Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Bill 22, Safe Access to Schools Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call the Committee of the Whole for Bill 15, Budget Measures Implementation Act.

In the Birch Committee Room, I call the Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

[2:40 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. If we can begin the discussion on Bill 22, Safe Access to Schools Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — SAFE ACCESS TO SCHOOLS ACT

(continued)

M. Lee: I want to resume my remarks to Bill 22, the Safe Access to Schools Act.

I wanted to note that I certainly saw a copy of a letter that was submitted to the Attorney General. Just a brief shout-out to Ms. Burgoyne who, I believe, must reside in the riding or constituency for the MLA for Victoria–​Swan Lake.

Thank you for your letter that you submitted and the copy that you copied me on in your letter to the Attorney General who, of course, is bringing forward this bill. Thank you for your comment about my cogent submissions.

I choose to stand in this House to further my efforts to provide some additional remarks to Bill 22. I know that the member for Surrey South, my colleague, certainly in her capacity as the shadow minister for Education, among her other roles, will be speaking to this bill as well.

Yesterday in my initial comments about this bill, I commented on the existing provisions under the School Act, sections 70 and 177. I should have added there, upon reflection, that the difference between those existing provisions, of course, just to draw two points together, is that when you compare those existing provisions that provide for literally the maintenance of order in respect of not disrupting, disturbing, interrupting proceedings of a school, asking individuals that might enter the land or premises of a school, that this sort of activity, which is restricted to ensure order in the context of where our children are in their educational spaces, in their learning environments….

The difference is that this Bill 22, in the establishment of access zones, which are the so-called bubble zones of safe access under section 3.1 of the bill, provides for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by regulation, to establish those access zones after this bill comes into place. Again, I have asked the Attorney General to take the oppor­tunity, and other members of the government who might speak to this bill, to clarify exactly what schools and what class of schools this bill is intended to address.

My point here is, though, that when you compare these provisions against the existing provisions of the School Act, the School Act doesn’t say the Lieutenant-Governor may, by regulation, designate a particular school or class of schools to be dealt with.

[2:45 p.m.]

It’s an outright provision that ensures that there’s a maintenance of order, clear language that prohibits disruption or interruption of the proceedings of a school or an official school function, and the lead-in to this particular provision. That’s clear language. That is a clear prohibition. That’s clear action contemplated by this existing statute — the School Act, section 177.

You contrast that to this, which is some possible action in the future, which is undefined, unspecified and to be determined. I think that’s a very important point in terms of the nature of this bill. The government needs to be very clear about what it’s concerned about, what it’s targeting and what it’s actually doing by way of this Bill 22.

I will say, as well, to Ms. Burgoyne, who is concerned about, in her view, the concerns around restricting the elements of free speech around these schools, and her perspective, which is wanting her children to be exposed to a peaceful protest at school, that I think there are some challenges with that, certainly.

We all know we want to keep our children safe, but I did say in my initial remarks to this bill, at least in terms of those who are concerned about freedom of speech and the ability to protest peacefully, that this bill provides for that 20-metre access zone. By my reading of this bill, at least at second reading stage, those who care to continue to protest can do so outside of the 20-metre zone.

Perhaps there are some proximity considerations here where those who want to be able to protest at schools regarding whatever issue they want to protest about may want to do that. All they need to do is be outside the 20-metre zone.

I’m just drawing contrast here as to what this bill is. I’ve said, like the Leader of the Official Opposition, that this is just another performative piece of legislation by this government — not defined, ill-defined and not going at the real issues which we are facing in society in terms of safety.

The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville today made a very powerful, impactful statement, in her two-minute statement, to recognize Passover for the Jewish community. I would hope that the members of the government, in particular, will pay close attention. If you missed it, please take a look at it on Hansard by way of video or written word in transcript. I think it demonstrates, though, what the concern is and the reason why this government has been missing in action.

Effectively what she said, which continues to be the concern that I speak to as well, is that what is affecting the safety of children and families in the Jewish community on our streets, in our schools, in our community centres, including the Jewish Community Centre, which has a preschool in it at 41st and Oak, and Temple Sholom synagogue, where they have, as I’ve said, community volunteers, Jewish community leaders as parents having to spend their time keeping their children safe in addition to their other roles…. That what affects one community in our province affects us all.

This is the reason why, when we have a civil society in our province and we see the amount of hate, threats and intimidations against children of Jewish people — particularly on university and college campuses like UBC, as I spoke to about Hillel House — no one in this House and no one in this government should be standing for that.

[2:50 p.m.]

When you have an opportunity to bring forward a bill relating to safe access to schools, it misses the point. We need action from this government today, which is the reason why the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville first resigned from cabinet and then resigned from the government caucus. This government has been taking no action.

Bill 22 is just another example of how this government continues to miss the point, to miss what is needed to be addressed in our communities. I’ve spoken already about the need to address the safety of children in places of worship, as they go to mosques or synagogues.

There has been a considerable amount of tension about Islamophobia through the context of the current circumstances we find ourselves in. Certainly, as we joined with members of the Muslim community, when that horrific attack happened in New Zealand, in Christchurch, some years ago, when that family was mowed down in London, Ontario…. We’ve seen many acts of Islamophobia in the world and in our country and in our communities. That is just another example of concern.

For those who continue to focus on that…. And we all should. That’s just another example of how we need to keep children safe at those mosques like the one in Delta, on River Road. Children go there every week. They need to feel safe. This is another example of what needs to be covered under an act like this. This act fails to deal with that broader societal need.

I know that there are other communities, ethnocultural communities that I’ve heard from, who certainly see the need to have additional protections beyond the School Act and beyond, even, Bill 22 as it’s currently being presented. The narrow, specific focus….

I think the government needs to be very clear on what it’s addressing, within the 20 metres, by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, after the fact, after the bill comes into place. There’s a complete lack of clarity about what the government is actually doing with this bill.

What I see is a greater need this government is not ad­dressing, and that’s the safety of our children in other community centres for ethnocultural communities and reli­gious institutions. On the community centre basis, we know that with many ethnocultural community centres or places, facilities where children attend pre­school, early childhood education, after-school care, like I did at the Jewish Community Centre…. These places need to feel safe.

I know, back in the day before the pandemic, when there were bomb threats at the Jewish Community Centre, members of the Muslim community came out and supported members of the Jewish community. They came together to support each other, just like what occurred in Christchurch, New Zealand, coming together in the Al Jamia mosque on West 8th in Vancouver. I attended, on behalf of the official opposition, with other members of government, the federal government and other city council representatives.

In response to a bomb attack, which happened twice at the Jewish Community Centre, back in the day, before the pandemic…. I’ve known for many years….

[2:55 p.m.]

We’ve seen the government, in the context of the last number of months, and the federal government make more funds available for safety and security. I recognize and acknowledge that. But this has been a long-standing concern as to how our provincial government can ensure that our children and our families feel safe in centres like that.

Certainly, members of the Muslim community understood that and recognized that. They came out. What was the irony of the situation was….

On the day that we were gathering as a community with members of the Muslim community, there was a second bomb threat, which meant that we couldn’t go into the centre. So we gathered in the parking lot at 41st and Oak. There was a circle formed that day, a circle which I hope can happen again in our communities, between Muslim and Jewish people, here in Vancouver and across our province. I hope that day will come again. We do need to feel safe.

It’s just a small example of the kind of threat…. Individuals in our society are specifically targeting vulnerable places, places where you would not expect.

This is why I do acknowledge the importance of schools, certainly. The Attorney General spoke to that as a parent. I see that as a parent. We all do. For our children, for those of us who have grandchildren, we see the importance of this.

There’s so much of a greater need right now that we see in our communities, across our communities. I’ve been speaking to that here in this bill debate.

I would say….When we look at racialized, ethnocultural and religious communities…. I know that government continues to hear from other communities, besides just the Jewish community, about the importance of greater protections for our children in other spaces. I would hope that government, as it continues to hear those submissions, those calls for action, will consider broader protections in a way that goes beyond what is in Bill 22.

I expect, schedule permitting, with other bills that I am responsible for debating, to have a full opportunity to discuss with the Attorney General and consider ways to improve this bill, through amendments or otherwise, to probe ways in which this bill can be clarified and strengthened in the ways that I’ve outlined in remarks on second reading.

As we look at the additional provisions that I spoke to yesterday…. I talked about, in clause 2, whether there is an importance of protective access to be only in the case of a protest or whether it could be enforced — that is, a protest as a whole — or whether that’s enforceable versus a particular individual. That’s something to be confirmed.

The language would seem to suggest that it is in respect of a person, certainly. So that would suggest that it is the individual. But the question is…. When there’s a full-scale protest occurring…. What does that mean in the context of the overall composition of that protest?

I know that there has been consideration and calls in the past for this type of protection. It might be seen to be a temporary measure, a measure that’s dealing with the current strife, division, elevation of emotions and concerns in our province, in our communities, in our country.

I would expect that’s why Bill 20, in 2021, came forward, when the Premier was the Attorney General of our province, the Access to Services (COVID-19) Act. That particular act was repealed in July of 2023. This particular act is also contemplated to be repealed at a certain time period. That is in 2026.

[3:00 p.m.]

This is an example, again, of the government being very clear as to the nature of this bill and the time restriction on the bill itself. Is there a particular concern it’s addressing right now in the time period that it is?

We know, and this government knows well, the kind of division and strife that the October 7 Hamas attack has caused, including to members of our communities across various communities in our province, in Vancouver and British Columbia. If there was an attempt by this government to address that situation, as I am hoping they would consider doing, it’s not clear. That’s point one.

Point 2 is if it is, then it needs to do it in a broader way. This needs to go beyond just schools, K to 12.

Also, my third point about Bill 22 is that it’s, again, tagged to be repealed by July 1, 2026, or on an earlier date. Why? Is there something specific that’s going on right now that the government is concerned about? Because I can name a number of things. I’ve been referring to them, certainly. I think the government needs to be very clear about its legislation and not provide legislation that is not well defined and not meeting, at least from my perspec­tive, what needs to be dealt with in the current context.

I know that when we look at the protection of schools, another area that I would highlight for the Attorney General and others, her staff that follow this, in terms of the committee stage…. Even if we’re dealing with Bill 22 on its current wording and the current formulation, does the definition and the application to a school, as defined in the bill itself, include other neighbouring facilities? That’s a neighbouring building or another facility that may not be neighbouring, meaning it’s not proximate, it’s not adjacent and it’s not on the same property, but it’s still operated by an education authority where students receive education or instruction in an educational program. That is the rest of the wording of the definition.

The reason why I ask that, of course, is, as the Attorney General would well know, there are many school authorities that have different facilities in a community, even some of them operating out of churches, mosques, synagogues or gurdwaras. To the extent that there are these partnerships, other facilities that are also being places where children are going for school and for the pur­pose that is meant to be addressed by this bill, would those facilities also be addressed for the protections contemplated under Bill 22?

I know that, as we look at the definition of school authorities, the education authority here…. Apart from a board of education, a francophone education authority, an independent school authority, a First Nation, a community education authority or a treaty First Nation, was there any consideration for the types of other community organizations that might well fall out of the community education authority by way of definition, specifically, and for whether there are other education-like offerings or associations that might also be protected in this regard?

As I’ve outlined in my comments here on second reading, I’m asking this government to be very clear on its purpose, its target, the specificity and the reason for Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council by way of regulation after the fact, not including, specifically, the language of what types of schools, classes of schools and schools themselves will be protected under this bill.

[3:05 p.m.]

In the absence of knowing that level of clarity, the bill really is not operative. We know that the government has brought so much legislation forward that is to be defined by way of regulation after the fact. This is a pretty short bill. It’s pretty specific. So either the government can be and ought to be clear with us what the target is — the reason for the time limitation, as I’ve said…. And in that discussion, we can talk about how to strengthen the bill, because when we get that level of clarity, then we can actually deal with the protections necessary for ethnocultural communities through their community centres and other facilities and religious institutions.

This is where I believe the real work on this bill can occur, and I look forward to doing that at the committee stage.

B. Banman: As always, it is indeed a pleasure and an honour to speak to any bill in this House. Today we stand at a crossroads, and that would be the right to speak freely, to express our beliefs and engage in a peaceful protest. Those are all under attack.

Bill 22 is anything but content-neutral. This bill, as written, reflects a very troubling disparity as to how freedom of expression could or would be regulated.

Let me paint a clear picture for you. If parents decide to hold a rally in support of a school initiative, like double-stacking portables in Surrey or putting schools into shifts or SOGI or sports programs or art programs, if they are in support of the school initiative, they are well within their rights to do so on school property. If they are in support, they are well within their rights to do so on school property.

However, if they are of a dissenting view by, say, wearing a T-shirt or having a bumper sticker while they pick up their children, that says to cancel any of those programs — cancel SOGI, cancel double-stacker portables, cancel portables, cancel whatever it is that is that school initiative — they could very well find themselves facing legal penalties, perhaps even jail time.

Is it that inequality and unfairness that the legal system purports to uphold?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Thank you.

B. Banman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is not a matter of endorsing one viewpoint over another but, rather, ensuring that all voices, regardless of their stance, are afforded the same right to expression. As such, it is imperative that this bill be amended to truly remain content-neutral. The government must amend the bill to truly be content-neutral. Every citizen should have the right to support or oppose any school program peacefully without the fear of legal retribution.

[3:10 p.m.]

Furthermore, this legislation should be extended to accommodate or otherwise create zones free from disruptive protests at critical infrastructure points. Those critical infrastructure points in our province, such as bridges, ports, pipelines, railways…. Perhaps if this NDP government felt so inclined, they might even feel compelled to extend this provision to their own front lawn and backyard here at the Legislature. Is this where we’re headed? If you agree with us, come on down. But if you don’t…. But if you don’t….

If this government’s goal is truly to protect our community and maintain order, I would suggest and encourage consistency in the approach. For unpeaceful protests, there are already laws in place to deal with those. We must ensure that Bill 22 reflects the values of British Columbians that they hold dear: fairness, equality and freedom of expression. We cannot and must not allow a legal framework that discriminates based on the content of one’s speech if they dare disagree with the powers to be. We are tasked with upholding the rights of all citizens, not just the ones with whom we agree. So let us come together….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Minister will come to order.

Proceed.

B. Banman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are tasked with upholding the rights of all citizens, not just the ones with whom we agree. So let us come together, revise this bill and ensure that this House sets legal standards for the citizens of this province that are just and impartial. It is the foundation of democracy that we hold dear.

J. Sims: I stand in support of Safe Access to Schools Act. I have very, very strong feelings about this. As most of you know, I have spent most of my working life in a classroom, in schools. When our kids come to school and when they enter our schools, they need to feel safe. They need to feel safe. And in recent months, we have seen, right on television, with all the full drama, where students are prevented from going into school, and the kinds of demonstrations that have occurred would be very, very disturbing for them and make many of them feel unsafe.

I’ve heard a lot about democracy. This bill does not take away the right to demonstrate, does not take away the right to raise your point of view or your freedom of speech. This bill just limits where you can stand as you are expressing your point of view. What this bill does is provide for a buffer zone for kids and for parents and for teachers who want to enter the school. This bill is not about taking away people’s rights.

[3:15 p.m.]

This bill is making sure that others, especially our young people, our kids, our grandkids, our nephews, our nieces, feel safe walking into a school; that the entrance to their place of learning, the hallowed place of learning, is not impeded in any way; and also to make sure that they are not exposed to some of the violent and unpleasant rhetoric that has been displayed in many public forums.

There are those who’ll argue that by doing this, democracy will die on the vine. Let me assure you that our democracy is not so fragile that a geographic limitation on where you can demonstrate outside a school is going to endanger it. Folks are still free to go and express their point of view, to practise their fair speech, their right to demonstrate and to gather. They just cannot do it within a certain geographic limit of a school.

As a person who has and will continue to defend freedom of speech and freedom of expression and the freedom to demonstrate, and as a person who has taken part in many of those, I can tell you I strongly support this. Our students, our children, our grandchildren, our nephews and nieces need to feel safe and not bombarded as they go into their place of learning, a place that should feel safe for every student who enters that school, no matter their sex, their gender, their ethnicity, their cultural background or any other differences they may have.

I encourage everyone in this House to vote for this legislation to keep our children away from some of the ugliness we have seen outside our schools recently.

E. Sturko: I rise today to speak to Bill 22. As I begin sharing my perspective on this bill, I also want to share my own experience being confronted with protests, particularly when I first came out 30 years ago. There were plenty of protests, and they were very difficult times. In fact, I can remember attending my first-ever Pride march when I was in Kelowna. There were people, they were shouting, and it was very intimidating.

At that time, there were a lot of protests, not only at events, but also related to schools. In fact, in 1997, three children’s books, Belinda’s Bouquet, Asha’s Mums and One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads, were submitted to the Surrey school board for approval for use in kindergarten and grade 1 as resources for the curriculum. The books are about children who have two moms or two dads.

In 1997, the school board refused to allow these books to be used because parents complained, citing a conflict with their religious beliefs. After six years, a Supreme Court ruling determined that the books in the school curriculum need to be evaluated strictly on secular principles. I’m bringing this very specific example forward because I think it is relative to some of the situations that we’re presently encountering in British Columbia.

It’s also an example of how, as a province, we have successfully navigated these types of challenges before. Protests and acts of intimidation continue to be experienced by members of the 2SLGBTQ2+ community, Indigenous peoples, peoples of colour, people of religious beliefs and faiths, children and of course all backgrounds. It’s not just K to 12 but in community places, community gathering centres, community centres, places of worship, gurdwaras, synagogues, mosques and even on university campuses.

I very much agree with the sentiment of wanting to reassure British Columbians of all backgrounds that their children will be safe at school and not have to run through a gauntlet of ugly protests in order to reach their classrooms. But I do find it odd that the NDP government is choosing now, with only three weeks left to go in this legislative session.

[3:20 p.m.]

It’s now bringing forward this bill in a time-limited way, establishing access zones for a school or a class of schools. They could have done this any time, like, for example, in September of 2023, during the million child march protests, when anti-SOGI protests were very intense, or perhaps early days following the October 7 attack on Israel when Jewish elementary school students felt afraid for their safety. But they didn’t do that.

The government didn’t do that because they didn’t need to, not because there weren’t protests, and even some­times unlawful behaviour like threats, but because the School Act of B.C. and the Criminal Code of Canada both have provisions to immediately deal with situations where students’ access to school is being blocked, when there is trespassing on school property, where there are unsafe situations, where there is criminal activity. For example, section 177 of the School Act already prohibits anyone from disrupting school activities. The section allows for school administrators to act swiftly to maintain without waiting for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to decide.

Under Bill 22, when an incident does happen, even if this bill passes, it will still require the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to specify access zones that we’re talking about, the 20-metre zone outside of school property. Similarly, section 70 of the School Act protects the safety of elected officials during school meetings and allows for disruptive individuals to be removed. Bill 22 not only replicates existing laws, but it fails to provide permanent protections.

I wholeheartedly agree with keeping kids safe, but the legislation appears to be performative. Some might call it virtue-signalling. If this government wants to create a safe environment for kids and to reduce anti-SOGI protests, perhaps they should be doing more to dispel misinformation about it, providing more clarity for parents about its resources. If they want kids to be safe in schools, maybe they need to reinstate school liaison programs where police have identified the serious risk of gang infiltration. Maybe they need to protect kids from the opioid crisis, from declining mental health survey results, rising child poverty.

This government should be worried about the safety of children. But what British Columbia needs is a government that does more than virtue-signal. We need action, and we need results.

I thank you for this opportunity to speak to this bill, and I look forward to further debate at the committee stage.

Hon. R. Singh: The proposed Safe Access to Schools Act that was introduced by my colleague the Attorney General will help ensure that students and staff can safely access schools and be protected from harmful and disruptive behaviour. We all know that young people are the future of our province. As a mother and the Minister of Education and Child Care, I’m committed to ensure that every student is protected while they are learning at school.

Since September 2023, there has been an increase in harmful and disruptive protests at schools in B.C., and this has negatively impacted the health and well-being of students and staff. Disruptions have occurred at elementary, middle and secondary schools, causing concern for staff and students as young as five years old who may feel frightened or intimidated.

Our schools should be welcoming, safe and inclusive environments, and harmful disruptions have no place in and around K-to-12 schools in British Columbia. This legislation will prohibit harmful behaviour regardless of the topic that motivates it. This will ensure that students are protected no matter what issue is driving the disruption. We all understand that people are welcome to express and voice their views and advocate for change, but not at the expense of the safety of students and staff at our schools.

This bill balances the rights of free speech and peaceful assembly against the need to protect safe access to schools. Children have a right to education and to feel safe and welcome at school. As British Columbians, we cannot tolerate behaviour that jeopardizes safe learning environments, and we must continue to provide support and take action as needed to keep kids safe at school so that they can succeed in their education.

[3:25 p.m.]

I really want to thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this bill. I also want to thank my colleague the Attorney General for all the work that she and her team have done to help keep British Columbians safe.

Hon. R. Fleming: The Attorney General stands on her introductory remarks and does not wish to close debate and will be available, of course, at committee stage.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the house after today.

Bill 22, Safe Access to Schools 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. Fleming: I wonder if we could arrange for a very brief recess in advance of the debate on the next bill.

Deputy Speaker: If the member might call the bill so that we know what we’re debating, and then we can do that.

Hon. R. Fleming: I call second reading of Bill 24, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act.

Deputy Speaker: We will take a brief recess. Thank you.

The House recessed from 3:26 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

BILL 24 — ENERGY STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Hon. J. Osborne: I move that Bill 24 be read a second time now.

I am pleased to present Bill 24, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act. Bill 24 will amend the Clean Energy Act and the Utilities Commission Act. These amendments are needed to ensure that British Columbians continue to benefit from B.C.’s clean electricity and that we are able to keep rates affordable for people.

Government is working with B.C. Hydro to ensure that we have the electricity we need, at affordable prices, to build a clean economy and power B.C.’s future. After many years of demand being relatively flat and of B.C. Hydro having a surplus of power, we are currently forecasting that electricity demand will increase 15 percent or more between now and 2030.

This is being driven by a number of factors, including population and economic growth; new housing construction; increased industrial development, including in sectors like critical minerals; and people and businesses switching from fossil fuels to clean energy, like the record adoption rates we are seeing for electric vehicles and heat pumps.

To meet this challenge, B.C. Hydro has updated its integrated resource plan or IRP that outlines how it will meet the demand for electricity over the next 20 years. It’s a flexible plan that allows B.C. Hydro to monitor changing conditions and adjust its planning over time, and it includes a range of actions.

Not only is this B.C. Hydro’s first competitive call for power in 15 years, which I will speak to further later in my remarks, but there’s also increased investment in energy efficiency; renewing energy purchase agreements with existing independent power producers, on a cost-effective basis; advancing upgrades to transmission infrastructure; and implementing utility-scale batteries.

However, to meet the energy challenge before us, legislative changes are needed to the Utilities Commission Act and the Clean Energy Act. That’s why government has brought forward the changes that we are proposing in Bill 24, which we’re debating today.

There are two sets of amendments in the bill. The first aims to create a permanent regulatory framework for electricity service to cryptocurrency mining projects. Cryptocurrency operations consume large amounts of electricity to run high-powered computers 24 hours a day, seven days a week, while creating very few jobs or economic opportunities for people in British Columbia.

Now, it’s really not a surprise that we’ve attracted growing interest from cryptocurrency operations that are looking to locate in B.C., because B.C. Hydro has a supply of clean, reliable, and affordable electricity. In fact, B.C. has some of the lowest industrial rates for electricity in North America. But to let cryptocurrency mining operations grow unchecked would make it more challenging and more expensive to provide the clean electricity that British Columbian families and businesses need to power their homes and their operations, or that growing industries need to power up and create good jobs.

That’s why in December 2022, the province issued a direction, to the B.C. Utilities Commission, suspending new electricity connections for cryptocurrency mining for 18 months. Twenty-one projects, requesting a total of 11,700 gigawatt hours per year of electricity, were temporarily suspended. That’s equivalent to more than two Site Cs’ worth of annual energy.

Under the Utilities Commission Act, B.C. Hydro has an obligation to serve customers who request and meet their requirements for electricity service, but the reality is that we can’t allow B.C.’s electricity supply to be used up by a sector that’s known to be transient, moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction wherever electricity is cheapest, and that also creates very few local jobs compared to, for example, a new critical minerals mine.

[3:35 p.m.]

The suspension was introduced to provide time for the development of a permanent policy framework for the connection of cryptocurrency mining projects to our electricity grid.

The proposed amendments to the Utilities Commission Act in Bill 24 would enable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make permanent regulations respecting the provision of electricity service by public utilities like B.C. Hydro to cryptocurrency mining operations. This includes prohibiting, restricting or regulating service for cryptocurrency mining projects. For example, government could establish a limit on the total amount of electricity that the sector may use, or only allow new connections for projects that involve real co-benefits for local communities and that are committed to stay in B.C. long term.

In summer of 2023, the province began engagements with First Nations, local governments and industry regarding the design of a permanent cryptocurrency policy. The regulation enacting the temporary suspension was subject to a judicial review in the B.C. Supreme Court that was brought by a prospective cryptocurrency mining operator. In February of 2024, the B.C. Supreme Court decided in the province’s favour and upheld the suspension. However, the decision noted that longer-term changes would require legislative change.

The actions that we’re taking are critical to preserving our electricity supply for meeting the needs of British Columbians and are consistent with recent restrictions on cryptocurrency mining by other provinces like New Bruns­wick, Manitoba and Quebec.

The second set of amendments in Bill 24 would repeal the provisions of the Clean Energy Act that were used to establish the standing offer program in 2008. For years, the former government bought too much power when we didn’t need it through this program, mostly from run-of-river projects, and they paid too much for it, offering fixed-price contracts at well above the market price.

The standing offer program, or SOP, was a continuous-intake, non-competitive program that provided long-term energy purchase agreements for small grid-connected power projects. The SOP offered contracts at a set price that increased each year with inflation, despite the fact that costs to build renewable power projects were declining, year after year, as the technology developed. Some of these contracts are currently costing ratepayers $120 per megawatt hour, which is approximately 70 percent higher than B.C. Hydro’s long-run marginal cost of acquiring new energy. Future commitments from the program are esti­mated to be close to $2.5 billion, with the last contract signed not expiring until 2062.

Many of the projects supported by the program were run-of-river hydro projects that often provide the bulk of their energy during the spring freshet. This is the time of year when both the provincial demand for power and market prices are at their lowest. In past years, B.C. Hydro would need to purchase electricity from run-of-river standing offer projects and then sell it at a loss on the export market.

It is worth noting that there are some run-of-river projects on Vancouver Island and coastal regions that don’t have the typical springtime freshet–heavy energy profile as most run-of-river projects do. It’s also worth noting that only seven projects under the standing offer program were wind or solar projects. In total, the 25 projects that received contracts under the SOP currently represent about 21 percent of the grid-connected 119 independent power projects in B.C., but they deliver less than 4 percent of the total energy produced by them.

In 2019, the province suspended the SOP program indefinitely as part of measures recommended by phase 1 of the B.C. Hydro comprehensive review, aimed at reducing B.C. Hydro’s costs and keeping rates affordable. Suspending the standing offer program has saved people and businesses an estimated $120 million on their hydro bills over the past five years alone.

Under the former government, rates increased by a total of 80 percent during their 16 years in power. That’s an average of 5 percent every single year. In contrast, our government has kept rate increases below inflation for six years in a row. B.C. Hydro rates are almost 16 percent lower than the cumulative cost of inflation since 2017, and rates are currently 12 percent lower than what they would have been under the former government’s ten-year rates plan. The work we’ve done has helped to ensure that B.C. has the second-lowest residential rates and the third-lowest commercial and industrial rates in North America.

It is important to note that the proposed amendments in Bill 24 will have no impact on existing standing offer program projects. Existing energy purchase agreements signed with independent power projects will continue to remain valid, just as they did when we suspended the program in 2019.

[3:40 p.m.]

When contracts expire, B.C. Hydro plans to renew them on a cost-effective basis, recognizing that projects will have already paid off their capital costs, and the current market price for renewables is significantly lower. EPA renewals, however, are required to go to the B.C. Utilities Commission for approval. That is unlike the original standing offer program, which circumvented BCUC oversight.

In fact, restricting BCUC oversight was a common approach of the former government. Their ten-year rates plan that I mentioned earlier was directed by a cabinet OIC, but in 2019, our government made legislative and regulatory changes to restore BCUC oversight on a number of key issues, like rate changes, the use of regulatory accounts and long-term energy planning.

In fact, B.C. Hydro’s updated Integrated Resource Plan, approved just last month, was the first IRP to be approved by the BCUC since 2006. The BCUC’s approval followed a multi-year public and transparent regulatory proceeding that included participation from 36 stakeholder interveners and B.C. Hydro answering approximately 5,000 questions.

Instead of reopening the standing offer program to meet future demand, government is moving forward with a competitive call for power. Earlier this month, B.C. Hydro issued a request for proposals to acquire approximately 3,000 gigawatt hours per year of electricity. This came after months of engagement with the independent power sector, First Nations and stakeholders to design a call that works for B.C.

This is B.C. Hydro’s first competitive call for power in 15 years and will add 5 percent to its current supply. That’s enough electricity, clean electricity, to provide power to 270,000 homes or approximately one million electric vehicles per year. By moving forward with a competitive call, we can ensure that we are getting the best price for British Columbians and that we can continue to keep rates low.

It’s important to highlight how different this approach is from the standing offer program, which offered a fixed, set price. I think the opposition may be claiming that we are somehow restarting their program, but really, nothing could be farther from the truth.

The competitive call for power is expected to result in projects at significantly lower costs than the standing offer program. The SOP also didn’t actually include any minimum requirements for First Nations participation on the projects that it gave contracts out to. In contrast, our call for power requires that projects be owned at least 25 percent by First Nations, with incentives for projects that achieve higher levels of Indigenous ownership, up to 51 percent.

The spring call for power will be the first in a series of calls for power as B.C. Hydro requires more power to electrify B.C.’s growing economy. B.C. Hydro expects the next call to be issued in 2026, with successive calls to be issued approximately every two years.

We recognize that there are many First Nations in British Columbia that are interested in developing smaller clean power projects that aren’t large enough to meet the 40 megawatt size threshold under the call for power.

When we indefinitely suspended the standing offer program in 2019, we exempted five projects in the process that had significant First Nations involvement and/or were part of impact benefit agreements. Electricity purchase agreements have since been signed with three of them. In total, B.C. Hydro is aware of six standing offer program projects where First Nations hold an ownership stake.

Moving forward, we are developing a program to support smaller clean energy projects that are majority-owned by First Nations. The province has contributed $140 million to the B.C. Indigenous clean energy initiative, which is a funding partnership between B.C., Canada and the New Relationship Trust. These funds will be used to support smaller projects that often have higher anticipated costs compared to the larger, utility-scale projects that are targeted by the call for power.

With funding provided by the province, this will enable First Nations to advance projects that benefit their communities while avoiding rate increases for B.C. Hydro customers. Again, this is in stark contrast to the standing offer program that was covered entirely by ratepayers, contributing to the higher rates that we saw under the former government.

Before closing, I want to acknowledge the current historic drought that has impacted B.C. Hydro’s reservoirs and required the province to rely on increased imports. I imagine that some, if not many, in the opposition may want to argue that if government had not suspended the standing offer program in 2019, we wouldn’t have needed to rely on imports this past year.

[3:45 p.m.]

Unfortunately, the math really doesn’t add up. Given their small size, standing offer program projects account for only about 1 percent of B.C. Hydro’s total supply. So even a doubling of the program’s portfolio would have barely helped last year, while significantly adding to the cost pressures that B.C. Hydro faces.

Run-of-river projects would have been just as impacted, too, by the drought as B.C. Hydro’s heritage dams. We are fortunate to be part of an interconnected grid across western North America, where B.C. Hydro is able to purchase cheap solar from places like California and Arizona during the day and hold water in our reservoirs for when it’s needed most.

The current drought and the potential for more frequent and severe droughts due to climate change do highlight how important it is to plan for the future, to diversify how we generate power in B.C. and ensure that we preserve our electricity supply for the benefit of British Columbians. That’s exactly what we’re doing through Bill 24 and our call for power.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to Bill 24, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act. I listened with interest to the minister’s remarks.

I support efforts to prohibit, restrict or regulate service for cryptocurrency mining projects in this province. I think that this is a good step for this government and this minister to take. I agree with the minister that cryptocurrency miners consume too much electricity and provide too few jobs.

I am going to make the case that this exact kind of effort should be extended to the LNG industry. The LNG industry also consumes large amounts of clean electricity and, in exchange, does not provide a commensurate number of jobs. B.C.’s LNG industry comprises six projects at various stages of development, two under construction and currently slated to begin operations in 2025 and 2027.

LNG is a bad investment for many reasons. For one, future demand for LNG is highly uncertain. The International Energy Agency holds that there is no need for investment in new fossil fuel supply in a world that reaches net zero by 2050. Global LNG export capacity is anticipated to increase by 43 percent from today by the end of the decade, just as B.C.’s export projects are planned to come online.

Secondly, LNG requires huge amounts of electricity. If all six LNG facilities were to be built, it would require around 43 terawatt hours of electricity per year. Thank you to my colleague. For context, that’s 69 percent of B.C.’s total 2022 demand or the equivalent of the electricity from more than eight Site C dams — eight. That’s eight Site C dams for LNG projects alone. Just going to let that sit there for a minute. Diverting this much power to LNG would mean less power available for households or cleaner industries on a less risky path.

Thirdly, LNG would come at a cost to household affordability, jobs and, potentially, ratepayers. Importing just one Site C worth of electricity would cost the B.C. ratepayers around $600 million annually. Meanwhile, the U.S. government anticipates that LNG exports could cause domestic natural gas prices to increase by up to 28 percent over the next 25 years.

Building these facilities would also divert construction workers away from housing and other projects, such as expanding B.C.’s clean electricity grid and generation at a time when this kind of labour is projected to be in short supply. It’s a lot of risks.

LNG is a poor choice in a climate crisis. It’s far from clean, with emissions associated with every step of the supply chain, from extraction to liquefication to combustion. If all six proposed LNG projects were to be built, their operational and upstream emissions alone would account for 40 percent of the province’s 2030 emissions targets.

The assumption that LNG could reduce emissions by displacing coal is highly uncertain and questioned, with some studies suggesting it could have a negative overall impact on emissions. LNG production and….

[3:50 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’m hoping you can bring it back to the actual bill that we’re debating.

S. Furstenau: I am making the case, Madam Speaker, why this bill could apply to other industries as it’s being applied to the cryptocurrency industry. There’s a strong case for these kinds of regulations to be applied to another industry that has the potential of consuming enormous amounts of energy that British Columbians need for a resilient, stable and affordable energy future for the people in this province.

I will take your guidance, Madam Speaker, and just point out that B.C. needs to put itself on a path to a truly clean energy future, which would involve our energy production not going to industries like cryptocurrency or a fracked gas industry, which are going to absorb much more of our energy and emit too many of our emissions for us to consider this as a future for our province.

Bill 24 also repeals part 4 of the Clean Energy Act, which is the standing offer program. Established in 2008, the standing offer program was B.C. Hydro’s primary mechanism for signing independent power projects. Most independent power projects, IPPs, were developed by or in partnership with First Nations. In March, 2018, shortly after the Site C dam was approved, B.C. Hydro stated they would not be issuing any energy purchase agreements, effectively signalling their intention to wind down opportunities for independent power producers, many of which were First Nations.

In 2019, the province suspended the standing offer program. There are implications for scrapping policies like the standing offer program, including a loss of trust. Many clean energy producers invested their life savings into establishing family-run green power projects. For decades, these projects supplied electricity to remote communities and the provincial grid. A lack of vision and planning creates an uncertain investment environment for clean energy companies, and in doing so, we missed out on key skills training, jobs, investments in clean energy, the economy of the future.

Furthermore, suspending the standing offer program hindered First Nations contributions to B.C.’s clean energy economy and has stymied investment in the sector. First Nations in B.C. have a long history of working with IPPs to produce and sell power to B.C. Hydro in their territories. But there’s been no opportunity to do that since the end of the standing offer program. Supporting First Nations leadership in B.C.’s renewable energy sector is critical to meeting B.C.’s legislative commitments to reduce greenhouse emissions to 40 percent below 2007 levels by 2030, to support remote Indigenous communities transition off of diesel fuel and to advance reconciliation with Indigenous people.

A 2017 survey conducted by the B.C. First Nations Clean Energy Working Group found that 98 percent of First Nation communities in B.C. want to participate in the renewable energy sector. There is interest and capacity, but unfortunately, this government stymied this momentum and shut a door during a crucial window of time. At the same time, it was opening the door to Site C, something that in 2017, they ran on suggesting that they would not do.

We support the call for power and look forward to the diversification of energy procurement and production in the province. We need more wind and solar. We are happy to see that this call requires a minimum of 25 percent equity ownership by First Nations, whose territories facilities would be located in.

This call for power requires a minimum of 40 megawatts, which is a huge investment and a good opportunity if First Nations have projects that size in their territory. But what about smaller projects? It is unlikely the Indigenous clean energy initiative, with only $140 million invested by the province, will go far enough in supporting the small-scale, Indigenous-owned clean energy projects we desperately need. I’ve heard from Indigenous leaders that they want the standing offer program to remain suspended, rather than eliminated, so that it could be reactivated if need be.

Local renewable energy projects developed by First Nations are preferable to purchasing electricity from the U.S., but unfortunately, that is what we seem to be doing. Last year B.C. Hydro imported 20 percent of the province’s electricity. This government predicts a 15 percent increase in electricity demand by 2030, and B.C. Hydro expects a shift from a surplus to a deficit of power by 2030, even with the addition of Site C power in 2025, perhaps.

[3:55 p.m.]

Premier Eby admitted that B.C. Hydro’s slow-motion approvals process is a major obstacle to the province developing the power it needs in the short to medium term. But we also must consider our long-term energy needs, power generation and infrastructure requirements for various industries. Ultimately, the future of our energy supply is a crucial consideration. It affects all of us on a daily basis.

What lies ahead for our energy future? What should it look like? These are questions that demand careful consideration. And the province needs to ensure British Columbians that history won’t be repeated. We can’t afford to invest in a new clean energy policy landscape just to have it scrapped again. The public, companies and investors need certainty. I think, too, and I’ll just end….

The minister talked about drought at the end of her comments, and I think that we are seeing a significantly transformed landscape already, due to climate change. We are seeing impacts of drought all over this province, and I think that it behooves the minister and the government and the ministry to really consider a clean energy future that isn’t overly reliant on dams, that isn’t overly reliant on seeing hydro power as the way forward, because of the conditions of drought that we’re seeing.

I’ll just come back to where I started, which is that our clean energy should not be going to fuel dirty energy. This makes no sense in 2024. If we are generating clean energy in this province, the last thing we should be doing with it is building transmission lines to LNG facilities so that they can create dirty energy which then they export out of B.C., generating mostly profits for the multinational companies that are owning those LNG plants.

I would really hope to see a better vision for the future of energy and, in particular, clean energy in this province.

T. Shypitka: Thanks to the previous speakers.

I’m glad to speak here today on Bill 24, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2024. A lot to be discussed on this one. It’s not exactly a sexy topic. It’s one of those bills that kind of flies over most people’s heads, but it’s an important one. It’s a really important bill. It’s only about seven or eight clauses long. It does a couple of things.

It addresses amendments to the Utilities Commission Act and the Clean Energy Act. The amendments to the Clean Energy Act are quite simple. The bill essentially eliminates the standing offer program that this B.C. NDP government has placed on hold since just a short time coming into office in 2017. It also regulates the crypto mining sector. It regulates that sector and what it does for the economy here in B.C.

I will start with the amendments to the Clean Energy Act and removing the standing offer program. The minister previously mentioned a little bit of a history lesson on the last couple of years, but I’d like to go back a little bit farther, to when the standing offer first came in and what the purpose was. It actually was a pretty innovative time back then in 2007.

This was Premier Gordon Campbell’s B.C. energy plan that he came up with and started weaving in the language to develop a standing offer program. Basically, the standing offer program encourages the development of new, small and clean renewable energy projects by multiple developers throughout the province. The SOP was developed to streamline the process for selling electricity to B.C. Hydro for projects that will be connected to B.C. Hydro’s distribution system and to simplify the contract, which is called the standard form EPA — most people just call it the EPA — between B.C. Hydro and the developer.

The SOP is also intended to decrease transaction costs for developers while remaining cost-effective for ratepayers and embodies the principles and policies set out in the B.C. energy plan and the Clean Energy Act.

[4:00 p.m.]

The reason I wanted to take a little bit of a background on this is because it was a lot of good work and a lot of good effort that was put into bringing forward this B.C. energy plan.

In 2007, Gordon Campbell set out the plan. It was 55 policy actions. It’s important to note that these 55 policy actions were setting aggressive targets for zero net greenhouse gas emissions and new investments in innovation. In 2008, as I said, the principles and policies set out in the 2007 B.C. energy plan brought forward the standing offer program, which encouraged the development of small, clean, renewable electricity projects throughout B.C. It was very well adopted. There were a lot of folks that came to the table on it.

The minister noted that the new targeted, competitive, as she calls it, plan that will be rolled out will have a minimum threshold of 25 percent Indigenous participation. I would argue that most of these SOPs that went out in the last 15 years, I guess, or 12 years had 100 percent First Nation participation, a lot of them. I’ll be speaking to that a little bit later.

In 2008, the principles and policies set out in the 2007 B.C. energy plan brought forward the standing offer program, which encouraged the development of small, clean or renewable electricity projects throughout B.C. These clean or renewable projects were less than 15 megawatts. Now, for those that don’t understand, maybe, what that means, 15 megawatts would be about the same…. It would be about 5,800 homes it could power from 15 megawatts.

In 2008, the standing offer program started, which included input from First Nations and stakeholders on the design of the program, feedback on the rules and the electricity purchase agreements — close to 1,000 comments and 11 information sessions across the province. When the program was brought in, there was really comprehensive consultation from across all sectors and First Nations. It was proven through all the information sessions that they had and all the comments that came back.

After this SOP was developed, it was filed with the BCUC, and a negotiated settlement process took place to further define the program. This process involved 34 interveners and BCUC staff. On March 19, 2008, the BCUC approved the negotiated settlement agreement and the expenditures required to implement the SOP for the next two years. The program was launched April 11, 2008.

In 2010, just a year and a half…. Well, it was two years. They did a little bit of a trial run on it. In 2010, there was a review of the program, once again with a ton of engagement, with many interviews with SOP applicants, questionnaires, dialogue sessions and First Nation sessions, all of this to redevelop the program rules, including pricing; standard form electricity purchase agreements, EPAs; and supporting documents for the fall of 2010, with an official launch of the revised program on January 25, 2011. So already, in just over two years, the program has gone through consultation, review, implementation, a trial period, more consultation and more review. It was very comprehensive, as I said.

All of this was at the same time in 2010 that Gordon Campbell initiated the Clean Energy Act, which the standing offer program was embedded into. This is what we’re eliminating now. This act set the stage for B.C. to really take a leadership role across North America and make unparalleled investments in renewable energy. B.C. was about to become the leader in North America of clean, renewable, low-carbon electricity.

Included in the act was the provision that B.C. procure 93 percent of its energy from clean or renewable resources. This is the first of its kind anywhere on the continent that this type of initiative was taking place. This act also contained the self-sufficiency clause, requiring B.C. to generate enough electricity in-province to meet its own needs, provided that water conditions are average or above average. Because we’re so clean with our hydropower here in the province, that is an important factor to factor in.

[4:05 p.m.]

In 2014 — April, as a matter of fact — another review of this SOP was entailed, a series of First Nations and stakeholder meetings across B.C. Over 80 First Nations, representatives and 100 stakeholders participated in these meetings and provided feedback on the standing offer program engagement guide. Here we are about six years in now, three consultations, three reviews, tons of engagement, and now we’re here in 2014.

Subsequent to the April 2014 engagement, there were focus group discussions with representatives from the First Nations Energy Mining Council, First Nations Clean Energy Working Group, Clean Energy B.C., CanWEA and various independent power producers. The feedback received and the outcome of the focus groups were considered, along with the technical and financial considerations, in the revised Standing Offer Program Rules and standard form electricity purchasing agreements, released in March 2016.

All of this work brought forward great partnerships in independent power production and helped our province in the effort of being self-sufficient in our energy needs in B.C. It is important to recognize the history, because these plans had long-term vision that extended way past the four-year political cycles. We’ll get into the political part in just a bit, but I think it’s important just to reflect on that first ten years of the program, how much consultation went into it, how much redevelopment went into it with the BCUC staff and First Nations and those that participated in the SOP program. The scope was far and wide, and it was a really good partnership.

But 2017 happened, and we had a change in government. Not even a year after the last review, work started immediately to unravel all this good work, because on March 14, 2018, B.C. Hydro was still pursuing electricity purchasing agreements for five clean energy projects that were part of an impact benefits agreement with B.C. Hydro and/or were mature projects that had significant First Nations involvement. I might get to that, who those were, in just a second here.

The NDP stopped there. That was the end of it. Why? There were great partnerships. No one really knew at that time. One project in the queue, or heading that way, was in my riding. It was a solar project that they, Ktunaxa First Nation, felt that they were denied, quite honestly. I remember a lot of resentment over that, a lot of frustration. They’d worked on putting a plan forward, and of course, when the SOP was put on hold, they were upset, let’s just say.

B.C. Hydro supported the government’s decision to take a closer look at energy procurement. As a result, there was a decision not to issue any additional electricity purchasing agreements. I think that was an order-in-council, G161/18, back on October 28, 2018.

This decision was based on rates and the perceived surplus energy that the Site C dam would provide, even though this decision was against their own provincial platform on stopping the Site C project. But I remember, as being the critic for Energy and Mines, sitting in this very chamber and listening to the minister, Minister Mungall at the time, talking about whether Site C would go ahead. And of course, they adopted it.

The standing offer and the micro standing offer programs were put on hold until a review was complete. So we sat and we waited. I remember talking to Clean Energy B.C. at a conference in Trail and a lot of upset people. A lot of programs were put on hold. A lot of investment that was going forward to get involved in the program was put on hold, and a lot of those investors left.

[4:10 p.m.]

February 2019. As a result of government’s comprehensive review of B.C. Hydro, a number of measures to lower our costs, to keep rates low, were being implemented, including reducing the amount of future energy purchases from independent power producers.

One of those is in my neighbouring riding, in the town of Skookumchuk. That was the Paper Excellence Skookumchuk Pulp Mill. It’s been there for 52 years. I was at their 50th anniversary. It was a great day. It’s a great employer. They’ve got a co-gen plant there that is part of the energy purchasing agreements. That was all revised, and it brought down their sustainability of the mill.

They needed those energy purchasing agreements to be at the value that they were promised. Not only is there cleanup every year, but there are a lot of materials. They take post peelings and scrap wood, fibre off the forest floor, and they burn that, and they sell that to the grid through a contract.

Because they were cut back, curtailed on those agreements, they can’t go out, and it’s not sustainable enough for them to go and get that material off the floor of the forest, to get all those post peelings and scrap. So it sits there, whether it’s burned in a pile and those emissions get released or it becomes a fire hazard for wildfire. It’s a shame to see those kinds of sacrifices.

“Effective immediately, the standing offer program and micro-standing offer programs are suspended indefinitely” — this is February 2019 — “and we will not accept new applications or award any new electricity purchase agreements with the exception of the five First Nations clean energy projects announced on March 14, 2018.”

I couldn’t find all five. I’ve only got four here. I think these are the ones: Siwash Creek, 500 kilowatt program; Sarita River, five megawatt program; Sukunka Wind, 15 megawatt program — big one; and Zonnebeke Wind, 15 megawatts. As you can tell, and I looked into this,— I believe all of them were First Nation–owned, other than maybe one, I think. But it was important to note.

There was a comprehensive phase review. It was a two-phase review. It was challenged greatly by industry, associations and First Nations alike. As a matter of fact, when the review went through — the B.C. Hydro comprehensive review, phase 1 and phase 2 — the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations weighed in on it. This is what they said:

“The B.C. Hydro phase 1 review did not include any participation or consultation with First Nations, despite making findings and decisions that profoundly affect First Nations, including the indefinite suspension of a program that made possible B.C. Hydro’s purchase of clean energy from First Nation–owned clean energy projects, the standing offer program. During the phase 2 review, Chiefs in B.C. called on the government of B.C. to overhaul the process until a meaningful and sustained engagement with First Nations was part of the process.”

That was resolution 25, 2019.

During this time, the First Nations Leadership Council noted in several letters to B.C. that the province’s Indigenous engagement approach failed to comply with the government’s obligation as set out in the B.C. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and in the commitments the province made to reconciliation.

In this review from the B.C. Assembly of First Nations…. There are many comments in it. One of the key areas of interest that was identified in this briefing note, identified in phase 2 review…. One of them was opportunities for Indigenous nations and communities, yet they were failed to be consulted on.

[4:15 p.m.]

Also in the briefing notes, first recommendation of the briefing notes: “Chiefs in B.C. should continue raising serious concerns with the Minister of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resource” — they called it at that time, but it wasn’t; it should’ve been, anyways — “about the exclusion of Indigenous nations and organizations from the phase 1 review and the lack of true representation in the review committee and advisory group for phase 2 review.”

It goes on in length talking about meaningful engagement, “meaningful participation of Indigenous representatives and sufficient time and financial capacity to participate meaningfully.” British Columbia Assembly of First Nations with the First Nations Leadership Council “should monitor the B.C. SOP engagement process and continue to advocate for a meaningful process that addresses and mitigates the impacts of the indefinite suspension of the SOP.”

It’s chock full of it. It’s all through there. So what went from a very meaningful, inclusive engagement process, that was reviewed over and over and over and over again, to a complete shutdown within a year of this government taking office, with no consultation. That, to me, was a red flag. It was a red flag to everyone.

What happened later…. In 2019, the government made a decision. It was based on a report that was filed in 2019, called the Zapped report, that the minister probably knows all about. The Zapped report came up with four conclusions — or three, but I’ll add a fourth.

The first was that B.C. Hydro bought too much energy, and energy with the wrong profile. The second was that it paid too much for the energy it bought. I think that’s what the minister was saying in her opening comments. The third was that it undertook these actions at direction of government without BCUC oversight, which the minister mentioned as well. And there was a recommendation in there to eliminate the SOP program.

The Zapped report calculation that EPAs entered into IPPs since 2007 will cost ratepayers an unnecessary $16 billion over 20 years. To reflect that to the ratepayer, that would be about two hundred bucks a year for residential ratepayers, about 16 bucks a month. But $16 billion is a lot. I think $16 billion would trigger some other costs we’ll get into a little later.

But as Clean Energy B.C. pointed out in response to the Zapped report, there were many flaws in the report that overinflated what B.C. overpaid to IPP, due to the fact that the report used a pricing schedule — it’s called mid-Columbia pricing rates, mid-C for short — as a measure of overpayment, and not an average. This ballooned the costs substantially and misrepresented the true cost to B.C. Hydro.

Clean Energy B.C. points out that the mid-C rate was not used as a comparator for other projects, like the Site C project or even other projects, and asserted that it is not used by the BCUC, not used by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency or other utilities. So one has to wonder why they would use that for the SOP program and the energy purchasing agreements.

Make no mistake…. And it was not my words. It was many other folks out there. There were a lot of newspapers that were out there that were reporting on this, that the Zapped report was unconditionally an NDP political document designed to make headlines that there was an overspend of $16 billion over 20 years. One only has to look at the complete mismanagement of Site C dam at a balloon cost of — guess what — $16 billion to see the complete irony in all of this.

[4:20 p.m.]

After being under suspension for the past six-plus years, the SOP is now being eliminated from the Clean Energy Act. Then the amendment does away with the requirement for a general call…. This is what the minister will probably say. The amendment does away with the requirement for a general call for proposals and is replaced by a targeted request for proposal.

We’re splitting hairs when we talk about how we procure things. I think the NDP are going to be saying: “Well, we were paying too much, and we had a surplus. We didn’t need the power.” But what it did was it enabled a lot of small, remote, Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities to provide clean, renewable power — run-of-river, wind, solar. And it was a private participation to uphold our self-sufficiency of energy in the province. That’s an important thing.

I think the minister is seeing that right now in real time, as last year we became a net importer of energy in this province. A province that is so blessed with so many energy sources, and we are now losing — I don’t know — $450 million last year in net imports? That’s staggering. It’s embarrassing, actually. But we starved, for 6½ years, private participation in procuring clean, renewable energy. Now we’re scrambling. Now we need to bring them back.

The reason I went through this history is to show the engagement and long-term vision that the 2007 B.C. energy plan, the 2008 standing offer program and the 2010 Clean Energy Act provided, and it is apparent today that this was good planning.

Sorry, I’m the…. Did I say I was the designated speaker? I’m pretty sure I did. Did I not say that at the beginning? Oh, I’m sorry.

Interjections.

T. Shypitka: Now these guys are scrambling. They’ve got to put more time on the clock. Sorry.

All these programs — it was a good thing. Like I said, now we’re a net importer of energy in this province, and I would dare guess we may be a net importer again this year. We see the snowpack low. We know that we’re in drought conditions. We haven’t turned Site C on. It should have been on by now. That’s probably another topic for another time, but it’s kind of a mystery to me.

There’ll be all kinds of reasons why or rationales why Site C isn’t up and going right now. It was promised it would be. But I’ll put a little something in your mind: ratepayers don’t feel the impact of a capital project like Site C until that first turbine starts moving. Once the power is switched on Site C, then the rate shock can happen. So why not delay it a year? Because we know what’s happening this fall: election. We wouldn’t want that rate shock to happen before that happens. Conveniently, we won’t see the power until this winter, when we’re definitely going to need it.

Thank goodness for Site C. I know this NDP government fought it for years. I remember seeing numerous people paddling for the Peace, right? It was a big sellout. But anyways, thank goodness we got it.

We’re proud. B.C. United is proud of the leadership and forward thinking of numerous visionaries, like W.A.C. Bennett, his hydro vision that brought us Site A, Site B and now Site C. Now those other ones are…. We’ll rename Site C something as soon as it gets flicked on. You can use my name if you want.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: It’s just an olive branch, right? I’m up for that. I don’t know. Shypitka can be mispronounced so many different ways. I don’t even want to go into that.

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Oh, sorry. I wasn’t talking about the member for Kootenay East, Madam Speaker. I was talking about my dad.

[4:25 p.m.]

We should be proud of those visionaries, long-term visionaries: W.A.C. Bennett, his hydro vision; Gordon Campbell’s B.C. energy plan and Clean Energy Act; Christy Clark on Site C and LNG Canada. I know the leader of the Green Party would have liked to know that one. Now the leader of the B.C. United on maintaining energy self-sufficiency and securing our growing energy needs in the largest electrical transformation in our province’s history.

These are all things that I mentioned this NDP have fought against. So I went into the suspect reservoir fill and the hold on Site C. I won’t go into that again. But look out, folks. This year might be a real tough one for energy.

This is the crux of the problem with Bill 24, in that the elimination of the standing offer program really disappoints those smaller communities that were looking to participate. I have spoken to First Nation communities about this bill that were not informed that this bill was coming forward and would have loved to have been informed and allowed some input before doing away with the SOP.

All they wanted to know was why. “Give me some rationale. Give me some hope.” But of the nations I talked to, none of them knew that this was going on. Not saying they didn’t make a bunch of inquiries or communications. We’ll find out, maybe in committee stage, how many they went through and who they called, perhaps.

But the SOP went through review after review and through First Nation, industry and association consultation until 2017, when the NDP got in. The program was halted without consultation, without engagement of any kind.

This minister states that the electricity demand is increasing, but we already know this. In 2021, when the IRP came out…. Every year in estimates, I went in there and said: “How could this load forecast be accurate? We’re going through the biggest energy transformation this province has ever seen.”

I think even last year with this minister, I rattled off hydrogen projects, electrifying industry, mining, LNG, housing starts that need to be identified. That’s all off the grid. Everybody with an electric vehicle, everybody with a heat pump. We knew this was coming. I’m definitely no rocket scientist, but even I could see the energy that we needed.

Of course, in 2021 when the IRP came out, B.C. Hydro projected for 20 years at: “Oh, we’ve got surplus after surplus.” Well, a little dip, I think, in 2025. A little, small deficit just before Site C was going to come on. But after that, it was clean sailing.

Now, as the minister says, we’re in trouble. We’re going to be losing 15 percent by 2030, I think is what I heard her say. I’m pretty sure that’s what she said. I would guess it’s going to be a lot more than 15 percent. I think we know that. I think we all know that this isn’t going to be the first call for power.

Right now, the call for power, I believe, is 3,000 gigawatt hours. That’s about half the size of Site C. I think Site C is about 5,200 gigawatt hours per year, or something like that. So the call for power is about half of Site C.

When we look at our clean energy projects like Fortescue in Prince George…. That project is 1,000 megawatts capacity just for Fortescue. That’s one Site C. One project, one green hydrogen project, is one Site C.

Now, there’s a lot of push for getting rid of natural gas. There are some bylaws in the province now that are wanting to ban natural gas. Even in the minister’s own energy plan is to have no new natural gas furnaces installed after 2030, I believe.

Natural gas represents twice the energy that electricity has. I think the nameplate capacity for B.C. Hydro is about 11,000 megawatt capacity per year. It’s around 11,000 or 12,000 megawatts. Natural gas is about 22,000. We saw that from the last cold snap that we had last winter. We were actually able to help our friends out in Alberta and provide them with about 400 megawatts, I believe, of power.

[4:30 p.m.]

It’s concerning that in a province like British Columbia — with all the opportunities it has, the wealth, the basket of commodities, whether it’s natural gas, electricity, geothermal, wind, solar — we’re at this position that we are right now after only seven years. We used to enjoy a surplus. The minister earlier mentioned surpluses, like it was almost a bad thing, with the SOP program. Yeah, we have to keep things tight. We have to look after the ratepayer.

that doesn’t always come from the private sector when they produce energy. I mean, one has to look at Site C. That was an $8 billion project that ballooned to $16 billion. That’s public. Where is the accountability there? We can’t just cancel those projects. But for some reason, this small SOP program, for only 15 megawatts or less, is being hammered. This new competitive pricing system that’s going to be coming in place now will probably forgo those smaller remote communities, the ones that only need one megawatt, enough for maybe 800 homes, 600 homes, because it doesn’t fit the B.C. Hydro model of sustainability.

Yeah. If we want the clean programs, if we want to reduce our emissions, then we have to look at all options, and there are going to be a few loss leaders along the way. There’s no question about that. But for the good of the province, for the good of our carbon outputs, we need all players at the table. That does include fossil fuels, by the way. To some, that may seem like an oxymoron.

If we want to be sustainable, the minister says it has to be affordable and cheaper. Well there is nothing really cheap about green hydrogen right now. Maybe that bridge is blue hydrogen: using our technologies of carbon capture and storage to have a low-emitting energy fuel source like natural gas. That’s a good option. All those great folks that live up in the Peace region and that brave minus 40 and minus 50 on those natural gas plants, and those oil rigs even, to the east of us in Alberta — every time we flick on a switch, we can thank them. Every time we turn our heat up, we can thank them.

Sure, heat pumps can work, you bet. The Lower Mainland is a great spot for heat pumps to work, but when you put those same heat pumps up in Terrace, maybe…. Does it get that cold in Terrace? Not really, but certainly in the Peace it does. In the Cariboo-Chilcotin and the Kootenays, it certainly does. I know that firsthand. Those heat pumps need a backup because sometimes we can go through a cold snap of minus 30, minus 35 where those heat pumps just won’t keep up.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

There’s an anxiety that comes along with that, but we can’t throw all our eggs into the one B.C. Hydro basket. If there’s one thing we need, it’s self-reliance, self-sufficiency with our energy needs. That has gone by the wayside. I would like to see the minister and this government bring back the self-sufficiency clause. I think it’s absolutely critical when we’re talking about all these things in Bill 24 and the SOP programs that were encouraged and adopted by so many people in this province. It was a true partnership.

We’re proud of our leadership that has brought us to this point. We’re proud of devising the SOP program and the Clean Energy Act. We understand the importance of these initiatives for a sustainable future and have a track record of results. That’s really what matters at the end of the day. Our plan includes exploring major new electricity generation opportunities and fast-tracking electricity transmission projects, especially to B.C.’s north coast, to empower natural resource development.

[4:35 p.m.]

That’s the first part of the bill; the second part won’ t be so tough. That’s on the crypto regulation, on crypto mining. I don’t understand crypto mining; I have no real clue. I try to figure it out. It has been explained I don’t know how many times. It’s not easy.

This bill attempts to regulate, which I’m okay with. I think we all need to make regulations on uses, especially energy. It’s a rare commodity these days, unfortunately. To regulate an industry like crypto mining — I can understand it. It is in regulation that some of these barriers may…. I’ll grab my notes here; bear with me.

I want to quickly go back to SOP for a second, because there are a couple of questions I will probably be asking at committee stage. I know the minister was going to be talking about what this bill represents. What was a general call for proposals will be replaced with a targeted request for proposals. That’s the strategy they’re talking about. The minister will probably explain that it’s more flexible for B.C. Hydro, but the questions really are: what criteria will be used to make these choices? Is this B.C. Hydro’s job, or is it cabinet’s job?

B.C. Hydro has not had to make these allocation decisions in the past, but now there are far more potential users for clean power than B.C. Hydro can supply. I went through some of those: LNG, hydrogen plants, expanding housing needs and the conversion of industry from fossil fuels to electricity. There are a lot of takers. So the cabinet may have to step in and make some of these decisions. That will be interesting to hear from the minister.

Is B.C. Hydro to decide on which industries will be endowed and which won’t? This is what I was talking about earlier. Will B.C. Hydro now be the gatekeeper and pick the winners and losers on who can enter into these agreements? Should the electricity be auctioned to the highest bidder? You never know how this could work.

It’s all in the regulations. Speaking of regulations, we’ll get into the crypto stuff. When we talk about crypto mining, it takes up a lot of power, as I said. I did a little bit of research on it.

To mine one bitcoin per day…. And hopefully, somebody can correct me on this if I’m wrong. There are a lot of different resources, and not every application is the same. To mine one bitcoin per day, it would take 5,000 mining rigs. I can’t remember the name of these rigs. They’re basically little servers, and it would take 5,000 of these to produce one bitcoin, and the rigs would cost about $13 million. It’s a fairly large investment.

These crypto miners buy racks and racks of computers, and they pump out these algorithms. After going through the algorithms over and over again, they solve the problem, and they get rewarded with a bitcoin. The power required, on average, is about 155,000 kilowatt hours to produce one bitcoin. That’s a lot. The average home is about 900 kilowatt hours. To produce one bitcoin, that’s about 170 homes per month. That’s substantial.

I understand why we need some regulation on that, but there are unintended consequences. I did a little bit of homework. I reached out to some bit miners out there, and I talked to three, all local, all from British Columbia. What was described to me was that crypto mining, in many ways and many examples, is the bootstrap for other industries, such as decentralized data storage through the use of blockchain and advancements in artificial intelligence.

[4:40 p.m.]

It’s kind of like the way that gold mining is the bootstrap for copper. You can’t go and just get that small amount of copper, but it’s a great bonus. It’s the same thing with blockchain and crypto mining. The products that can come from crypto mining could be, as I said, decentralized data storage and artificial intelligence, which further supports our technology industries.

With regulation on crypto mining…. There are a few in the bill. Clause 4(2)(b)(i) establishes the charge to be paid for energy or capacity supplied to a person for the purpose of crypto mining. That’s a charge to be paid for energy.

(ii) establishes limits on the amount of energy or capacity that may be supplied to a person for the purpose of crypto mining. That’s the amount of energy they can receive.

(iii) establishes when service may be supplied to a person for the purpose of crypto mining. So it’s a time thing, when they can be supplied. It might be off-peak hours. I’m not sure what that means. We’ll have to discover that in committee.

(iv) establishes conditions that must be met to be entitled to receive service from a public utility for the purpose of cryptocurrency mining, so where it comes from.

Those are some of the conditions that have to be met. In regulation, we don’t know what that means. We don’t know how sustainable crypto mining can be. If crypto mining and investors for crypto mining see a jurisdiction that’s not competitive and can’t be sustainable, they’ll obviously go somewhere else. With that could be the unintended consequences from crypto mining and decentralized data storage and AI development in the province. That could be a factor. That could be an unintended consequence to this. We’ll go through that in committee stage, and we’ll see what the minister responds to when we ask those questions.

In conclusion, the NDP’s abandonment of strategic energy policies has not only made B.C. reliant on power imports but has also cost us greatly, with last year’s net import costs hitting $450 million. As we move to the committee stage, we look forward to dissecting this bill in detail, ensuring that our future steps align to make B.C. a leader in clean and sustainable energy once again.

It’s time for a change, and B.C. United is ready to lead with practical, impactful solutions that restore our province’s energy independence and secure a sustainable future. I’m not overly optimistic on this one. I could be convinced, but we’ll find out in committee stage.

R. Glumac: I’m happy to stand up today and just say a little bit about Bill 24, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, because there’s a personal connection to me here in terms of how I got involved in politics myself at a provincial level.

I had, in 2006, moved back to British Columbia after working in the U.S. in the animated film industry. I came back, and I started to learn about what was going on in the province in various different ways.

[4:45 p.m.]

I remember seeing a map with all these dots all over it. “What is this?” Each one of those dots was a proposed independent power project across the province, all over, on pristine watersheds all across the province. As somebody who cares about the environment, as somebody who has grown up on rivers, fishing and hiking, it was shocking to me to see this incredible map with project proposals on each of these rivers.

So I started to learn more about it. It actually motivated me quite a bit to learn more and to get involved more at the provincial level, because our provincial government are the stewards of our tax dollar. They are there to make sure that we’re running things in a financially responsible way.

As I learned about these independent power projects, some things struck me as very concerning. These projects are on rivers. They experience spring freshets when the rivers run higher, and that’s when they generate their energy. The issue with that is that the spring is the time of year when we least need that energy.

We don’t need the energy at that time of the year. We can purchase that energy for quite low rates, around as low as $5 per megawatt hour, but these projects that were being proposed in the standing offer program were at $120 per megawatt hour. What is going on? At that time, I’m thinking to myself: “Why is our provincial government…?”

I’m someone who cares about the environment. I’m someone who cares about climate change. These are potentially clean energy projects. I was like: “Why are they paying so much money for these projects and setting up this gold rush for private companies to come in?” The B.C. ratepayers are going to have to subsidize this. I was shocked.

As I learned more about it…. There was a reference by the opposition to a report that came out. That report said that this program has cost B.C. ratepayers $16 billion. The member of the opposition says: “Well, those numbers aren’t right. That’s ridiculous.” He says: “Well, you can’t use those numbers.” Well, yeah, you can, because the energy that you’re selling in the springtime for sometimes 80 percent less than what you bought it for is a subsidy to a private company, and that subsidy is being paid for by B.C. ratepayers. It was paid for to the tune of, like, $4,000 per household. That’s $4,000 out of your pocket because of irresponsible decisions of the government of the day.

That’s what motivated me to get into B.C. politics. I’m thinking: “We can do things better than this. We can do a better job than this, surely.” How did this happen? This bill today is closing a chapter on a very dark time of financial mismanagement in our province. I’m so glad to stand here today in support of this bill. I think it’s important, because the way we run things in the province has a direct financial impact on you as a homeowner.

This started in 2008, when the B.C. Liberal government directed B.C. Hydro to purchase 8,500 gigawatt hours of energy. They wanted to do this by restricting B.C. Hydro from importing this energy or generating it themselves. It had to come from private companies. That was what the government wanted.

[4:50 p.m.]

The B.C. Utilities Commission said: “Well, we have Burrard thermal as a backup source of energy that can meet the needs of years of…. If there’s some extra demand in the winter, Burrard thermal is there. It just went through $150 million of environmental upgrades. It’s not used very often, but it’s there.” The government ignored that. In fact, they shut it down. They started planning to shut it down. There were protests about this. The Ministry of Energy itself raised concerns, but all of that was ignored.

In 2009, when large industrial customers were shutting down, like the Catalyst pulp mill, demand for energy fell even further. How did the government respond to that information? As the Zapped report says: “Government did not heed the warning. Government could have and should have stopped the IPP procurements. If they had stopped, the total impact of B.C. Hydro ratepayers would have been avoided.”

Let’s be clear that the government of the day plowed forward with this plan, despite having all of this information that this is not what we should be doing, and the people of B.C. ended up footing the bill for this incredible mismanagement of our electrical utility. It’s not the only Crown corporation that the government had financially mismanaged, but I won’t talk about ICBC right now.

Your government, what they do — it matters. We’re doing things differently. We’re doing things the proper way. The way they did it then, just plowing ahead…. “Doesn’t matter. We’re just going to waste all this money. We’re going to give it all to private companies. You don’t need the energy. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter.” That’s not the way we’re doing things right now.

In April of this year, B.C. Hydro issued a request for proposals to require 3,000 gigawatts per year of clean electricity. This is a competitive call for power, and it requires a minimum 25 percent First Nations equity ownership in these projects. That’s the way we should be doing things: a competitive call for power, not setting some rate far astronomically above anything that’s reasonable, as the previous government did.

Then there’s also another program, $140 million, that we’re contributing to: the B.C. Indigenous clean energy initiative to support First Nations communities with smaller projects that aren’t part of this program. This is a responsible way of moving forward. This is how a responsible government that knows how to manage a Crown corporation, knows how to manage people’s finances…. That’s how you do it.

Look at the results. B.C. Hydro rates are 15.6 percent lower than the cumulative rate of inflation over the past seven years, lower than the rate of inflation, and the rates are currently 12.4 percent lower than what they would be under the previous government’s ten-year rates plan. So that’s how we’re doing things. We’re managing B.C. Hydro in a much more responsible manner.

I wanted to stand up today to say a few words about that, because this bill, like I said, closes that chapter. We can move forward now, in a good way, with our finances and look forward to a very bright future in how we’re acquiring energy going forward, clean energy for the people of this province, and a clean, bright future for all of us.

E. Ross: It’s an honour, on behalf of Skeena, to get up and talk to Bill 24, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act.

[4:55 p.m.]

I was listening to comments from the NDP government talking about how the B.C. Liberals had mismanaged the Clean Energy program previously, talking about how private companies were somehow part of a gold rush for all those independent power projects all across B.C., all the dots on the map.

Well, we were a dot on a map, and we weren’t out to destroy rivers and salmon. Quite the opposite. In fact, we were also talking about the competitive rate that the NDP are proposing now versus a standing rate that the B.C. Liberals had proposed in their clean energy program.

First Nations liked that standard rate. They liked it. You think about it. First Nations that had never gotten into clean energy programs, that had never gotten any kind of their own program, and they’ve got to forecast some type of a profit or some type of return from any kind of initiative. So they liked the certainty of a standard rate. Competitive rates did not work.

I’m talking on behalf of my own band, one of these big, bad corporations that were out to destroy the environment, according to the NDP government. Our corporation was called the Kitimat Renewable Energy Corporation, and we had developed initiatives for run-of-the-river projects after reviewing solar projects and wind projects that we found weren’t sustainable in our territory.

We went above and beyond the provincial standards and the federal standards that looked at river flows. We didn’t go near salmon streams. The standard that B.C. actually brought to the clean energy program for run-of-the-river projects wasn’t good enough for us, so we filled in the gaps. To state somehow that my band, the Haisla Band, along with a number of First Nations all across B.C. who formed private companies to take advantage of clean energy programs — that somehow we’re out there to destroy the environment? That’s false. That’s not true.

It wasn’t just about what the government program was thinking about, including what the NDP are now reproposing as a standing offer program for clean energy. We were trying everything we could get our hands on to develop an economy to get away from the Indian Act. Very rarely do I hear any words in this Legislature talking about independence for First Nations, self-determination, unless it fits a narrative for politics.

My band not only pursued run-of-the-river, we pursued LNG. We’re the ones that brought it to this Legislature in 2004. But there are other things we brought. Under Coastal First Nations, we brought the forest and range agreement here. Every First Nation under Coastal First Nations signed the forest and range agreement in 2006 and renewed it five years later. A lot of the bands that participated in that program went to clearcutting forests, including my band, and we exported logs. So to somehow characterize First Nations as not caring about the environment is very offensive.

To get to the bill itself, really, we’re talking about energy. That’s what it is. Energy is actually fundamental to the quality of life of Canadians, and we don’t want to admit it. In fact, it’s fundamental to addressing poverty all around the world. That’s one of the key components. Even the United Nations admitted this, even though it contradicts one of their other goals to say that they’re going to reduce fossil fuel energy, and they don’t have an answer for it. You want to provide cheap, reliable energy for these countries that need to resolve poverty, but you want to tie their hands by not exporting natural gas or oil to these countries.

I agree. We have an abundance of resources here in B.C. But for some reason, mostly for politics, we limit it. There should be more than one major LNG export project in B.C., because it’s about energy that Asia needs, India needs, Europe needs. If you just look at the Russian-Ukraine war, you’ll understand what real energy politics looks like.

[5:00 p.m.]

I will credit the government one thing, and that’s the pause on cryptocurrency energy needs. I wasn’t really aware of the cryptocurrency energy needs until I started to understand why there was a pause put on it. Cryptocurrency — like my colleague from Kootenay East, I don’t have a clue on it. I’ve tried to read up on it. I tried to understand it. I don’t get it. But I did understand it was an economic driver for First Nations on reserve land.

Now, I’ve heard the NDP government say it’s not a big driver for employment overall, but for reserves that have 80 to 90 percent unemployment plus the revenue that could flow from this type of initiative, it’s pretty attractive. Not for my band anymore. I don’t think my band would be interested in it anymore, just because of the revenues that came from forestry and LNG. But there are many other bands searching for anything to start economic development to get them away from the Indian Act.

In terms of a new economy that’s actually spreading around the world, B.C. is going have to say no to cryptocurrency just because of the lack of energy in B.C., a lack of politically acceptable energy. We have tremendous potential for energy. Yet it still doesn’t look at the reality of what B.C. and Canadians are facing in terms of this new economy, especially when you think about information and the Internet, for example. I know bitcoin takes up an incredible amount of energy just because of all the servers that they need to fill up a building just to mine one coin. It’s staggering. I had no idea one bitcoin transaction takes 1,449 kilowatt hours. Just one coin. That’s equivalent to 50 days of power for the average U.S. household. That is incredible.

We’re not going to be able to participate in that, just because we know the limits of the supply of electricity in B.C. as well as the infrastructure that needs to be upgraded all around B.C., but this doesn’t discount the idea of data centres. There is a tremendous amount of power needed for data centres, and I know there are some in Alberta.

You think about the new world we’re living in, the sensitivity of information, especially personal information coming from every individual British Columbian. I understand that Ottawa passed a law saying that no sensitive information regarding health information, for example, can cross Canadian borders and go to a different country and a different data centre. For security reasons and confidentiality, Canada was trying to find a way to keep information on the Internet inside Canadian borders. Well, we can’t do that without building data centres. It’s another part of the new economy that we might not be able to participate in, even though it’s a legitimate need and requirement in many other jurisdictions around the world.

Some of the largest data centres around the world can require more than 100 megawatts of power capacity, enough power to power around 80,000 U.S. households. That’s a lot of power. We’re not even talking about the amount of power potentially to power up one turbine for phase 2 of LNG Canada’s export project in Kitimat. I’m not sure we have enough power for that. I’m not sure we have enough power for the new clean energy economy that’s taking place all around the world.

By the way, that new economy that we’re talking about, the new clean energy economy, includes natural gas on a huge scale, a massive scale. I’m talking clean energy. I know certain parts of the world have designated LNG as clean energy. I’m assuming B.C. thinks about LNG as a clean energy, because I believe 85 MLAs in this place fully support LNG, right? It was almost unanimous, except for maybe three MLAs that weren’t here for the vote.

[5:05 p.m.]

But this new clean energy economy is basically taking hydrogen out of natural gas, combining with nitrogen from the air, and then they’re going to either use the hydrogen as an energy source or use the ammonia as an energy source in Japan. This is happening as we speak, right now.

This is in reference to the amount of potential energy that we have available here in B.C. We’re talking about the idea that we don’t have enough energy to provide for cryptocurrency, or we don’t have enough energy for data centres. It’s because of the limitations that we placed on energy ourselves. That’s it. We’ve closed off, not us but this NDP government, any other energy option other than electricity and possibly solar and wind.

The Okanagan, through Forests, had applied to extend or increase their capacity for natural gas to go to the Okanagan to help them through the winter. It was rejected. That’s an energy need. Yet we know already there’s a large portion of our population in B.C. that uses natural gas, not necessarily for electricity but for heating. So for the Okanagan to figure out how they’re going to keep themselves warm in the winter is a question for the B.C. government to figure out. What is the electricity answer? And it is energy.

There’s a lot of talk about the previous B.C. Liberals making mistakes. But quite conveniently, when I was chief councillor of the Haisla and a councillor prior to that, from 2003 to 2017, it was the NDP that opposed Site C. “We don’t need the power.” They paused the standing offer program, the clean energy program, because we don’t need the power. They opposed LNG. They had extraordinary debates in this House to oppose LNG.

Grudgingly, they decided to carry on with Site C construction, but that didn’t stop them from cancelling the standing offer program.

Really, what we’re talking about here…. I’ve heard the government talk about how this is a brand-new program, but you’re still bringing back a clean energy initiative. You put some conditions on it — competitive. I’m sure the First Nations can figure that out, but they did like a standard rate for the First Nations power under the B.C. Liberals program. I’m sure they can figure out a competitive rate if they can qualify.

There are a lot of First Nations that want to get back to developing clean energy. In fact, one of them is in my riding — Kitsumkalum. Kitsumkalum consulted with the B.C. government for the northwest transmission line to go up to northern B.C. In exchange for Kitsumkalum’s agreement to the northwest transmission line, the government agreed to look at their clean energy program, which would have used biofuel coming from the forests of Skeena.

Well, this government rejected them. I understand why. I looked at the agreement. The wording is pretty general. It’s pretty vague. But First Nations, especially the leaders I’ve dealt with over the years…. We’re still getting into the world where you need lawyers and consultants at every single step of the way. In a lot of the agreements that I actually agreed with other First Nations, we got up and shook hands, and we followed through.

[5:10 p.m.]

Kitsumkalum is still waiting, over 12 years now, for their energy project to be fulfilled and their rights and title. They don’t want to feel that they put up their rights and title in bad faith from this government. If this government could reach out to Kitsumkalum and make some sincere efforts to fulfil that impact-and-benefits agreement that was signed between Kitsumkalum and B.C., I’m sure they’d be grateful.

We also have a lot of talk about the First Nations involvement, but it’s going to have to be pretty high-level involvement. It’s not going to take into consideration the reconciliation that happened from 2004 to 2017 at all levels. The standing offer program was a way to reconcile First Nations where it mattered most — economics.

A lot of the First Nations are trying to find any way they can to get out of poverty, to get away from unemployment, to get away from the Indian Act. The standing offer program did that. Premier Gordon Campbell, as well as Premier Christy Clark, understood it, and they wanted to make it happen.

I agree there were some projects that didn’t make any sense. It was just too high a price. The NaiKun wind project in Hecate Strait — I understand why that didn’t make the cut. As I understand it, costs are coming down for wind and solar, so there are ways to bring that back as well. Sooner or later Haida is going to have rights and title declared — I guess in the next couple of years — formally between them and the B.C. government. But they’re still going to need an economic base of some sort.

The standing offer program tried to address that. I’m thinking this new clean energy program that’s very similar to a standing offer program that was cancelled will have similar conditions. But I do hope that economic reconciliation is a big part of Bill 24, because it really matters.

When we’re talking about the energy needs here, it’s a very complicated process for regular British Columbians to understand what we’re talking about. We use acronyms. We use technical words. The average British Columbian just wants to be able to jump in their car, go get groceries, flick their switch and turn on the lights. The only time I’ve ever heard about power discussions in my community is when the power went through a blackout.

In fact, we went through a major blackout during a winter storm when I was chief councillor. That’s when I really started to look closely at the relationship with B.C. Hydro in providing some type of redundancy in case that ever happened again. We went seven days without power, and the road was basically too full of snow and trees that crossed the road. We couldn’t get in or out without boats or helicopters.

We do tend to politicize it. We do tend to over-compli­cate things. But the whole point, I guess, I’m getting at is that we need energy, and we’re going to need a lot more. This makes for a great announcement, Bill 24, but it’s going to take time to see results from this. I don’t know what kind of timing. We know there are a lot of proposals on the table right now for that need, clean energy, just because of government policies.

[5:15 p.m.]

How long will it take to get a proposal through this new system if a First Nation, for example, can’t get through the bureaucracy and the rules? Otherwise, if we just keep plugging along here, debating this on the basis of politics, we’re going to have to import more power from the United States.

It won’t matter if we characterize that as electricity because we know the United States still generates electricity from natural gas and coal, so you can’t argue that that’s really a clean alternative. We’ve got to recognize the fact that energy, in terms of B.C…. Very quietly we understand as politicians, but we’re only willing to talk about politically correct energy sources. We still ship out massive quantities of coal through Prince Rupert Harbour. We ship out massive quantities of propane through Prince Rupert. So while everybody is talking about how much LNG is going to be exported and how maybe there are emissions that haven’t been accounted for, you haven’t touched coal yet; you haven’t touched propane.

By the way, there’s going to be more than fossil fuels being railed into Prince Rupert, and that will be ammonia. The proposal is so far ahead that they’re clearing out the land right now. They’re putting in pilings for the docks. They’ve already got a $75 million grant from the federal government. It’s going to happen. They’ve already got agreements with Japan. And now we’ve got another proposal for ammonia that’s going to be based out of Kitimat, potentially. Then we’ve got the McLeod Lake.

This all needs energy. I seriously doubt that the narra­tive that is being delivered by this Bill 24 is going to meet the demand of all these energy projects. Even if you could somehow provide the amount of electricity needed, you still have to upgrade the infrastructure and not just for rural areas.

We all understand that a large portion of the revenues and economics come from rural areas, but in Vancouver, to play with the energy and to think that we’re going to have enough for what’s happening in Vancouver…. When the Enbridge pipeline went down a couple years ago, the electricity grid was in danger of blacking out in Vancouver because everybody automatically switched to electricity away from natural gas.

We have a very fragile system, and it doesn’t have to be that way. But we’ve got to take the political lens off energy and talk about not only our duty to provide clean, reliable, affordable energy to British Columbians, but we’ve got a duty to provide that same opportunity to other jurisdictions around the world.

Like I say, the only things holding us back are politics and narratives. I look forward to the debate in third reading.

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you so much to the members for their contributions at this debate stage, the second reading for the bill. I really appreciate the remarks from the Leader of the Third Party and the member for Kootenay East, the member for Skeena and the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam.

I know we’ll have the opportunity to canvass quite a bit of detail of the bill in the committee stage but just a few, maybe, remarks and responses at this point. First of all, just to remind us all that fundamentally this bill is about amendments that are just one of a suite of actions that our government is taking to ensure safe, reliable, affordable, clean electricity for people, for families, for businesses, for industry as our clean energy economy grows.

As we have that time to talk more in committee stage, we’ll be able to answer a lot of the questions. I appreciate the questions that my critic brought forward. We’ll be able to confirm things like the fact that the self-sufficiency clause still remains in the Clean Energy Act, and it’s not changing. We are still required to be self-sufficient based on a mid-load forecast in average water years.

[5:20 p.m.]

Quite a few remarks and comments around the really fundamental and important role of First Nations in clean energy and the aspirations, the goals that First Nations have for their own economy that is powered by clean energy for remote communities that are not connected to B.C.’s electricity grid and getting off diesel fuel, getting off dirty polluting fuels.

To be clear, in response to some of the comments from the Leader of the Third Party that remote communities and non-integrated areas are, while not a part of the call for power program that is designed for projects that are connected to B.C.’s electricity grid….

We do have a goal to reduce the emissions produced by diesel by 80 percent by 2030. This is really important. I hear from many different First Nations in these remote communities just how important this is, and that’s why we are supporting that work and why B.C. Hydro is supporting that work through the non-integrated areas community renewable energy offer. So there is a program that is supporting these communities.

It is, I think, fundamental to point out that the participation in equity ownership by First Nations was never a requirement of the standing offer program. I may have misheard one of the members speaking about standing offer program projects being all 100 percent owned by First Nations, but that just isn’t the case. B.C. Hydro is aware of six standing offer projects that have Indigenous ownership stakes. In contrast, the call for power will require a 25 percent minimum ownership by First Nations, with incentives to increase that to 51 percent.

The B.C. Indigenous clean energy initiative is an initiative that was actually started by the former government, very much to their credit — a partnership with the federal government, with the New Relationship Trust, working with First Nations to increase clean energy opportunities.

As has been mentioned by a few members here today, the difference between a standing offer program that was not competitive, was never designed to be a competitive procurement process and, instead, offered set, fixed-price contracts that increased with inflation but did not reflect the decreasing cost of renewable energy technologies over time…. That cost difference has been borne by ratepayers.

In fact, the member for Kootenay East did mention loss leaders in his speech. A loss leader is one thing. But to have that be borne by the ratepayers at a time, especially now, when we know just how much the cost of energy is impacting people, like the cost of inflation, high interest rates and the struggles that families are having…. It is so incredibly important that we continue to keep B.C.’s electricity rates affordable for people and affordable for business.

Lastly, I actually think there’s quite a bit of agreement in some places here, and I look forward to the committee stage debate. We all agree that we need electricity, that we need more clean electricity and that independent power producers are a key part of acquiring that new energy.

We spoke a bit about drought. We are rightly concerned about the impacts of drought. We’re seeing it firsthand in communities and the impacts on people. We have faced drought before in British Columbia, but never like we did last summer, and it looks to be another summer of challenging times with respect to drought. But to focus on one year in isolation and try to characterize the entire B.C. Hydro system…. It’s just inaccurate to do it that way.

We’re so fortunate here to have a resilient backbone of hydro dams and one that can easily have renewable sources of energy integrated into it.

To the Leader of the Third Party’s comments about the severity and seriousness of adapting to climate change, I couldn’t agree more. I think that’s why seeing the call for power. Being able to integrate renewables into the system adds to the resiliency that we need to see moving forward.

Of course, the system we have now of exporting and importing power is a key way that we help keep B.C. Hydro rates affordable for people. Being able to export power during the night and being able to import it when it is cheaper, the solar that is coming from places like California and Arizona, has always been a key part of the way we keep B.C. Hydro rates low for people.

In closing, again, I thank the members for their contributions. I very much look forward to canvassing in much more detail in the committee stage.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 24.

Deputy Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 24, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2024.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Osborne: 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 24, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this main chamber, I call second reading of Bill 25, Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act.

BILL 25 — HAIDA NATION RECOGNITION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that Bill 25 be now read a second time.

The government of British Columbia and the Council of the Haida Nation have been working for many years together, forging a new path of reconciliation. That work, at its core, has focused on taking steps toward recognizing Haida Aboriginal title on Haida Gwaii. That work, in fact, was begun by the previous government. It has been supported through a series of agreements, one in 2009, one in 2021 and one in 2023.

We’ve now reached another milestone step. On April 14, the province and the Council of the Haida Nation signed the Rising Tide Haida title lands agreement. The legislation before this House, Bill 25, supports and enacts that agreement.

The Haida Nation and the government worked very closely to develop Bill 25. The strong presence of the Haida Nation here during first reading is an indication of their support and strong commitment for this work, as is the overwhelming approval of the agreement through their ratification process, where Haida citizens voted 95 percent in favour. Together, the agreement and the legislation represent a momentous and a tangible step in our pathway together: the recognition of Haida original title to all of Haida Gwaii.

It’s not just the Haida people who support this work. Non-Haida residents and businesses operating on Haida Gwaii do as well. This is evidenced by the presence of many local government officials and owners of significant business interests on Haida Gwaii who came to the Legislature for the first reading debate. Representatives of the Queen Charlotte Lodge; of the Langara Lodge; of A&A Trading, a forest company on Haida Gwaii; local government representatives; Mayor Lisa Pineault of Daajing Giids; Mayor Disney of Masset; regional district directors; and the North Coast regional district chair, Barry Pages. They were all here to show their understanding of this legislation’s need to move forward together in the way that we are proposing.

Ministry staff and the Council of the Haida Nation have also answered questions on what title recognitions mean for Haida Gwaii. We’ve had considerable engagement throughout the process leading up to this legislation.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Rankin: If we could just pause for a moment and ask for an adjournment of the debate.

Deputy Speaker: The minister moves adjournment of the debate while reserving his space.

Hon. M. Rankin moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
(SHORT-TERM HOLDING)
PROFIT TAX) ACT, 2024

Bill 15, Budget Measures Implementation (Residential Property (Short-Term Holding) Profit Tax) Act, 2024, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, we call Bill 25, Haida Nation Recognition Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, we call Committee of the Whole for Bill 17, Police Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — HAIDA NATION RECOGNITION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

(continued)

Hon. M. Rankin: I’ve tried to indicate that the work that led up to this was the subject of a number of agreements over the years, one in 2009, one in 2021 and one last year. I commend the previous government for its work, as I’ll describe, that helped us get to this momentous day.

I’ve indicated the strong support on Haida Gwaii, both among Haida members and the non-Indigenous community on Haida Gwaii, for this work. That that was, I think, evidenced by representatives of local government who were here. I named the mayors of the two main communities, the regional district chair, but I also wanted to ensure that the House knew that we had here, as well, representatives of the large forest industry on Haida Gwaii, A&A Trading, and representatives of two of the fishing lodges on Haida Gwaii.

I should say that we’ve had an enormous amount of engagement with provincewide organizations. I won’t name them all: the Business Council of B.C., the Council of Forest Industries, the Mining Association, many legal experts, the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I could go on; I have a long list of those who were engaged by our staff.

We also had the staff for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation fan out across Haida Gwaii, and had both real and virtual meetings to ensure that people were aware of this agreement. We also provided mailings, householders if you will, so that people could know what was and wasn’t on the table in case misinformation were to occur.

We’ve heard a lot of people from Haida Gwaii, non-Haida residents, recognizing title and avoiding a protracted and expensive court case, which was the path we were on since this lawsuit was first announced, first brought forward in the courts, as long ago as 2002.

I am, therefore, confident that title, through the Rising Tide agreement and the enacting legislation before us, is the right way forward. It provides stability and clarity in key areas — in particular, for private property and local government jurisdiction — while setting out the work we will do together, in the years ahead, in an orderly way. Importantly, it circumvents the confusion and unpredictability that would have arisen if we’d left these issues for the courts to decide.

Recognizing Haida Aboriginal title is foundational to the reconciliation pathway between the Haida Nation and our province. Haida Aboriginal title to Haida Gwaii is clear. The Haida people have lived on and stewarded the islands, the archipelago that makes up Haida Gwaii, for tens of thousands of years.

Instead of going through a long and expensive court battle to reach the obvious conclusion, we worked together and approached this in a different way, the way the courts have been telling governments to do for decades: “Stop litigating. Bring everyone together. Negotiate. Find solutions that work for the people.” That’s exactly what we have done, and that is why we are here today. This important milestone creates stability for everyone on Haida Gwaii, an orderly step-by-step path forward to implement Haida Aboriginal title.

Sadly, there are some who live far from Haida Gwaii and who seek to divide and to use this important work for political aims, to sow fears that pit people who live in British Columbia against each other. Both the agreement and the legislation are explicit on the question of fee simple lands. Recognizing Aboriginal title in this agreement does not take away anyone’s private property.

[5:35 p.m.]

This agreement and its supporting legislation confirm that fee simple lands and all interests associated with fee simple lands are continued. Private property remains under B.C. jurisdiction in perpetuity. Provincial jurisdiction applies where fee simple is concerned on Haida Gwaii.

The bill sets this out. It’s codified with explicit Haida consent, leaving it absolutely clear and legally indisputable. That consent resolves any legal questions. In this way, the agreement and the legislation create a strong, stable legal environment from which to move forward together.

Likewise, there’s no change to local government jurisdiction and services. There’s no change to public infrastructure. There’s no change to public services or programs. All will continue under current law and jurisdiction. Highways, airports, ferry terminals, health care and schools are not affected — no impact at all from this agreement and this legislation.

People will continue to receive municipal services, pay their property taxes and get building permits and business licences, just as they do today, in exactly the same way. Landowners and businesses within local government areas will remain within current boundaries. Any potential municipal boundary changes in the future would, of course, be subject to negotiation and discussions with local governments and the public.

If the members of this House decide to pass this legislation, once it and the Rising Tide agreement come into effect, changes to jurisdiction will happen over time. Over time, the province and the Council of the Haida Nation will negotiate agreements to determine how various aspects of land and resource governance will shift to the Haida Nation. We will engage with local governments, with interest holders and residents of Haida Gwaii throughout those discussions.

Protected areas and forestry will be the first priority for our negotiations. The intention is for the province to step back and provide for Haida Nation management and jurisdiction in matters relating to Haida Aboriginal title. These negotiations and transitions will, of course, take time.

A number of measures in the legislation are for an interim period. That will allow for the transition process, identified clearly in the Rising Tide agreement, to occur, and that’s expected to take place for a minimum of two years. However, working through the various areas of jurisdiction could take longer than that, and we need to be realistic about it.

During the transition period, provincial laws pertaining to what were Crown lands will continue to apply on title lands, as provided for in the legislation. In the transition, the legislation stipulates that existing interests such as tenures, permits, licences, leases will continue under the current system, with the province and the Haida Nation continuing to make decisions under the existing collaborative land management decision-making processes.

I pause here to note that the solutions table and the Haida Gwaii Management Council have been working effectively since 2010, with a strong, collaborative, transparent process. It’s worth noting that this process was established by the previous B.C. Liberal government, in what was groundbreaking and first-of-its-time legislation then, which makes their concerns about this groundbreaking legislation rather confusing.

While some seek to raise fears and doubts, the reality is that the province and the Council of the Haida Nation have consistently reached consensus on decisions at those tables, over this period since 2010 to now. There have been only a few instances, in more than a decade of working together through those processes, where consensus was not achieved.

Under Bill 25, all B.C. laws that apply on Haida Gwaii, including those relating to Crown land, must be administered in a manner consistent with the recognition of Haida Aboriginal title.

[5:40 p.m.]

This, of course, will mean some adjustments to deci­sion-​making criteria at those tables. If a situation arises during the transition period where we don’t reach consensus on a decision, the province will make the decision. In light of title, that decision must be compelling in its public interest and not impose unreasonable or undue hardship on the Haida Nation.

I think it’s also important to state explicitly that collaborative decision-making, which has been in place successfully for more than a decade on Haida Gwaii, does not create a veto. The solutions table and the Haida Gwaii Management Council have clear, transparent and agreed-upon processes. That’s the exact opposite of a veto.

I will also note for the record that the rising tide agreement is not a treaty. It does not itself become a law. Rather, Bill 25 gives effect to the terms of the agreement. These, of course, include the recognition of Haida Aboriginal title and the continuation of fee simple lands, local governments and other interests in the land.

The agreement is binding on our government, but some sections will need to be incorporated in B.C. laws in the future before they come into effect. That will be subject to future negotiations, as I spoke of earlier.

I also note that, although not necessary to directly state it in the bill, B.C.’s laws of general application still apply on Haida Gwaii.

Recognizing title in the way we are doing here today, with this legislation and the rising tide agreement, is a first in Canada. Haida Gwaii is unique. The Haida people’s historic title is very clear. No other First Nation claims the archipelago. And the Council of the Haida Nation is a strong, stable government that has advanced a vision of title for some 50 years. The strong partnership between the province and the Haida Nation has created a unique and an exciting opportunity to take a great stride forward in our government-to-government relationship.

Some have asked whether the province, on its own, without federal participation, can recognize title. There is a strong legal foundation for B.C.’s legal capacity to recognize and implement Aboriginal title by legislation and agreement without Canada, including in case law and under section 92 of the Constitution Act, which makes clear that property and civil rights are exclusive jurisdictions of the provinces.

Both orders of government, as part of the indivisible Crown, have obligations to uphold Indigenous rights and fulfil promises. Furthermore, as I already mentioned, the courts have been clear that achieving reconciliation requires this kind of leadership and action by governments.

Mr. Speaker, you will remember the federal government was at the negotiating table with us for many, many months. Although they recently determined their process would take longer and would have held up the agreement, Canada has clearly stated their support for and recognition of Haida Aboriginal title in the tripartite agreements we signed in both 2021 and 2023.

I’m happy to report that they currently have a bill before their parliament recognizing the Council of the Haida Nation as the representative government for the Haida Nation. And I note that the federal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Mr. Gary Anandasangaree, attended the introduction of Bill 25 this past Monday and was sitting on the floor of this very Legislature in clear support of recognizing Haida Aboriginal title.

Federal and provincial jurisdictions give rise to different issues to work through with Haida Nation. The federal government continues to actively work on those issues. We fully expect Canada will join the province in recognizing Haida Aboriginal title in due course.

I am eager for the work ahead as we work together to realize the full expression of Haida Aboriginal title on Haida Gwaii, forging a future for Haida Gwaii that reflects the history, the culture and the vision of the Haida people and doing so in a way which answers questions that have faced the province for decades, in a way which brings people together, not drives people apart.

Far from creating uncertainty, which would be the case if the court challenge were to proceed, we’re creating stability.

[5:45 p.m.]

The legislation is clear. It’s straightforward. And given the courts’ continued encouragement of governments to lead in this space, I am confident that the courts would give the province significant deference as it blazes this new path forward. I find it confusing and, frankly, troubling that there are those who would look to slow down this important work.

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from other members on the recognition of Haida Aboriginal title.

M. Lee: I appreciate the opportunity to address this very important bill, Bill 25. I will be the designated speaker for the B.C. United official opposition.

I’ve listened carefully to the speech from the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and recognize that many of his remarks were stated in his initial news releases, his attempts to give some indications of progress that was being made towards this historic agreement with the Haida Nation.

I will say at the outset that perspective is very important here. The role of this government, in respect of reconciliation with First Nations, has always been to bring everyone along. The Haida court decision in 2004, as I referred to in first reading on this bill on Monday…. Apart from standing for the duty to consult and accommodate that has been used throughout many of the follow-on court decisions in our lands, the balance and compromise are inherent in the notion of reconciliation.

“Where accommodation is required in making deci­sions that may adversely affect as yet unproven rights and title claims, the Crown must balance Aboriginal concerns reasonably with the potential impact of the decision on the asserted right or title and with other societal interests.” I will continue to come back to this very important statement in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Haida in 2004: balance and compromise in the recognition with other societal interests.

I appreciate that the minister, in his remarks, has already indicated the level of evidence of support for the Haida Nation for this agreement, for this legislation on first reading, the list of individuals and community members that the minister read out.

The concern we’ve had in response to the minister’s first news release about the progress that’s been made — certainly it has built up on the body of work that the minister acknowledged under the former B.C. Liberal, now B.C. United party, when they were in government throughout this period since 2004 — is that this, in the words of the Premier, may well provide a template for others. The Premier talks about doing it in other places in British Columbia. Well, that would mean other First Nations, and possibly in Canada.

[5:50 p.m.]

The minister just reconfirmed that this is the first in Canada, this type of title agreement — this framework, which is not treaty, as made clear under section 8.8 of the agreement. This agreement is not a treaty but is part of a reconciliation process.

We have called twice for a pause in this proceeding, once on March 22, in response to the minister’s first news release before the draft agreement was made available. Just based on what the minister was saying in his release, we saw that as a dramatic departure.

It is a new model. It’s not treaty. It’s certainly not a court decision that we’ve seen in Tsilhqot’in and Nuu-chah-nulth Nations more recently. This is a new form of coming to an understanding and agreement around title, in this case for the unique recognition of title for the Haida Nation, which we certainly acknowledge.

The Leader of the Official Opposition was a member of the cabinet which did much of that early reconciliation work, which includes the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act of 2010. This act calls for the development of a new relationship between the Haida Nation and British Columbia. It also referred to the importance of guiding joint decision-making relating to land and natural resource management on Haida Gwaii.

The minister acknowledged the solutions table that came out of much of that work, which is called for in this statute in 2010, with the Haida Gwaii Management Council — the council establishing, for example, objectives for the use and management of land and resources in particular management areas and protected areas management plans.

I will just say that at the time, on March 22 — which is now over a month ago, 30 days ago — we called for a pause, for reasons that I’m sure we will pursue in committee, reasons that I will hopefully have time to speak to here in second reading. This bill and this agreement, this new arrangement, this new template as the Premier refers to it, needs to be carefully examined. I’ll tell you why in a moment.

Today a few hours ago, prior to the beginning of second reading, we called for a second time for a pause. Now that the bill.… Well, what happened was that we put out the joint statement, the Leader of the Official Opposition and myself, calling for a pause on this process. The draft agreement then came out. The minister had another news release around the draft agreement, which was being finalized. That went forward to a very historic and meaningful signing ceremony in Haida Gwaii that took place on April 14.

On Monday, Elders and representatives of the Haida Nation, the president of the Council of the Haida Nation, the federal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations were all brought here. And many others: Miles Richardson, David Suzuki, Jody Wilson-Raybould. They were all brought into this House on this historic occasion.

[5:55 p.m.]

I have more to say about that as well, and how that was handled, how disrespectful that was. Not to the Haida — we paid respect to the Haida, and that’s what that was about — but to all the other members who are not in government in this Legislative Assembly. I’ll come back to that.

Today we called for this bill, for a second time in this whole process, to be paused, to make Bill 25 an exposure bill. Government has done this before. They’ve tabled bills on the floor of the Legislative Assembly, and they have not called them for debate to go through the various stages — second reading, committee, third reading. That’s what we’re asking this government to do in the face of where we are today.

I urge government to consider this. In the most meaningful way, it’s an understanding that this government, or any government of British Columbia, needs to bring together everyone in this path towards reconciliation.

I recognize we need, that government needs, to have that nation-to-nation relationship, as this government has with the Haida Nation, as the former government had with the Haida Nation and as a future government will have with the Haida Nation. I recognize that with the Haida, this has taken a very, very long time. They’ve had a very long journey to get to where they are right now. But there are steps. There are more steps to be taken.

The reason why we’ve called for a pause twice — once on March 22 and a second time today, on April 24 — is this. There has been a time in this chamber where we’ve had a similar discussion about fundamental, important legislation that will change the reconciliation path for First Nations, Indigenous peoples and the Métis in our province. We all remember the fall of 2019, when this government, in a different ceremony, brought forward and introduced the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, Bill 41.

In October and November of 2019, we were not on the eve of an election — the silly season, as people call it — five months away from an election. As it turns out, we were only a year away from the election, but we didn’t know it, so that still counts.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

We didn’t know that the government was going to call an election on the eve of a second wave of a pandemic. We didn’t know that they were going to break their own fixed election laws and call an election in October 2020, as opposed to when it should have been called in October 2021. But we know that that’s all water under the bridge.

But my point is that in the context of what we’re dealing with right now, it’s five months. The fact of the matter is that it’s five months away from an election. Unless this Premier wants to call an early election, we’re still in silly season.

This is the reason why, when the minister refers to others…. Let’s make a distinction here. The Leader of the Official Opposition and myself want to be very clear and transparent with the Haida Nation and all First Nations in this province. That’s the way we conduct ourselves. But we also do it in a way that brings along all British Columbians.

That’s what we stood for when we called this government to stand down from their proposed Land Act amendments when they failed to bring British Columbians along, when they put forward a slide deck on an engage.gov.bc.ca/govtogetherbc website and didn’t tell anybody about it. “We’re going to consult with you.” But they didn’t tell anybody. Then they changed the slide deck in February and didn’t tell anybody again.

Interjection

M. Lee: This is your government. It’s been your government for seven years. You’re responsible for what you do. This is what you’ve done. This is what you’ve done with the Land Act amendments.

[6:00 p.m.]

I will say to you this, in terms of UNDRIP: this was a time where we came together in this House. We still had a significant ceremony when the bill was introduced, which I’m going to come back to, just like this Bill 25. We had another significant ceremony when Bill 41 was ultimately passed in this House with unanimous support. That was a different time. It was a time where members on this side of the House had an opportunity to understand that bill in the time frame that it was.

I think it’s important that we recognize, even in the face of the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation’s comments just now, that we are on the eve of a provincial election under a Premier who has not been elected. He’s an unelected Premier. He’s only gone through his own party process, such as it was, and he’s bringing forward fundamental change. There are other words I could use for that in respect of other bills. But in this case, it’s a fundamental change, just like UNDRIP was.

The former Premier was elected by the people of British Columbia. He had the support of the Third Party, of course, the former government, but again, that’s water under the bridge. This Premier has not been elected by the people of British Columbia to be the Premier of this province.

Interjection.

M. Lee: That’s the point. We should wait. That’s the rea­son why we’re calling for an exposure bill. This Premier needs a mandate from the people of British Columbia to make this kind of fundamental change when it comes to title in our province.

Interjections.

M. Lee: I would say that the members opposite who made comments back to me about the timing of an election are only demonstrating the point that we are in silly season.

Interjection.

M. Lee: Well, you’re going to have to hear the last hour and 42 minutes of this, so buckle up.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

M. Lee: I would just say that in terms of UNDRIP, we had the opportunity, over five days of committee, to review what that adoption of UNDRIP would mean. We had government, the former Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, give a clear understanding to the member for Abbotsford West and myself — who joined me in that over five days of committee as we went through every single article of UNDRIP — as to what that would mean in the context of British Columbia.

He made repeated confirmations about how it would be an interpretive, illustrative tool, that the bill would not give the declaration any legal force and effect, that it would not create any new laws or rights and that the province continues to have the right to make decisions in the public interest.

For the purpose of this discussion…. I know the minister used the word “veto.” I would just say that in the context of this bill, both on March 22 and today’s statement, calling for an exposure bill, that’s not in our statements. I’m not here to talk about veto. I’m here to talk about the expectations that UNDRIP and the DRIPA act raised with First Nations.

[6:05 p.m.]

It’s my concern that this government is continuing down that path to raise expectations in a way that gets way ahead of us, way ahead of British Columbians. That’s not good for reconciliation.

What we need in this province is a clear understanding, certainly, of the need to address so many of the issues and the challenges generationally that have affected Indigenous peoples and First Nations in our province. It’s the reason why the Leader of the Official Opposition had announced in Prince George in January, in his resource prosperity plan, the importance of partnership with First Nations.

We called for the establishment of an Indigenous loan guarantee program, which the minister did acknowledge in Prince George, and then we found that it’s in the budget. The federal government has put it in their budget too. This is an example of a program that’s certainly there in Alberta, but it’s an important one to facilitate and ensure that First Nations have the ability to have equity participation and ownership in their futures in those resource projects and financial projects that go forward.

We referred to the importance of supporting additional supports for capacity-building for Nations, and I would say that even in my discussions with the Haida Nation, when we recognize the two-year transition period that this agreement calls for, the Haida Nation itself will continue to use that period, as I understand from them directly, to bolster and support and develop further capacity supports to take on the further jurisdiction, the transfer jurisdiction from this province in the area of lands management and other areas that this agreement calls for.

I say that because we recognize the importance of supporting the capacity-building of First Nations. That’s what we called for in January — additional supports for that, both administrative, technical, regulatory and otherwise.

We also talked about additional new roles for First Nations in the regulatory process. We certainly recognize that need for partnership, how we move forward in this province. But we need to do it in a way that brings British Columbians together with First Nations and Indigenous peoples. This government has had a continued track record of falling short in that.

We saw those friction points around caribou management, for example, when there was a strong call from residents in the region for broader consultations, recognizing the socioeconomic impact assessments and using baseline scientific data to really assess what further action ought to be taken for the caribou protection plan. What we saw, of course, including with members of the caucus I’m with, the B.C. United caucus, was repeated challenges for the lack of transparency and the lack of consultation with local residents, with people in the local communities, people who have been living side by side with Indigenous peoples, including in the Peace region and the Interior.

I just referred to the natural resource conference, as well, as another indication of trust and transparency. This is a big focus for me as it comes to Bill 25. I want to take this opportunity, apart from this back and forth, to make sure that all members of this House understand why we’re calling for a pause. What we’ve seen over seven years, and particularly since UNDRIP was passed, is those higher expectations, which are understandable in some ways. It was a new day.

And as we see, the DRIPA action plan, the 89 action items that this government put in place two years ago and they’re two years into…. They’re completing their second year of a five-year action plan. Hopefully, my colleagues, the shadow ministers, to the extent that we’re able to ask, still, about the individual items that ministers of this government are tasked with…. That they’ve made progress on those action items….

[6:10 p.m.]

I have an example relating to the Mineral Tenure Act review in a moment that I would like to speak to. But what we also saw a year ago, not this last resource conference but the year before that, was another major announcement by this government, by the Premier and his colleagues.

That was the agreement with the Blueberry First Nation. That also stemmed from court decisions where the government chose not to appeal a decision relating to cumulative impacts and resource development on the lands and territories of Treaty 8 Nations, including the Blueberry. Well, let me rephrase that. Blueberry specific, but in terms of neighbouring lands, as well, which are Treaty 8 related, there was a process there which was, again, not transparent, not evident, nation to nation, and it was announcement-driven.

The timing of it clearly was timed with that resource forum, January of 2023. How do we know that? Well, if you look at the petitions that are filed in the courts of this land, by the Halfway River and Doig First Nations, other Treaty 8 Nations. It turns out that they were working under the same level of lack of transparency as the official opposition. We were given the opportunity to have briefings on the spot in Prince George, online, coincident with the announcement of this agreement. Agreements weren’t in front of us at the time. Agreements were to be released weeks later.

It turns out that Treaty 8 Nations were under the same general situation. They had been described the general terms with the Blueberry and were going down the road. Blueberry gets up with government, makes the announcement. There were companion agreements, letters of agreement with these other Treaty 8 Nations. It turns out these nations were of the view that the government wasn’t transparent with them about how the arrangements, what agreements, the level of jurisdiction that the Blueberry would have, including in terms of dealing with the community harms, economic impacts, how we restore habitats — all of that.

Subsequent to this decision, for example, I had the Chief of the Doig Nation tell myself and the member for Peace River North, in the context of the aftermath of this agreement that this government entered into the Blueberry, that they had to get consent from the Blueberry Nation to move the remains of a member of their nation from their lands to somewhere else.

Now, one might say: “Well, this is the challenge with overlapping claims.” But this is this government putting one nation in priority, in hierarchy to another. This is just one example of the reason that when government rules, governs, by announcement and that announcement timetable, bad policy decisions are made. In this case, First Nations weren’t brought along, the Doig and Halfway River Nations.

How do we know that? It’s spelled out on their court petitions. They’re in a dispute with government about their agreements. I’m not up to date at this very moment as to where those discussions lie, but they take issue with this government.

I give that as an example, because the minister in his comments on this bill, on second reading, referred to another example, which we’ll definitely have more of an opportunity to discuss, relating to the federal jurisdiction. I appreciate the federal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations was in the House, on the floor of the Assembly, sitting back there.

[6:15 p.m.]

The minister said something to the effect that the federal government had been at the table. There were discussions, but the timing of the steps they needed to take, the process, didn’t line up, so to speak. Those were not his words. Basically, the province and the Haida Nation, from what I understand…. It sounds like they were ready to proceed, but the federal government was not yet ready.

Well, if you’re looking at a treaty arrangement, we’re looking at tripartite arrangements. The minister mentioned that the Crown is indivisible. Crown is Crown, federal and provincial. We’re talking about a mix of federal and provincial jurisdictions.

I understand that the map attached to the agreement, which is referred to in Bill 25, doesn’t include the water columns. What’s included in that blue zone, that boundary, is land underwater, which the province and Haida Nation agrees, presumably, is provincial jurisdiction. I’m not saying, necessarily, that the federal government disagrees with that. I don’t know that for a fact. But I do know, of course, there’s been an ongoing discussion between the federal and provincial governments about jurisdiction over lands and waters.

There is constitutional division of powers here. The minister can refer to the section for property and civil rights in the constitution, and the federal government can refer to other provisions of the Constitution Act relating to Indians as that term has been utilized in the Constitution Act.

There’s a reason why all three parties were at this table to begin with. The fact that the province and the Haida Nation have chosen to move forward does introduce at least, at a minimum, some level of question, reasonable question and understanding as to this new model that’s being created.

There are some other nations in this province that are undergoing title process. Some of them are advancing through the modern treaty process. I know that there has been significant progress made. What I hear, including from this Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and the B.C. Treaty Commission in their annual or regular updates to us, is that there are a number that are working through the various stages. I hope to see the various announcements that come from that.

There are other nations that I’m aware of that are in the course of discussion with the federal government relating to compensation. For those nations that are in discussions with the federal government and not necessarily going through a treaty process yet, but they’re dealing with compensation for their lands, what does it mean for that nation?

What does it mean for a nation that can look at this process and say: “Well, why would I go through a treaty process and only get a portion of what I’m claiming? What does it mean when I’m already in negotiations with the federal government for compensation?” What does the province say to the federal government about that process, that recognition of title to the entire claim area, if that was the case? It’s possible.

Again, I recognize the unique nature of the Haida Nation. The fact that there are no overlapping claims. The fact that with 200 islands on the archipelago, they are a nation unto itself and have been there since time immemorial. That has been well recognized and acknowledged by successive governments.

How we deal with land and title, of course, is what has been worked on through successive governments for over 20 years. This process that we’re in needs a little pause here to understand, because it’s setting a new model, a new template, as the Premier has called it.

[6:20 p.m.]

When a year ago we stood in this House, when this government brought forward the Haida Nation Recognition Act in 2023….

I said in my first reading speech on this bill that I had to recollect whether I did my speech to the Haida Nation with the president of the Council of the Haida Nation speaking here on the floor of the Legislative Assembly, as he did on Monday. Did I do that on first reading, or did I do it on third reading? I did it on third reading, when the bill had already been through second reading and committee.

Now, a year ago in May, and I hope we don’t see this again, we were in the midst of time allocation and closure. I had less than an hour to deal with the Haida Recognition Act with the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

There we were talking about the Council of the Haida Nation, with a 50-year constitution, dealing with old Skidegate, Masset, Elders, hereditary members, a pretty robust constitution and a history of governance. They would be the first First Nation to be legally recognized by way of statute. It still is the only nation in this province to have done it in the last year. So they lead all nations in this respect.

I say that to respect the nation. I also say that in terms of what happened on Monday, in the face of the official opposition calling for a pause on this process on March 22, which was ignored by this government. With all the process steps that they went through with the Haida Nation, which I understand, between that nation and the Haida Nation….

This government has the role not just to have a strong relationship with the Haida Nation. They have a role and responsibility to all of British Columbia and to the members of this House to enable and provide an opportunity for reasonable debate and review of what they’re bringing forward. Bill 25.

For this government, for their own purposes, again, like they did with Bill 23, the Anti-Racism Act, to bring members into the gallery to celebrate as if the bill had been enacted is disrespectful to all members of this House. It’s a stunt that is pulled time and time again by this government. We still have a process to do.

This is the reason why this continued pattern by this government to ignore the interests of all British Columbians, to ignore the fact that reconciliation involves balancing all the societal interests, as the Haida decision of 2004 called upon, to recognize that with even the implementation of UNDRIP, for the last 4½ years, there are challenges in this province….

I was part of that process. I was part of that process. I talked to my caucus to have them understand how they could support Bill 41 based on the confirmations and assurances of this government.

This government needs to be very clear with their path that they’re setting. It’s the reason why, in my view, they broke that trust time and time again. They did that with the Land Act amendments. On the heels of what happened with the Land Act amendments in January and February of this year, they’ve brought this forward in this way. This is the reason why we’ve called for a pause twice.

[6:25 p.m.]

I certainly do not want to see the kind of inflammatory noise-making that occurs in this House. This is in the context of a bill discussion, one in which…. Again, on first reading, it was presented as if it had been passed.

It didn’t happen when we did the Haida Nation Recognition Act, the very bill, Bill 18, that we’re now amending in Bill 25. On Bill 18 a year ago, we did this special ceremony on third reading. We were able to have the proper and appropriate recognition statements that were being made. I certainly welcome that opportunity, on behalf of the official opposition, to do that.

Now, again, that was a step. That was a step on the reconciliation path with this particular nation, the Haida Nation. That was a step that was first set out in the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act. That followed the successive agreements that were entered into, including the reconciliation protocol agreement, in 2009 and 2015, under the former government. We know there need to be steps.

I will say, as I said in first reading…. Even in this agreement and this bill, there’s a use of the word “incremental.” Well, this is not an incremental step. This is a fundamental recognition of Haida title to Haida Gwaii. All of it.

As much as there are assurances, as much as the government will say in their news releases, in the agreement, in this legislation and in various ways that it doesn’t affect private property rights…. Aboriginal title, as it’s called upon in this bill, sets itself out as…. In subsection 4.1(1): “The government of British Columbia recognizes that the Haida Nation has aboriginal title within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to land on Haida Gwaii, as described in the Schedule to this Act.”

I’ve talked a bit about the map, the blue boundary, attached to the agreement. That is what it is referring to.

Aboriginal title within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, as reviewed and interpreted and applied by the courts of our land, the Supreme Court of Canada, means exclusive use. This government and the Haida Nation have come forward with an agreement that qualifies that exclusive use — those are my words — by saying that private property fee simple interests are not derogated in any way for greater certainty.

They’re doing it by way of an agreement. They’re doing this in a way that has been questioned. Is that even effective? Is the agreement effective by way of a constitutionally protected right, which is exclusive use, when we’re talking about an Aboriginal title?

There is another point I was going to make. I’m just going to come back to this, since I’m in this section.

[6:30 p.m.]

I understand, from my briefing that I had yesterday…. I would say this. I had a briefing yesterday, in the usual good way, in a good form, with the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, the staff and the deputy minister. I’ve just checked with my staff, but I haven’t had the follow-on yet, and I hope that I will before I complete my remarks, not in the next 15 minutes but as I have the additional time when we continue this debate.

I hope to see the signed agreement. I don’t have a copy of the signed agreement. Maybe it’s posted somewhere. But I understand that there were changes between the agreement that was attached to the minister’s press release and what was signed on April 14. I think that I’m relying on the minister’s office to provide me with that correct copy, not relying on Google.

I’ve seen the agreement, and I know that there are differences. I understand that the differences are of a legal, technical nature, but I’d like to see that, particularly when it relates to the fact that we’re recognizing, on this particular set of fee simple, that the burdens and obligations on title are as of the date of the agreement, which is April 14, and that the act talks about that both before and after the act comes into place. So there is a difference, at least on the agreement that I saw.

When it comes to mortgages and the ability to put a mortgage on a property and the ability for a willing buyer and willing seller to sell their fee simple interests, it’s a question. I think that question has been addressed by an amendment or a revision to the agreement before it was signed, but that was sitting in the draft agreement.

I referred earlier to the Mineral Tenure Act review. I know that I had the opportunity two years ago when the action plan came out for DRIPA, to the former Minister of Energy and Mines, about what that meant — meaning the modernization of the Mineral Tenure Act; meaning what was the milestone, what are the measurables in the first year of that five-year action plan relating to the modernization of the Mineral Tenure Act.

The minister gave me a broad answer, but he also did confirm one thing: that other stakeholders, tenure holders would be consulted. I took the responses to also mean that the government was waiting to see what the court decision was of the claims, court applications that were made by the Ehattesaht First Nation and Gitxaała Nation. We know that that decision has come out. We know that, as a result of that decision, government has taken certain actions.

But my main point of raising it here at this time is that the government lawyers there took the view that UNDRIP, and DRIPA, is an interpretive, illustrative instrument that is forward-looking, that it is not to be parsed through individually, in terms of individual articles. This is the reason why Gitxaała has filed a notice of appeal on that basis.

I think that government needs to be very clear with First Nations about the use of UNDRIP. Even 4½ years later, we have First Nations claiming that it is more than what government has said it is.

[6:35 p.m.]

It’s just another example of how this government has failed to bring along British Columbians, including Indigenous peoples and First Nations. That lack of clarity around what UNDRIP and DRIPA are, that clarity that we had back in October and November of 2019 — it’s the same level of clarity that we’re asking about in terms of this Bill 25.

With the fundamental change that it is, we need to have and understand and ensure that there’s been a broader consultation with the broader public. We know that with the way this has come forward as a fundamental change, it needs that level of input.

I will say that the minister puts a lot of weight on today and the day after the agreement was signed, or this bill, if it does pass in this current time period. But the transition period deals with, and is intended to deal with, many of the other ways in which there’s a transfer of jurisdiction. So there needs to be a clearer understanding about how that transition process will be working. The minister says here, today, that that may take more than two years. I will also say….

That’s a question, because with the flurry of bills that I have to address…. I have some recollection that the timing and the expectation around two years…. There is a bit of a difference in understanding even about that. But that is managing expectations.

There is a dispute resolution clause in the appendix A to the agreement itself. This may be something that I still come back to in more detail in my remarks here but just to flag it as one of the examples around how this will be dealt with.

In the transition process itself, the parties are to seek agreement on a schedule within 12 months of notice provided under section 3 of this agreement. The initial focuses are around the fiscal arrangements, as well as land and resource decision-making on Haida Gwaii, addressing protected areas, fishing lodges and forestry.

It does say, though, that where the parties were unable to reach agreement on a schedule, they will enter into a two-month dispute resolution process agreed to by the parties. The process may include a tribunal, mediation, arbitration or another mechanism established under a Haida law. It’s curious to me how dispute resolution between the Haida Nation and the government of British Columbia has evolved over the course of these many agreements.

If you look back at some of the original dispute resolution clauses in these agreements, they’re much fuller. They’re much more the customary — I use that word in a quotation basis — type of dispute resolution clause. It’s fulsome in their nature in terms of the various escalation clauses to get to some resolution of the dispute.

I don’t think I’ve seen in any other agreement that the dispute itself would be established under Haida law, that mechanism. I just think it’s something that we need to have a good understanding about — what that mechanism looks like and what that is — because there is a shift.

[6:40 p.m.]

There’s a shift in terms of how decisions would come about in this arrangement, even if you look at comparing the dispute resolution processes along the way. I know that when I come back to Aboriginal title and the nature of it…. I’ve talked a bit about its exclusive nature, but it also is communal. It’s for the Haida Nation and its peoples generationally as well. The Tsilhqot’in decision underlined that in respect of Aboriginal title.

To qualify Haida title here in this context, by virtue of this agreement, to address private land interests or fee simple interests by the sake of an agreement — again, there’s a fundamental part of Aboriginal title which is communal in nature. This means it’s held by the benefit for all, including its traditional uses.

This is just another example of how this agreement and this model will work. Or does it work? My concern is raising expectations that cannot be met. We need to ensure that if we’re considering a new model for title arrangements, it fundamentally can work, including with the federal government, including with the generations of Haida peoples to come.

Now, I understand that the Haida Nation itself must be fully satisfied that they’re protecting their own peoples by this agreement and this bill. I’ve had the benefit, and I appreciate…. I have a follow-on. I know they’ve reached out again to have further discussion now that the bill has been introduced, but at the time, the agreement had not yet been available, hadn’t been signed off by the party, so I didn’t have a copy of the agreement when we had the discussion. So it was really, again, about the basic terms.

I do appreciate that this has been a long journey, that this has been a long process to get to this agreement. My concern is for this new model that it sets for the province and for nations. That’s my concern. This is the reason why we need to ensure, in the face of the current timing, with only a few weeks left in this legislative sitting, that we have the full opportunity to do this.

I didn’t have that on the original act, the Haida Nation Recognition Act, a year ago. We’re calling for exposure draft legislation, for this bill to be made an exposure bill, in order to provide for that further opportunity, because we’re in the wrong time period of this government’s current window in this House.

It does cause dynamics. It causes the Leader of the Fourth Party to take one position on first reading and then take another position in question period the next day and put out a video and take another position again today in question period.

Interjection.

M. Lee: I have not done that same thing, to be very clear. You can take that anywhere you want to take it.

I’m certainly talking through you, Madam Speaker, but well….

Interjection.

M. Lee: I’m the one who’s speaking right now. We can know that what we’re dealing with here….

Madam Speaker, it’s just another demonstration of the silly season. This is the reason why this bill should not be called into second reading at this time. This is the reason why I’m calling for this bill to be put out as an exposure bill, with the Leader of Official Opposition. It’s because of this silly season that we see in this chamber.

We see it every day in question period. We see it by the Leader of the Fourth Party. And we know that this is so fundamental a change that we need to ensure that British Columbians have a good understanding of this new model that this Premier is putting out without a mandate from British Columbians.

With that, I reserve my place in the debate and call for adjournment of the debate.

M. Lee moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: We’ll take a short recess while the committee Chairs assemble.

The House recessed from 6:45 p.m. to 6:50 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Kang moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:51 p.m.