their own terms. That was all that was missing. Now it’s there. Mind you, I will argue that the capacity is not there in terms of taking over the Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Service Amendment Act.

By the way, I did promote this initiative when I was the chief councillor at Haisla. I did bring this idea to my band council. I had read the stories, just like everybody else.

My community wanted an answer for a First Nations person that fell out of a hotel window down on the Lower Mainland. The question back then was whether or not the provincial government was failing Aboriginal people.

I did not agree, yes or no, but I did say: “We have an opportunity to be the solution. We have the revenue. We can build the infrastructure. We have the expertise.” The question became: do we have the capacity? It became obvious. No, we don’t. Do we have the appetite for liability and responsibility? The answer became: no, we don’t.

This is a huge issue. To gloss over it and say how every­thing is going to be rosy for the future — everybody is going to love the culture and language — is false, and it’s dangerous. If you live through this experience of seeing children in care and seeing your own cousins, your nephews, your nieces and your uncles going into government care, you will know that this is not the place to talk politics. If there was ever a time to talk reality, now is the time.

This is a serious issue. What troubles me the most about the speeches, let alone the bill, is that we’re talking about culture and language. Such a high priority. Such a noble cause. Everything is going to be great. I could care less about culture and language unless you talk about safety.

I can tell you right now. For the people that I’ve seen go into government care or seen their children go into government care…. The last things they talked about were culture and language. It’s not a priority for me. For everybody I’ve talked to, whether it be family members or friends, nobody has ever said: “I really wish I’d get to learn my culture and language while I’m in government care, even though I’ve been passed around to five or six different foster families.” Nobody has ever brought that up.

The safety of the child should be the priority. This should be the discussion we’re talking about here. Any child…. It doesn’t matter if you’re Aboriginal or not, the safety of the child….

When you’re talking about keeping a child close to their culture, close to their language, you’re really talking about keeping that child in their community. Who is going to guarantee the safety of that child when that child was probably apprehended, in the first place, because of abuse, maybe neglect, maybe sexual abuse or all the above? This is the ugly reality of poverty in First Nation communities. I know it’s not a great topic, but it happens. It happens today.

Some First Nations, I agree, have covered this off. I do agree. But they’ve done it very painfully, very slowly and understanding that responsibility and liability come with the idea of taking over jurisdiction of children in care.

[3:10 p.m.]

The Splatsin First Nation, for example, is a great model. If we could use that as a framework for how to get this done in First Nations communities, great. They’ve already learned the lessons, whether you’re talking about the people that are living inside the community, how to deal with them; or their band members living off reserve in urban communities. They’ve figured it out. More often than not, there’s still more to work out, but hopefully, the First Nations that actually participate in this understand a couple of things.

You’re going to need a lesson in liability and responsibility. There’s a reason why the Splatsin First Nation takes out insurance on their programs, because that liability doesn’t go away just because you’ve taken jurisdiction. It does not go away. In fact, it hits closer to home, because now it’s your chief and council inside your community that are dealing with it and not the provincial government or not the federal government, whatever the case may be. That is what I’m talking about when I’m talking about capacity: the capacity to understand the liability and responsibility that comes with a topic this close to my heart.

I’ll just read some of the stories in terms of what happens to children in care. We’ve already talked about abuses, but it’s no secret that the children in care suffer from death and suicides. It’s no different from First Nations children.

The one advantage my band had, through the development of LNG exports, was that we did have revenues. We did have that financial capability to fully fund this. A lot of First Nations don’t have this advantage. The question becomes: how much funding gets forwarded to these First Nations from government, whether it be the federal government or the provincial government?

That is one of the things we’re going to talk about here today, especially if we make it to the committee stage. The provincial government aims to develop a fiscal framework in partnership with First Nation communities and in consultation with key Indigenous organizations on how to actually implement Bill 38. We also have to understand that this will be optional.

There will be questions. The same questions I had ten years ago are the same questions I’ll have today, especially in committee stage. Like the jurisdiction. Ultimately, when you talk about jurisdiction, you’re talking about authority. But in my experience, when government develops programs, there’s always a level of authority that the government retains. That could be over a seven-year period, or it could be forever.

Let’s take the land management code, for example. The land management code was implemented by the federal government a number of years ago. It actually gave a lot of responsibility and liability to First Nations bands to manage their own reserve lands, but the First Nation had to develop a comprehensive land management plan that included liability and responsibility. It gave them, probably, 95 percent jurisdiction over those reserve lands. That 5 percent that they didn’t have was actually retained by the federal government for liability purposes, because ultimately, the First Nation question was still under the Indian Act.

In this question here, when we’re talking about Bill 38, we’re talking about First Nations children on reserve, and we’re also talking about children off reserve. In either case, both those demographics are still under the Indian Act, if they have a status card. So in terms of the liability responsibility, where is the jurisdiction going to lie?

[3:15 p.m.]

Where is it going to lie if the worst-case scenario happens? If there is a death of a child, if there is neglect, if there is abuse, where does that liability lie? Does it lie with the First Nation in question? If that’s the case, it’s got to be made clear, because the First Nation better get a lot of insurance.

If that’s not the case, and the federal government backstops the First Nations jurisdiction over children in care, when does the federal government step in? Or in this case, if the proxy is the provincial government, when does the provincial government step in and take responsibility in the case of a death? These are all issues that a lot of First Nations have already covered. This is not new. At the summit that gets held annually in Vancouver, they bring this topic up, but nobody talks about the details.

When we’re talking about the funding, this is going to take a lot of funding for even half the bands in B.C. to implement. If there are 204 bands in B.C. and only 100 participate in this program, that means an incredible amount of money is needed to operate this program. Never mind the training; never mind the amount of legal fees in setting up the structures and the roles and responsibilities. This is going to mean a lot of money.

One of the questions I’ll have is: is there a goal of reducing duplication? The way I see it, now there’ll be three levels of government overseeing the jurisdiction of children in care with Bill 38. They’ll be the federal government, which has the overall responsibility to First Nations people in Canada, status First Nations; there’ll be the provincial government, which will be actually developing the fiscal framework for First Nations; and then there’ll be the First Nations themselves. That’s a lot of bureaucracy. Trying to figure out who’s responsible in which situation is going to be a nightmare, unless you talk about the safety of the child.

I’m sure that there are a lot of plans out there already in terms of how language programs get funded, how cultural programs get funded, but not yet have I heard one conversation about the safety of the child in question. In my experience, especially in the conversations I have with my people, as well as with my council, “safety” came up at the top of all our conversations. Language and culture were maybe fourth or fifth. Why? It’s because when you’re having a conversation about safety, you’re also talking about the well-being of a child.

Over the years, when I’ve come across these types of files, it was obvious to me that there was too much political, feel-good language in these types of discussions. In a perfect world, yes, we do want our children surrounded by our culture and language — and, possibly, even our family. But realistically, you can’t have that if the child isn’t safe. I’ve had arguments already where a white, non-Aboriginal grandparent was not allowed to look after their Aboriginal child just because of the race of the grandparent, yet safety was key.

Why? It’s because politicians truly believed that the priorities were culture, language, community. But if that environment is not safe, none of that matters. You get short-term political goals and political wins, but that child becomes part of the system forever, and not just in terms of care. That child goes on to other bad decisions, made by themselves and others, and prison is on the roadmap for every First Nation. That is what we’re trying to change.

[3:20 p.m.]

For the first time in history, we got progress. It all came from a simple saying of my late uncle Heber Maitland, who was chief councillor of our band. He simply said: “We want a share and a say, and we want the ability to address our own issues on our own terms.”

This legislation will help. It will, if the First Nation takes up that option. But that is only one component of how to resolve the violence of poverty that many First Nations experience all across Canada, not just in B.C.

I really wouldn’t care, myself, if that First Nation child in question was with a non-native family in another community if I knew, 100 percent, that that child was safe. If that child was safe and their well-being was taken care of, even better. If that child was being loved and succeeding in school, even better.

That’s not saying that the community can’t evolve and that the family can’t evolve. But for a community to provide a safe environment, that community has to evolve themselves. The family has to evolve. You’ve got to prove, especially to me, although I’m not in charge…. You’ve got to prove to me that that community, that house and that environment are safe, above all. There’s too much riding on it. There are so many personal decisions that come into play in terms of that.

Many First Nations talk about calling it “Stop the cycle.” But what a lot of people don’t understand is…. If you’re depending on government to stop that cycle, you’re, sadly, out of luck. It’s not going to work. Government can forward money. They can develop programs. But it’s really a personal decision to stop the cycle, in terms of not continuing whatever it was that happened to you. Don’t pass that down on to the next generation.

In terms of the bill we’re talking about here, in terms of the jurisdiction…. I do know that this flows from a government decision. I do know that. There are questions that I do have in terms of the lingering responsibilities and liabilities of the Crown, whether we’re talking about the provincial Crown or the federal Crown. We’re also talking about where the government retains its responsibility to First Nations people across Canada. How does that play out? A lot of First Nations would call this strings attached or paternalistic types of programs.

I know the devil will be in the detail in terms of, maybe, some type of template agreement that we’ll possibly see. This is why I’m suggesting…. The Splatsin First Nation has got a great template. They’re the first to admit that it’s not perfect, but they’ve already worked out the major kinks. They’ve already agreed…. For the most part, everything that’s happening outside the reserve depends on partnerships with third-party organizations to look after all their band members all across British Columbia.

My point is that we don’t have to reinvent the wheel here. There’s a working model in northeastern B.C. that we can use and take lessons from. They’ve got a great website. They did a workshop, and they invited leaders from all across B.C. to participate in asking the really tough questions. What I like about that video is that they didn’t shy away from the questions. They actually, with open arms, appreciated the partnerships and working relationships with different organizations, including the RCMP.

[3:25 p.m.]

I know that to work with the RCMP today is not viewed as positive, but many First Nations across B.C., including my own, actually wanted more RCMP presence. You’d go to a public meeting, and they’d ask: “Why are the RCMP not in our communities more often, especially on weekends?”

In many First Nations communities, this is actually a positive relationship with the RCMP people in how to make it better. So listening to the negative remarks on the RCMP across B.C., and even in this Legislature — that’s not the experience we had. In fact, in our community, the RCMP actually opened up an office and participated in our community events, working with children, going to the schools, coming to our feasts, coming to all the functions that actually made us a community. That made them part of our community and actually opened up that trust. But at the end of the day, law and order…. That’s what our people wanted: law and order.

There are a lot of different moving parts to this bill, and it’s brought me back to a time when I was trying to fix everything in my community. Unfortunately, I couldn’t fix everything. I just didn’t have enough time, and there was no political will to actually address some of the things I wanted to do in terms of Indigenous self-government, especially when we’re talking about it now in terms of Bill 38. Mind you, I did not have the Splatsin example. I didn’t have that.

As we move into committee stage, and I’m hoping we move into committee stage, these are questions that I’ll have in terms of liability, capacity, finances and the lingering responsibility of government as well. I’ll also be looking for more conversation in terms of the provisions that actually speak to the safety of the child first. It’s not about language and culture, not about community. The safety of the child. I doubt any member of this Legislature would disagree with me on that.

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity to speak at second reading to Bill 38, Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act.

This has been a challenging speech for me to prepare for. There are many swirling emotions: anger, sadness and hope. I’ve had an extra week for this to percolate. I wrote 25 pages. Then I rewrote it into a much briefer 40 pages before settling on this 35 pages that I have with me here today.

I’d like to start by just saying that some of the things that I’m going to say here may be challenging for somebody here. I just want to acknowledge that it may activate some people just because of the history of where we have come from. Likely we’re going to go over the 30 minutes, so I note that I’m the designated speaker for our caucus.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

A. Olsen: This speech is about the child welfare system in British Columbia, specifically the Indigenous child welfare system. It’s a heinous story of our past and our present. I discuss genocide; human experimentation; psychological, physical, sexual and emotional abuse. I take some time to highlight where we have come from and where we are. My hope is that in telling this hideous truth, it doesn’t also be our future.

This bill comes with a lot of promise of a new era of reconciliation. Indigenous people and communities are finally allowed to self-determine, control their own child welfare policy, programs and services.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

This bill was tabled on October 26, 2022, halfway through this fall sitting. There were 17 scheduled sitting days left in the 2022 parliamentary calendar. On November 3, 2022, a Government House Leader motion cancelled four sitting days, November 14 to 17, to reduce the time for this debate. Second reading speeches had not yet been completed. Committee stage debate had yet to begin.

[3:30 p.m.]

We are adjourning on Thursday, when the government needs this bill to be completed for royal assent. I sincerely hope that at the end of this week, this bill is not part of any time allocation motion. Further reducing debate on this bill is unacceptable. After all the celebration that has been done on this bill, this work that we do in this House must, on behalf of all the kids that we’re going to talk about, be thorough.

Duncan Campbell Scott joined the Department of In­dian Affairs in 1879. He served as deputy superintendent from 1913 to 1932. In 1920, he was quoted as saying: “I want to get rid of the Indian problem. I do not think, as a matter of fact, that the country ought to continuously protect a class of people who are able to stand alone…Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic, there is no Indian question and there is no Indian department.”

This philosophy is at the core of his Indigenous policy. Scott has been called an extreme assimilationist, but in plain language, the policy amounted to genocide. They admitted as much. He admitted as much. They wanted to eliminate Indigenous cultures and Nations. Indigenous people had too many legal rights and genuine claims to the land and resources that our early parliamentarians wanted to control.

The plan was to deliberately undermine and erode language and culture. At the same time, they outlawed our sacred rituals, ceremonies and governance structures. They collected Indigenous people on to Indian reserves, governed by the Indian Act — a racist law that still exists today. Desperate underfunding created chronic intergenerational poverty. Indigenous people endured relentless wave after wave after wave of attacks on our ways of life.

Hundreds of Crown- and government-sanctioned, church-run day, industrial and residential schools were opened. They, along with Indian hospitals, unleashed an unspeakable hell across our country. The government attacked families, deliberately breaking the bond between parent and child. Indian agents and the RCMP rounded up children and sent them to faraway residential institutions. Indigenous children were separated from their siblings. They were punished for communicating with their brothers, sisters and cousins.

When the parents learned what their children were suffering at the hands of day school masters, they were threat­ened that the government officials would scoop their kids and send them away to the residential version if they said anything. If the children shared the horrors of the residential schools with their parents and the parents spoke up, then they were threatened that their children would not be allowed to come home.

Generations of Indigenous children were taught not to trust, but worse, they were taught to hate their parents for not intervening in the experimentation, physical, sexual, psychological and emotional abuse. For decades, we have heard about the child welfare system here in British Columbia — the tentacles of Scott’s philosophy reaching into today. We have heard about the Sixties Scoop, government agents taking Indigenous children by the thousands and sending them far away from their home territories to be adopted, fostered and raised by non-Indigenous people.

The impact of these policies has been heartbreaking. As much as we would prefer to believe that we are here today, cleaning up the mess from the past, let us not forget that this bill, removing the patriarchal, genocidal, extreme assimilationist child welfare philosophy and replacing it with a self-determined, Indigenous-led child welfare program, is the work that we are doing today.

[3:35 p.m.]

Pamela Palmater, chair in Indigenous governance at Toronto Metropolitan University, is quoted in The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, saying:

“So why is it so important to understand the history of genocide in Canada? Because it’s not history. Today’s racist government laws, policies and actions have proven to be just as deadly for Indigenous peoples as the genocidal acts of the past. What used to be the theft of Indigenous children into residential schools is now the theft of children into provincial foster care. What used to be the scalping bounties are now starlight tours — deaths in police custody.

“Racism for Indigenous people in Canada is not just about enduring stereotypical insults and name-calling, being turned away for employment or being vilified in the media by government officials. Racism is killing our people.”

The government attacks were comprehensive. The focus was on Indigenous women and children. The national inquiry heard, distilled and articulated the facts of life for Indigenous women in Canada. The statistics in the report, the numbers we hear regularly in the media, paint a picture of the grim reality. They are the facts.

Indigenous women and girls are more likely to go missing, more likely to be murdered, more likely to end up incarcerated, more likely to experience sexual assaults and stranger violence, more likely to end up in the sex trade. On and on and on it goes.

These Crown institutions have been waging war on Indigenous people for centuries. While we tell stories about who we are — nice, compassionate and apologetic Canadians — the reality is that our government has been planning and executing an attempted annihilation through systematic and institutional policy, targeting Indigenous women and children. The statistics are really just an accounting, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the stated Crown programs and policies.

Indigenous women were segregated from their communities through discriminatory gender laws. Their children were removed from them at birth, often because of no fault of their own but because of poverty, because the government had targeted their mothers, grandmothers and aunties. Indigenous children were abducted from their families and communities. They were adopted, fostered or sent to a group home to languish, isolated, in a hostile world.

The legislation that we have before us is changing that British Columbia child welfare system, that philosophy. The minister, former ministers, the deputy minister and her predecessors are all characters in this horror show.

We talk about the Sixties Scoop like it was an early chapter in a storybook, but the reality for Indigenous women, mothers and their babies is that the ruthless attacks have never stopped. The scooping continues to this day.

No matter how this government wants to draft the narrative of an improving storyline, even before we pass this legislation and the new regulations are in place, and the responsibility for the child welfare system has been transferred from a minister sitting in this chamber to an Indigenous leader in communities around the province, the members here remain complicit actors in this script, ensuring that the commitments marked by the celebrations indeed come true.

Indigenous leaders have been calling for these changes for decades. They have been told that it cannot be done. They have been told that Indigenous people cannot be trusted to raise our own children. Only the state is equipped to know what is best for our families. Even as we pause on September 30 to recognize the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, Orange Shirt Day, remembering all the children that were sent away from their mothers and fathers to residential school, all the children who did not come home from school…. We have framed it as in our history.

Note. The child welfare systems that exist today are connected directly to all those reprehensible events in history.

[3:40 p.m.]

Note. The underlying motivation for maintaining those systems until very recently — like just a few short months ago, when this minister began engaging Indigenous leaders on the drafting of this bill — has been the same racist and discriminatory beliefs and philosophy seeded by the deputy superintendent, Scott, and the Canadian identity more than 100 years ago.

Through all the laws, policies and programs implemented by our government that were designed to destroy Indigenous people to gain control over the lands and re­sources, our families survived. There are many of our rela­tives who are casualties of this war: tens of thousands who died, were disabled and disconnected; cultures, languages and knowledge-keepers reduced to a fraction of what they once were.

I stand here today because of the resilience of my grandmother and great aunties and aunties, the matriarchs whose babies were torn from their clutches and sent away to have their Indigeneity purged from their memories and their identity, those powerful women who encouraged me to stand and speak truthfully to honour the spirit of the survival that lives in their hearts.

While it is easy for members to stand in this chamber and celebrate the turning of another page, the beginning of another chapter, this moment is a long time in coming for leaders in Indigenous communities. Our relatives have out endured and outlasted round after round of punishment and attacks.

It is difficult to believe that it’s actually true. Has the Crown really grown weary and weakened? Are they finally ready to submit? The tabling of this bill has been celebrated as historic. However, very little more has actually been accomplished today. This is not the end but rather the beginning, and there is much more than the machinery of genocide to dismantle.

How do we start a new chapter in a good way? How do we honour all of our relatives who did not survive the tortuous decades of government policy? I’ve always been taught that atonement begins with an apology. After the decades of the repugnant actions of this provincial Crown government, we are changing the laws with celebration but no apology.

In his ministerial statement at the tabling of this bill, the former Premier, the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca, said the following:

“Recognizing the inherent rights of Indigenous people to care for their own children seems to me to be the easiest thing we could possibly do, but it has taken us a great deal of time to get here. It is another step along the way, and we need to do more. I want to say, on behalf of the government of today, that we will acknowledge and atone for the wrongs in the child welfare system and will engage with Indigenous peoples to come up with the appropriate language to ensure that we recognize and atone for the sins of the past, not those who are here today but those who are here before us.”

From the member’s perspective, acknowledging the in­herent — note the word “inherent” — rights of Indigenous people to care for their own children is easy. In fact, it was the easiest thing he could do, or so he says. A Pre­mier will eventually atone. But only once, the Premier’s office has worked with the Indigenous people to come up with the language of atonement.

What makes all this so difficult to believe is that this bill represents an historic collaboration between the Crowns and Indigenous governing bodies. It feels like there was plenty of time to draft the language of atonement. From the outside, it appears what was missing was the priority, the political will to atone.

[3:45 p.m.]

From the former Premier’s performance, atonement appears to be what is challenging. In fact, it was so challenging that he actually didn’t get it accomplished before he left the big office, which was actually a long and drawn-out process with plenty of time, which is further evidence to the fact that it was political will that was lacking.

Further, I wonder what the former Premier meant when he said: “Atone for the sins of the past, not of those who are here today but of those who were here before us.” It is wrong to land the responsibility of this child welfare system that exists today, that we’re changing with this bill, that actually hasn’t been changed yet, entirely onto the shoulders of our predecessors. They are the reason it exists, but it’s not entirely their responsibility for it not being changed yet. That’s on this House, the members here today.

Why didn’t the Premier just apologize? According to him, this day has taken “a great deal of time to get here.” What is another day or two to draft a meaningful apology? I cannot believe there wouldn’t be willing drafters of that apology at the Leadership Council or even in our government’s own Declaration Act secretariat. Before we can reset this system that has failed Indigenous people so entirely, recognition, acknowledgment and a full apology is proper.

Clearly, it was on the mind of the Leadership Council. Kúkpi7 Judy Wilson said in her remarks on the floor of this chamber on that historic day: “We encourage the B.C. government to apologize in full, in a meaningful way, as the legislation, while a major shift in the right direction, must come with a sincere apology and create a climate of respect that is necessary for reconciliation.”

As much gratitude as I had for the former Premier in my response to his ministerial statement, the former Premier, his government, his political party all missed an opportunity to deliver that full, meaningful and sincere apology.

I’m sure there were a lot of excuses outlined as to why an apology was not possible. However, I must emphasize that the lack of an apology to individuals, families and nations was a choice, and it speaks for itself. The fact that the former Premier mentioned it shows that the government knew it was a priority for leaders of Indigenous communities. But it seems the priority of this government was to make Indigenous people wait. Now that they knew an apology was meaningful, we’re just going to have to wait for it.

When we gathered with leaders of some Indigenous nations in the Hall of Honour on Wednesday, October 26, 2022, what were we doing? Were we memorializing the hundreds and thousands of Indigenous children and families whose lives were broken by the British Columbia child welfare system? Were we commemorating those who suffered decades of abuse, neglect, poverty and incarceration, the inevitable result of being torn from their family and placed in a system that cares more about economics than well-being?

Were we celebrating the success of Indigenous leaders who have finally wrestled the Ministry of Children and Family Development into a submission hold, taking the child welfare systems out of the desperate clutches of this Crown government? What were we doing? Acknowledging the work that was done or the work that is yet to come? On that historic day, I was confused.

[3:50 p.m.]

Does this institution, built on rock and stone, have such a fragile temperament that it needs an interim reward, a little gold star for a good job — ÍY SĆÁ, as we say in SENĆOŦEN — for finally creating a pathway for Indigenous families to govern their own child welfare?

In the teachings that have been shared with me, celebration is reserved for work that is done. The event in the Hall of Honour was before any amendments had been tabled, before any laws enacted, before any regulations considered and written, before any agreements signed and before any lives had been improved.

A few minutes after the event in the Hall of Honour, the former Premier and his Minister of Children and Families invited those Elders, leaders and youth into this chamber. We opened with prayer. We suspended regular business and invited the leaders to stand and speak to the members of this assembly, all before the minister had tabled the amendments, all before most Indigenous Elders, leaders and youth, before the public and before the survivors of our cruel child welfare system had a chance to lay eyes on the amendments.

That awkward event brought clarity: just how deeply entrenched the colonial mindset is in this province. This institution, this government needs encouragement and recognition for intending to do good work.

For a century, the so-called child welfare system has been a key weapon to control Indigenous children, families and communities. It is a deeply embedded part of the Canadian identity, the identity of this Crown government, fomenting falsehoods like Indigenous mothers are bad parents and Indigenous fathers are absent.

The Hall of Honour event was designed to make the members of this assembly feel successful. And Indigenous people? Well, we were meant to feel something else: grateful. We are supposed to hold this B.C. NDP government up in gratitude for finally creating a pathway for our mothers and fathers, for Indigenous leaders and communities to take control of our own children’s welfare.

That is how twisted and backward this institution can be. It comes down to being able to tell a story — a story of success before much success has been achieved — and gratitude, heaping glory upon this government for good intentions, even when so little has yet to be accomplished.

The minister and her staff might frame my comments as being unfair. Work has been done. Some nations, some leaders were invited behind the curtain to meet the wizard, but only after signing a non-disclosure agreement. Is that what the event in the hall, the event in this chamber…? Is that what we were memorializing and commemorating? Is that what we were celebrating?

Were we celebrating the Minister of Children and Family Development, her senior officials, the Premier, the cabinet, the Treasury Board finally sitting at the table with Indigenous leaders with a willingness to discuss a pathway for the government to finally relinquish control over the welfare of Indigenous children? Celebration comes after ÍY SĆÁ, the good work, is done, not before.

I’m here at second reading in this legislative process. No laws have changed. No regulations have changed. What we have before us is a potential pathway. Pardon me for my skepticism. As I started this speech, it’s been a long, long road. But in the spirit of reconciliation, I will embrace the optimism expressed by the Elders and leaders in the Hall of Honour and on the floor of this assembly.

[3:55 p.m.]

I have not been on the front-line struggle for decades of my working career, and to all those people who have fought this government, who fought for decades to achieve this moment that we’re here today talking about, I mean no disrespect. I raise my hands in gratitude to you, not to the provincial government or a political party. I raise my hands in gratitude to all of our leaders who have been working for this moment.

My job is to scrutinize this government, this bill, the work, the intention, the promises — and actions and outcomes. That’s why I’ve lingered so long here. I want to celebrate the destruction of this gruesome child welfare system that has devastated our families, our languages, our cultures and our laws. However, I will not be dragged into a government communications exercise, writing fiction. When it comes to the lives of our children, our families, our communities and our nations, I’m only into telling the story just exactly as it is.

This is where the story written by Anna McKenzie emerges. Anna was here on that historic day, invited to sit in the gallery and witness the celebration, the tabling of this bill, the praise and the gratitude.

A few days after the historic celebration in the Hall of Honour and in this chamber, I was forwarded a tweet from McKenzie, showing the image of a letter she received from the provincial government. Anna is a mother from Opaskwayak Cree Nation, and she is also a storyteller. She and her colleague Brielle Morgan are investigative journalists at IndigiNews. In 2020 and 2021, they investigated and published extensively on birth alerts. I’d recommend you visit IndigiNews online and read their work. It’s good work.

In her January 12, 2021 article, McKenzie writes the following: “When a social worker feels an expectant parent may put their newborn at risk, they can issue a ‘birth alert’ or a ‘hospital alert,’ flagging the expectant parent to hospital staff, without their consent, and directing them to notify social workers as soon as the baby is born.”

For Indigenous women, birth alerts are a terrifying reality. To provide some context, I’m going to quote from an interview with McKenzie, Morgan and their colleague Tessa Vikander, that was published on Indiegraf. McKenzie says: “I felt a lot of fear delivering my first child because of the threat of birth alerts and the overrepresentation of Indigenous families involved in the child welfare system. I wanted to draw attention to and question the issue to protect Indigenous families from losing their babies.”

Morgan is quoted as saying: “In B.C., birth alerts have resulted in child apprehension ‘approximately 28 percent of the time,’ according to an MCFD record from 2019. These alerts disproportionately impact Indigenous children and families in Canada; 58 percent of parents im­pacted by birth alerts in B.C. in 2018 were Indigenous, according to the B.C. government’s data.”

Vikander is quoted as saying:

“There are many Indigenous families who may have been subjected to birth alerts without even knowing it, so it was important to get the issue back on people’s radar. Furthermore, what we learned from the FOI documents was new and hadn’t been reported before.

“We saw that it was significant, and we were right, as evidenced by the proposed class action lawsuit that was later filed on behalf of parents — a direct result of the reporting. The impact of a birth alert, when it leads to a baby being taken away from its parents in hospital, can haunt a family for the rest of their lives.”

On November 2, 2022, McKenzie and her colleagues at IndigiNews received a letter from a lawyer named John Tuck. It was the second letter they’d received from Mr. Tuck. He represents the province of British Columbia.

[4:00 p.m.]

The second letter was essentially the same as the first letter he’d sent to them on January 8, 2021. He was notifying IndigiNews that some of the information they received from the province through a freedom-of-information request was deemed to be protected by solicitor-client privilege. He told them they needed to return the entire package of information immediately.

McKenzie and Morgan decided that the information they received was in the public interest. Then they published their story using the information in question. The information in question outlines that on May 6, 2019, the Ministry of Children and Family Development was informed by the Attorney General that hospital alerts were “illegal and unconstitutional” and posed a potential “litigation risk” for the province. Again, May 6, 2019. The timeline is important here. It wasn’t until four months later, September 16, 2019, that the former Minister of Children and Family Development announced that she was banning hospital alerts.

The national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls found that “birth alerts are racist and discriminatory and are a gross violation of the rights of the child, the mother and the community.” When the minister announced the end of birth alerts, she stated that it was the result of the hard work of Indigenous advocates and the findings of the national inquiry that prompted the action.

There was no mention of the legal advice provided by the Attorney General — the same advice, covered by solicitor-client privilege, that Mr. Tuck has been tasked with recovering. The public aren’t supposed to know the embarrassing bits — that the former Minister of Children and Family Development, who is now the Minister of Forests, might not have been solely motivated by the reports and the good advocacy of Indigenous people but rather out of fear of the legal and financial exposure this system creates for the provincial government.

After all, this is the same ministry whose operatives were breaking privacy laws. This is the same minister who sat on the information for four months before announcing the good news that the ministry’s social workers were no longer going to break the law when they abduct these children from their mothers.

The second letter sent by Mr. Tuck was interesting for a variety of reasons. The timing, actually, couldn’t be worse. Just as the provincial government had celebrated that historic moment announcing a new pathway for Indigenous nations to once again be allowed the responsibility of their own child welfare, a letter from a government lawyer — desperately tasked with collecting the robes that were shed in error for an emperor walking naked on a pathway — was published.

The letter appears hastily crafted, referencing: “Only the Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney General have the authority to waive solicitor-client privilege held by Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, and there has been no such waiver of solicitor-client privilege in relation to the records responsive to your access request.”

Her Majesty the Queen had passed away long before McKenzie and Morgan received this second letter and had been replaced by her son, His Majesty the King. It seems Mr. Tuck wrote the letter months before and sat on it, or didn’t have time to edit it. The Attorney General referenced in this letter is, of course, our new Premier. All of this is to say: “What the hell is going on here?”

At the same moment that we are celebrating a monumental achievement, government lawyers are working to cover their tracks. Instead of recognizing that the information they sought to protect was already made public 18 months ago and abandoning efforts to strike the evidence from the record — asking all of us to collectively forget what we already know to be true — Mr. Tuck, empowered by somebody in the system, perseveres.

What we do know is that during the 20 months between January 2018 and September 2019, there were 444 hospital alerts issued and that, during 2018, 58 percent of them involved Indigenous people. That was under a B.C. NDP government. Even after the same government celebrated the historic changes to the child welfare system, they continued to work in the shadows, harassing and haranguing Indigenous reporters long after it was too late. Why?

[4:05 p.m.]

I share this story because I want to highlight the important work of the investigative journalism of Anna McKenzie, Brielle Morgan and Tessa Vikander. Their courageous efforts have exposed the extent to which the Ministry of Children and Family Development is prepared to go to protect their interests — not the interests of the reporters, the interests of the ministry. Further, their experience is a warning to all those that accept the word of a provincial government, specifically the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

This story demonstrates a duplicity that we must continue to be wary of. On one hand, the provincial government is standing up speakers to celebrate a historic transformation, and at the same time, their lawyers are sending threatening letters to silence and bury the truth. Someone needs to be held accountable for breaching the privacy of Indigenous women in hospital. Clearly, this government does not want that to happen.

Over time, the darkness makes way for the daylight, and a more complete understanding emerges — just one of the reasons why early celebrations are not advisable. If there’s a lesson in the work of Mr. Tuck, it is that despite this government’s desire to tell a positive story, this institution is still trying to control the narrative.

I understand that to participate in the process of developing the bill in front of us, the government required Indigenous participants to sign non-disclosure agreements. Some signed; many didn’t. For those who did sign the NDA, they got a chance to go into the black box and take part in the debates and negotiations. They knew what the event in the Hall of Honour was for, the content of the bill. They knew the words that were said behind closed doors.

For those who didn’t sign the NDA, they didn’t see the bill until after the celebration. They have no idea what was said in the discussion. They don’t know what was on the table and what was not. They are entirely relying on the good job done by their relatives, and they’re relying on the members of this assembly to debate and inspect this bill thoroughly.

I understand that those NDAs remain in place today. The discussions are secret. The negotiations are for only a few, who submitted to the process designed by this Crown government and the political operatives of the B.C. NDP. The rest of us remain in the darkness. Why the secrecy? I can understand the need for some limited use in drafting the bill, but even then, we are deconstructing a system that, I think we all agree, is terrible. Why can’t this be done in the open?

Even if lawyers like Mr. Tuck and others in the Attorney General’s office can argue the need for secrecy in negotiations, there should be little to hide, now that this bill is laid before us. We’re just a day away from going through this bill clause by clause. I and my colleagues will be asking the minister questions about the content of this bill. We want to know about the decisions the ministry made in drafting it.

In a few of the presentations, we heard some coded remarks criticizing the process. The Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, the acting Attorney General, was the emcee in the Hall of Honour the day of the celebration. When he returned to the mic following one particular speaker, he noted and welcomed the criticism. The faces of others lining the wall — key individuals involved in the process — told a completely different story, though: less than welcoming, a far colder reception to the criticism.

Why do the NDAs remain in place? Who is this government protecting themselves from? The people and families whose lives they destroyed? The people and families whose privacy they may have breached?

[4:10 p.m.]

Ultimately, that’s the mission that Mr. Tuck was sent on: “Collect the unfortunate bits of information leaked to the public in error. Protect the institution from exposure and increased litigation risk.”

Remember last spring when I stood and asked the former Premier if he would intervene on behalf of the Gwa’sala-’Nakwaxda’xw? They’ve been trying to get access to the information about their children in the child welfare system. As I wrote at the time:

“The nation has been notified that the deputy director of child welfare decided that the information requested was not going to be disclosed. Despite the commitments of the Minister of Children and Family Development and her deputy minister, the provincial government lawyers in the Attorney General’s office are using narrow interpretations of the law to withhold vital information that the nation needs to facilitate the development of their programs and to ensure that they’re able to meet their cultural laws.

“The Premier states his government has made transformational change with regards to reconciliation, yet these terrible situations persist. He says he’s willing to sit with me and discuss this issue further, but he need not meet with me. He needs to meet with the leadership of the Gwa’sala-’Nakwaxda’xw Nation. He should not delay.”

Despite his public comments in the chamber, the former Premier didn’t meet with me. He didn’t meet with the Gwa’sala-’Nakwaxda’xw. Instead, he put it off on the Minister of Children and Family Development. It appears that this government is not interested in sharing historic information, because they fear the legal reprisals of those whose lives they interfered with and destroyed.

Even as the minister stands in here and expresses how honoured she is to be able to lead this transformational work, her ministry has the participants of that work locked in NDAs. There are all sorts of problems with this. As I outlined earlier, in addition to changing the child welfare laws —which, fortunately, this bill actually does — this B.C. NDP government wants to be able to tell a story about themselves. All Indigenous people are to remember who did this work.

However, as we’ve learned from reading the history books, the narrative is written by the people who control the process, the people who hold the pen, the people telling the story. When we are invited to participate in the celebration, it is honourable for the hosts to be clear what we’re celebrating. In this case, we were celebrating the process to develop amendments that create a pathway for the provincial government to relinquish control and responsibility of the child welfare system to Indigenous nations that meet the standards and criteria set by the provincial government. There appears to be a lot of paternalism remaining in this process.

As I made clear earlier, we were not there in the Hall of Honour to celebrate the passing of law or regulations. We were there to celebrate a collaborative process. It appears the only party in that process that is free to craft the narrative is this Crown government. Anything could have happened. Anything could have been said. Anything could have been requested. Anything could have been denied. There could have been threats made. The process might have even been politicized. All the information that is part of the process is unavailable to the nations who do not participate, to the public and to the survivors of the child welfare system — emphasis on that last stakeholder.

Many of the children who have been removed from their communities and survived the system have no idea who is and who is not negotiating on their behalf. They might not know there is information that could connect them with their relatives. They might not know who should be held accountable and responsible for stealing their belonging to their community, their culture, their language, their teaching, their identity, their birth rights and their family.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Attorney General are not trying to protect the privacy of those people. In fact, it’s likely they breached the privacy of their mothers many years earlier when they issued a birth alert when they were in labour. The secrecy is necessary to protect the Ministry of Children and Family Development and Attorney General and the province of British Columbia from increased risk of litigation.

[4:15 p.m.]

If this work is truly what it appears to be, then this government will embrace the criticism that may be necessary. The acting Attorney General welcomed it in words.

A process centred around the changing of the culture, of an institution that has brought our province such shame and embarrassment and huge liability to both the provincial and the federal Crown governments, should be open, collaborative and informed by a multi-partisan process, not one hiding in the darkness under the shadow of non-disclosure agreements. A government focused on governing rather than playing politics should have engaged a select standing committee to undertake this work. We do not need a political process to tear this culture down. We need a technical one.

I can understand how there may be need for some confidentiality and how non-disclosure agreements may be needed to a certain point. I’ve signed those agreements with governments as well in the past. However, what I outlined today are the dangers of when those tools are applied too liberally.

If this government believes the words they say about inherent rights of Indigenous people, if they believe in our right to self-determination, then they will free us from non-disclosure agreements. They will listen, they will hear, and they will act, not just to a few select people willing to sign their NDAs but even to the dissenters. I have a strong sense that that’s not what happened here.

Over decades, the Crown government has been investing time, money and effort into a specific narrative about Indigenous parents. To justify the child welfare state, these stories have become part of our culture, deeply embedded in the Canadian and British Columbian identity. It’s a belief that has grown out of the constant, sad and desperate stories we hear about Indigenous children in care.

Despite being less than 10 percent of the population, Indigenous children make up 68 percent of the children in care. Over decades, an awful belief that Indigenous people are bad parents has evolved. We are not bad parents. It is a narrative spawned because of our own government’s policy and the governments that came before it. It is a narrative that Crown governments propagated to support their forced assimilation policies; to destroy Indigenous ways of being, taking us away from our parents, our culture, our teachings and our language; to separate us from our territory; to break our spirits; to exploit and steal the wealth generated from the natural resources extracted from the territories that I and my relatives belong to.

I’ve been told stories of Indigenous women being profiled and stopped by police just to check on the kids in the car. I’ve personally seen the parking lot dramas of community members questioning the parenting choices of Indigenous parents. My relative told me a story of his children being apprehended and sent off to Europe on a bus and a train and an airplane — ripped away from their family, only to come back decades later looking to reunite with their father and their culture.

This story has been deliberately constructed by the Crown governments through laws like the federal Indian Act. We all must understand that the residential and day schools were created within our federal parliament with the intention from our elected representatives to “kill the Indian in the child.” The destination was the destruction of Indigenous people, culture and language. The key targets of these genocidal acts, like I said earlier, were our children, our women and our mothers. Our women and children were the targets of the amendments that we debate here today. The child welfare system we’re talking about is an extension of that terrible philosophy.

[4:20 p.m.]

Indigenous people are not bad parents. The number of Indigenous children and youth in the child welfare system is not a reflection of Indigenous parents. It’s a statement about the actions taken in this chamber and in our House of Commons.

It is the result of the intentional tearing down and tearing apart of Indigenous families, cultures and communities. It is a result of an unyielding attack on the credibility, reliability and responsibility of Indigenous women and mothers. It is a result of the abject poverty created by scarcity and from the dispossessing, discrediting and dismantling of Indigenous people from their land, their culture and their wealth. It is the result of greedy governments that have hoarded resources from Indigenous people for over 150 years. That is why nothing short of an apology — in the words of the former Premier, atonement — is acceptable.

Kúkpi7 Judy Wilson stood on the floor of this Legislature and said:

“For our families, we were categorized as bad parents or also categorized, by the Ministry of Child and Family Development, in other shaming and negative words as they interacted with the child welfare system, and that ends today. Those were not our terms. They were part of the shame placed on our families and especially our women, many of whom had their children removed at birth and never had a chance to fulfil their rights as Indigenous mothers and pass along our culture, our identity and the values to the next generation.”

Terry Teegee, the Regional Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said:

“The forced removal of Indigenous children for generations, through residential schools and the child welfare system, has been a deep source of pain and injustice. Today that era comes to an end in British Columbia. Will it be easy to make all the changes needed when it has been entrenched for so long that First Nations have not been seen as good parents due to racism and stereotypes? No, it will not. We will never go back to those days again, and together, we will work to ensure that our children grow up to be the people they wish to be, with the love and support of our peoples in every part of their lives.”

It is the hope expressed by Kúkpi7 Wilson and Regional Chief Teegee that inspires me to dig deep into this promise made by the B.C. NDP that all this terrible history of child welfare in British Columbia, the systematic destruction of our families, does truly and totally end with the passing of this bill. If this work does not result in the end of that awful system, then it is just another false promise designed to fan the political aspirations of a government. Nothing more.

If the latter is the case, then it will have happened on my watch, on our watch. This is the first public debate of these amendments. So much rides on the questions we ask and the answers we receive, the tension we create and the expectations we establish. So much rides on the hope that this government, this ministry, this minister and her senior staff are engaging in this process and sitting at the table in good faith.

That is why the what of this bill and the ensuing regulations depend on how it is going to be achieved. Will the resources be made available to ensure success?

The Crown-Indigenous fiscal framework is broken. Despite the recognition of rights and title and sovereignty, Indigenous nations do not have the power to generate wealth from their territories and to fund programs and services such as child welfare. I have raised this main, chief concern that I have with this B.C. NDP government many times over. They make grand announcements, host celebrations, solidify support, but when it comes to the implementation, there is never any access to the fiscal tools and resources that are needed to make the wheels of progress turn on behalf of Indigenous people.

[4:25 p.m.]

The Declaration Act was the first necessary step in changing the legal framework that we work in. However, it is nothing more than window dressing if Indigenous nations cannot access consistent and reliable revenue. The Crown government cannot keep acting as the sole gatekeeper of the revenue.

As the Indigenous leaders I’ve worked with…. They remind me that they are constantly managing poverty, while all the wealth of their territories is kept just out of their reach by this provincial government. Indigenous nations will not be able to do this work well if we continue to have to manage poverty that was deliberately created and continuously maintained and that has resulted in these devastating conditions that we’re talking about in our community.

Indigenous nations will not be able to do this work if our leaders are having to navigate political minefields that do not serve their communities but only serve some select people in this chamber. As this bill moves to committee stage, I’ll be seeking reassurances that the challenges I’ve raised here are truly remnants of the past, as has been celebrated. I’ll be asking about the sections of this bill that look like they undermine the inherent rights of Indigenous nations to create child welfare laws. I’ll be asking questions to ensure that the paternalism in the system is actually being removed and our communities are actually free to self-determine.

I’ll be asking about the information this government keeps about our children, the children currently in the system and those who have aged out and have been displaced by the child welfare system, to ensure that this minister is truly upholding the spirit of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

Over decades, the child welfare system has destroyed trust. The systems have been developed to entrench Crown control through threats and fear. That is why, today, I will not just immediately take the government on their word when they make claims about the changes to the system. It will only be their actions, the implementation of the changes and how they affect our families and communities that will inform my excitement and my gratitude to them.

We can have a celebration in the Hall of Honour and on the floor of this chamber. We can amend the laws and regulations. Those are critical steps forward. However, it is only a small part of the work that must be done if this government is truly committed to this effort.

There must be a full apology. If the previous Premier was not able to organize the words, then this new Premier should find them soon. There must be access to information — all the information. There must be compensation for the individuals and families who were torn apart and broken by the system. The provincial government actors need to be at the table in good faith, working with leaders to achieve self-determination in child welfare. However, we must go deeper than that.

As I have outlined over the last — I wrote few, but I realize it’s extended — few minutes, the underlying theme of this chronicle, the venomous and repulsive fairy tale that was spun into the Canadian psyche was purposely to undermine Indigenous people as being good and loving parents, trustworthy and prudent leaders.

The goal of our parliamentary forebears was genocide. The child welfare system, the programs of experimentation, psychological, physical, sexual and emotional abuse, separation and isolation that this bill has been celebrated for finally unwinding…. Well, they were tools that were deliberately created to achieve that goal, but generations of Canadians believe stories they’ve been told about Indigenous people. They’ve inherited their own myths and legends that need to be rewritten and retold.

That work has started. We do not yet know the full impact of Orange Shirt Day or the new Indigenous-focused graduation credits required of all of our children graduating from a British Columbia high school, but we’ve seen light glimmering through the cracks.

[4:30 p.m.]

A few weeks ago the students of the W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership School and the Stelly’s Secondary Indigenous leadership program coordinated a march and a rally to a park in Brentwood Bay, a community I grew up in. The place has always been known as Pioneer Park.

Hundreds of our youth in our community came together to demonstrate the power of collective action. They were insulted by the name Pioneer Park. They brought a new name. They put it on the park. HEL,HILEȻ means “a place to be happy.” The youth in our community, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, demanded that Central Saanich council officially change the name.

It’s good instruction for us here as well. We can call this place HEL,HILEȻ.

Mayor Ryan Windsor and I, along with several Central Saanich councillors, were there to receive the message. As I said on that stage, the youth had already done the work. They had already put a new name on the park. Now it was up to the council to make it official. Good work has already started. ÍY SĆÁ.

Deprogramming the Canadian subconscious, which has been taught to believe so many untrue things about Indigenous people, is going to take time. More importantly, it’s going to take commitment. The core of my comments here today is to highlight and point out just how entrenched the stories, systems and tools of oppression actually are.

Now it is time for the truth-telling. This Crown government must not lose sight of their role and responsibility in that critical work.

While we’re going to want and need to pause and celebrate our successes along the way, let’s be careful not to celebrate ÍY SĆÁ until the good work is done.

E. Sturko: I rise today to speak to Bill 38, the Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act. The legislation in front of us today is an important step in the ongoing work of reconciliation.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I want to take a moment — good afternoon, Mr. Speaker — to thank the member for Saanich North and the Islands for a very heartfelt speech. It gives us lots to think about as we move forward into the next phase of this debate.

The legislation in front of us today is an important step in the ongoing work of reconciliation, affirming Indigenous peoples’ inherent rights to self-determination and self-government. In 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that the federal government discriminated against First Nations children. This brought about necessary changes to the federal act.

Now, today, is Bill 38. By amending two key pieces of legislation — the Child, Family and Community Service Act and the Adoption Act…. This legislation puts the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, or UNDRIP, and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the Declaration Act, into action and aligns with the federal An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families. It recognizes Indigenous governing bodies’ right to exercise jurisdiction over their own laws over children and family services. It’s an important and necessary step in reconciliation.

During my time as a police officer, I’ve witnessed the unspeakable suffering of Indigenous, Inuit and Métis children and their families, the ongoing trauma of the residential school system, the Sixties Scoop and children taken into the welfare system. I saw it daily in the faces of people who came into my purview as a result of domestic violence, untreated mental health issues, addictions issues, exploitation, poverty and even malnutrition.

One of the most common occurrences which brought me into contact with children involved in the ministry of children and family services was…. Kids, some as young as eight years old, were running away or being reported missing from group homes and foster homes.

[4:35 p.m.]

Countless times these children were later located in high-risk areas of drug use and exploitation, many of them using drugs to cope with their pain and vulnerable to bad actors in the community. Countless times these same kids were located distraught. For me, it was incredibly frustrating to see young kids with so much potential being brought back to care that I knew they were going to run away from again and again.

It wasn’t where they wanted to be. They had no connections to the group homes. They were taken away from their families, their friends. Many of the kids themselves had complex issues that required more support than, it seems, they were being provided.

To this day, I do feel a lot of sorrow related to the things that I’ve witnessed, the suffering of children. I plan to participate in this debate and in the committee stage because I know that we can do better than we’ve done in the past.

Many of the times that we located children who had run away from care…. We found them, and they weren’t always safe. Many had, as I said, become involved in drugs and exploitation. Some were only found after committing suicide. Sadly, some we located after they became victims of homicide. They were children, beautiful children.

These things have never sat well with me. I’ve often thought: “Lord, there must be a better way.” I sincerely hope, today and as we move forward through this bill, that this is a pathway to a better way.

For far too long, Indigenous children have been, and continue to be, overrepresented in our welfare system. They comprise 10 percent of the general population but represent 68 percent of children in care. These statistics show the unjust disproportionality of challenges faced by Indigenous families and the systemic disparities that they have experienced.

I’ve had the privilege of visiting many Indigenous communities throughout my career. I’ve also been to the homes of many Indigenous people living in urban areas. I’ve witnessed poverty, a lack of nutritious food, a lack of potable drinking water and people who have become disaffiliated from their communities.

Disaffiliation is just one of the damaging legacies of residential schools, the Sixties Scoop and the child welfare system, a loss of culture and connection. This is why I’m very happy to see this legislation come forward — to ensure that we’re partners in ending the cycle which has contributed to decimating culture and traditions and cultural connections for families.

As we move forward with ensuring that Indigenous, Inuit and Métis people have the right to exercise jurisdiction, under their own laws, over child and family services, we have to ensure that proper supports are in place so that First Nations have the resources to provide culturally appropriate programs and services.

They need to have access to training and education, adequate housing, shelter, nutritious food. Each nation is supported to address underlying issues that have continued, social issues that we have seen far too often and in tragic circumstances. We need to have adequate supports for families experiencing poverty, supports for mental health and wellness, equitable access to health care, including addictions and substance use programs. It’s important that we lift up Indigenous, Inuit and Métis people, children and their communities by building capacity and enabling Indigenous nations to build this in their own way.

B.C.’s Representative for Children and Youth has been urging government to focus on belonging for Indigenous children and to better help Indigenous children in government care realize the valuable connection to family that is too often damaged by the historical effects of colonialism, ranging from residential school to the current child welfare system. The purpose of legal belonging, adoption, shouldn’t come at the expense of other elements of belonging, including connection to family, culture and community.

It appears this legislation aims to end such overrepresentation in the child welfare system by enabling Indigenous and provincial governments to work together, collaboratively, in a multi-jurisdiction model, while Indigenous communities will have a choice in which model they choose to implement.

[4:40 p.m.]

Child protection is a complex issue, and the implementation of this legislation will be filled with further complexities. It’s safe to say that the current child welfare system in B.C. isn’t working for Indigenous children and families. It’s important for us to ensure that the current limitations in the ministry’s ability to provide services doesn’t hinder the transition to a more effective and robust child welfare system, which includes providing adequate resources and ensuring social workers are educated and trained for Indigenous communities so that they can provide more appropriate solutions to family healing.

We must also remember that our action has to go far beyond amendments. We must address all social inequities that Indigenous people are facing as a result of the systemic injustices that are from the past and in our present. I do look forward to thoroughly examining the details in the committee stage.

For me in my life, I have never…. I’ve been lucky that my family has never faced the type of discrimination in parenting that Indigenous communities have faced. But in visiting the homes and seeing the legacies of the child welfare system, having friends and other family members, distant relatives, who themselves were residential school survivors, I know that we have to do better.

As a police officer now retired, I hope that the work that we engage in here will make it better for all families in British Columbia and bring back respect and dignity, particularly to the children of our Indigenous communities and those living here in this land.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to the changes to the Adoption Act and the Child, Family and Community Service Act. I just want to start with a recollection of the early months as an MLA, in 2017.

We opened our constituency office, and very soon families, parents started to come and tell us about their experience with MCFD. A lot of these parents were Indigenous. Some of them were non-Indigenous. What became really clear were recurring themes. We would hear stories from these parents, and we were able to predict how things were going to go next, because there were these systemic themes that they were bringing to us.

The punitive nature of the relationship between MCFD and parents, for example. That parents were put into these agreements in which, if there was one mistake or one error or one transgression, the children would be taken. Or the parents that we heard from who had entered into agreements in order to get their children to come home, and they would cross all the t’s and dot all the i’s, do all the things that were required of them in these agreements with MCFD, and then they would be told: “Oh no. Now we have a new set, a list of things for you to do. You’ve done that. Now you have to do the next set.” For those parents, the kind of despair that no matter what they did, the bar was always being placed beyond them.

A couple of things that we also came to recognize about these parents. They were never going to give up. They were so determined to bring their children home, to be the parents that they wanted to be to those children. And they also knew, all of them, how unfair the system was that they were in. That if it went to court, the judge was going to rule in favour of MCFD. That if it was their word against a social worker, every time, the social worker’s word was going to be taken, not theirs. They’re going to be assumed to be liars.

They knew the act inside and out. They knew every piece of that legislation. They were experts. They could be lawyers, how much they knew about all of the ways that the system worked — the court procedures and the act. They also knew that oftentimes, the act wasn’t being followed.

[4:45 p.m.]

There was one example where a mother had just given birth to a brand-new baby, and social workers arrived in the hospital to remove that baby. Any of us who have given birth, I think, can imagine the horror of that for that mother. And it was clear that, according to the act, there are a number of steps that have to be taken before an infant, before a child can be removed from their parents. None of those steps had been taken. None. So the parents are held to a level of account. They have to be perfect. They can’t make a single error. But the system and the people in the system and the social workers — not the same accountability.

The other theme that we learned from these parents was there’s no way to really have a complaint process that could feel legitimate for those parents. The complaint process goes into MCFD. It goes into sort of a dark hole, and it comes back out and, inevitably, it’s like: “Well, actually, nothing went wrong here” or “We fixed it” or “It’s nothing of any concern to you.”

This is one of the reasons, and I’ll speak to this a bit later, why we’ve been so committed to getting regulation of social workers who work in MCFD in this province. They’re regulated by the ministry that they work for, not like other professionals who have a college. There was a college of social workers, but they don’t regulate those social workers. There isn’t an independent ability for people to say: “I have an issue here.”

This became a very important file that we worked on in my constituency office. I brought that work here, recognizing the systemic nature of the symptoms that we were seeing in our community and in the families who were coming to us. At that time, 5½ years ago, I think, for a lot of Canadians, the understanding, which so eloquently has been laid out by my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, of the historical roots of the child welfare system, rooted in genocide, rooted in the attempts to annihilate Indigenous people and culture in Canada…. People did not understand that. It was the discovery of graves at Tk’emlúps that moved us all as a nation to a deeper level of understanding of just how heinous this history is and that it continues today.

I am heartened that my daughter started her school year this year by studying residential schools and learning about truth and reconciliation and learning about the commitments that have been made and learning about the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It’s a long ways from where I was in grade 10. This is so critical, so important that this education become part of our national fabric and our national identity, because we have to know and understand this history.

Let’s think about the context today, while we look at these amendments to the Adoption Act and the Child, Family and Community Service Act. Indigenous children are drastically overrepresented in the child welfare system. Intergenerational impacts of removing Indigenous children are severe and complex.

In 1951, an amendment to the Indian Act turned many social services, including child protection, from a federal to a provincial responsibility. According to a 1992 report of the Aboriginal Committee, between 1951 and 1964: “Children of Aboriginal ancestry went from representing 1 percent of all children in care across the country to more than one-third.” Now, today, 68 percent of children in care in B.C. are Indigenous, despite making up less than 10 percent of youth.

[4:50 p.m.]

MCFD statistics show that an Indigenous child is 18 times more likely to be removed from their parents, and once removed, it is often incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for those children to be returned to their families, who have less access to social services and are more likely to live in poverty compared to people who are not Indigenous.

Children in care in B.C. are more likely to end up in jail than to graduate from high school. A 2018 death review by the B.C. coroners service death review panel concluded that children who have aged out of the child welfare system on their 19th birthday die at five times the rate of the general youth population. It is very dangerous to be a child in care. I used to liken it to your outcomes go off a cliff.

Many young people leaving government care lack a family support network, have limited or no financial resources, often lack life skills, have not completed school. The review states that they may suffer from low esteem and be scarred by trauma associated with violence, abuse or the trauma of being removed from your parent.

A March 2021 report released by the MCFD says that 84 percent of Indigenous children in foster care were there due to “neglect,” a subjective term, to say the least. The Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect shows that the driving factors behind children being apprehended from First Nations parents due to “neglect” are poverty, poor housing, caregiver substance misuse, caregiver mental health and domestic violence. Parents still don’t receive funding so that they can keep their children at home. Payments to allow parents to move from substandard housing could prevent child apprehensions.

Group homes in British Columbia are harrowing places. Numerous reports, including one by B.C.’s Auditor General in 2019, have made clear that the care provided in group homes is sometimes substandard and leaves B.C. youth facing extreme risks. The report concluded the ministry was warehousing Indigenous teens in rental homes staffed by people with no training or expertise in caring for profoundly traumatized, high-needs children. The government has been warned repeatedly that the care these homes provide is substandard, unacceptable and creating extreme risks. As a result, Indigenous youth continue to die in these homes by suicide, by drug overdose or by preventable accident.

The number of critical injuries sustained by children and youth while in government care in British Columbia jumped by 18 percent in the first year of the pandemic, according to data provided by the province’s Representative for Children and Youth. The representative’s office defines a critical injury as one that could result in a child’s death or cause serious, long-term impairment to their health. The total number of such injuries was 1,064 between April 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, an increase of 164 over the previous year — 1,064 critical injuries in one year.

Among the fatalities in 2020 was Traevon Desjarlais-Chalifoux. The Globe and Mail investigation into his death found that the delegated Indigenous agency responsible for his care failed to meet standards, including that his care be culturally appropriate.

Xyolhemeylh is one of the 24 Indigenous child and family services agencies charged with providing foster care to First Nations, Métis and Inuit children and youth in B.C. Xyolhemeylh contracted out the boy’s care to a company called Rees Family Services Inc., which runs ten Fraser Valley group homes. Rees promised round-the-clock treatment that was “safe, supportive and trauma-informed,” according to an accreditation agency used by B.C.’s Ministry of Children and Family Development.

[4:55 p.m.]

The Globe and Mail reported that care workers charged with looking after Traevon were said to be verbally abusive and neglectful. The workers sometimes withheld food as punishment and locked the teen outside, sometimes for hours. He was left alone in his tiny bedroom for days at a time in the early weeks of the pandemic.

The agency had been “flagged repeatedly in ministry audits. One, published in 2021, found that in 89 percent of cases the agency had no comprehensive plan for the children in its care.... Just 3 percent of children saw their social worker once a month, as mandated by the ministry. In 10 percent of cases, children didn’t see a social worker at all in the three-year audit period.”

I’ve raised this before in this House. When there is a 97 percent failure rate of an agency that is being contracted by the government, I think the public should expect consequences. There should be accountability, but most of all when those agencies are taking care of children who have been taken from their families and now are the responsibility of the province. The ministry should have intervened with that agency and gotten things back on track. The red flags were there; they could have saved his life.

Why was Traevon not placed with a member of his large, extended family? Denise Desjarlais, an aunt in Chilliwack, B.C., told The Globe that she would have taken in her nephew had she been alerted that he was in care. “It is not known how many children and youth are dying in group homes in B.C., nor whether these deaths have reached crisis levels. The MCFD and the B.C. coroner are refusing to provide answers to these questions. What is known is that the ministry has, so far, reviewed the deaths of 45 youth who died in care in 2018 and 2019, although it won’t say how many of them lived in group homes. Of those, 62 percent were Indigenous.”

What is owed, I would argue, is money and an apology. MCFD needs to provide funding and resources so that children do not go into care because of poverty. A former MCFD minister banned birth alerts. B.C.’s Representative for Children and Youth, Jennifer Charlesworth, requested that families who face birth alerts be issued a public apology from the province. That apology has not happened.

Bernard Richard, who was B.C.’s Representative for Children and Youth until 2018, argued that there is a major structural flaw in the way that governments allocate resources to public care for young people. They spend “the most money on the least effective responses, institutional and group homes, and the least money on the most effec­tive ones — foster and therapeutic care,” he said.

“A report on the underfunding of Indigenous Child and Family Services agencies by B.C.’s Representative for Children and Youth found that funding shortfalls leave these agencies short-staffed and unable to provide the comprehensive services needed. Social workers…carried twice the recommended caseload….

“Caring for children in group homes cost the B.C. government an estimated $103,000 per child annually, compared with $22,700 for foster family care….

“Former employees of Rees Family Services said the hiring requirements were not rigorous.”

Nancy Macdonald of the Globe and Mail spoke to former Rees employees:

“They were paid between $2,400 and $3,000 for the 360 hours per month they worked in Rees group homes. That amounts to $6.60 to $8.30 an hour, well below the province’s $15.20-an-hour minimum wage. All say they raised the same concerns over the quality of workers and a lack of programming for youth. One said that they were fired for…raising these concerns.”

[5:00 p.m.]

In the Cowichan Valley, a growing network of Indigenous mothers, advocates, midwives, doctors and elected officials is trying to keep Indigenous children in their homes and communities. Services are available once children are apprehended, but rarely before.

Nancy Macdonald, the same Globe and Mail reporter who reported on the group homes, followed an Indigenous mother on Vancouver Island where the mother tried to persuade MCFD social workers not to take her newborn girl. They’d already taken her two older children. Stacey, as she was called in the article, “was a good mother with a good home and a full-time job as a grocery store supervisor making $28 an hour. But they worried that the husband posed a threat to the family, so they took her baby away.”

This is another theme we have heard over and over again from mothers, which is that if there is a husband or boyfriend or an ex who is deemed to be a risk, the child is taken from the mother. No response to the man who is posing the risk, no responsibility or accountability on him. It’s the mother and the child who are punished because of a violent man.

That is an all-too-common story. We heard it over and over again: the bad man, as justification for removing an infant or a child from a mother, which has a particularly heinous kind of incentive put on mothers. “Don’t come forward for help, because if you come forward and indicate that you have a violent spouse or a violent ex-spouse, you may actually lose your child.” So women are forced to not seek help in these situations, for fear of being at risk of losing a child they’re trying to protect.

A November 2018 article from The Tyee quoted the previous Minister of Children and Family Development as saying she was implementing recommendations from a 2016 report. At the time, the ministry amended the child and family service act, Bill 28, to help include Indigenous nations in the child services process before apprehension, but only ten of the 85 recommendations from Chief Ed John’s final report were used in the Bill 28 amendments. MCFD was criticized, with Bill 28, for failing to adequately consult Indigenous communities and organizations and failing to acknowledge the inherent right to self-government.

Now, in 2022, MCFD is receiving similar criticism for not giving Indigenous people, communities and nations enough time to respond to the calls for consultation and for forcing them to silence with NDAs so they cannot talk about the process. Nevertheless, these agreements were signed in April; the changes were before us in October. Changes like this take the ministries years to complete. If the ministry was working on the shifts, they chose not to include Indigenous people until 2022.

Between 2017 and 2020, the number of non-Indigenous children in care fell sharply, but the number of Indigenous children in care has remained almost unchanged. Elba Bendo, director of law reform for West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund, says: “It is difficult to assess the ministry’s successes and failures, as it doesn’t have a public document that sets out goals, measurements to assess progress and the actual outcomes that result from any changes.”

[5:05 p.m.]

It is the ministry’s job to gather data and be transparent about its goals and outcome, yet this government has failed to provide that transparency, that accountability and that openness. Instead, the Representative for Children and Youth’s office has filled this gap by publicly reporting how the ministry is implementing the recommendations in its reports.

Numerous reports from the representative’s office have been released, and Skye’s Legacy: A Focus on Belonging was one of them. Beyond Compliance: Ensuring Quality in Care Planning was released in April 2022. At a Crossroads: The Roadmap from Fiscal Discrimination to Equity in Indigenous Child Welfare was released in March 2022. It demonstrates, once again, that there is a lack of transparency and accountability in MCFD’s practice and systems. It is the injustice that I spoke of at the outset of my comments, writ large. The parents have to be perfect, but the system is not accountable for its many, many problems.

Ms. Charlesworth, of the representative’s office, labels the system of funding child welfare services for Indigenous kids in the province “broken and in urgent need of an overhaul.” The representative’s office has issued more than 700 recommendations since it was created in 2006.

In the last few minutes, I’ll speak about social workers. Social workers can do a lot of good in people’s lives. They can help. They can make a big difference. They have extraordinary power and authority when they work for MCFD. B.C.’s child welfare legislation states that social workers must consider “all relevant factors,” including a child’s safety, emotional needs, the importance of continuity, the quality of relationship with their parent and the impact of breaking up that relationship.

If the child in question is Indigenous, they are supposed to consider two additional factors — the importance of being able to learn about and practice Indigenous traditions, customs and language, and the importance of belonging to their Indigenous community — but in Canada and in B.C., a social worker’s opinion and understanding of a situation reigns supreme. The application of B.C.’s child welfare laws often leads to the conclusion that the best thing for a child is to be removed from their birth family.

Susan Strega, a social work professor at the University of Victoria, notes the “vast, immense, huge difference in power between the child welfare ministry and parents who get caught up in child welfare processes.” In B.C. only some social workers have to register with the college and comply with its standards and oversight. Social workers employed with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, doing highly sensitive child welfare work with enormous power and authority, are exempt from that regulation.

Earlier this year, the First Nations Leadership Council called on Minister Dean to urgently fix the holes in the current regulatory scheme. The council has been asking for….

Deputy Speaker: Of course, we don’t mention names, Member.

S. Furstenau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The council has been asking for this since 2016. We can point to the example of Robert Riley Saunders, who faked credentials to work as a social worker for MCFD and used his position to defraud the primarily Indigenous teens in his care over a period of 17 years. This is why I introduced a private member’s bill to fully regulate social workers.

As we debate the changes to the Health Professions Act in another chamber, we must acknowledge that social workers want full, comprehensive regulation of their profession under the Health Professions and Occupations Act and are advocating for regulation in order to protect the public.

Let’s look at some comments from a recent CBC article on this gap in oversight. “If you’re in a position of trust, and you are in a profession where your mandate is to look after vulnerable children and youth and working with families, you should be monitored and you should be regulated,” says Cheryl Casimer, a member of the political executive for the First Nations Summit.

Michael Crawford, president of the B.C. Association of Social Workers, said: “We’ve had literally dozens of meetings with the various Ministers of Children and Family Development, their senior bureaucrats and managers, all aimed at removing the exemptions that keep social workers unregulated by the college. It has been a frustrating process.”

[5:10 p.m.]

Separating children and mothers, as is being highlighted right now by Gabor Maté on his tour of his latest book, isn’t just an emotional problem. It’s an evidence-backed issue. It is evidence-backed that there is significant harm that can happen from the trauma of that separation.

Scientists know what happens to children who are traumatically separated from their parents. First, a wave of stress hormones, including cortisol and adrenaline, surges through their bodies. Their hearts begin pounding. Their breathing quickens. Their blood pressure rises.

Over time, the stress hormones begin attacking and killing the cells in the hippocampus, part of the limbic system, which regulates emotions. If too many cells die this way, the child will have trouble down the road, particularly when processing emotions and evaluating risk. The damage can be dramatic and permanent, affecting everything from academic and career performance to relationships.

I hope that this legislation will move us away from this practice that has so long been in the fabric of Canadian and British Columbian society. I very much eagerly look forward to seeing the outcomes be provided to the public in a transparent and accountable way.

With that, I will conclude my comments.

M. Morris: The comments I’m going to make are reflec­tive of a lot of the experience that I’ve had in First Nations communities, policing over the past several decades. I’m going to speak metaphorically, first, about building a foundation that will support the weight of the decisions and the things that will take place moving forward here. I’m in favour of the bill, but I have a number of questions. I know some of my colleagues will be raising them during the committee stage on this.

I look at…. Everything that we do in life is supported by a foundation of legislation. It doesn’t matter what it is. The metaphor that I’m looking at is…. If we’re going to build a building that is going to weigh hundreds of tonnes, we make sure that the foundation is there that will support that. If the foundation is flawed in any way, at some point in time, the building will fail. That’s the same as legislation. If the legislation is flawed, moving forward, the weight of the decisions that the decision-makers must make down the road will reflect those laws.

When we have the life and safety of our children at stake, I think this is a serious consideration that we need to look at, at this particular time. It’s all about child safety, and it’s all about families. That’s a weighty proposition right there. It’s the future of the generations that we have ahead of us.

A lot of my policing career I spent in remote First Nations communities across British Columbia, and the tragedies that I’ve witnessed in many of those communities — and not necessarily just First Nations but in just about every community that I’ve served in — have been tragic. There are files that I can’t even talk about, because I’d just be in tears if I were to bring up some of the tragic circumstances that I see.

Since I started policing 50 years ago, I’ve never come across a social worker that didn’t have his or her heart into the file, that wasn’t looking out for the best interests of the particular child that we were dealing with at the time.

[5:15 p.m.]

I’ve been involved in situations where people get angry. People get aggressive trying to intervene and prevent the social workers from doing whatever they need to do and trying to prevent the police from doing what they need to do in order to keep the particular child safe, without knowing all the circumstances.

I’ve seen situations where children end up in a more precarious position than they started off with because of those good intentions that weren’t properly thought out, all based upon a belief that the child should remain with a family member or with an Indigenous person versus some of the other options that we have out there.

We lose sight, then, of the fact that the child’s safety is paramount. We have to make sure that the young child will grow up in an environment…. They will be loved in the environment, will have the opportunity to learn and go to school and progress and give back to their culture and their communities, once they’re established and once they’re on solid ground.

When I talk about the foundations of this…. I looked through the bill, and I’ve looked at a number of the different issues in the bill. There are a couple of things that I want to talk about, but I’m sure they’ll be examined in detail at the committee stage.

As a police officer enforcing the laws of Canada, I need to know what those laws are. I need to know what the jurisprudence has handed down with respect to the different definitions of those laws. I want to find out how things have changed. The courts examine all these different laws, and they will change to suit the way society has gone in a lot of cases. But the bottom line is, as a police officer, I would know what that law is. We would take courses on what those changes were in order to keep us up to speed on it.

It’s no different than a social worker. Going into an environment, that social worker needs to know what the statutory authority is for him or her to operate under that particular children and families act, and if they don’t know what that law is, that’s when mistakes are going to be made.

Organizations go to the maximum to ensure that all of their personnel are trained. They have the expertise to carry out their duties, and if they don’t, they’re given remedial training. They’re constantly watched by supervisors. There are audits. There are reviews. There are quality assurance processes in place to make sure that everybody is following the law and the policies and the procedures that are in place in order to protect those children.

When I look at this particular act, it makes reference to Indigenous law. I don’t know what that is. I don’t have an issue with Indigenous law, but I do have an issue if it’s not clearly enough defined that whoever is enforcing that really understands what it is and understands how it’s connected to the supreme law of Canada, which is the Charter. If we don’t have that connection, then it leads to all kinds of, probably, liability issues for the social worker themselves or for the agency themselves. But more importantly, it jeopardizes the safety of that child, and it jeopardizes the whole fundamental basis on which that policy or that legislation is premised upon.

I think we need to understand what that is and who interprets the law, who interprets Indigenous law and who provides the determination, if there is a question of law, as to how the social workers should act.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The other aspect of this — when I talk about making sure that we have a foundation in place to support the weighty decisions that will transcend from this particular statute, from this particular bill — is the capacity of our First Nations communities.

[5:20 p.m.]

I know there’s a lot of eagerness to step into this realm, and I think my colleague from Skeena had talked about this. He spoke to this a little earlier on. The capacity in some of our First Nations communities is significant. It’s significant in some, but it’s lacking in others. I know some very small, remote communities that need that infrastructure put in place before this even comes about.

There is a lot of work that can be done already without having to pass this particular legislation. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done to provide capacity for our communities in remote areas. Several communities in my riding and throughout the province are small, and the band offices are located in the more urban centres. There’s no capacity in the small communities themselves in order to deal with a lot of these tragic circumstances.

Some of these circumstances…. I know one community where every child under the age of 18 had tested positive for fetal alcohol syndrome. That had an impact on everything that happened in the community with those young children. Every child under the age of 18 had tested positive. Those are the things that need to be addressed — in concert, probably, but even before this legislation really comes into force — to make sure that our First Nations communities have the resources in place to address child welfare, to address the alcoholism, to address the drug addiction that may be prevalent in many of these communities, which it is.

It’s not there. I can think of several communities right now that are deficient in this particular area here. It’s all well and good to pass all the legislation in the world, but unless you have the pieces in place to support that legislation once it’s enacted, there’s a lot of cause for concern, going down that particular road.

I think I mentioned it earlier. I haven’t yet met a social worker or a police officer that doesn’t have the best interests of the children in mind when they venture into some of these files dealing with children and families, but they need the support. They’re overworked. They don’t have the resources in place. They’re called upon to make decisions in situations where there’s no solution, there’s nobody to turn to, and there’s no place to take the child that needs the protection, to give them the support that they need.

I don’t see this in the legislation. I haven’t heard much from government with respect to building that capacity in these smaller communities, providing the First Nations, the various tribal councils, the various organizations that already are involved in children and family administration and protection, in these communities, with the resources that they need to do this.

There are some great organizations out there right now, up in my riding and other places throughout the province. That is a good basis to build on. But we don’t have that in place to the extent that we need to support this kind of legislation and the liabilities that some of these First Nations communities might be facing, should they start implementing this legislation at an early time.

So this is one of the areas that I think really needs to be looked at. It’s something that government needs to take a solid position on: ensuring that the proper resources are provided so that our social workers in our small communities have the support that they need in order to protect the children that they have the responsibility to protect and to make sure our First Nations communities have the infrastructure in place to protect the children that are under their areas of responsibility.

I look forward to the committee stage and digging deeper into this to find out exactly how this is going to take place as it rolls out.

[5:25 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Member for Abbotsford West.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member, the Chair will request you to adjourn the debate momentarily. We have a….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

Member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

M. Morris moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 40 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2022

Bill 40, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022, reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. R. Kahlon: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2022

Bill 40, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 41, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, in the Birch Room and continued reading of Bill 38 here.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 38 — INDIGENOUS SELF-GOVERNMENT
IN CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
AMENDMENT ACT

(continued)

M. de Jong: I don’t expect my comments on Bill 38 to be particularly lengthy.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The nature of the discussion taking place in the House, I have to say, has made an impression on me. For that, I am grateful to the members who have participated.

There’s a sombreness to the discussion taking place that, I suppose, is understandable, given the tragic, difficult history that has chronicled our past and been a part of our past and the impact that has had. Members have, I think, from all sides of the House, conveyed their impressions, their experiences in that regard. My colleagues from Prince George and Surrey South from a perspective of law enforcement and policing. For others, the member from Saanich North, in an equally profound and personal way.

I’m not really equipped, nor will I attempt, to add to some of those very graphic, compelling and heart-wrenching descriptions of what has taken place and the impacts of approaches of the past. Suffice to say that I share the other sentiment that I have heard expressed by members of the House, and that is a profound desire and hope that a page can begin to be turned and a better way can be found, a way that addresses the concerns that we have and the concerns that members of First Nations and Indigenous communities have and have expressed for some time.

In considering that, I reflected…. One is inclined to reflect at times like this and in the aftermath of the kind of ceremony that we had in the House a few weeks back, when leaders were here offering their endorsement of the legislation that is before the House now, on the progress that has been made over the life of this and the last parliament but parliaments before that.

[5:30 p.m.]

It’s not often mentioned, but for those of us who have been here a little bit longer, that period between 2007 and 2014-15 became known as the time of the new relationship and marked a very dramatic step forward — a positive step forward, I would say — when a great deal of new ground was achieved. New approaches, that at the time were every bit, I think, as significant and as important as some of the things we celebrate today around the incorporation of the UN declaration.

But at the time, the formalization of agreements around revenue-sharing, which would give rise to literally hundreds of such agreements of the sort that, to that point, had never been achieved or negotiated before — resource development agreements…. Again, all designed to address both the legitimate rights and desires of First Nations communities to play a larger role in the management of territories and the development of an economic base upon which a whole bunch of other societal advances could be made.

The finalization of comprehensive treaties. To that point, we had one in B.C. from the 1990s, the Nisg̱a’a treaty, which broke new ground.

It’s not often remembered that in the aftermath, in that period of the new relationship, upwards of six or seven other First Nations signed comprehensive treaty negotiations that touched upon matters, very purposely and very specifically, that we are dealing with in Bill 38. The reason I mentioned that is that we are we are inclined, I think, like most people, to be drawn to recollections of past successes and positive features.

The subject that we are dealing with today in this legislation — that is, child protection and the relationship between child protection, First Nations communities, First Nations and Indigenous self-government — actually was one of those areas, I remember, where we failed. We came perilously close to negotiating successfully a comprehensive agreement and, at literally the last minute, the agreement faltered. I remember that day very well. It was a very, very disappointing one, with people assembled and an announcement expected.

I won’t purport to try to explain, even if I understood completely now, what gave rise to that failure. Suffice to say that the disparity of thought, the differences in approaches and the lack of agreement are ultimately what led to the failure to secure and achieve agreement. It made a lasting impression on me. It was in my mind a few weeks ago when we were here in the House listening to the expressions of support.

[5:35 p.m.]

If I use the word “tentative,” it is not to be critical but to reflect that even today amongst Indigenous peoples and First Nations communities, there is…. I suppose the polite word would be “hesitancy.” Maybe the more accurate word is “suspicion.”

That is perhaps understandable, given the history. That will only be addressed through the work that remains going forward, the detailed negotiations that will need to take place in terms of the formalization of agreements. All to say we have, with this legislation, managed to go one step further than the government of the day during the new relationship period, and that is a good thing. But as so many others in this chamber have mentioned, there is a great deal of work left to be done.

I mentioned some of the previous speakers. As I say, there were speakers from both sides of the House that made, I thought, very thoughtful and compelling submissions. Not for the first time, the member whose remarks had a particularly strong impact on me was the member for Skeena, who comes to this issue, as I think most people know, from a very unique perspective and a very direct involvement in some of the dynamics that are at play within a community where this legislation is going to be directly applicable.

To hear him speak and to hear his honesty and directness is a difficult thing to put into words. I wonder…. When he speaks of these matters, the honesty and the courage to talk about things that others might be hesitant to talk about and to confront issues that others would rather avoid…. When he says that for him, and he hopes all of us, the paramount consideration is the safety of the child, he knows of what he speaks. He knows about the challenges of addressing that within the context of a community.

No one has a monopoly or can claim absolute success in protecting the safety of a child. When I got here in the ’90s, one of the saddest issues of the day that was very much front and centre and led to some significant changes was the death of a little boy named Matthew Vaudreuil. As you read the history of that little boy’s short life and how the system, whatever that is, had failed him, no one could help but be profoundly impacted and affected.

That stories like that continue to happen from time to time is both incredibly sad and regrettable, but also a reminder that in a system that, at the end of the day, relies upon individuals, there are going to be issues.

[5:40 p.m.]

Our job is to try and minimize, to construct public policy that provides safeguards that minimize, to the greatest extent possible, those tragedies, and hopefully eliminate them. I say that because this is not about, in any way, suggesting that one person or one group is better than another or more capable than another. It is, as the member for Skeena said, and others have said in this debate, recognizing the reality that to address and achieve the objectives that I think lie at the heart of this legislation, there is going to need to be capacity.

Some communities have that capacity; others don’t. But to proceed further without recognizing that fact would be to do so not at our peril but at the peril of the children who we’re trying to protect.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The member for Skeena asked this question. I know he and others will ask it in committee stage. We have to be prepared to ask these questions and understand the answer about ultimately, where does the responsibility, the jurisdiction, the authority, and yes, even the liability lie when it comes to protecting a child. Amidst all of the other important considerations that will be addressed in the agreements and the protocols that this legislation is designed to facilitate, it must remain clear in the minds of everyone where that ultimate responsibility and where that ultimate liability lies.

There are lots of reasons for that, and the member for Skeena mentioned some of them. In the euphoria of a ceremony to acknowledge what we all hope is a step forward, we cannot shirk our responsibility to collectively ask those questions and ensure that we have answers that we are satisfied with and that the government has turned its mind, that we’ve all turned our minds to those issues.

I say that — and I’m certain that the member for Skeena, again based on his unique experience in his community, in the Haisla community — not to throw cold water or to diminish the importance of the achievement that is touted to be this legislation, but because, as with all framework legislation, its ultimate success will depend on the use to which it is put and the agreements that it gives birth to and the safeguards that are contained within those agreements.

The member for Skeena, I think, used another term as I listened to him, and I hope I wrote it down correctly. He spoke about the violence of poverty. Of course, all of us in this chamber know, understand and abhor violence perpetrated against anyone, but particularly a child.

[5:45 p.m.]

I think what the member for Skeena was talking about, again, when he referred to the need to develop capacity is the difficulty that will continue to exist to do that in communities beset by abject poverty.

I’m not an economist or a sociologist but I, some time ago, as a result of experiences gained here and some opportunity to observe communities around the province, came to the conclusion that for a community to succeed and individuals within that community to succeed, there really are two prerequisites. There must be educational opportunities within that community where young people can acquire the academic and vocational wherewithal, talents, to become contributing members of society and fulfil their own dreams and objectives.

There must be those educational opportunities. There must also be economic and employment opportunities for them to put those acquired talents to work. One without the other doesn’t work.

I’m not telling any secrets when I say that there are Aboriginal communities in British Columbia, where despite some progress having been made, we’re not there yet. The advances that this legislation is intended to achieve, with respect to protecting Aboriginal children, within their homes, their families, ensuring that they achieve and maintain — achieve but maintain — a cultural connection with who they are in their communities, will be influenced, in my view, by the degree to which we are able to work together with Aboriginal Indigenous communities to ensure that those other two ingredients are present.

One is actually a little easier than the other. Creating educational opportunities is something that is fairly achievable where you have the will to do so. Creating employment and economic opportunities can be more challenging, because it’s not something government can simply make a decision about and have happen overnight. Those challenges will remain, do remain.

Perhaps I’ll conclude by suggesting that what I detected in the commentary in the House is an underlying feeling of hope and optimism that the legislation before us can become a springboard to a better future and a better means of collective child protection, an acute awareness of where we have failed in the past and the consequences of that failure, and finally, an appreciation for the fact that there are a lot of questions about the details that will comprise the ultimate response, the ultimate approach, that will need to be considered, will need to be asked and will need to be answered.

Some concern about whether or not this session of this parliament is going to afford a sufficient time to pose those questions and consider those matters…. But that is a concern that has been expressed a number of times.

[5:50 p.m.]

I won’t presume to dwell further on that in the context of this debate that I think should focus on the subject matter, which is child and family services, the protection of children and the involvement of Indigenous communities and Indigenous governments. So an awareness of the past, hope for the future and concern that the details be addressed and answered in committee stage are how I would characterize where we are at today.

For my part, thanks to all of the members who contributed and provoked some thinking on my part, particularly to the member for Skeena, who has always directly and honestly reminded the members of this assembly of the reality that the policies we develop here are designed to address and, hopefully, improve.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close debate?

Hon. M. Dean: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very pleased to conclude this second reading debate on Bill 38, the Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act.

I want to thank everybody who has already spoken to this bill. I really look forward to the committee stage of the bill, where we’ll be able to address the specific points that have been raised by members of the opposition. I’m hearing from the members opposite that they will have a lot of questions, and I look forward to that.

There is a lot more work that needs to be done and that needs to be done in partnership. I look forward to discussing, for example, consultation and engagement. We led a highly collaborative and intensive consultation and engagement process that included sharing legislative drafts with 79 individuals from First Nations and Indigenous organizations, including, for example, Splatsin. We can share more about this process during the committee stage.

We can also address the opposition’s comments on the expectations of Indigenous governing bodies, if they want to enter into decision-making agreements such as Declaration Act agreements on the statutory powers of decision for the Adoption Act or for the CFCSA.

As part of the Declaration Act action plan, which we made public in March 2022, we have committed to co-developing a B.C.-specific fiscal framework to support Indigenous jurisdiction over child and family services. I heard that there will be questions around the fiscal framework, and we look forward to speaking more about that. Of course, we’ll continue our work with the federal government, in collaboration with First Nations, to implement this fiscal framework, which will support jurisdiction and the implementation of a child and family service system that upholds the individual and collective rights of Indigenous peoples.

I do, also, want to be clear that the legislative amend­ments are intended specifically to respect the intent of Jordan’s principle that children will receive the services to which they’re entitled, regardless of any jurisdictional dispute. I think I said in my remarks at the start of second reading that what we’re doing with this legislation is making sure that there aren’t gaps that could lead to children or youth being in harm’s way. What we’re doing is creating a seamless system across the jurisdictional landscape. We know that that’s the best way to support and safeguard the health, well-being and safety of children and youth in the province.

As I said at the start of my second reading remarks, changing the laws that created a system steeped in harmful colonialism isn’t going to happen overnight, and it can’t be done unilaterally. But this bill does mark a really important step on the journey towards the goal of paddling together, in partnership, towards a much better system that supports Indigenous children and families, that’s healthier and safer and that really helps Indigenous children and youth thrive.

Thank you, again, to all of the members who spoke. I am getting a sense of support for this legislation and the direction and the intent of this legislation — and that we’ll be able to have a productive committee stage as well.

[5:55 p.m.]

With that, it’s my pleasure and honour to move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Dean: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 38, Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consi­der­ation at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call, at this point, second reading of Bill 37.

BILL 37 — ENERGY STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Hon. B. Ralston: I move that Bill 37 now be read a first time.

I’m pleased to present the Energy Statutes Amendment Act. People in British Columbia are feeling the impact of climate change every day. We recognize that action must be taken now to lower our carbon emissions. In line with our government’s climate plan and the CleanBC Roadmap to 2030, this bill proposes amendments to support the province’s transition to clean energy, including changes that will advance British Columbia’s growing hydrogen energy economy, a key tool in our fight against climate change.

Hydrogen is a clean energy solution for powering our future. It presents an opportunity to lower emissions, attract new investment and create skilled, well-paying jobs. Hydrogen is one of the best energy resources we have at our disposal to decarbonize a range of sectors, including heavy-duty transportation, industrial operations and the powering of remote communities. British Columbia has a unique advantage of being able to produce both renewable hydrogen from our 98 percent clean electricity or low-carbon hydrogen from our abundance of natural gas and carbon-capture-and-storage potential.

While a patchwork of legislation and regulations exists now, there is currently no cohesive regulatory framework for hydrogen in British Columbia. The proposed legislation will ensure an experienced regulator, the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission, provides a one-stop place for industry and a consistent regulatory, safety and compliance authority for hydrogen projects from site planning through to restoration. The commission has acted as a single-window regulatory agency for B.C.’s energy resources for 25 years. It has the broad range of technical expertise needed to ensure that the hydrogen economy is developed sustainably, safely and competitively.

It is proposed that the commission will be established as the renamed British Columbia energy regulator, with a modernized purpose to support the transition to low-carbon energy and to support reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. The board will be restructured to align with Crown governance best practices and to ensure more diverse representation on the board, including a requirement that at least one director is an Indigenous person. The regulator will be provided with expanded authority related to hydrogen production, which will allow for the nimble completion of regulatory structures as the global hydrogen sector evolves.

These changes will provide clarity for investors and signal that British Columbia is ready to become a world-leading hydrogen economy and advance the transition to a low-carbon future. Additional amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act will move forward the CleanBC strategy to decarbonize our economy by providing regulatory clarity for carbon-capture-and-storage projects.

[6:00 p.m.]

The proposed legislation will also give the government the right to use underground storage space deep under private land and authorizes government to use it as it would any other subsurface resource owned by government. These changes will clarify the government’s authority to regulate the safe and effective storage of carbon dioxide and support the carbon reduction goals in the CleanBC Roadmap to 2030.

In recent years, the number of declared orphan oil and natural gas sites has grown and has increased the pressure on the orphan site reclamation fund used to decommission and clean up orphan sites. Orphan sites are sites where, for reasons of financial distress, the site no longer has a viable company owning it, and therefore it falls to the Crown to decommission and clean up that site. Proposed amendments to the Oil and Gas Activities Act will provide the B.C. energy regulator with an expanded liability framework and the tools needed to ensure oil and gas activity obligations are met, lessening the pressure on the orphan fund.

The legislation expands responsibility beyond the permit holder, which means that anyone with a legal or beneficial interest in an oil and gas or storage activity can be held liable for permit obligations. For example, if a permit holder becomes insolvent and their well sites are designated as orphans, other companies who profited from those wells may still exist and have the means to pay for restoration. Rather than use the orphan fund to pay the full cost of cleanup, the regulator will be able to hold one or more of those other companies responsible for the restoration costs.

Additional amendments are being proposed to authorize the transfer of an abandoned tenure to a willing recipient, to ensure a site does not become orphaned; to provide the regulator with the powers to sell goods abandoned at an orphan site and deposit the proceeds into the fund used for orphan site cleanup; to enhance the powers of the regulator to respond to emergencies and carry out investigations into hazardous events; to provide the regulator with tools to efficiently respond to non-compliance that could hurt public safety or the environment; and to modernize and update enforcement tools and other provisions.

The climate is changing. Our climate is changing, and our legislative framework needs to change to address it.

These amendments demonstrate the government’s commitment to the CleanBC Roadmap strategies by advancing the production and use of hydrogen, which reduces emissions and generates economic activity; by clarifying the government’s authority to regulate the safe and effective storage of carbon dioxide from any source, which ad­vances emission reduction in hard-to-abate industrial sectors; and by establishing the B.C. energy regulator, with a modernized and inclusive board structure and purpose.

The changes we are making will support British Columbia’s transition to clean energy and provide the regulatory framework necessary for British Columbia to fight climate change.

T. Shypitka: It gives me great pleasure to speak today on Bill 37, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2022. These bills concerning the energy sector come few and far between. I’m glad to be talking about this today. I’d like to see a few more, maybe, to incentivize and to promote our energy sector here in B.C., to make us competitive globally. I think this bill in front of us right now has the opportunity to do that, but we’ll have to investigate a little bit further in committee stage.

Other than the name change, as the minister pointed out, this bill attempts to modernize and bring in other energy sources that may not have readily been in play, maybe, a decade or two ago. The minister mentioned hydrogen quite a bit in his speech, and we’re going to examine a little bit further in this debate on what hydrogen sources he may be referring to, if there is one that outweighs the others and things like that.

It also expands the energy regulator, which it will be called now — the old Oil and Gas Commission is gone — in its role in regulating oil and gas in the province.

[6:05 p.m.]

I’d like to briefly touch on some of those new energy sources identified in section 2 of Bill 37, but first I’d like to talk a bit about those other energy sources that this bill will affect. B.C., as we know, is blessed with a diverse array of energy sources that any country in the world, I would argue, would love to have. These energy sources have essentially made B.C. and Canada what it is today.

The size and diversity of B.C.’s geological landscape has given this province the bounty of its energy sources. Just to give clarity to Bill 37, it’s important to know where our energy comes from, why it is important to have this legislation mesh with world demand and how B.C. can benefit from these resources while also being conscious of our environmental responsibilities, as the minister has pointed out.

I think we all agree in this House that we have a certain amount of responsibility, a large amount of responsibility, in fact, with the energy we produce, with the resources we extract throughout the province. As I’ve mentioned, this bill can reflect some of that.

We also need to examine our transition, or getting away from fossil fuels, as mentioned by the minister in his first reading of this bill. The quote in his first reading was: “Hydrogen is a critical source of alternate clean energy and will move us away from fossil fuels.”

Fundamentally, I agree with that. Our fossil fuels are of a limit. They’re not renewable, unless you talk about hundreds of millions of years to bring those fossil fuels to where they are as being renewable, but that’s not in a responsible time frame, as far as we’re concerned. So it’s important to understand which fossil fuels he refers to and what that will mean in order to implement these changes.

I would like to start with probably our first commercialized use of energy in this province, that being coal. It was, and it still is, globally a major source of energy. A bit of a backgrounder. Coal was mined in B.C. from a long time ago, prehistoric days, in fact. It was formed in swamps hundreds of millions of years ago. As plants died and broke down in swamps and bogs, the decaying plant matter slowly sank to the bottom, where it was buried or trapped under layers of sand and mud, forming peat after thousands and thousands of years. Over time, a combination of heat and pressure hardened the peat into coal.

Now, some little Scotch drinkers out there might be saying: “Hold on a second. Peat? Doesn’t that flavour my Scotch?” And it does. It is burned, and it is flavoured for Scotch. As a matter of fact, in Scotland, about 23 percent of the land matter up there is peat, mostly in the Highlands and island areas, and this is essentially a form of young coal, they call it.

Something else I’d like to mention before we start celebrating coal as being the precursor to diamonds, as maybe your grade 7 science teacher told you — it’s not quite the case. Diamonds don’t come from coal. They both come from carbon but, quite frankly, diamonds were formed or started forming millions of years, maybe even a billion years, before coal was formed, before even vegetation was around — 75 percent of the earth’s age, in fact, two billion, three billion years ago.

However, I digress. Besides Scotch, we owe a debt to coal. Western industrialized civilization was forged with coal, the most abundant, accessible and easy to handle of the fossil fuels. Unlocking coal’s power allowed humankind to harness previously undreamt-of quantities of energy, illuminating the world, animating machines and moving people much faster than ever before.

The Canadian railway, when it was first designed, used coal for transportation. That was a huge piece of western Canada and Canada as a nation in leaping into the industrialized age. Heating, cooking…. The war effort was huge. If we didn’t have the abundance of coal and that raw material, things could have been gravely different in both those wars that we fought.

Coal mining is a major industry in British Columbia. Coal production employs thousands of people, and coal sales generate billions of dollars in annual revenue. Coal production currently represents over half of the total mineral production revenue in the province.

[6:10 p.m.]

Essentially, there are two types of coal that are mined in B.C. There’s thermal coal, which I refer to as a burning source for electricity, or a power source. It is burned to run steam turbines to generate electricity. It is also used to heat homes. As we know, it’s slowly falling by the wayside.

The other type of coal is metallurgical coal. That’s in an area where I’m from, from the southeast corner of the province. We have four of the largest mines in the province, all dedicated to metallurgical coal, which is a harder form of thermal coal. It burns at higher temperatures and is used for smelting iron and making steel. It’s sometimes referred to as steelmaking coal. Steel is all around us.

If we want to transition to a low-carbon economy, we will need a lot of coal. B.C. produces about 11,000 megawatts of power through transmission lines, through hydro, about 20,000 kilometres of transmission lines and about 60,000 kilometres of distribution lines. That’s 80,000 kilometres of transmission lines. If we’re going to electrify the economy, we’re going to need a lot more metallurgical coal and steelmaking coal to get those off the ground.

Eighty thousand kilometres is enough to go around the world twice or around the moon eight times or from Victoria to Vancouver about 800,000 times. That means if you took a hydro line back and forth — all the hydro lines we have in B.C. — from Victoria to Vancouver 800,000 times on the ferry, which is about an hour-and-a-half trip, it would take you about 137 years to do that, until about the year 2159, almost as long as 114,000 affordable homes that were promised by this government.

But green steel would have to fall…. There’s another answer to this. Some people say, “Well, why don’t you substitute metallurgical coal with green steel,” which is a form of steel that is made from hydrolysis, instead of coking coal, which is used to make steel. But it’s just not there yet. Green steel would have to fall below $2 a kilogram, and close to about $1 a kilogram. Right now green steel is around $8 a kilogram, so it’s about eight times more expensive than what we’re doing right now.

That $8 is in Spain…. I think they’re doing some experimentation or some pilot projects in Spain right now. That’s using a 100 megawatt polymer…. It’s called a polymer electrolyte membrane electrolyzer. I don’t know. PEM, they call it. It draws on an integrated wind-electricity supply. This is power that is generated to make steel without the offset of carbon emissions. It’s about $8 a kilogram. It needs to fall down below $2.

We need metallurgical coal right now. We will need to transition away, as the minister has suggested, but I want to examine what that looks like. Just to give it a little bit more depth, in this green steelmaking process, a wind turbine takes about 150 tonnes of metallurgical coal to make. So you’re using coal to get yourself off coal, metallurgic coal. Over 95 percent of coal currently produced in B.C. is metallurgical coal, which is used in the production of steel from iron ore.

Bill 37 talks about other energy sources. One of the other big energy sources in British Columbia is hydro, and B.C. consumes a lot of it. In the scheme of what B.C. uses for energy consumption in the province, about 36 percent of that is petroleum products, oil used for transportation fuels, heating, those kinds of things.

About 30 percent of the energy consumption is natural gas — once again, heating, cooking. Biofuels and miscellaneous energy are about 16 percent, and electricity is about 18 percent of what is consumed for energy sources in the province. That’s nowhere near enough to feed a growing province, but we’re going to work on it.

[6:15 p.m.]

Most of B.C.’s sources of electricity is hydro power. Over 95 percent of electricity comes by way of hydro power. It’s clean. It’s renewable and cost-effective, as B.C. has some of the cheapest electricity in North America. Or at least, we did.

Twenty-five percent of that electricity that we have here in British Columbia is produced by independent power producers, or IPPs. These power producers are enabled by energy purchasing agreements, which have been cancelled by government or drastically altered in the last couple of years. I believe Energex was one of those. Their reason….

I think they had six projects that were cancelled, about $20 million in energy. I think it was under the guise that it was under COVID or something to that effect. It’d be interesting to see if that was brought back online, since we seem to be out of the pandemic right now — or hopefully. Some of the other numerous power projects that independent power producers operate are run-of-river projects. That’s essentially small hydro projects.

Biomass energy. Several biomass energy projects have been implemented, and more are being researched in B.C. By 2015, biomass made up about 5 percent of B.C.’s electricity production. There is a considerable amount of wooden biomass from lumber mills, roadside debris and standing pine, which have the potential to generate 2,300 megawatts of electricity.

The reason why I bring up biomass is because it is good, because it takes biomass off the forest floor. It takes post peelings and lumber that isn’t considered usable. It is burned, and it generates in these cogeneration plants. It’s burned, and it’s used to make electricity.

I’ve got a pulp mill just outside my riding in Columbia River–Revelstoke, in Skookumchuck, and they have a biomass, a co-gen plant. The biomass that they take off the forest floor and use to make electricity, that offset that they do is equivalent to about 18,000 vehicles that they take off the road that use internal combustion engines. We need to re-evaluate the pay structure, because right now it jeopardizes this 50-year-old company that sits in Skookumchuck. Right now, their EPAs, their energy purchasing agreements, have been altered below the cost structure that they first signed up for.

There are many more ahead, a lot of them First Nations. When we’re talking about Bill 37, we talk about the transition away from carbon-intensive fuel sources. Would that count? Would co-gen be one of those sources of energy that we want to transition away from, when it has other benefits to it other than just the energy produced?

When we talk about the wildfire seasons that we’ve seen over the last couple of years, co-gen and biomass production of energy are critically important. Reducing those fuels off the forest floor also reduces the risk of fuel load in the forests that could potentially ignite and cause severe damage. We’ve seen billions of dollars burnt up in the last couple of years, and this could help. These are questions that need to be answered for sure.

Wind turbine projects. That’s another one that IPPs invest in. It was about 2 percent of the province’s electricity — wind turbines.

Ocean wave technology or energy. That’s something fairly experimental right now, but there are folks out there that are looking at harnessing energy from waves. That would be energy-efficient as far as carbon emissions are concerned. It’s natural. It’s renewable as long as we have oceans, and it seems like we’re having more and more of them, so that would be something we need to entertain as well.

Geothermal is another energy source that IPPs participate in.

Solar power, of course. We’ve got a solar mine that came to the city of Kimberley not too long ago. I think it was a one-megawatt project. It was just a pilot project at the time. I think it cost about $5 million or $6 million. Without subsidies, it never would have got off the ground, but we did it anyways. I think since then, Teck Coal has bought that operation. We need to examine solar projects as well.

[6:20 p.m.]

While B.C. Hydro expects to have sufficient energy and capacity until early 2030, there’s a potential benefit to B.C. Hydro if these facilities continue to be available for a situation in which their generation is required to meet domestic need. Renewing these agreements now, these EPAs, for shorter-term periods provides all of us with greater certainty that these IPP facilities will continue to be available when needed to displace new greenfield supply.

In order to maintain flexibility for the future and limit cost risks to taxpayers, the industry has chosen to offer market-based pricing agreements to the IPP holders of all 19 clean or renewable electricity purchase agreements expiring in the next five years. We have about 19 energy purchase agreements that will be expiring in the next five years, and we’re hoping for some assistance. Hopefully, with this bill, we can identify the importance of these clean energy sources.

As a footnote, as well, I just want a quick high five to our mining industry. These energy sources I’ve talked about — solar panels, wind turbines…. For example, solar panels include silicon cells, copper, indium, cadmium. Those are minerals that we have here in British Columbia that make solar panels.

Steel, I said. Metallurgical coal. Plastic comes from our petroleum sector. Iron, copper, aluminum — those all make wind turbines. As I said earlier, it’s about 150 tonnes of metallurgical coal that makes a wind turbine. That’s a lot of coal for a wind turbine.

Cobalt, lithium, nickel, graphite, manganese, copper — those are all used for electric vehicles. If we want to get to a low-carbon future, if we want to transition away from carbon intensity, we need to move in that direction. Government and all of us suggest electric vehicles could be that way. It takes about four to five times more copper to make an electric vehicle than it does an internal combustion engine. I believe it’s about 145 pounds or 150 pounds of copper that goes into an electric vehicle. That’s five times more than internal combustion engines.

We need mining more than ever — I think the minister knows that — if we’re going to move to a low-carbon future and if we’re going to readily identify these new sources of energy. All of these and much more are found in British Columbia. So if we’re going to amp up our game to a low-carbon future, we better be behind supporting and reducing unnecessary red tape to our mining sector. That’s just a little bit of a digress to the mining sector.

How many EPAs are up for renewal? I already mentioned there are 19. The different sizes are anywhere from 0.2 megawatts to about 50 megawatts in nameplate capacity and total of over 200 megawatts in nameplate capacity and over 900 gigawatt hours annual generation. The projects are comprised of 16 run-of-river projects, one storage hydro and two biogas.

Independent power producers have the expertise to supply the affordable and safe renewable energy required to decarbonize our energy system with speed, innovation and agility, thereby transferring the inherent risk associated with infrastructure development, operation and maintenance to private sector investment. This is a marriage between private sector and public sector right now.

I said the energy that we produce, the electricity that we produce in the province, is about 25 percent independent power producers, and I believe the cost is about 27 to 29 percent. I could be wrong on that, but it’s not too far off of the proportional amount that they produce. The cost is relatively close.

I think that is the argument or the reason why we’re getting off of these energy purchasing agreements. It is costing the taxpayers too much money. But when you look at the marriage and the risk adversity that the private sector can offer in producing electricity, I think it’s a good wash. I think we need a little bit of both.

I think, if we’re going to reach a low-carbon economy, we need all hands on deck. That’s what this bill represents. It’s getting all hands on deck. The minister has mentioned hydrogen in his speech. That is an excellent source. I’ll get to that in just a second here.

[6:25 p.m.]

Also, with these IPPs, the clean energy facilities that are owned and operated by or partnered with First Nations…. There are a lot of First Nations. I believe the statistic is that 90 percent of independent power producers have some form of First Nation involvement, whether they’re full ownership, partnership or benefit-signed agreements with. So that is a large portion of IPPs that are First Nation.

I believe, in committee stage, we’ll dive into that a little bit more on how that affects how UNDRIP has been used with this bill and what kind of consultation was done with First Nations to move away from some of these other energy sources that I’m talking about.

The next one I’ll talk about is oil. That’s the next one, and it’s relatively the same as another source of energy, but it was formed from the oil sands a long, long time ago. Tiny marine creatures died, drifted to the sea floor and were covered up with layers of sediment that exerted enough pressure and temperature to transform the organic matter into oil — a lot like coal. Coal is more predominantly vegetation. Oil is predominantly more like dinosaurs and marine creatures and stuff that were covered up. With millions of years of heat and pressure, it turns into oil.

Over a million years, that oil became trapped in thick layers of sand and gravel and aggregate. Gradually, lighter hydrocarbons evaporated or were consumed by bacteria, leaving bitumen and water trapped in the sand. The area was then covered by glacial debris, but oil sands outcrops along the Athabasca River showed where deposits lay buried.

In 1717 — we’re going to go way back — the fur trader Henry Kelsey was recorded as the first European to have seen the oil sands up in the Athabasca River area, after the Cree people brought a sample to the Hudson’s Bay Co. trading post in the Athabasca region. The First Nation, the Cree, brought this gooey substance, and at that time, bitumen…. Or at that time, I guess it wasn’t called bitumen. It was just mystery material. Indigenous people residing there combined it with spruce gum to waterproof their canoes, a practice described by Sir Alexander Mackenzie in 1790 as he travelled through the area.

They used this to patch up their canoes and make them waterproof, and quite honestly, bitumen…. Pre-bitumen days it was called asphalton, which is a Greek word. I’m not even sure what it means, but it was asphalton. It was asphalt, which we use now for shingling homes and to waterproof our homes. So bitumen hasn’t really changed a lot over 300 years. Bitumen is a sticky, black, highly viscous liquid or semi-solid form of petroleum. It’s got the consistency, I guess, of cold molasses. The main problem with bitumen or asphalton…. As I said earlier, it’s a Greek word. It was referred to that in its natural state. It is mixed with sand and aggregate.

The challenge with bitumen back when it was first discovered, to use it as an energy source, was how to release the bitumen from the sand and the water that it was in. Back in the early 1920s…. I think it was in the late 1920s, a guy named Karl Clark had a patent on removing the sand and gravel and water from the bitumen. He worked out of the university or some research council out of Alberta. He used hot water and mixing to separate bitumen from sand. That was in 1929.

In about 1967, I think it was, he figured it out. He figured how he could do this. It was done in an industrial site called Bitumount. I think it was called Bitumount. So that’s where we get the word “bitumen” from. It was from an industrial site where bitumen was first discovered. That goes way back.

[6:30 p.m.]

Going into the theme, oil was first commercialized in 1858 in Ontario. Oil was discovered in Northwest Territories in about 1920 by a guy named Norman Wells. That was just a bunch of…. I think he worked for Imperial Oil at the time. His crews dug through permafrost with axes and picks, and they found an oil reserve. That triggered….

Actually, at that time, it was the most northern oil reserve on the planet. It was quite something, and it sparked a bit of a frenzy up there for oil. But in western Canada, where we are right now, it wasn’t really discovered until about 1947. Once again, it was Imperial Oil looking for some oil reserves. Imperial Oil was desperately trying to find oil. They had about 133 wells dug, and they were pretty much ready to give up.

They had a couple of last-minute drills, and then, on February 13, 1947, in a farmer’s field in Leduc, Alberta, oil was discovered, and it triggered a massive oil boom in western Canada. Quite something.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: I’ll mention it. Yeah.

Efforts to tap the oil sands resource began in the early 20th century, and we are where we are today. So oil has a really big importance, as I said. Petroleum serves us up, I think, about 36 percent of our energy consumption, where electricity is 18 percent, and then the next one, natural gas, is about 30 percent, and I’ll touch on natural gas a bit.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I’m speaking now to the choir, as I’ve got the member for Peace River South right in front of me, and this is a big part in the northeastern part of the province. That started in 1883. Natural gas is accidentally discovered, actually, by Canadian Pacific Railway workers. They were drilling for water near Medicine Hat, and they found some gas. By 1890, community leaders all across were using natural gas for their cooking needs, heating needs and lighting needs.

Due to strong natural gas prices now, in the modern day, there has been a phenomenal increase in natural gas royalties paid to the B.C. government — $1.7 billion greater, in fact, than was previously forecasted. The new total for natural gas royalties expected in 2022-2023 fiscal are $2.599 billion, so $1.7 billion more than what was first forecasted. So natural gas, oil revenues are a big part of the success and a big part of the revenues we generate here in British Columbia in order to pay for all the services we need.

We hear it time and time again. It does seem just to go: “Yeah, yeah, yeah.” But think about it: $2.6 billion. What does that pay for? What does that buy? I need a new high school in Cranbrook right now, and that’s about $50 million. That’s just a pittance of that $2.6 billion.

We need to transition. We know that oil and natural gas are only limited. It’s only here for a brief time in history before we deplete those sources. We will transition, and we are transitioning. But really, honestly, let’s not paint it with such a bad stroke of the brush, because it’s helped us. It’s done really good. It’s provided us with natural national security. It’s provided us with jobs. It’s provided us with benefits and opportunity. It is what it is, but it is really a foundational element to our economy and our way of life here in Canada.

B.C. is a massive energy producer in the Canadian….

Sorry, Speaker. I am the designated speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Okay, I would appreciate if you could let us know earlier, just out of respect for all your colleagues. At the beginning of your speech is the best time, but we hear you now. So designated speaker.

T. Shypitka: Sorry. I didn’t know if I was going to be it or the member from Peace River. He’s probably got a lot to say about it. [Laughter.] Sorry. He’s only got half an hour now.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Anyway, I’m getting chanted for more here, so let’s get into it.

B.C. is a massive energy producer in the Canadian landscape and a major exporter of energy. You may be surprised to know that 80 percent of all the energy our prov­ince produces annually comes in the form of natural gas. Natural gas is B.C.’s third-largest export by value.

[6:35 p.m.]

B.C. is Canada’s second-largest producer of natural gas, and with LNG coming online and, hopefully, more to come, B.C. could be the largest producer in Canada within a decade. So when we talk about transitioning, moving to lower emissions and getting more of a carbon-neutral environment, you have to look to things like natural gas, even though there is an emittance of emissions with natural gas. When we tried to take offline those other higher emitting energy sources — namely, thermal coal — then LNG or natural gas is a grid solution. It can cut those carbon emissions by as much as 50 percent.

I’ll be looking forward to committee stage to ensure that all types of hydrogen will be identified by the proposed expanding role of the energy regulator.

Responsible oil and gas development has been an economic cornerstone of British Columbia since the 1950s. The industry is a partner in generating economic growth for British Columbians. Ongoing collaboration between government and industry is necessary to ensure British Columbia is a global climate leader, while creating well-paying, quality jobs, advancing Indigenous reconciliation and generating prosperity for all British Columbians through government services supported by resource development revenues.

Meeting rising global demand. The world needs more energy in all forms. According to the 2018 IEA world energy outlook, by 2040, global demand for natural gas will increase 36 percent over 2018 levels, replacing coal as the world’s largest energy source.

British Columbia currently produces one-third of Canada’s natural gas and is well positioned to begin shipping significant volumes of responsibly produced Canadian oil and natural gas to meet growing energy demand in emerging Asian economies. B.C. has what it takes to be a global energy leader. I think that’s something the minister spoke to: an abundance of natural gas, a highly skilled workforce, a stringent regulatory system and a commitment to environmental performance.

Once again, we have to identify what is intended in this bill as low-carbon output or moving away from fossil fuels. If we’re saying we’re moving away from or eliminating fossil fuels, it’s going to take a lot of work and a lot of cost and a lot of infrastructure and a lot of uncertainty. So let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet. That’s what we’ll dive into in committee stage — how far we’re prepared to go with transitioning or moving away from fossil fuels.

In B.C., just for an example, the upstream oil and natural gas industry provides about 12,000 jobs. In 2019-2020, the B.C. government received about, I think it was, $600 million or $700 million in revenue, land and sales royalties, from oil and gas activity.

Producing wells: 10,255 provide 1.8 trillion cubic feet per year. It’s 32 percent, as I said earlier, one-third of Canada’s overall natural gas production.

Crude oil. I’m not going to go into all of this for crude oil. It’s quite substantial. In 2019, Canada’s conventional oil and natural gas industry will impact the B.C. economy with about $122 billion in economic activity over the next 11 years. So over 11 years, $122 billion in economic activity. That’s massive. That’s huge. I would hate to see us transition or move away from this fuel source unless it is readily adaptable by hydrogen or some other energy use that is ready to scale up as fast as what we already have in place.

Now I’ll go into a little bit more on how we do that better, and we are doing that better. That is with something the minister referred to as carbon capture and storage.

B.C. is a leader when it comes to policy to addressing climate change, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and growing its economy through innovation. In addition to the broad-based carbon tax, industries have worked with government to create a strategy to reduce methane emissions from the existing upstream industry by 45 percent, from the 2014 levels, by 2025.

[6:40 p.m.]

We’re reducing…. We’re actually in a process right now where we are reducing emissions from fossil fuels to almost half by 2025, from 2014 levels, increasing competitiveness through good environmental policy design. A well-designed, credible offset system can support competitiveness by providing an incentive for the development of process-based GHG reductions.

That’s electrification, methane abatement, energy efficiency, carbon capture and storage, as the minister has talked about, and nature-based solutions right straight across the economy. This will provide high-quality, low-cost compliance options to regulate sectors and lower the societal economic cost of achieving GHG reductions.

In order to be effective, offsets must be available for both conversion of existing and new facilities and projects. This is in line with global trends and will help mitigate carbon leakage by ensuring that British Columbian resource developers can compete.

By being competitive and by having carbon tax offsets — something that keeps British Columbian industries sustainable or competitive with the global market — we prevent carbon leakage, which is industry going elsewhere instead of us doing it here in British Columbia. That global demand, as I mentioned earlier, is going to go up 36 percent by 2040. Natural gas will be taking over from coal. We know that. That’s from the IEA.

We need to be competitive, and part of Bill 37 addresses competitiveness. We’ll get into that a little bit later. We need to be competitive with all our energy sources, but I guess we have to define what’s go and what’s no-go from this government. We’ll have to dive into that in committee stage as well.

Once again, liquefied natural gas. The member for Skeena might be talking to this a little bit, but the opportunities there are huge. I think that about 15 years ago, the United States didn’t have one export terminal in the United States for LNG. Since then, I believe they have 13 or 14, and they’ve got another dozen or so in construction or on the way. Canada has got one, and we could have a lot more. We’re missing the boat on it.

No pun intended, but the boat sails a lot quicker and a lot faster from Prince Rupert than it does from the Panama Canal, which again reduces carbon emissions. Right now Prince Rupert, Kitimat…. It’s a 25-day round trip to go from Kitimat or Prince Rupert to Asia and back — 25 days, about 8,800 kilometres; versus the Americans, who get their natural gas, which is liquefied from the Gulf of Mexico. They go to Asia via the Panama Canal. It’s a 55-day round trip, so it’s more than double, and it’s about an 18,000-plus-long trip.

That’s two weeks quicker, so every three trips to their two, I guess, is what that would work out to be. Is that right? No. Every two trips to their one. Even more amazing.

B.C. natural gas is also…. The member for Peace River South will probably echo these comments. The natural gas we have in British Columbia is very deep. The reservoirs of natural gas are very, very deep — two, three kilometres down — not 200 or 300 kilometres, I think, as one minister once recited. It’s about two or three kilometres down. It’s cold, so it doesn’t take as much energy to liquefy that natural gas. It is done through hydraulic fracturing; some people call it fracking.

The reservoirs are so far down that they never interfere with aquifers — water aquifers, that is. We have zero cases of any natural gas project in B.C. ever damaging any major water aquifer. We’ve heard members of this House talk about lighting the water on fire. That may be true in places like the southwest or the United States, where their aquifers are very close to underground water reservoirs. That natural gas can get into those systems, but in British Columbia…. I’ll read some stuff on that in a bit.

[6:45 p.m.]

I’m proud of our natural gas history here in British Columbia. Now, can it be better? Absolutely. Bill 37 talks about some of the irresponsibilities on orphan wells or derelict wells. We need to clean those up. There’s no question about it. We do have funds that are in place. We’ve got the orphan site restoration fund, the orphan gas levy, that industry pays into and that will assist in getting those orphan wells reclamated.

Part of this bill talks about liability and working interest partners and how they will be viewed as being a “responsible person.” I’ll get into that in a little bit as well. Overall, I’m happy with where we’ve come in British Columbia with natural gas, and I think it still remains as a power source of B.C.

When the minister talks about hydrogen, that’ll be my little next topic now. Hydrogen comes in many different forms. When the minister was talking earlier, he talked broadly about hydrogen use, but there are many forms of hydrogen.

Hydrogen is an element that is the most common element in our universe. Some 75 percent of our universe is made up of hydrogen, but it doesn’t exist on its own. It needs to be extracted from water via electrolysis or separated from carbon fossil fuels such as natural gas. Both of these processes require a significant amount of energy to achieve — this energy can be more than gained from the hydrogen itself — as well as being very expensive. I’ll get into that a bit as well.

In addition, this extraction typically requires the use of fossil fuels — which, in the absence of carbon capture and storage, undermines the green credentials of hydrogen. We talk about moving away from fossil fuels but bringing in hydrogen, when hydrogen itself, in most sustainable or economically viable forms, is from natural gas, which is a fossil fuel.

Now, in Bill 37, it’ll be important to know if this applies to all hydrogen sources. There are many types of technology that are used to make hydrogen. I think it is good to understand the different types of hydrogen and where we as a province can find the opportunity. I just happen to have a little sheet on the different types of hydrogen. You’ll be amazed. There are many sources.

I’ll start with the more carbon-intensive sources first, black hydrogen, which is used and from coal, very carbon-intensive. When that carbon is not captured, it’s not a very good energy source, in my opinion, for us to pursue.

Grey hydrogen would be the next one, and that’s used from natural gas, but there’s no carbon capture and storage involved with it. Right now I’m not exactly sure, but I think somewhere between 70 and 80 percent — it might even be higher — of the hydrogen we use today is grey hydrogen. We need to get a handle on that, for sure. I don’t think a lot of people…. It’s a somewhat innocuous bill, where, I think, most of us are going to be in full support of it.

There are going to be some details that we’re going to get into in committee stage, but overall, we support the use of hydrogen as an energy source, and black and grey will not be one of those sources.

Then we get into the weeds a little bit. We get into…. Let’s use red hydrogen, which is used from nuclear power, and pink hydrogen, which is used also from nuclear power, but it captures the steam with methane and uses that as a power source as well. Those are red and pink hydrogen.

We also have blue hydrogen, which I’ll talk a lot about, and that’s from natural gas. That also uses carbon capture and storage to take those fugitive emissions from the production of hydrogen. It stores those greenhouse gases in underground reservoirs. They store the carbon underground or under the ocean in seabeds — back to where it came from, that kind of thing. You can put it back; no problem there. Blue hydrogen is a really important one.

[6:50 p.m.]

There’s turquoise hydrogen, which is pretty amazing. I’ll get to that in a little bit too, because that represents what the Port Moody facility is going to represent. That was a facility that was bought by Suncor. B.C. Hydro released that asset, put it up for sale. Suncor, which is part of the whole oil sands, bought that. Now, with Fortis gas and an Australian company, they are going to have a pilot project for turquoise hydrogen.

This actually takes the carbon and solidifies it into a compound or a type of…. It can be used for cement. It can be used for a lot of other things. It comes into a solid form, so the carbon is captured and produced and can be used to build. I think some people said it could be put into rubber tires. Some have said it could be used for structural means. So that’s turquoise hydrogen.

What other hydrogen have we got? We’ve got yellow hydrogen. Electricity produced from solar panels extracts the hydrogen from water. That is super expensive right now, so they’re not really going there just yet, but it’s something on the horizon, for sure.

White hydrogen. I can’t remember white. I’ll have to look at my notes here, but there is a white hydrogen. What does it say? The hydrogen is a type of hydrogen that is discovered in geological…. It’s found under the earth’s crust. A very little amount of hydrogen is present in Earth’s crust. This type of hydrogen that involves extraction is also known as natural hydrogen. So that’s kind of cool.

Of course, we’ve got green hydrogen. That’s probably the ultimate in the hydrogen field, right? That’s everybody’s dream. Everybody wants the green hydrogen. That hydrogen uses water and electrolysis. The offset is good. There are no carbon emissions.

It’s produced using an electrolysis method in which no carbon dioxide is generated and also called a CO₂-neutral method, powered by a renewable source of energy, such as electricity, generated using wind or solar energy or hydro energy, and called green hydrogen. In electrolysis of water, oxygen and hydrogen are being produced and as there are no greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere, this is carbon-neutral hydrogen — hence, green hydrogen.

It’s clean, and its green, but it’s expensive — super expensive. To scale up green hydrogen projects right now won’t be cost-effective unless we want to pay four or five times the heating bills that we’re paying right now.

But let’s have our eye on the prize. As the minister suggests, we’re going to transition or move away from fossil fuels. Right now, of blue hydrogen, turquoise hydrogen and those types of hydrogens, I would say blue hydrogen is probably the most cost-effective of all the hydrogen uses. But guess what. It uses fossil fuels.

When the minister refers to moving away from fossil fuels but bringing in hydrogen, is he only talking about green? These are the questions that we need to know, and in committee stage, we’ll address some of those. I think it would be irresponsible just to focus on one that might not be ready today or tomorrow or next year or even ten years from now and avoid what we have at our fingertips right now.

As you can see, there are many avenues we can go to when it comes to hydrogen as a fuel source. I’m sure there are ideological opinions on what type of hydrogen we would prefer to see. I saw some heads nodding when I mentioned green hydrogen. They’re like: “Yeah, let’s go for that.”

I believe we need to be realistic in scaling up whatever types of hydrogen we pursue with our policies, regulations and legislation. That’s what this bill represents here, Bill 37.

Currently blue hydrogen…. I said the strategies are most attractive, for three reasons. B.C. and Alberta have the biggest gas reserves in North America and some of the biggest in the world; the cost structure, as opposed to other types of hydrogen, is attractive; and the existing infrastructure needed to transport the hydrogen to market is already here. We already have it in place.

[6:55 p.m.]

There’s a lot of misconception and misinformation regarding hydrogen, so let’s take a look at a quote. Here’s a quote for you: “LNG has been positioned as part of the transition to a low-carbon economy, and it is simply not true. Building a pipeline locks us into those emissions for years to come, and we simply can’t afford that. Unfortunately, we’ve had a government that’s taken these industrial projects to a point where they’re costing the public a lot, and they will cost a lot more to cancel. But that’s coming at the expense of a livable future.”

That comes from Anjali Appadurai. That was the lady that was running in opposition to the now Premier for the leadership race and was sidelined a bit there. But the Premier called Anjali…. She would make a good MLA. I believe she may even be a proposed adviser for energy in the province. Rumour is out there. You never know. I’ve heard it more than once.

This quote does not mention hydrogen, but it does mention another energy source under Bill 37, which is LNG. What it also mentions is pipelines and the discontent that Ms. Appadurai apparently has for them. The bottom line is that pipelines will be built, whether we’re talking about oil, gas or hydrogen.

Just to further that point, and to drive home the fact that the infrastructure is here and we’re ready to go with this as soon as we can get it scaled up to production…. In a trailblazing position paper entitled European Hydrogen Backbone, 11 European gas system operators have outlined a potential hydrogen network running through ten countries. This is all in Europe. They concluded that a significant share of the pipes likely needed is already in place.

In 2040, about 75 percent of the hydrogen network will cover 23,000 kilometers by then and will consist of old natural gas pipelines. So we can use the natural gas pipelines that we have in place to transport hydrogen in the future. Once again, it is the industry that so many on the other side continuously condemn that will be the backbone and catalyst of a new low-carbon future.

When we look at all the available hydrogen types, I have to question the minister’s statements made in the first reading. I’ve mentioned it once before. The quote is in the first reading the bill. He said to this Legislature, in Hansard: “Hydrogen is critical and will move us away from fossil fuels.”

At an announcement in front of Fortis gas and Suncor, who are energy producers most famously known for their great work in the Alberta oil sands — this is at the Port Moody facility when it was, I guess, announced — the minister says: “Hydrogen is critical to our transition to a cleaner energy system.” The quote he told the Legislature mentions that hydrogen will move us away from fossil fuels. The quote he told the Suncor people is that hydrogen will be a cleaner energy system. He doesn’t mention eliminating fossil fuels. Well, how could he? The Port Moody facility uses natural gas. It’s a fossil fuel.

So it’s little things. This obvious omission of this government’s intentions. I think the people of B.C. would just honestly like to know and call it what it is. The minister knows that the feedstock for the newly announced Port Moody hydrogen plant is natural gas methane, that beloved source that involves hydraulic fracturing to get it out of the ground. The pilot project of putting a turquoise hydrogen plant in place at the old Burrard thermal plant in Port Moody would be small scale at first. But if developed commercially, the plant could eventually produce up to 2,500 tonnes of zero-emission hydrogen fuel a year, equivalent to 300,000 gigajoules of energy.

What does that mean? That would be enough energy to produce about 3,000 homes. With close to two million homes in B.C., this new hydrogen plant would cover about one-sixth of 1 percent of the energy needs in B.C. By contrast, Site C accounts for about 450,000 homes, and natural gas fuels up another 1.1 million homes.

[7:00 p.m.]

This is small potatoes, and I know it’s a pilot project, and we’re growing. But before we throw the switch on our fossil fuels and move away and transition, we’ve got to know what we’re prepared for. We’ve got to know the seriousness of what that can mean to taxpayers and everyday hard-working British Columbians who are already facing huge cost burdens. The cost of everything is up, and we don’t need fuel to be jacked up any higher than it already is.

The natural gas firm Suncor is partnering with Australian-based Hazer Group, which already generates hydrogen power at a pilot project in that country. Suncor will host the plant on its Burrard thermal property.

I don’t need to go into any of that. I haven’t even gotten into the meat of the bill.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: More? All right.

I’m more than pleased to see B.C. challenge the world in alternate energy solutions, but let’s not be afraid to say that we will be using B.C.’s advantage of a world-class natural gas reserve to do it.

Turquoise hydrogen, such as a plant in Port Moody, and blue hydrogen include the use of fossil fuels. This may, and most likely will, eventually lead to yellow and green hydrogen, as I mentioned earlier. Right now, the cost for green hydrogen is 4 to 5 times the cost to produce than it is to produce blue hydrogen.

Let’s all embrace the fact that gas is not bad if we can use it responsibly. Let’s not shut that door on something that truly can make us global leaders and, at the same time, give everyone in this province a giant benefit so we can battle unaffordability issues and provide the services we use to be able to expect, like health care and the possibility of buying your first home. If the minister proves me wrong and says that natural gas, whether it’s in the form of LNG or blue hydrogen, are the best energy solutions we have to move to a low carbon economy, I’ll give him full credit for that.

In Bill 37, the first several clauses are to basically change all the names and eliminate the words “oil and gas” from the Oil and Gas Activities Act, to strike out petroleum and natural gas with “energy resource”, to take away the name of the Oil and Gas Commission and replace it with the British Columbia energy regulator. I just wanted to talk about the name change a little bit.

I understand that we need to modernize and update and embrace all the sources of energy we have, but I remember the first day I got the critic’s role of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, as it was called at the time. The name was changed immediately to Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. Now, we all embrace low-carbon innovation. We all want to get to a more responsible world. I get it. But it just appears to me that government really doesn’t have the political will or the feel to embrace our fundamental industries here in British Columbia, that being oil and gas.

They’ve served us well, as I’ve said numerous times through this debate. I don’t know. I just needed to say that, because it kind of bugs me a little bit. It’s kind of a spit in the face to those industries, all those hard-working people. There are thousands of workers that go to work every day in the cold Peace country, drilling for gas, refining our fuel for transporting for truck, rail or pipeline, just to keep us all warm.

Like I said, natural gas is about 36 percent of the energy needs we use in British Columbia. That usually comes in the form of going home on a cold winter day, like we’re seeing here in British Columbia right now. I’m minus 20. It’s not that cold here, but when I go home, I flick a switch, and I’m instantly warm. That comes from the Peace. That comes from areas up in Fort St. John and Dawson Creek and the Montney gas reserve in Alberta and B.C., the Yukon.

It’s something we need to really think about. We really need to think about that. We have all the comforts that we could imagine. We look at other countries right now that are going through energy crisis. Look at the war in Ukraine and folks there. Numerous tragedies going on over there. They’re starved out of energy. They have no energy sources. They’d love to be able to flick a switch. I think we’re lucky, and I think we need to reflect on that sometimes, on how lucky we actually are here in this province and in this country.

[7:05 p.m.]

The oil and gas industry takes beating after beating from naysayers and the NGOs. There are thousands of workers that go to work every day, like I said, that provide this for us. This is the diversity of this province. This is what makes us so strong. This is what makes us so great. That’s why we have 40,000 people moving here every year. This is the basket of resources this province is blessed to have.

We need all hands on deck, especially during this time of global unrest and instability. We have an opportunity to not only help ourselves but our friends and allies that are experiencing extreme energy shortages, like eastern Europe, Brazil or even California right now. Look at the energy needs they’re going through right now with hydro. They’re drying up. Hydroelectricity is at a premium right now.

There are many other things that are involved in this bill, and I’ve gone on probably longer than what I wanted to. Part of this bill, also…. In section 14 of the bill, it establishes a scheme to expand responsibility for energy resource activities to various persons with an interest in the activity. This section establishes and defines who is a responsible person and that a registry of responsible persons will be created. It also allows the regulator to assign responsibility of those they believe have tried to evade it, and people who are responsible persons can be compelled to either pay for actions or compelled to act.

We need to dive into sections 14, under this bill, to really dig down to what liability is to working interest partners — WIPs, they’re called. How is that assessed? If you’re a shareholder in a company and you have 10 percent ownership in a natural gas company and the company, for one reason or another, is upended and bankruptcy is filed and now those orphan sites are there with no attached responsible person, how will this bill affect those shareholders?

If I’m a shareholder, I might be signed up for 10 percent ownership of the company. Am I now responsible for 10 percent? That would be the norm. But under this bill, the energy regulator can assess that responsibility at 100 percent, perhaps. What will that do to investment? If I’m an investor and I’m looking at risk liability on any project, and I sign up knowing that what I signed up for doesn’t mean anything if the energy regulator comes down on me and assesses me at 100 percent ownership of that or responsibility of that site….

Now, I might be wrong, and we’ll have to ask these questions in committee stage. But to me, that’s not a signal for investors to come flocking to B.C. to enjoy the benefits of, perhaps, engaging in a natural gas project. It might scare them off. I believe it will. I think the member for Peace River South will probably speak to a little bit of that.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: That’s right here in his notes.

He’s got a doily? No, there’s nothing there. Off the cuff.

I admire guys like you.

Section 5. This section amends and adjusts the requirement of the renamed Oil and Gas Commission board, renamed the British Columbia energy regulator. It also requires that the board consists of between five and seven members, of whom one must be a deputy minister and another must be Indigenous. Fair enough. Good representation there. But what are the credentials for those other board members? How are they vetted? What’s the pay structure? Are they getting paid lots of money? I’d like to know that. So would the taxpayers. We’ll have some questions on section 5, on the composition on the board.

Section 36. I went into that quite a bit already. This section expands the definition of natural gas to include hydrogen. This enables the B.C. energy regulator to oversee the expansion of a hydrogen industry. So those will be major questions: what hydrogen industry are we talking about? What are the timelines, if any at all? There will be some good discussion around that.

[7:10 p.m.]

I’ll end with a quote from our now Premier. He says: “We cannot continue to subsidize fossil fuels and expect clean energy to manifest somehow. We cannot continue to expand fossil fuel infrastructure and expect to meet our climate goals.” That was from the Premier not too long ago, October 21 of this year. He also said that Anjali Appadurai would be a good MLA, and we’ve heard what she thinks about the industries.

When we move away from fossil fuels but we incorporate hydrogen into a bill such as Bill 37, we have to examine what we are talking about. Are we talking about green hydrogen? Is that it? Those will be the questions that we’ll have.

With that, I conclude my remarks.

S. Furstenau: I’m glad to stand up and speak to Bill 37. I’m just going to start with a little reflection. I just recently listened to a podcast, Ezra Klein interviewing Bill McKibben. Bill McKibben is well known for his climate advocacy and his sometimes dour outlook on the state of the world and state of climate. But in this interview, he was remarkably cheerful and optimistic.

One of the things that he talked about that I thought was so effective for understanding the framing of the conversation around energy right now is…. He said that we’re at this place, as humans, where we can stop burning things. That for our history, burning things has been an integral part of who we are, who we’ve become, whether it was fire and then coal and oil and fracked gas and all the things that we burn to produce energy, but that we are at this remarkable moment in time where there is the sufficient capacity for us to actually very rapidly transition to clean energy and to get off of fossil fuels.

As we’ve heard from the COP conference that just came to an end and as we’ve been hearing for many years from the United Nations, the IPCC, climate scientists, we really are at a point where we have to transition very quickly and get ourselves off of fossil fuels, stop building more infrastructure, stop building more pipelines and fossil fuel infrastructure, and commit to clean energy.

The other thing that Bill McKibben talked about that I hadn’t heard talked about in a way that really helped make sense of part of this conversation around transition…. The member was just talking about the need for the materials and mining that goes into creating wind energy or solar energy or geothermal. There’s still a need for materials, but the difference is that the materials to build, say, a solar panel are extracted, and then the panel is built. Then for a number of decades, that panel will produce energy.

Compare that to extracting fossil fuels, which are extracted from the ground, pulled up and then burned. It’s a one-off use of those fuels to create the energy as opposed to using materials to create clean energy capacity that will last for decades. So this is a very different kind of timeline on how we use fossil fuels versus how we use materials to create clean energy.

I thought that this was a really helpful way of thinking about this, as we have these really critical and essential conversations about what we owe the future and the decisions we make today and how those decisions will inevitably shape a different future, based on whether we choose to keep expanding fossil fuels or whether we choose to move away from them.

[7:15 p.m.]

Every time we choose to expand, we add more energy to our atmosphere, and that energy comes back to us in the form of heat domes, in the form of atmospheric rivers, in the form of droughts and forest fires. We have seen the real-life consequences of climate change over and over and over again, not just here in B.C. but around the world, in relentlessly constant events that are now just part of our news of the world. Right now it’s flooding in Australia again, as an example.

The bill in front of us is a bill that is specifically about the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission, and I think it’s good to have a little bit of history on the commission. It came to be in the late 1990s with oil and natural gas — fossil fuels — production, extraction in British Columbia. There was a call for a single regulator to be put in charge of oil and gas activities. The purpose of this was to streamline the existing process, make it easier for oil and gas development. The fossil fuel companies at the time warned the province that if this one-stop shop was not created, it would imperil investment to B.C. oil and gas.

An interesting side note is a recent study, a report from The Guardian about the trillions in profits from the oil and gas industry, allowing them to spend, globally, $1 billion a day on lobbying to convince governments to do the things that they would like them to do, including right here in British Columbia.

The government of the day, in the 1990s, acquiesced to the demands of the fossil fuel companies, supported by the opposition of the time. The same dynamics we have today, minus the B.C. Greens. The Oil and Gas Commission was created, and the purpose was to make fossil fuel development happen more efficiently, more quickly.

Over the past few decades, it has become abundantly clear that the Oil and Gas Commission is fundamentally a captured agency. In 2019, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives came out with a report that found that from its early years, the Oil and Gas Commission was captured by industry. The interests of the fossil fuel companies “took precedence over the public interest.” There were troubling examples of broken rules that ended with few, if any, consequences for the companies that broke them.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives made six recommendations. One, that the province create a new arm’s-length agency to oversee compliance and enforcement in the fossil fuel sector.

Second, that the Oil and Gas Commission’s board be restructured and its powers to change regulations removed and that the deputy minister be removed from its board. We debated this previously in the House, but it is, I think, remarkable and extraordinary for this board to have regulation-making capacity. But we had that conversation earlier.

The third recommendation from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives for the Oil and Gas Commission was that new co-management agreements be made with First Nations.

Fourth, that a single water authority to regulate all water users be reinstated. Interesting to note on that…. I believe back in 2017-18, there was a lot of interest and uncovering of some dams that had been made and water storage that had been done up in the northeast with no oversight or regulation at the time, mainly for companies doing fracking, storing enormous amounts of water and creating these dams without any regulatory oversight.

The fifth recommendation from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is that the Oil and Gas Commission be compelled to release all information that is in the public interest in a timely manner.

Sixth, that the ministry be compelled to report annually on how the Oil and Gas Commission’s permitting deci­sions and regulatory oversight of fossil fuels fit with the province’s climate action plans and greenhouse gas emission targets.

The legislation before us today does make some important changes. For example, it expands the membership of the Oil and Gas Commission’s board from three individuals to between five and seven. It does not, however, remove the deputy minister from the board, and it doesn’t remove regulation-making authority from the board.

[7:20 p.m.]

There does not appear to be a requirement for the commission — which will now be called, if this legislation passes, the energy regulator — to release all information to the public that is in the public interest in a timely manner. However, such a change, I think, would also fulfill the recommendations for proactive disclosure made by the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act committee report.

Also in 2019, the former Auditor General, Ms. Bellringer published a report on the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission’s management of non-operating oil and gas sites. This report found that operators were not required to decommission wells or restore inactive well sites and, furthermore, that the funds being collected by the Oil and Gas Commission were not effectively managing the environmental or financial risks of non-operating orphan oil and gas sites. As a result, Miss Bellringer found that the Oil and Gas Commission’s ability to ensure funding and restoration of sites was impeded.

The report made several more recommendations, including several specific to the Oil and Gas Commission. Specifically, the Auditor General report recommended that the commission improve its management of orphan sites by improving timeliness of response, public reporting, better funding, a review of the liability management program and a plan for long-term environmental risks.

But here is the problem, as I see it: oil and gas operators are not required to decommission wells and restore well sites in B.C. unless explicitly ordered to do so by the Oil and Gas Commission on a case-by-case basis.

The legislation before us does expand the scope of what persons — that is to say, oil and gas operators — are liable for the activities of oil and gas sites. But when we’re dealing with a body that has been, effectively and essentially, captured by industry, a body that has demonstrated since its conception that it operates on behalf of oil and gas companies rather than the public interest, the question is: how can we trust this body to make these decisions? I would argue there is a trust deficit here.

I think we have to be considering the big picture. Regardless of how important these modernizing amendments are, rebranding does little to improve the lack of faith the public has in the commission and, indeed, in this ministry. This is particularly true following the political revelations that we have been seeing in this province and the very clear influence of oil and gas lobbyists in our democracy and in democracies around the world. Interesting to note that the largest group that attended the COP conference was actually oil and gas lobbyists, bigger than any single country’s group of attendees. I would suggest that that is, again, not something that contributes to a lot of trust.

We do need low-carbon innovation, but I think that what we need more is a real commitment from this government and from governments going forward that we will be good on our debt to the future and that we will make decisions that do not consign them to a planet that is looking at warming that goes well beyond levels that keep our climate manageable and livable. The direction that we have been going globally has been the wrong direction, and we are very much running out of time.

There’s often an argument made: well, B.C.’s so small. We’re just a certain small percentage of the emissions. What could we do? But we absolutely need to show leadership. We have the capacity and the potential for actually being clean energy leaders — giants, even — and we could be exporting not fracked gas but innovation and technology to countries so that they could be scaling up their clean energy at the rate that we need the whole world to be doing. I continue to believe that we can achieve this in British Columbia, but we have to be straightforward and upfront about the reality of what we’re facing.

[7:25 p.m.]

I hope we will see, under the new Premier, a renewed and much more straightforward commitment to actually transitioning us off of fossil fuels and not just taking part in rebranding exercises of captured agencies.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 37 here, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act. I think it’s really important to comment on not only the changes here but, obviously, on the industry as a whole.

Although the member that spoke before me…. I have huge respect for many of the positions that the leader of the Green Party brings forward. There will be no surprise that some of the comments that I will be making will contradict some of hers.

Let’s just say that we do have a huge opportunity — one thing I’ll agree on — to be leaders and to help the world, when we talk about the climate crisis that we have. That is why, on this side of the House, we were so persistent and adamant about looking at LNG as an opportunity to help the world and why we continue to promote and push that.

Let me just put things into context a little bit, a little bit different than the member for Kootenay East, who spoke not too long ago and who did a great job, as the critic, bringing forward a lot of the different issues and explaining some of the background and history, which I quite enjoyed. I actually learned a few things that I didn’t know. Don’t tell the people in my riding because I always say that I know this industry quite well, but I did learn a few things.

One of the things that we do need to remember, and we do talk about, is that in our resource sector, specifically around the natural gas and oil extraction that we have…. Is it a transitional fuel? Absolutely. Nobody argues that. Where the debate can be is: transition over what time period?

We look at the global demand that we have right now for oil and gas. As the population grows — what is it, eight billion that we’re at globally now? — and the demand that we have for what most jurisdictions…. I find it ironic sometimes how we debate this in British Columbia. Most jurisdictions around the world crave to be in the position that we’re in, in British Columbia. They call natural gas and LNG clean transitional fuels. They talk about the opportunities that natural gas has for helping our environment in a climate crisis.

When you look at the amount of coal-fired power generational facilities that are being built in Asia, that are being opened almost on a weekly basis, that would love to have the LNG, the natural gas, that we have in abundance here in British Columbia and in Canada….

When I say an abundance…. To put that into context, the last study that came out, when we talked about just in British Columbia alone, we have enough known — and I say known because that’s an important distinction — natural gas in British Columbia to serve the present use that Canadians domestically have for about 100 years. So 100 years’ worth of natural gas just in British Columbia alone. That’s four or five generations of employment and work, good family-supporting jobs, as we extract natural gas to help the world remove themselves from dirtier fossil fuel power generation.

I do find it one of those interesting situations, here in British Columbia specifically, when we have a lot of these activist groups — I’ll call them foreign activist groups because a lot of them are funded that way — who come into British Columbia saying that we need to get off of natural gas and go to cleaner energy production. We even hear that from the Green Party.

[7:30 p.m.]

What I find interesting, though, is that those same people will then turn their protest sign around against Site C, which most people will say is actually clean power. I use that just as an example of: “So what do they want?” We’re already so fortunate, here in British Columbia, with what we have.

If you talk about 100 years of supply…. We can talk about that transition. If we only have 100 years of supply in British Columbia, obviously, eventually, we will transition. And guess what. The sooner that we actually start producing more natural gas out of the ground so we can have LNG as an opportunity to help those jurisdictions around the world that are trying to get off coal…. Well, it’ll be used up faster. We’ll have to transition sooner. We’ve actually done a better service globally for the environment.

I think it’s important, when we talk about not just the climate change but when we look at weather specifically in a region…. The air molecules over Dawson Creek will eventually be over China, and vice versa. The air is not stagnant over a community. It’s not stagnant over a province or a country. It goes around the world. So if we really want to do a service to ourselves, then we need to be helping other jurisdictions as well.

There are very few forms of firm power that can be generated and that we all need in a first-world country. When we’re trying to help other countries around the world get into the second- or first-world benefits that we are very fortunate to have here in Canada….

There aren’t a lot of differences, when you look at firm power — the options out there. When you look at firm power, you’ve got…. Hydro is firm, and we are very blessed to have about 98 percent of our power generation in British Columbia from hydro. Most jurisdictions, again, would love to be in the position that we’re in, in British Columbia.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The other forms of firm power are nuclear…. You’ve got coal, and you’ve got natural gas. In some jurisdictions, you could say…. Geothermal, where it’s proven out, could, in some ways, be considered firm power.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: And oil, especially if you’re going into diesel or other forms of gas generation as well.

Those are firm power. Most places around the world look at all of the dirtier ones because those are the only options they have.

We’re fortunate in British Columbia. The majority of our power is hydro. If we look just across the border, in Alberta, they’re burning coal, and they’re burning natural gas for power generation in a lot of their facilities. If we look just south of us, into Washington state and Oregon, they’re burning natural gas. They’re burning coal. They’re also using nuclear for power generation.

I find it one of those very fascinating topics. We talk about the global need for our resources that we have here in British Columbia, yet we do everything we can in allowing these activist groups to knock us down rather than celebrating the fact that we could be part of the global solution. Again, one of the main reasons why we understood the opportunity, not only because of the resource that we have in the ground, to be part of the solution globally when we were promoting liquefied natural gas.

Now we have seven, eight facilities…. I think at one point we had close to 20 facilities that were being looked at. We still have some that could come to fruition here in British Columbia. But one of the challenges that we hear from most of them, under the present investment climate that we have in British Columbia, is the lack of certainty that they see from this government on whether they should actually be coming into British Columbia.

[7:35 p.m.]

I know the minister is aware of this. This is not a personal criticism. He has acknowledged in this House…. I know, when we get to committee stage…. It’s not necessarily completely tied into this bill, the dollars of capital that are flowing out of this province.

It does, I think, need to be referenced, when we’re looking at Bill 37 here, especially when we’re talking about bringing in hydrogen as part of…. That was my note in my speech — hydrogen. I made sure I got that in there. Hydrogen is part of and is being brought in with the Oil and Gas Commission, which now is going to be changing names to the B.C. energy regulator. With hydrogen being brought in as part of an energy component within the mandate of the commission….

My concern, though, is, again, the messaging that that sends out. We have heard from so many of the exploration companies and producers that they have concerns now in British Columbia around permitting. The board of directors have been saying: “Pull back on investment in British Columbia. We’re going to move to other jurisdictions. It’s not a safe place to invest under the present government because of the way that they have been putting forward policy.”

I see some of the commentary from one of my colleagues in the NDP government. He can come to my riding any time. I will let him sit down and have a meeting with the multitude of companies who have met with me and who have said…. Just in the last 18 months alone, we’ve lost over $3 billion, with a “b,” of capital investment in the Peace region because of the lack of certainty of getting permits for jobs in the oil and gas sector.

We need to remember that these companies are still going to invest. They’re still going to have a capital outlay for a return on investment for their shareholders. This is business. This is how it works. We all know that. But guess what. That capital outlay is now going more into Alberta, parts of Saskatchewan and down to the United States rather than to British Columbia.

We are talking about thousands and thousands of jobs that are presently at risk or already being lost, the small and medium-sized companies who are having to shutter their doors because they’re losing out now on the opportunity to work in British Columbia. Many of them are now shutting those doors and moving their shingles into Alberta, hoping to at least use their expertise and get work.

I’m hearing not only from them. I’m also hearing from First Nations communities who are concerned. They have the partnership agreements. They are now losing out on the opportunities for revenue generation for the First Nations in our region, all because of the uncertainty that’s created. These companies don’t want to invest here.

I implore this minister and this government…. When they’re putting forward changes and amendments, anything to do with energy statutes and amendments like this, they should be backing it up with saying: “We are changing this to make things better, and this is how we’re going to do it. We’re changing things to give certainty and to ensure we have that investment and capital coming into British Columbia.”

As my colleague from Kootenay East said…. He reminded this House about the billions of dollars that flow back into the British Columbia economy when we support the resource sector, whether that’s oil and gas, mining, forestry or agriculture, for that matter, any of these industries that are on the land base.

That is not only what generates revenue for business. It’s what employs families. It’s what helps sustain our rural communities and, through that, generates the billions of dollars of revenue that comes back to the province to help build our hospitals and our schools and our bridges.

[7:40 p.m.]

Those don’t happen magically, unless you want to be a government like we are seeing right now in Canada and British Columbia, which just figures that they can go print money rather than wanting to grow the economy and having industry and people actually being part of the solution and helping grow our communities.

The private sector can do this. The private sector needs certainty, and they need a message from this government that they’re not getting.

I bring this up because I live at ground zero. Myself and the member for Peace River North live at ground zero for natural gas exploration and extraction. One of the things that we don’t talk about enough in British Columbia is the fact that we do it better than anywhere in the world. We allow activist groups to try to convince people that we are the worst when, in fact, we are the best in the world at extracting natural gas and making sure we’re doing it environmentally well. Because of that….

I want to welcome my member for Skeena, for the applause, because I know he…. I might be at ground zero, but the pipeline runs to Skeena and to the Kitimat ports right now, and hopefully other ones eventually so we can promote and grow LNG. This is something, again, that we should be celebrating, because we can be part of the global solution.

When we look right now around the world and look at what’s happening in Ukraine…. We look at all of the countries in Europe and even in parts of Asia and Japan and other areas that have actually come out collaboratively and said: “We know that we can help Ukraine and other parts of Europe get away, off the reliance of Russia.” But they need other countries in the world to step up and be part of the solution to help with LNG, with natural gas. So many of those countries look at Canada and wonder why we are falling behind and missing out on this global opportunity to be part of the solution when we could….

When we talk about…. The member from the Green Party was talking about bold leadership. Well, to me, that’s leadership — if we could actually start alleviating some of the roadblocks that we’ve put into place here in British Columbia and Canada when we could be part of the solution. We need to do a better job because we can.

I want to ensure that we talk about the fact that we have already brought in so many good environmental regulations in the industry. Understandably, we want to always look at this. We always want to do better. We always want to make sure that we’re looking at how technology advances, how science advances.

And guess what. Some of our best innovators are actually the oil and gas companies themselves. They’ve looked at how they can be innovative to reduce flaring, for instance. We made sure…. Even though people talk about this…. Guess what. British Columbia already brought in policy to reduce and eliminate flaring, contrary to what you’ll hear a lot of the sign-waving people say. We do a great job already on that. We actually brought in policies to say that companies need to reduce the amount of water consumption they have by reusing water and looking for other opportunities.

There’s a reason why, in Dawson Creek, for instance, we actually partnered with Shell — the first of its kind globally to put in water treatment facilities at our sewage plant. We’re actually having a company like Shell that is coming into the city of Dawson Creek and spent about $75 million to build a water treatment facility at our sewage lagoon to treat the sewage water to a level that they could then pipe it out to the oil and gas fields and use that for hydraulic fracturing in the ground. then, on top of that, they came up with innovative techniques, after they’ve done the hydraulic fracturing, to spring that water back to the surface, clean it up and reuse it again.

[7:45 p.m.]

Again, contrary to what you hear out there, these companies have already been innovative, which is why we can tout the fact that we have some of the best environmental policies globally.

The companies themselves understand that the resource is not infinite, that we will have to transition at some point. In the meantime, that’s why they’ve stepped up with the billions of dollars, collectively in these companies, to look at innovative practices to make sure that they’re leading globally in environmental standards. I think we, collectively in the House, have to talk about how good we do in British Columbia and to actually stop demonizing an industry that’s a global leader when it comes to environmental policy, already.

On Bill 37, again, it’ll be interesting at committee stage when we get to some of the actual questions that the critic and others will have. It’s important to me, and I know to my riding and to the Peace region, that the minister acknowledge the good work that these companies do to try to give some certainty so we don’t keep scaring away the investment, because, frankly, there are communities at risk, which, really, puts British Columbia at risk.

We can be part of the solution, as I said, if we understand the opportunities that we have, if we turn around and collectively support the industry by always pushing for better standards. I’m not taking away from that. But this whole idea of saying, “Cold turkey, just stop, and we’re done,” while demand globally goes up….

All we’re doing is handing the chequebook to other countries that have poorer environmental standards, that are going to do the extraction to fill the global need while we sit here on our hands, watching everybody else prosper while we try to figure out what to do in our own province to help families and people.

Again, I want to thank the minister for bringing this bill forward. I’m looking forward to some of the commentary and answers that we’ll get during committee stage from the critic, and a reminder, again, that we do an amazing job in British Columbia, and we should never be shying away from that when we talk about it.

J. Rustad: Thank you to my colleagues in the House, regardless of what side of the House you’re on. It’s nice to get a chance to get up and speak to Bill 37.

I want to thank the minister for actually bringing this forward. Hydrogen is something that I’ve paid attention to for 42 years now. Ever since 1980, I’ve been looking at hydrogen and what hydrogen can do. So I’m happy to see that hydrogen is now going to be coming in the mix, and it’s recognized in the legislation. I want to talk a little bit about just what this means and a little bit of realism associated with it.

The leader of the Green Party started by talking about what we owe the future — what we owe the future, in terms of the world we leave them. I would maybe start by saying: “What do we owe to the future of 620 million people in Africa that don’t have electricity? What do we owe to the future of 2.4 billion people that have been lifted out of abject poverty because of affordable energy?” Do they not matter when we’re talking about energy policies and approaches, or are we just sitting up here in our first-class society of British Columbia and only thinking about our own needs, as opposed to the world’s?

Hydrogen is an amazing fuel. When you burn it, when you use it…. When you burn it, you get water as a by-product. If you run an electric current through it, you get more electricity back. It’s a project…. It’s a fuel that I often thought would one day replace our fossil fuels.

But there’s a problem with it. The problem is it takes far more energy to produce it than you get from it. Matter of fact, the energy loss is somewhere between 20 and 30 percent. So when you’re talking about hydrogen, you’re talking about needing a significant amount of energy to create hydrogen.

[7:50 p.m.]

It doesn’t matter if it’s from running an electric current through water, which is one of the most efficient, or breaking the hydrogen atoms out of natural gas and then pumping the rest of it back in the ground. The cost associated with that is huge. You know, maybe that cost is worthwhile, but I’ve often wondered: how does this help us today in terms of affordability in this province for our energy needs? How does this help, quite frankly. with energy security?

When you look at British Columbia, we consume about 1,346 petajoules of energy a year. Now, that’s a big, big number. What’s a petajoule? A petajoule is 278 gigawatt hours. What’s a gigawatt hour? Well, a gigawatt hour will be enough power for about 725,000 homes. It’s a huge amount of energy we consume as a province.

How much electricity do we produce? We produce about between 155 and 194 petajoules through B.C. Hydro. That’s it. If you want to get rid of fossil fuels, if you want to get rid of that energy source that we use for about 84 percent of what we do on a day-to-day basis in this province, you would need to have eight times as much electricity generated in the province of British Columbia.

Now, the minister talked about hydrogen as an important fuel for transition and to meet the targets for the future in terms of becoming clean or becoming energy-efficient. Sorry, I mean reducing emissions, becoming emissions-free.

The reality is also pretty simple. We use 404 petajoules of energy for transportation in this province. Now, once again, that’s a big number, so let’s translate that into something we’re doing today — for example, building Site C. How much energy is that from? Well, Site C will produce about 15 petajoules. You would need 22 Site C’s to replace our transportation network in the province of British Columbia. If you can use hydrogen, add 20 to 30 percent onto that.

I’m happy about the idea of hydrogen being in the mix. I really am. I’ve looked at this, and there was an interesting breakthrough back about almost 20 years ago now where they discovered that plankton, which normally produces oxygen, under certain environmental conditions can actually produce hydrogen. They’ve been trying now to figure out if there is a way they can synthesize this process effectively to be able to generate the hydrogen at a more affordable rate, as opposed to the energy loss that is currently there with hydrogen.

The other reason why I’m particularly keen on hydrogen is back in 2010, I had the honour of going to Bella Coola to announce a project in Bella Coola, which was a hydrogen project to supplement the power needs of the community and try to reduce the amount of diesel that would be used. In the area of Bella Coola, there were a number of run-of-the-river projects. These produced a significant amount of electricity during the wet periods of the year, but they didn’t produce a whole lot during the dry periods, so they had to use diesel for the rest of it. The idea is that when it produces more than it needs, you can generate hydrogen and use the hydrogen to supplement what was needed at the time.

It was a great project. Powertech is the company that’s currently operating it. I thought it was really neat. But look at the cost. It’s not very effective for the small amount of CO₂ that is reduced through that. However, it is a pilot project, and it was interesting to do. But it should be a lesson. When we talk about hydrogen and hydrogen production, we should be looking at that and saying: “What’s the analysis? What’s the cost-benefit analysis?”

It’s one thing I wonder about this bill, in turning this forward, when we think about hydrogen and the use of hydrogen as a substitute fuel in the future: what is the cost to consumers? If you’re going to lose 20 to 30 percent of your energy just to produce it, just by nature that means it’s going to be 20 to 30 percent more expensive than it is today.

If you look at it in terms of transportation and other components and the rest of it built in, it’s going to be a significantly higher cost.

Former Premier Gordon Campbell was keen on hydrogen, and he wanted to get a hydrogen bus system set up, particularly along the Sea to Sky Highway during the Olympics. I thought it was great. I asked him a question one day. I said: “You know, I love what we’re trying to do here with hydrogen, but where are we going to get the hydrogen from?” He said: “Oh, we’ll just produce more.”

[7:55 p.m.]

Well, that’s not so simple. It is just not so simple. It’s like this idea of getting rid of fossil fuels, things like coal. Well, I want to tell a little story. Back in 1306, I believe the year was, back when I was just a young person, England was using a lot of coal at that time for heat. At the time, they called it sea coal because it came in by barge from the sea. Particularly in London, the air pollution got so bad, because this was this dirty brown coal that they were using. The air pollution got so bad that the King of England said: “Right, we’ve got to do something about this. I’m going to ban the use of coal, of sea coal.” So in 1306 he banned the use of sea coal.

The problem is that there are always unintended consequences. Within a few years, the amount of deforestation that was happening in England was so severe that the king had to reverse his policy, and more than 700 years later, they’re still using coal in England.

The point is…. When you think about hydrogen, what is the unintended consequence of using it? Great intentions. I love it as a fuel source. I wish we could figure out a way to create it without losing so much energy. But when you look at this magnitude of energy that we consume as a society, particularly here in British Columbia, is this realistic — to be putting a lot of focus on hydrogen?

There is certainly a niche market. I think that there is potential for places like Bella Coola, other places where you have large amounts of electricity that can be generated, but over short periods of time, that needs to be lengthened. It’s like a battery. Creating the hydrogen is like a battery, and it can be used and store energy and can be drawn on down the road. It has lots of potential there. But the energy loss — not so much, I think, for the rest of society.

I talked about the use of coal, and it’s interesting when you look at what’s going on in Europe. Europe decided to go down the road of what they call clean energy, wind and solar. I’d love to get into the stats around wind and solar and just how clean it really is. But regardless of that, they went down that route in terms of energy. They said they wanted to get rid of coal, and they didn’t want to use fossil fuels, and they were shunning nuclear, which, quite frankly, might be the only solution, going forward, for our long-term energy needs.

Well, then one fall, in 2021, the wind wasn’t blowing, and it was cloudy, and they didn’t get a lot of power from the solar. Well, guess what. Energy prices in England and in Europe spiked. They went through the roof. That was before the war. That was before all the troubles and issues that we have with Ukraine. Why? Because of an unrealistic policy relying on intermittent power sources and not firm power sources, as my colleagues have talked about. That’s a big problem.

When you think about…. People say: “Oh, we could just use batteries. We could use batteries to store this. We’ll create all this wind and solar energy, and we’ll use batteries.” Well, first of all, you’ve got to create a tremendous amount more than you would actually need to be able to store the batteries. But the amount of battery storage would just be unbelievable. It would take hundreds and hundreds of years to build those kinds of batteries, if we’re capable of doing it at all, not to mention — boy oh boy — if you’ve got a problem and that energy is released.

Just look at, for example, what happened after the recent hurricane down in Florida to electric vehicles, where they’re catching fire. They can’t put the fire out, and then they’ll put the fire out and then it catches fire again, because the batteries were damaged by salt water. This is a relatively new technology around this. It’s not necessarily, certainly, the right way or the most reliable way to go.

We’re talking about using hydrogen as this replacement fuel and an important transition fuel. I would love…. And I’m hoping to get an opportunity when we get to committee stage to ask the minister: where’s the analysis on this? What is the cost? What is the cost to consumers? What is the impact to our quality of life? What is the impact to affordability, if we’re thinking about using hydrogen as a transition fuel?

[8:00 p.m.]

Remember the numbers I gave, 404 petajoules just for transportation. We would have to triple B.C.’s electricity production to meet that. I’m not talking about Site C. I’m talking about everything B.C. produces.

What is the cost of hydrogen? Like I say, it’s great we’re adding it to the mix. I actually support this going into the bill. I think it’s good, but these are important points that we need to think about as a society. What do these things mean? What are the unintended consequences of environmental policies and approaches on energy on our future?

I can tell you that when you look at, for example, in Africa…. We’ve said that we’re not going to invest — and Canada signed on to this — in any fossil fuel projects in Africa, with one exception. Any investment, as long as that energy gets transported to Europe and used in Europe, is okay. Germany gave South Africa $800 million to stop using coal. In the meantime, they’ve significantly increased shipments of coal from South Africa for their own uses. I think we need to give our morals a bit of a shake when we think about what that is implying and doing, keeping people in energy poverty so that we can have what we need in terms of Europe.

Now fortunately, we’re in a little different situation, because we have such abundant energy sources here. But as the member for Peace River South said, companies aren’t really wanting to invest here, because they’re not welcome. It’s more than that. Companies around North America aren’t really interested in doing a whole lot of investing. They are, because prices are high, but it’s being shunned.

Why, as a province as energy rich as British Columbia is, would we leave ourselves vulnerable? Why would we not be in that situation where we can be proud of the fact that we are completely energy self-sufficient and exporting energy to help other countries in the world, to help people in places like Africa that need power, to be able to be proud to say we’re part of helping to lift those 2.4 billion people out of abject poverty? That would do more for the environment than anything else we could possibly do.

If we were to shut down everything we do as a province, the impact wouldn’t even be measurable in terms of world emissions. This one thing that we could do could do more for humanity and our world and our environment than anything else, yet we seem to be hell-bent on saying no.

Now, I agree with transition. We can’t be using fossil fuels forever. But we have to have a realistic plan. Let’s talk about some realism here in terms of what it would take to do that transition, to be thinking about hydrogen, to be thinking about electricity generation, how many decades it will take, how we’re going to get there. Let’s be realistic with the voters, with the people in this province, about just what that cost is and what it will take to do and what it will mean for us as a society.

Some other little statistics just to think about as we talk about getting rid of fossil fuel: 6,000 products that we use on a day-to-day basis come from fossil fuels. There aren’t viable replacements. So what are we going to do? It’s like saying: “We’re not going to cut down trees anymore. We shouldn’t cut down trees for the forest.” “Okay. Yeah. Tell me what your solution is for toilet paper.”

There are consequences to our actions. All of us have consequences for all of our actions. I think it’s important for us in this Legislature, and as we represent our ridings, to be able to stand up and ask those questions. What are the consequences of these policies? Where should these policies go? Are there better policies that we could be thinking about in terms of the quality of life of us as a province and affordability?

I look forward to Bill 37 in committee stage. I look forward to being…. Hopefully, I get an opportunity to ask a few of these questions of the minister. Once again, I do thank the minister for bringing forward….

One more just little tidbit on this bill that I do want to touch on, and that is clause 44, I think it is, where the bill talks says that there will not be any compensation for using underground reservoirs for storage of carbon dioxide or other things to landowners or First Nations.

[8:05 p.m.]

It does have the exclusion of treaty nations, but I would suggest to the minister that perhaps a conversation with the Attorney General might be in order in terms of what vulnerability is associated with unfinished land claims.

There has not been a court case to settle the issue about who has subsurface rights. I do suspect strongly that at some point, that will be coming down the road. So it will be an interesting question, as well, to the minister associated with this bill.

The last little piece I’m going to touch on with the minister. I’m happy they’re making some changes to the orphan well issue. It’s been a long-standing issue. It does need to be cleaned up, and hopefully these amendments will be able to help with that component — not that it affects my riding in Nechako Lakes, which I’m very proud to represent on a day-to-day basis. But it does affect us as a province, and I know the people in Nechako Lakes also are very concerned about us as a province and our reputation.

With that, Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity today.

E. Ross: It’s an honour to get up and speak to Bill 37, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2022. I understand we’re talking about some really big issues here, mainly around orphan wells, for example, in the northeast of B.C., as well as hydrogen. But it is an energy bill, and energy — what I’ve been saying for the last few years now — is basically the foundation of all our success here in a country like Canada.

I’m like every other First Nations leader. I was actually exposed to energy issues when LNG was promoted in our community as an export — an import facility to begin with. But then we changed their minds and told them we should actually change to an export facility, just because of the advancements of extracting the gas out of the northeast. That’s where we really began our whole energy journey and trying to understand what that really meant.

Quickly, we found out that whether you’re talking about run of the river, solar, wind, natural gas, oil or hydrogen, you’re really talking about something that’s so complicated in itself, never mind the politics, which I’ll get to. It’s such a complicated issue that you can’t really look at it in isolation in terms of what you’re just witnessing in your own region or your own town.

The more we got into this, the more we realized there was a huge learning curve in front of us that included the world, basically. Back then, the energy question was: could we get enough natural gas to China? Could we get enough natural gas to Japan? That was always our goal, because we were told that to displace coal, these countries needed a clean energy source. B.C., at that time, was the cleanest energy source, in terms of natural gas. That’s still the same story we’re facing today. We still have the cleanest, most ethical LNG in North America, if not the world.

I want it understood. The reason for us to say, “Yes, we’ve got to get behind this,” is not only for our own well-being in terms of our independence and trying to get away from poverty, but this could also help the region. It could also help the province. It could ultimately help the country. Little did we know that the politics were actually not there yet — not here in Canada anyway, not here in B.C.

For some reason, the export of LNG coming out of B.C. is still a really dirty conversation to have. It’s very rarely that I come across anybody, any political leaders in B.C., proudly talking about the export potential we have here in B.C. As far as I know, the only ones who are talking about LNG exports in this House are coming from this side of the House, from the opposition. Yet the largest private project in Canadian history — $40 billion, LNG Canada — was approved by the NDP government.

Of course, all the heavy lifting had been done prior to that over 15 years with First Nations and the previous government. But it was this government that approved this — 26 million tonnes of LNG annually being shipped to Asia.

[8:10 p.m.]

Now, granted, I knew that the B.C. Liberals did not agree previously with some of the incentives that were given to LNG Canada, ultimately. I know that the B.C. Liberals didn’t agree with getting rid of the LNG tax, for instance. The NDP got rid of that tax. The B.C. Liberals didn’t agree with the largest PST tax break in B.C. history given to LNG Canada, but the NDP wanted that as an incentive. The B.C. Liberals didn’t want to give LNG Canada a carbon tax break at 30 bucks a tonne.

I mean, all these tax breaks and incentives add up to hundreds of millions of dollars. Hundreds of millions of dollars, and it’s a tax break that normal B.C. citizens won’t get. They won’t get a tax break, a carbon tax break, on their gas bill. I know, because in Kitimat, we pay some of the highest gas prices in the northwest. We’re not going to get a PST tax break on our gas bill.

So it got LNG Canada approved to a certain extent, but it didn’t go all the way. We’re really talking about energy here. What I’m trying to get at is affordable energy that’s practical, not only in terms of what it provides for government, in terms of what revenue might flow to government now that there’s no LNG tax, now that there’s no PST…. You’re only going to get 30 bucks a tonne while the rest of us go up to — what? — 170 bucks a tonne.

There is still going to be some revenue coming, but in terms of practicality and affordability, I, like many colleagues in this House, question the viability of hydrogen. It’s a great concept. I like the idea of every single car in B.C. running on hydrogen. The exhaust you get is water. I like that idea. But has anybody questioned the idea of whether or not it’s affordable to B.C. citizens? Never mind the idea of the amount of energy that you have to put into it, and you get a fraction of that energy coming back out of it. It’s a great concept, but it’s not proven yet.

Ultimately, I think that someday, somebody’s going to prove it out. They will resolve that problem, but they still will not have solved the problem of whether or not it costs British Columbians even more money either as a ratepayer or a taxpayer. So in terms of hydrogen, I think you’re just at the beginning stages of where we were back in 2004, trying to understand the potential of LNG.

Back in those days, we were trying to import natural gas. We weren’t even thinking about exporting it. Why this conversation is important is because the politics of energy have overcome all sense of reason, not only here in B.C. and Canada but in Europe. There were lofty ideals over there in Europe in terms of their clean energy program. But none of it was based on reality. None of it was based on geopolitics.

When Germany’s sun didn’t shine anymore, and the wind didn’t blow, they figured out that they were in a tough spot. They had already shut down all their coal plants. They were already in the process of shutting down their nuclear plants. One of their biggest suppliers of natural gas turned out to be an oppressor of Ukraine. So nobody wants to get into business with a dictator.

In fact, when I toured China with Premier Clark, on one of her trade missions, I had an energy partner over there that I went to visit on a side mission. They toured me around China, and they were showing me all the energy projects.

A couple of interesting points. One was the wind towers they showed me beside the highway. I was quite impressed, because it was right there. I asked: “So how much power does that generate?” “Well, we don’t know. It doesn’t go anywhere. We just do that for show.” That’s why they put it beside a highway. But the other thing they told me was that they really wanted to do business with Canada because they wanted a stable government to deal with. They didn’t want to deal with Russia.

[8:15 p.m.]

Now, Russia has got vast oil and gas reserves, and they built up that dependency that Europe currently has on them. Was it intentional? I don’t know, but German citizens are paying the price. It’s not the German government that’s paying the price. The German government will raise the rates. They’ll raise taxes. They’ll get along fine. They’ll get out of this fine. But their citizens that are concerned about freezing over the winter? They’re going to suffer.

Having to say it again in this House…. I can’t imagine, in today’s day and age, in a first-world country, where a citizen has to decide whether or not they buy groceries or pay their energy bill. That is crazy. That’s politics run amok. That’s idealism that’s out of control.

Now there is some sort of sense coming back. There are a lot of leaders that just went to the climate action conference in Egypt, COP 27, including First Nations from my region, the Haisla and the Nisg̱a’a. They’ve actually developed a bit of a group there to address some of the environmental issues associated with their energy plans, specifically LNG. Nisg̱a’a is developing Ksi Lisims LNG, Haisla is developing Cedar LNG, and Squamish is developing Woodfibre LNG.

Basically, they’re trying to do something that many First Nations do when they’re looking at energy issues. They’re trying to balance it with the environment. If there’s anybody in B.C. or Canada that’s well qualified and experienced to talk about environmental issues, it’s First Nations, mainly because they were left without a voice for decades. They weren’t allowed. They weren’t even allowed to have legal representation.

When the case law came down for the full duty to consult and accommodate — plus they were allowed to have lawyers to represent them — bands like mine went full tilt in addressing some of the past impacts. That covered a span of 40 years, if you’re looking at a band like mine. So it was only natural for these First Nations to go to this conference and talk about balancing the environmental issues and impacts and emissions with oil and gas production.

It’s quite interesting now — and I’ve already said it — where this hydrogen discussion is going. Is there any reality to it? Is there any analysis being done to see if this is actually viable for the long term, for the medium term and for the people that are, ultimately, going to need this energy, which is us as citizens?

There is some common sense coming back, especially when you think about Canada representing us in Egypt. We already heard that Canada is willing now to back economically viable projects in Canada, meaning LNG. Well, I’ve invited Canada to come visit LNG Canada, the now defunct Chevron project in Kitimat, Cedar, Woodfibre and Nisg̱a’a, all economically viable.

Why I say viable…. Based on everything I’ve heard over the last 15 years, the outlook for natural gas is the outlook for energy globally. That’s what I was told. I was told this by government, and I was told this by industry.

When you’re looking at the price of natural gas globally, it wasn’t the right approach to look at the short-term prices of natural gas. It was going to have valleys and peaks. This is why we approved LNG Canada for 40 years. We thought 40 years was actually too short a time to talk about. For the Chevron LNG project, we thought 60 years was a very short lease to have.

When we were thinking about the outlook on prices of natural gas, we were thinking 100 years. Where was energy going? Even back then, we could see that there was an opposition coming up against oil, not so much gas. Gas was just recent. Gas didn’t get the full opposition probably until about 2011, when Premier Clark brought it to this House, and the opposition actually was in this Legislature.

[8:20 p.m.]

There was a lot of talk about if we built an LNG plant in Kitimat, Victoria would be underwater. There was a lot of talk that there was nothing in LNG for B.C. — nothing in it — even though we know now that there’s a tremendous amount of opportunity and benefits for LNG just with one single project that has probably only got a third of its operations approved. This goes back to the misunderstanding I have about the rationale for hydrogen. I don’t see it at the same level as liquid natural gas.

We’re putting so much effort into debating Bill 37, which talks about a number of things, including hydrogen, but we’re not talking about the reality that’s right in front of us. LNG Canada is basically a project — $40 billion — that was proposed to ship out 26 million tonnes of LNG annually from Kitimat — four trains, two phases. Yet for some reason, LNG Canada is only approved for one train, at 14 million tonnes. That doesn’t make any sense, especially when you consider where I came from.

I was at that negotiating table, when we were talking about 26 million tonnes. The whole point was that we were going to build out train 1, and that would create the foundation to build train 2, so that we could ship out the full 26 million tonnes. Who in their right mind gets into business to cover costs? Nobody does that — unless there’s a new book on economics that I haven’t come across. Nobody comes into the community of business just to cover costs, especially when you’re talking about 26 million tonnes versus 14 million tonnes.

For LNG Canada to do this…. I’ve asked this question before, and I got some inference that it was LNG Canada that made this decision on their own. Well, that’s contrary to what I heard them say when I was at the negotiating table. In fact, one of the other issues that we have with this project is electric drives. There’s a story out talking about how, if LNG Canada uses electricity from B.C. Hydro, then B.C. will be powerless to pursue other opportunities that involve electricity.

Okay, so why the big push for electric cars, then? If the goal was to get LNG Canada to have electric drives for 26 million tonnes, and that will use up all electricity in B.C., and you’ll have no electricity to do anything else, then don’t we need another Site C? Don’t we need two Site Cs to accomplish everything we’re talking about? How much electricity do we need for this hydrogen initiative? This is what I’m talking about when we’re talking about the practicality of energy. What has become apparent is the politics of energy.

Another interesting thing happened, though, over in Egypt. A lot of the developing countries agreed to develop a fund to help address some of the impacts that poorer First Nations are experiencing because of climate change, in terms of some of the emergencies and the damage. They agreed to that, but Canada did not agree to phase out oil and gas. The reason, they said, was because the provinces would sue Ottawa if Ottawa made that commitment.

It only stands to reason, if the B.C. government is afraid to approve LNG Canada’s full 26 million tonnes, that there’s no need to be afraid, because Canada is not going to phase it out. If they do try, Canada is expecting the B.C. government to sue the federal government. So, B.C. government: if you fully endorse the 26 million tonnes being exported through LNG Canada and you intend to take Canada to court, I’ll back you up. I got a grin.

[8:25 p.m.]

There are a lot of different things happening today, and B.C. could be a part of that in a big way, if we could just start talking about the reality of what the world is going through right now. Germany is a great example. In fact, I’ve gone down to the German consulate to invite them to Kitimat, but I understand the B.C. government beat me to the punch and possibly invited the German consulate to come visit Kitimat. That’s great; that’s fine. I don’t have to be a part of that.

I also went to Ottawa to visit the German embassy. It was quite the interesting conversation because I went there to get support from the federal government and the opposition in Ottawa to sponsor First Nations leaders to go to Germany to the LNG conference that’s happening in March and get the German leaders and the First Nations leaders to talk energy, talk emissions, talk environment, talk reconciliation.

I didn’t get an answer back, but I do put that request to the B.C. government. If there was any sponsorship from the B.C. government getting the First Nations leaders to the environmental climate action conference in Egypt, then please consider sending First Nations to Germany to represent energy interests in B.C. as well. We can help out Germany, and we can also help out B.C. We can continue the pathway that was started back in 2004 by my band, in terms of economic reconciliation.

Uplifting an entire generation of First Nations people, from Prince George to Kitamaat Village, to communities down channel, is intensely gratifying. We should be proud that it didn’t take any government money to do it. All it took was some really bold leaders to look at energy and say: “Yes, this makes sense.”

There’s no reason to be ashamed of LNG. There’s no reason to be quiet about LNG Canada just shipping out 14 million tonnes as opposed to 26 million tonnes. We’re helping B.C. We’re helping First Nations. We got the potential, as a domino effect, to help Germany.

We’re not even talking about the crisis that is China, that has been there for the last — what? — 20 years. We’re not even talking about the crisis that’s India. Somehow we’ve become stuck in our own little bubble to think the emissions are a B.C.-isolated incident and, if we address this, we can all feel good about ourselves, go home and have…. No. These problems are huge. The more we sit back and keep our clean resources from reaching places like India and China, the more India, China and Germany resort to coal.

We’re protesting the wrong people. I heard some people talking in this Legislature about the protesters. Why are you protesting B.C.? We are not the biggest polluters. Places like China and India are some of the biggest emitters in the world. They’ve got the biggest carbon footprint. Out of need, out of necessity, they have little choice. So if there is a protest to be had, it should be with the Chinese government or the European Union, not Canada. I mean, we barely even rank in terms of the emissions that are being emitted from Canada.

This bill actually brings up a lot of issues that came up in my past. A lot of councils, whether you’re talking about the First Nations leadership from Prince George, Kitselas or Kitsumkalum, are all well-versed in this kind of conversation. But can it help the reality? Can it help the Kitselas First Nation, for example, which has been after this government for an order-in-council to approve their geothermal permit on their lands up by the airport? They’ve asked, the chief councillor…. Chief Bennett has asked me to put in a good word to the government to say: “Can we get a move on, on the geothermal permit?”

[8:30 p.m.]

I don’t see any downside to this. I don’t see any real environmental impact, and it does support the economic development issues with the land that they’ve actually purchased and they’re trying to develop.

Thank you, Minister, for acknowledging that. I’ll tell the Chief that I did mention it.

I’ll be looking forward to committee stage on Bill 37 and trying to understand the reality of where we are heading with hydrogen in B.C.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Cariboo-​Chilcotin.

Interjection.

L. Doerkson: Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the applause.

Certainly, this feels a little bit like déjà vu, because about 11 hours or so ago I delivered a speech about pulp mills. So it’s been an industrial day here today at the Legislature. I want to just touch on that for a second, if I could. In my mind, this is exactly why we need to have the time to debate these bills.

I’m grateful that the minister has brought this bill before this House, but this afternoon after hearing from the member for Skeena and the member for Kootenay East and other members here that have spoken passionately about this about this issue, I’ve learned a lot by listening. It’s been a very important conversation, I think, that we’ve had to have in this House.

I think that the impacts for all British Columbians are serious — there’s no question about it — with most bills that come before this House, and Bill 37 is certainly no different. But this could have a very serious impact on a world scale. It could have a serious impact, certainly, in rural British Columbia, where many of the members, of course, reside.

So it is serious, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to be able to offer some comments about Bill 37, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, today. I want to say that, certainly, there are large parts of this bill I can see my way to supporting, but I also feel that I want to see it go through the scrutiny of committee stage and listen and, perhaps, even participate in some of those questions.

There has been much debate about the timing around bills that have been introduced to the House, of course, and Bill 37 is certainly no different. There needs to be time to address the very serious questions that will arise from this. If there was one word that I picked up on from the member for Skeena, it was “consequences.” There are consequences to legislation that we introduce and approve or that does move to law, of course.

Today I do want to just talk a little bit about the fact that the bill expands on the Oil and Gas Commission and its role in regulating oil and gas to also regulate hydrogen. It’s name is therefore changed to the B.C. Energy Regulator, which I think has been discussed here this afternoon.

The legislation presented expands the regulator and requires that one of the board members be a deputy minister and that another one be of First Nations heritage. I think it’s fantastic that we will have First Nations at that level sitting at a table where decisions, of course, can be made. Certainly, to expand a little bit on that is that….

I’ll be looking for that in committee stage, as, I think, we are all looking for more information about the engagement with First Nations in this province. Certainly I want to understand how First Nations that might be affected by this, and First Nations in my riding, have had an opportunity to comment, have had an opportunity for serious engagement.

The bill also enables the regulator to more easily hold accountable entities whose actions result in orphaned or abandoned sites. I think the minister spoke at length about this in the introduction of the bill this afternoon. Again, I certainly could be supportive of that motion to be sure that with operators that do fall ill from finances or whatever the case may be, the taxpayers of this province are not left holding that bill. I think there’ll be interesting conversation around the mechanisms that might be in place to recover those funds and to be able to fully reclaim those sites.

[8:35 p.m.]

I guess I’ll come to this in a little bit, in a moment or two, but this is where I think legislation like Bill 37 can have impacts outside of its boundaries, can have impacts on other industries perhaps. Certainly it has the opportunity to have a bit of an overflow onto other businesses in this province, and I’ll touch on that in a moment or so.

I certainly, again, am supportive of cleaning up some of these sites. I have seen some of the sites that have been left behind. But one of the things that the minister touched on…. And again, this is why we have committee. It’s to further understand some of the comments that were made around the potential of previous owners or previous participants in those sites also sharing the responsibility for that cleanup or reclamation.

I, for certain, want to understand that portion of what the minister had referred to with complete clarity before I could support the bill. Overall, I think probably most people will be supportive of the notion that we need modernization of B.C.’s Oil and Gas Commission. But again, there are going to be multiple questions about how that will look.

We agree with the actions to help develop the hydrogen industry in British Columbia, but it sort of seems a little unclear to me as to the minister’s focus, whether that is on green hydrogen industry or what that is. Again, that will certainly come through in the committee stage.

Certainly British Columbia’s existing oil and natural gas industry is very important, and the bill is extensive. I don’t want, in any way, shape or form…. My fear is that we discourage investment in British Columbia or, for that matter, worse: that we discourage it so much so that we see companies that are currently active in British Columbia choose to move away or move to a different jurisdiction, or not consider us at all.

My fear with any legislation that we bring to this House is that, again, as I said before, it can have an impact on other industries. Certainly I’ve talked about my community before, with respect to forestry and mining. We have multiple large companies, large corporations in my community.

In fact, in downtown Williams Lake, within the district boundaries, we have six milling operations. We have two very significant mines just outside of the boundaries of Cariboo-Chilcotin. They actually are in Cariboo North, but they are an incredible help to the resiliency of Williams Lake. We’ve seen both of those industries struggle. Certainly we saw it last year with legislation, with respect to Bills 23 and 28, I believe they were.

So my concern is that when we introduce bills like Bill 37, we have to be very careful not to scare off investment in our province, especially when we’re talking about businesses as big as these. I would never want for that to move to other industry, to create any more fear than is already there, because we have seen some losses. We have seen companies starting to make decisions to move to other jurisdictions, whether it be east or whether it be south into the States, and that is very concerning.

I can appreciate that some want to transition to different economies, and I understand that, but it is difficult when you’re talking about a town like mine that has six milling operations in its downtown core and two, as I said, very significant mining operations.

Several of its elements, particularly provisions for working interest participants, WIPs, and liability directors and officers, could impact investment in British Columbia. That speaks to exactly what I was just talking about.

[8:40 p.m.]

If there was ever a time in this province that we needed to create certainty for businesses and, certainly, these larger-type corporations that are looking to invest literally tens and hundreds of millions of dollars in our economy — particularly in rural B.C., where we struggle economically and we are challenged in many ways — we have to find a way to create certainty for these businesses. There’s no question about that.

A note of concern lies with how the provision of assigning responsibility that is not proportional to ownership could lessen investment in British Columbia. Again, I note that simply because — as I’ve said over and over — we cannot, in my mind, put that at risk. I think we have to be very careful about the legislation as we go forward, and I think we need to scrutinize it in a very in-depth way so that we can understand exactly how this is going to affect that investment.

I certainly understand the central intent of proposed legislative amendments, which is to continue ensuring that the industry fulfils its environmental and financial obligations. Again, I’m not suggesting, in any way, or referring to any kind of reclamation and to those types of things. I’m certainly not suggesting that we should let business off the hook, necessarily, but I think we have to be extremely careful of what we ask. Again, it’s just to note that I’ll be seeking full clarity on how earlier partners in some of these sites may be exposed to reclamation at a later date.

It’s important, however, that any of the legislative amendments enable regulations that are fair and provide continued investment certainty into the province’s oil and natural gas sector. I think I’ve already touched on that. Certainly, I feel that this is probably the most important note that we have to discuss in this room with respect to this legislation.

I want to just touch for a few moments on some of the comments that were made by my colleague from Skeena. Certainly, he knows this a lot better than I. It’s in his riding, and it’s obviously a very important topic to him. He has spoken at length in this chamber, in question period and in other moments in this room, about the invasion of Ukraine and the fact that there has been a massive global shift that has taken place as Europe seeks to turn away from Russian oil and gas. Today the member for Skeena spoke again about the number of trains.

I don’t know why we continue to debate this. We have before us a large opportunity, a massive opportunity, one that is not just financial, but it can certainly help Europe. It can help them to be less reliant on sources of different types of fuel, etc., and certainly on authoritarian regimes like Russia for their energy resources. B.C. should be ramping up. We should be doing our part. I just can’t imagine that, over the past year or two, this debate continues. We’ve argued and bickered about it for a long time.

The actual financial opportunity for British Columbians is one thing, but to do our part on a world scale is completely another. I just can’t help but think that it is absolutely time for British Columbia to step up and help with regard to that. Currently, only half of LNG Canada’s production has permits, and seven more LNG projects could be brought online with leadership from this province. Instead of showing leadership, the government is making defeatist comments about how LNG is some sort of a mythical dream. I’ve heard those comments myself, and I’ve been frustrated by them.

[8:45 p.m.]

Some of these comments…. Well, I’ll read you a couple of them. “When it comes to supplying energy, again, if we could do it tomorrow, that would be one thing. But we can’t. The best efforts of British Columbians would not achieve what you’re asking for in three…or five years.” Now, that’s our past Premier, on February 28.

“If they want to help people today, they should be taking action that can help today, not some mythical dream down in the future.” Again, that’s Hansard of March of 2022. This is exactly what I’m talking about. We have talked about this and talked about it, and it is time for action. It is time that we make a commitment to moving forth on some of these projects.

The NDP have said that they are only willing to allow additional products within the CleanBC plan, which are only budgets for the first two trains, as we just heard, of LNG and not all four. This absolutely precludes any additional investment. I’ll need to understand that fully in committee stage before I could give complete support to this.

All around the world, LNG facilities are being proposed and built to meet the challenge of climate change while meeting energy needs of countries like China, India and Europe. At least 18 major LNG projects were proposed for British Columbia, and only one has advanced to construction. For me, if there is a point that I want to understand in committee stage, it’s exactly that.

It’s a proud moment to be able to stand in this House at any time. It’s certainly a proud moment to offer comments from Cariboo-Chilcotin. I will take my seat and give the remaining time to another one of my colleagues.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

D. Davies: It gives me great pleasure, of course, here, to speak today on Bill 37, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2022. I certainly want to recognize my colleagues before me — Cariboo-Chilcotin, who just finished up talking and talked about opportunity. I’m going to talk a little bit in my remarks here about opportunity. Where I think and worry — and, obviously, these are questions we’ll be asking in committee stage — is on Bill 37.

Is this going to impact the industry in a negative way, these unintended consequences, and take away these opportunities that are staring British Columbia, right now, in the face? Incredible opportunities. We’ve heard…. Actually, I think almost every one of my colleagues has mentioned the issues right now in Europe, trying to get off of using Russian oil and Russian gas, which in turn are just going towards funding that war that rushes in. Germany is wanting the opportunity to use our LNG.

I’m going to talk on these points a little later. These are just kind of my opening remarks here.

Kootenay East — I listened with great interest. I know my colleague from Peace River South said he learned a few things. I’m pretty sure he learned a lot, because the whole hydrogen piece was very, very interesting — a lot of stuff around the hydrogen that I did not understand. I’m happy. There are things, obviously, in this bill. I think we always need to be looking at legislation to improve it and to make it better. That’s what needs to happen.

The Oil and Gas Commission…. I lived in Fort St. John. I remember vividly when the Oil and Gas Commission was created some 25 years ago. The head office was stationed in Fort St. John. That was where the Oil and Gas Commission was headed, including with the commissioner at one time actually living…. Interestingly enough, when the Oil and Gas Commission was first created, it was written into the wording that the commissioner shall live in Fort St. John. But I think they struggled trying to get a person there and stuff, so that one did go by the wayside. But really….

Interjection.

D. Davies: A tropical place. Only with natural gas. It makes it a little warmer in the winter, right?

But you know what? I do remember vividly, and I’ve had a number of friends and close colleagues that have worked in the Oil and Gas Commission in Fort St. John.

[8:50 p.m.]

Again, we are happy to see that things are modernizing. Even the name change is probably more capturing what the energy looks like in British Columbia today. We talked a little bit about now including hydrogen. Right now, in my riding, we are working on a hydrogen project up in Fort Nelson, Northern Rockies, as we speak. So it is really good to hear that it is bringing in and modernizing and talking about the future of energy and what that looks like in British Columbia.

Including First Nations at the table, I think, is a critical point as we move toward reconciliation and understanding our Indigenous partners, especially in the oil and gas sector. There are a lot of Indigenous partners in the oil and gas industry.

The accountability piece. Again, I am going to talk in a moment on that accountability and what that looks like and the possibility of…. Will it have unintended consequences that might impact and challenge the oil and gas sector, especially the natural gas sector, right now? We talked about the opportunities.

I see all the other Houses are here. So with that, I’ll reserve my right to speak further on this and adjourn this debate.

D. Davies moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 8:52 p.m.