Contents

The House met at 1:01 p.m.

The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 14.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Labour and, when they complete, for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

In the Birch Room, Section C, I call committee stage on Bill 5.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

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

Deputy Speaker: I call this session to order.

Hon. Randene Neill: I am so happy to continue speaking in favour of Bill 14, a bill that is taking action to speed up permitting for renewable energy projects to meet the growing demand for clean power, address climate change and secure energy independence for British Columbians, in the face of absolutely unprecedented trade threats.

Before lunch, I spoke a bit about it and answered some of the common questions that some folks were interested in. I just want to recap what this bill will do for British Columbians. It will ensure rapid authorization and robust regulation of renewable energy projects. That includes wind, solar and transmission lines.

It will allow for statutory decisions related to these projects to be transferred from ministries and other agencies to the B.C. Energy Regulator, and it will give new authority over the construction and operation of wind and solar projects to ensure safety and environmental standards are upheld.

A bit more about the streamlining of the environmental assessment requirements. To expedite these priority renewable energy projects, which we so desperately need in this province, the proposed legislation will allow for the streamlining of the Environmental Assessment Act in relation to the North Coast transmission line project, the nine wind projects from B.C. Hydro’s call for power back in 2024 and future wind projects as well.

The B.C. Energy Regulator has existing expertise and technical regulations that may be applied to wind power projects to support comprehensive project oversight in the absence of environmental assessment.

[1:05 p.m.]

For example, the B.C. Energy Regulator board regulations include these features: pre-engagement requirements and the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge into project planning, requirements for design and construction, assessment of sociocultural and environmental effects, suspension of operation or decommissioning of a processing facility, and records management and submission of required reports to the B.C. Energy Regulator.

While the BCER’s technical regulations for these renewable projects are being developed and consulted on, the Energy Regulator may use permit conditions on a project-by-project basis to ensure that early work on these projects is conducted in a responsible manner.

I do want to read just one quote, and I think it’s a really important one, from Kwatuuma Cole Sayers, who’s the executive director of Clean Energy Association of British Columbia. He says: “This legislation is an important step towards a balanced regulatory framework that encourages responsible clean energy development at a critical time for our communities, our economy and our climate. The Clean Energy Association of B.C. is proud to work with the province and the B.C. Energy Regulator to help build a framework that is efficient, transparent and aligned with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Together, we can build a cleaner, stronger, more resilient future.”

With that, I think, I will conclude my remarks on Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects Act.

Larry Neufeld: I do want to take a little bit different tack than we normally do in this place of honour. I know that earlier this week I did thank the Minister of Forests for his ministry’s exceptional work that they did to put out the 13 incredible wildfires over two days in my riding.

I’d also like to take this opportunity to extend that thank-you to the Minister of Energy.

I believe that of many who are at home, the thousands and thousands that are glued to their TV sets waiting for us, or the tens and tens…. I don’t think a lot of folks appreciate what they see on television and how we, actually, work together for the betterment of the people of this province. I do want to recognize that relationship that we have developed, between the Minister of Energy and me. He has been very forthcoming with sharing of information and with briefings, and I do appreciate that. I look forward to continuing that relationship.

I am here to talk about Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act. I am a businessman, I am an engineer, and I don’t think anyone would ever, ever accuse me of being anti-industry, anti-business or anti-progress. I can say, without hesitation, that I support all of those items.

My concern with Bill 14 is that my perception and, I believe, that of many others is that it is an overreach of governmental powers and that it actually is a centralization of governmental powers. In my estimation, it does strip away the voices of local communities, potentially strips away the voices of First Nations and does strip away the voices of regional governments — those people that I represent. Therein lies my concern.

I will say, without hesitation, that I and my colleagues are not opposed to clean energy, not in any form at all. We are not opposed. We’re not opposed to wind; we’re not opposed to low-carbon fuels. In fact, I had the pleasure and the honour of introducing the Canadian Hydrogen Association in this place of honour earlier this week, and I very much look forward to owning a hydrogen-powered vehicle.

Where my concerns lie, and I did express them earlier this week with a private member’s bill, is that where I live, in my home, fully electric vehicles are not a good option for me, for my family and for many, many in my community.

[1:10 p.m.]

The reason is very simple. We get down to minus 40 degrees Celsius. That’s plus wind. It is an incredibly cold place, or can be. It’s a beautiful, a stunningly beautiful place to live; but it can be very cold, and therein lies the reason.

The minister and I have had this discussion on many occasions — or numerous occasions, perhaps not many — that there is a wide variety of power sources that are needed. One of those, I’m proud to say…. Well, actually, Site C is in my riding. I know that in this House, Site C is talked about in very high regard, and, from an engineering perspective, I certainly would agree.

I think that what is oftentimes overlooked, or what is missed, is the impact that that project had on many people in the community and continues to have on people in that community. That really is the crux of what the first part of what I’m going to talk about is that the Peace region really has been left out of the conversation for far too long.

We have created a disproportionate contribution to the province, quite frankly, with not a lot of tangible return. I know that might sound a little bit harsh, but I know that that is the feeling of my constituents, most of them. I wouldn’t be shy to say that I have a semblance of that feeling myself as well.

The other thing that I did want to talk about is, again, what effect this bill will have on our local communities. I’m not a lawyer; I am an engineer, so forgive me for that. No, don’t. I’m very proud to be an engineer. Don’t forgive me for being one. My concerns are that local government is frozen out, that the local population’s direct representatives, the way that I’m reading this, may or may not have the say that they deserve in how these projects move forward.

An equally concerning one is that First Nations…. I know the perception is there. I don’t know what the reality is. I’ve read the bill. I’ve read it numerous times, and I’m aware of the language that’s in it. The perception is there that the First Nations may be frozen out of the decision-making process.

One of the things I did…. The minister did mention it before the break, the Bear Mountain wind farm. Again, getting back to the fact that I am definitely not opposed to wind power…. My home overlooks a beautiful valley that has Bear Mountain in it. Every morning when I get up, my beautiful wife and I go out on the sundeck — well, unless it’s minus 40, of course — and sit there, drink our coffee and look at the windmills.

Tying that into the disproportionate contribution that my riding makes to the energy grid of this province, my statement would be: I wonder if the Bear Mountain wind farm would exist if it were to be built in Shaughnessy, as opposed to being built in Dawson Creek, which I think is a pretty fair statement.

I’ve already talked about the fact that folks where I live are salt of the earth. I’ve said that many times — very proud people. I’m one of them. They’re resourceful. They’re resilient. That reason, and the fact that I feel that they’re not getting the representation in this bill with respect to approval of these projects, is why I stand against it.

The reality is that in Peace River South, without question, we are no stranger to energy projects — I think I’ve already illustrated a fair number of them; the Peace Canyon dam is also in my riding — whether traditional or renewable. We’ve talked about that on several occasions here as well.

We have long balanced the development of our natural resources with the needs of our land, our people and our future. We’ve done that through local engagement and cooperative governance. We’ve done it through school boards, regional districts and municipal councils, and we definitely have included local Indigenous leadership.

I am concerned that this bill will not necessarily take into account those concerns of the folks in my riding. It does install a centralized regulator that, yes, can fast-track projects without so much as a public hearing in places like Tumbler Ridge, or without a consultation with the Peace River regional district and, potentially, without meaningful dialogue with First Nations like Saulteau and West Moberly.

[1:15 p.m.]

I’m curious if this is what the government calls streamlining. Others might suggest that it could be called shutting the door on our communities.

I’ve already talked about the local governments being frozen out. What happens when a proposed wind farm or solar array goes up next to farmland in Pouce Coupe, on a ridge above Chetwynd, or near hunting and trapping lands that families have used for generations? Will there be compensation for the interruption of that land usage? Will there be opportunities to regain new traplines or to appeal processes whereby the trapping licences are cancelled, hunting licences are interrupted or guiding routes are interrupted?

Under Bill 14, municipal councils and regional boards, like those of the Peace regional district, could be entirely bypassed — no requirement for town halls, no requirement for public notice, no local veto. The government may think that this is an efficiency, and without question — I think I stated that at the beginning — I am all about efficiency. I adore efficiency.

That was my life as a consulting engineer. That was my job, and I was quite good at it. Well, I guess I’m a proud engineer that brags about what he did. There you go. What I’m concerned about is that this bill could be telling rural British Columbians: “You don’t matter.” Yes, we do.

I know. I know. But my job is to criticize, so…. I know.

If you want to see what democratic erosion looks like in real life, I’d suggest this bill as an example of it.

I’d like to point out something else. Bill 14, as my colleague spoke of earlier, exempts chosen renewable projects from the Environmental Assessment Act and gives cabinet the power to exempt even more by regulation. Again, we desperately need to streamline our approval process. We desperately need to get projects built in this province, without question. Absolutely, we do. Where the concern lies is, again, in the execution of this bill.

I’d like to talk about the exemption of the Environmental Assessment Act from a Peace River region context. What we’re talking about are projects on land that supports caribou habitat, projects near waterways used by farmers, projects that affect subsistence hunting and cultural sites. We’ve talked about that. I spoke of those two a few moments ago.

The concern here is that the public won’t be guaranteed a say in how these very important items to people that live in the North are affected. What this bill effectively does is create a regulatory blind spot, one that is especially dangerous in remote, ecologically sensitive areas.

I know that the hon. member before me did speak of decommissioning, and I am aware of what is in the bill with respect to the fund that would be put in place. From conversations that I’ve had previously, I do understand that that fund will not be pulling money from other existing funds. My concern is: what happens if there’s not enough money there? Who pays for the cost of the decommissioning?

Bill 14 mentions a cost recovery, as I’ve already talked about, and an orphan fund with no clear obligations on the developers, no guarantees that rural communities will not be left holding the bag. As I say, who is responsible when…?

I will admit the wind farms…. I have three different wind farms in my riding, and the one that I overlook from my home is large. Those are massive, large. Is that up to the regional district if the proponent goes away and there’s not enough money in the decommissioning fund? Is it the regional district that pays to pull those down? Is it the ratepayers, taxpayers? Therein lies the concern that I have with that component.

[1:20 p.m.]

What I will say, very proudly, is that the people of Peace River South…. I’ll include everyone in the Peace. Our people know how to build, absolutely. I’ve worked and lived there for 30-odd years. I’ve lived there for 22-ish, I guess. I’ve watched it flourish. I’ve watched it bloom. I’ve watched it grow.

I’ve watched the economic potential perhaps not reach its zenith but expand to the point where the community in which I lived was dramatically affected in a very positive way. I’ve watched, in the last eight to ten years, the progress that brought many, many of us to the area. Many entrepreneurs from across the country — stunningly hard-working, stunningly effective individuals — were brought to my area with the promise of economic opportunity, and I don’t feel that that’s available now.

I retired from my business two years ago, and part of the reason that I retired is that I just simply didn’t…. Well, I’m going to stop with that. This is recorded, and this will…. Yeah, I’m going to stop on my reasons for retiring.

As I say, the folks of the Peace River are incredible builders, but we also know the cost of poor planning and unchecked corporate promises. We’ve seen it. We’ve lived it. It’s all too common.

What I would suggest is another issue that I would see with Bill 14 is that it represents a regulatory expansion that no one asked for. Yes, it does attempt to streamline the projects. Again, for the tenth time, I would very strongly state that I very much support the streamlining of projects in this province. My concern with this bill is that we have a better way to do it.

I would say another interpretation to the bill makes the point plain that this bill can easily be expanded via regulation to include other energy sources. I know that that is something that the minister confirmed with my colleague earlier. I do appreciate that.

The concern that lies in there would be: who makes that decision? What input is there? What oversight is there? I realize it’s done in the guise of efficiency, but the reality is that it’s without oversight. Those of us that sit in this place of honour and work very hard every day: is that correct? Is that the way that the people expect us to govern — without oversight? That’s a real concern for me.

I’d go on further to say, again bringing this back to my local riding, what does this mean for Peace River South? It means that hydrogen, geothermal, biomass and even carbon capture projects could be added to this framework without ever returning to this Legislature. I’m not saying that in a negative way, necessarily. What I’m saying is that without oversight do we want a biomass…?

I read this regulation very, very carefully. I spent hours and hours on it. I respect the minister, and I respect the fact that it is very unlikely that this would ever happen, but say, for instance…. The way that it’s written is that a biomass facility could be potentially built on ALR land without ALR consultation, right beside someone’s home. As ridiculous as that might sound, that’s the reality of the language in this bill. Is that fair to the people of my region? I would suggest not.

I would also suggest that a future project near Doe River or in the back country south of Dawson Creek could be approved, exempt from review and locked in, all by cabinet order. That’s not transparency. In my opinion, that’s regulatory overreach.

What does this mean for my constituents? I’d like to speak directly to the people that I represent now, to the landowners in Toms Lake who have asked for a fair say in land use decisions. I know we went through the troubles back in the early 2000s with the oilfield. That’s when I first moved to Dawson, and I feel the pain of the people in Toms Lake, and my job is to ensure that that doesn’t happen again.

I would also speak to the ranchers in Ground Birch who know every windbreak and wildlife corridor on their property.

[1:25 p.m.]

I would like to speak to the councillors of Tumbler Ridge who are working hard to attract clean energy investment that respects their town’s identity. I’ve been to Tumbler many times, and I know the people of Tumbler know this to be true, but I adore the community. I love bragging about the South Peace. I do. I would love to have all of you come and visit, and I would love to show it off to each and every one of you.

Tumbler Ridge has some of the most incredible river boating, some of the most incredible waterfalls, above–tree line mountaintop side-by-siding, mountaintop sledding — just incredible — and some of the most friendly, warm, accepting, beautiful human beings that I have met.

That’s not to say to those folks in Chetwynd that I don’t appreciate you just as much.

I would also like to speak to the First Nations leaders who have built renewable energy projects from the ground up but want to do so with a seat at the table, as opposed to being dictated to and potentially ignored by Victoria.

I would suggest to these folks that I spoke to that this bill does not empower you; it circumvents you. I cannot support legislation that cuts the people of Peace River South out of their own future. We can and must support clean energy. I’ve said that at the beginning. No question, I’m in, but it must be community-led, locally grounded and democratically accountable.

I don’t know the purpose of us being here if it’s not to promote and enhance democracy. In my estimation, Bill 14 offers none of that. It offers a centralized, top-down, ideology-driven model that might look neat on a government flowchart but fails the real-world tests in places like Peace River South.

That is why I and my colleagues in the Conservative Party of British Columbia oppose this bill. We stand with our constituents. We stand with local governments. We stand with First Nations. We stand for a better, more democratic and more respectful way forward.

I’m going to go back a little bit here to something that I skipped over a little bit too early. We did talk about the lack of planning for decommissioning and the potential for the public to be left on the hook — which, unfortunately, again, with other projects and other things that have gone on in the past, has been a real concern in my area. It’s something that’s worth mentioning a second or even a third time.

The other thing that I think has been underrepresented in the conversation here today around Bill 14 is the effect that it will have on the First Nations of the South Peace and other areas as well. Again, having read the bill, there’s a perception there. Whether that perception is accurate or not, I will leave to the reader and to the viewer to decide. But there is a perception that the bill does leave First Nations on the sidelines.

The people of Peace River South know that meaningful reconciliation begins with listening, not dictating. The West Moberly First Nations have long voiced concerns about development that proceeds without proper consultation, particularly when it touches Treaty 8 territory.

The Saulteau First Nations, too, have insisted that energy projects on their traditional lands must reflect environmental stewardship and Indigenous values. The perception in the community is that this bill may bypass the First Nations in their ability to have input. Again, I’ve read the bill extensively. With respect to the minister, I’m going to leave that up to the viewer to decide whether that is accurate or not, but that is the perception.

[1:30 p.m.]

I’m going to also talk about the fact that in my area, in the South Peace, we have long been a developer, producer and exporter, to other areas of the province, of natural gas and hydrocarbons. I know that I’ve had people, when I first…. I’ve worked in the oil and gas industry for 30 years, and a great many of those 30 years — in fact, essentially all of them — have included northeast British Columbia.

It’s made me chuckle a few times, but it’s been suggested to me that B.C. doesn’t have oil. I can assure you — absolutely assure you — that having been a spill remediation consultant for those odd 30 years, it absolutely does. I have boots full to prove it. I have clothes that are stained with it to prove it. We have some of the most beautiful, stunning…. In fact, I would love to show you someday. We have iridescent green oil. It glows. It’s bioluminescent. It’s an incredible thing. It really is.

I’ve worked throughout western Canada, and actually, I’ve worked internationally in the oil and gas industry. I don’t want to say this field, because I don’t want folks from Victoria flocking up there to see the iridescent green. Or perhaps we do. That might be an opportunity.

I’ll share with you offline. Sure. Yeah, I’ll share.

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: Okay. Well, it’s the Stoddart field. Now we’re all happy. It’s the Stoddart, if you can find that on a map. Well, actually, you know what? It is sour, so please don’t go.

All joking aside, those of us that are watching perhaps don’t recognize or realize what sour gas is. It is incredibly toxic, incredibly deadly. A brief whiff, a small inhalation, of an appropriate strength, and your central nervous system shuts down, and you perish before you hit the ground. That is very real.

That is something that I’ve been incredibly proud of as an oil and gas worker for 30 years. Yes, people have been knocked down by H2S, but I believe — and again, I’ve been retired for a number of years, so don’t correct me or don’t hold me to this — that the last actual death from hydrogen sulphide gas was in the late ’70s.

The industry has done an exceptional, exceptional job of safety in that respect. Everyone wears personal monitors. In fact, it was mentioned to me by one of my colleagues earlier: “Does it act like mustard gas?” Yes, it does. If you watch the old video clips from World War I of the Germans releasing the mustard gas, it rolled across the ground, it went into the trenches, and it killed everyone. That’s how H2S acts. It’s heavier than air.

When we’re walking across a lease, particularly in a low-lying area, we wear our monitors — or we used to; I don’t know if this is still allowed — on the side. Because you’ll stir it up, it will alarm before it gets up to your face, hopefully, and you can exit to safety. If you’re working in a plant site, you’ll wear it closer to your face because you have overhead issues, leakage, that type of thing, potentially. Of course, we want to be able to react before it does get to the central nervous system.

The other thing that…. Sorry, I’m getting a little bit far down the rabbit hole with 101 oilfield here, but this is my passion. That’s my passion.

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: Well, well, well. Easy now. Your words, not mine.

I would also suggest…. Where was I going with that? H2S. That being said, I’m very proud, and I’ve said that many times in this House, of our industry, and I’m very proud of the natural gas that we have under our feet in this province.

We currently have, by estimations of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, at current consumption rates, a 300-year supply of natural gas — 300. When you work that backwards to an economic scale, the value to our economy of the amount of gas….

I was a reservoir engineer at one time as well. I’m running out of time, so I won’t go into a lot of explanation of how that works. The known reserves in this province…. The minister would know this as well as I do, or perhaps better than I do, what the actual value in royalties to the province is. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

In the community in which I live, there are a huge number of people that make very, very good livings from the oil and gas industry. Those tax revenues come back to the province. The side-by-sides that they buy, the campers that they buy, the riverboats that they buy…. Those taxes all come back to the province.

[1:35 p.m.]

The real value to the province, the way that I’ve calculated it, is nearly $1 trillion. Those are the proven reserves. What I will say with my little amount of time left is that the reality of the situation of how reservoir engineering works…. I’ll use the example of Alberta. I want to say it was three, maybe four, weeks ago now that they revised their reservoir amount or their known amount of gas. They increased it by six times.

If we calculate those numbers — if we go back to the number that I just said, with the big, fat “t” on it — that’s the known actual provable reserve that companies have gone to the bank and taken loans out on. That’s what their companies are valued on. The real number is not the same. We don’t know what that real number is, but it’s something that I think is worth mentioning in this House.

With that…. I’ll be very honest, Madam Speaker. I was going to keep going until you cut me off, but with respect, I am going to sit down. You know, I’m trying to be as respectful as I can.

Thank you very much. I’m going to leave my remaining 15 seconds on the clock.

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: Yeah, maybe I’ll do a lap, quick.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I don’t know if that means that I get those extra ten seconds. The clock certainly doesn’t reflect that, but that’s okay. I guess that’s not the rule.

What a pleasure to be able to rise in the House and speak to Bill 14, the renewable energy projects.

It’s always an honour to be able to follow the member from across the way, the member for Peace River South. I got a chance to be able to catch a little bit of the end of his speech. I didn’t catch if he’s going to be supporting this legislation or not. It doesn’t look like he is. That’s too bad. We’ll talk a bit about why that is, and how bizarre it is that we’re in this position.

I want to begin, first of all, by giving a huge shout-out to the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. Here you have a guy who has represented his community, coming on almost two decades, in this place. Actually, yeah, 2025. It’s 20 years he’s been representing the good people of Vancouver-Kingsway.

He showed leadership in this House as a minister, tackling one of the biggest challenges that our province has ever faced, the pandemic, and now he’s been given the task by the Premier to help build British Columbia, to ensure that we can become an energy superpower.

I think the Minister of Energy is going to be remembered for a long time as one of the most competent ministers to ever serve in the executive council. I think he’s also going to be remembered as one minister who did an awful lot for British Columbians in every corner of this province. It’s important to recognize that work, because this is very important legislation.

We, in introducing Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, are doing so at a time where our sovereignty as a country is under attack, our sovereignty as Canadians is under attack by a President who is showing very little to no respect for Canada, for our role as a peacekeeping nation that has done our part for decades, for centuries, protecting this world and playing a very critical part in providing resources to this entire world.

It’s so important that with this legislation we position ourselves to ensure that we can become that clean energy superpower that we envision, and we have envisioned for some time, to be. I think back to previous governments that made investments and put in the work. I think this is something that, I would argue, is non-partisan in nature and provides an opportunity for us to really do the work needed to position British Columbia, given the context of Donald Trump’s threats against so much of what we are as Canadians — our sovereignty, threatening to make us the 51st state, threatening our resources. I think of my work as the Minister of Forests, referring to our softwood lumber as a national security risk. This is just absolutely ludicrous.

[1:40 p.m.]

It’s why it’s so important, in the work we’re doing in this place, that we take an opportunity to be able to debate important legislation like Bill 14 and recognize the global instability that has occurred over the course of the last 110, 120 days since President Trump was sworn in, and the growing external threats that we face not just here in British Columbia and Canada but around the world.

That is really why we are in this House debating Bill 14. It’s about building clean electricity projects. It’s about doing so faster, recognizing the time we live in. When I am back in my constituency, in Langford-Highlands, I hear about this. I hear about the need to do more. There’s a recognition that there has been a lot done, but it’s clear we have to do more, and we have to do it faster. That’s what Bill 14 is all about. It’s about ensuring that we are able to secure our future as a province.

I know this is work not just happening here in British Columbia but across the country. I was chatting with my counterpart, the Minister of Natural Resources in Ontario, Mike Harris. I work with a lot of Mike Harrises, I realize. I ran against Mike Harris. Now I’m working with Mike Harris from Ontario. He is the son of the Mike Harris from Ontario too. It’s great to see the family connection continuing.

We were chatting about the work that we collectively need to do as a country to move projects forward and to do so in a way that protects and secures our future against geopolitical instability, trade threats from the President of the United States and other foreign political risks as well.

We live in a very tense time, and I know that British Columbians — not just in Langford-Highlands but across this beautiful province that I’ve had an honour and privilege of visiting over the course of the last number of months since I became the Minister of Forests — have raised with me, time and time again, that this is front and centre for British Columbians.

We have to be honest about the world we live in today. These are very challenging times. The President of the United States has taken a relationship built on cooperation, built on partnership, and he has tarnished that in his words.

He showed a level of respect and, I would say, decorum to our new Prime Minister earlier this week that I think was welcome. Putting partisanship aside, it doesn’t matter who the Prime Minister is; you have to show a level of respect to another foreign leader. It was good to see that.

Let’s be crystal clear that that relationship, that cooperation, has been broken forever, and we can no longer put B.C. in a position where we are reliant on our American friends. We will certainly continue to provide them softwood lumber, because they need it just as much as we need them.

Here is an opportunity for us to be able to build the resources we need in our province and to do so in a way that respects Indigenous peoples, respects the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, respects the work that’s happening in communities all across the province and protects the environment. That’s what we are doing with this legislation and the projects that the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions has brought forward.

Again, it’s important to recognize that the president’s tariffs have destabilized global trade all across this world. It was just a few weeks ago — this is like a joke — that he put countries on boards, and people were literally taking pictures of those boards and posting them online to find out if they made the list.

That’s the world we live in today. All of us were on the Twittersphere — or X, or whatever you call it — and looking at that, but President Trump has changed the world in terms of that. He is punishing Canadian industry and its workers.

We want to be very clear on this side of the House: we are not going to let Donald Trump destroy our energy sector, our forestry sector, the natural resource sectors that built this province. We are not going to let Donald Trump or Americans take away paycheques from our workers. That’s why we’re doing this critical work.

In recent months, we’ve seen American isolationism spill over into trade, technology and energy policy that is impacting not just British Columbia and Canada but other parts of the world as well.

When we talk about the work that my colleague the Minister of Energy is doing about energy in British Columbia, we have to recognize the work that has occurred over the course of the last number of weeks and months. We have to talk about the importance of this legislation that we are debating in this House today. We’re not just talking about the electricity grid of our province. We’re talking about defending our values, defending our people, defending our workers each and every day.

[1:45 p.m.]

That’s why this legislation is so important. That’s why I struggle listening to an opposition that doesn’t support this type of legislation. I struggle with that. I’m looking forward to hearing more debate and discussion on this legislation, but I do struggle with that.

We have experience in this House of some mixed signals over the course of the last number of weeks, where some opposition members get up and just completely trash a bill. They completely trashed Bill 13 yesterday, but then you have mixed signals, where some of them are talking in favour of it.

It’s going to be interesting when we get to the end of this legislation, Bill 14, and really get a clearer picture of whether they support building British Columbia, whether they support ensuring that British Columbia can become the clean energy superpower that it ought to be and whether they support the work that nations are doing on the ground with incredible companies that are leading the way.

That’s what this legislation is all about. Bill 14, and why I support it, is about enabling British Columbia to build clean energy projects faster, smarter and more securely. That’s why we’re bringing this legislation forward in the times we live in.

It will remove unnecessary delays and allow renewable energy to be developed faster through the B.C. Energy Regulator, an organization that has proven, time and time again, that it gets what its mandate is: to streamline projects while still ensuring that their reliable and important oversight continues to exist on safety, as the member for Surrey–White Rock talked about yesterday, on environmental standards and on that important engagement with First Nations peoples.

Again, we can take the work of the Energy Regulator and translate it to work in other organizations that make up the government of British Columbia to talk about the incredible work that our public servants do in all of our ministries. I think of the folks in the forest service that do this work every single day, focused on safety, focused on people, focused on meeting the needs, focused on the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which we stand proudly for on this side of the House. This was the government that introduced this legislation. This is foundational in our work as legislators.

We know that there are other members of the House that don’t support that legislation, and that’s okay. They’ve made their position known very clear, but let it be known very clear that we stand by DRIPA. We stand by the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. That work will not stop. That’s why we continue to invest in that work each and every day, not just as ministers, not just as MLAs, but as an entire public service, an entire government approach, and that does not stop with Bill 14.

British Columbians want to know that they will be able to access the energy they need in their homes and in projects all across this province, because when it comes to getting electricity built, speed is not a luxury. We talk about this in the context of housing, but we have to talk about this in the context of other types of projects as well. It’s a strategic necessity.

The reason we’re debating this legislation again is we are under threat from Donald Trump’s protectionist United States, and we have to stand up on our own two feet and fight. We have to build, have to create jobs, and we have to protect workers each and every day. That’s what we’re doing on this side of the House.

I welcome every member of this House — the opposition, the Green Party, the independent members — to join us in this effort. We are creating jobs in their communities, in every part of this province. These are projects that have, in many cases — I think the majority of cases — majority participation from First Nations peoples. You have First Nations communities who I’ve met along the way in my travels that are excited about these projects. They’ve been dreaming about the opportunity to be able to create wealth for their people, wealth in their community, and we are not going to let red tape get in the way.

We’re not going to let Donald Trump, as I said previously, take this opportunity away from those communities. We’re not going to let Donald Trump and Americans take this opportunity away from our workers. We are talking about thousands of jobs being created in every corner of our province.

Why is the opposition against that? Why are they against job creation? That’s what this legislation is. Simple as that. This is job creation. This is an opportunity to put more money in the pockets of families in rural communities, many who have been struggling with the different impacts in our forestry sector and other sectors of our economy.

That’s what we are for. We’re putting money in the pockets of families. Clearly, that’s what they’re against with this legislation, when they vote against it.

[1:50 p.m.]

Clean power is the foundation of a stronger economy here in British Columbia, and ensuring energy sovereignty for our economy. British Columbians want to know that their homes will be powered by clean electricity, that their businesses will be competitive and that we can attract investors from all around the world to come and build the mines, build the biomass facilities, build the jobs — the investments that we need in every corner of this province.

Let me be very clear that our province will not be held hostage by supply shocks, by one President of the United States or anyone. We’re going to stand on our own two feet, and we’re going to stand as one united Canada fighting this battle. The U.S. signals of protectionism and deregulation make it so much more urgent for us as a government, for us as a Legislature, to ensure that we can do everything in our power every single day to secure our energy independence.

That is what Bill 14 is accomplishing. It’s supporting projects. We are talking about clean energy projects that are good for the environment. We are replacing gas. We are replacing it with the work that we are doing on CleanBC, with clean energy. That is important as we look to our long-term growth as a province in order to be able to meet our climate targets in the future as well.

This is good news for British Columbia; this is welcome news. This is billions of dollars being invested to create jobs and opportunity and helps position us so that the people that are elected in these spots 100 years from now can talk about a strong, powered British Columbia, strong powered on clean electricity, ready to compete for the jobs of tomorrow.

That is what industry is going to be looking at. That is what I heard from industry and forestry. That’s what I’ve heard from all facets of the economy. We have Mining Day here in British Columbia. They are looking for the clean energy. We know that here in British Columbia mining plays a critical role in our economy. There is an opportunity through the work that the minister is doing with Bill 14 to help position British Columbia as the mining superpower of the world. That is only possible with the approval and passage of this legislation, because we can’t get stuck in long, outdated permitting systems.

We have to do everything in our power. Donald Trump isn’t paying attention to us and the debates in this Legislature. I sure wish he would because I would have an awful lot of things to say to him — an awful lot of things. But let me be very clear. We have to move fast. We can’t wait for Donald Trump to make an announcement. We can’t wait for him to drop another tariff.

He had a great meeting with the Prime Minister earlier this week, public-facing in the White House, in the Oval Office, but we don’t know what happened in the back room, necessarily. We understand that it went quite well. But we don’t know what’s going to happen tomorrow. We don’t know, in the over 15 minutes that I’ve been speaking — boy, does time go by quickly — that he hasn’t sent out another tweet announcing a threat of another tariff. It was earlier this week when we saw him attacking our film industry here in British Columbia and around the world.

Again, we have to move quickly. That is the importance of this legislation. It’s about delaying the approvals of wind projects, of solar projects. I think of my former community — I still consider it my community — of Sooke, and I remember going with my predecessor to visit the T’Sou-ke Nation. The Minister of Energy will remember, because he was a part of that work years ago, in highlighting it. The T’Sou-ke Nation have been incredible leaders in this province, in North America, in clean energy and setting up solar projects.

When I think of Chief Gordon Planes, this is exactly what he has been building his entire life around. The T’Sou-ke Nation recognizes the importance of these types of projects, and they want to ensure that we are building the energy sovereignty we need and that we are building good, sustainable jobs for British Columbians, for their members. They started this work a number of years ago before solar panels were cool. Now we are taking this work and quadrupling it. There’s no comparison.

I want to give a huge shout-out to my friend Chief Gordon Planes, who’s done phenomenal work in this area. I know he would be very proud of this legislation that we’re bringing forward. This is exactly the type of leadership that he thought, because he wants us to think seven generations ahead.

[1:55 p.m.]

He doesn’t want us to think in four-year election cycles. He doesn’t want us to think ten years ahead. He wants us to think 100-plus years ahead. He wants us to think about the future that our British Columbians are going to have. That’s the work that we’re doing on this side of the House.

Again, when the vision isn’t clear, in the path from conception to permitting to construction to operation, everything stagnates. We want to get shovels in the ground in these projects. We want to put people to work in every corner of this province. That’s why it’s so important, and I look to the members opposite to support this legislation.

This legislation creates jobs in every community across this province. This legislation creates opportunity for people. It ensures that we are standing on our own two feet. We are cutting red tape. This bill is one more tool that we’re building on this side of the House, through the legislation we’ve been passing this session and we’ve been doing ever since we formed government in 2017, to create economic opportunity in every part of this province.

I have spent more time in rural British Columbia, off the Island, in the constituencies of the members opposite, because those people matter to us. We recognize that we weren’t represented in the government caucus by those communities. That’s why we have to put in the work of going into those communities, listening to local government leaders, listening to job creators, listening to the workers.

They support this legislation. I’ve talked to people, talked to workers in those communities. They want us, through the work that we’re doing, through the work that the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions is doing, to inject confidence in our future, to set a clear vision for what we can do as a province, to build for the future. That is what we’re doing here.

It’s the projects like the North Coast transmission line. We need wind power projects. We need solar projects. We need all of these quickly, and we have to do more. It’s why the minister, earlier this week, announced a second call for power. This is historic. We are moving at a faster pace than any government has ever moved. We are leading the way, but it’s not good enough.

All you have to do is go back to your communities, which we are going to do tomorrow — well, later today. We’re going to go talk to our constituents, and we’re going to say that we are standing on our two feet. And they are going to tell us: “We need you to do more. We need you to build faster. We need you to get the energy we need to be able to power our homes, power our vehicles.” To power the work that my colleague the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals is doing on creating this mining superpower, the work that we’re doing in our biomass industry here in British Columbia, our pulp and paper sector….

We have an opportunity, through the work that we’re doing on this side of the House, to be able to create thousands of construction jobs, thousands of good-paying jobs. Again, we are not going to let Americans take away paycheques from hard-working British Columbians. We are going to create every opportunity we can for young British Columbians, British Columbians of all ages, to be able to compete for good-paying jobs, to be able to bring food to their tables.

We know things are challenging out there, but here is an opportunity for us to do this work together. I plead with the opposition that this is good legislation. This is the type of legislation that, I think, in the past, the Conservatives ought to support. I hope they’re not supporting this just because it’s a confidence matter. It’s clear to us, as we heard earlier today, that they want an election.

That’s okay. You guys can go pull out your signs, wash them, get them ready. Usually you have to get people to show up in order for that to happen, and that hasn’t been a strong suit of this opposition. When people don’t show up, that’s unfortunate. It happens — no big deal.

But we don’t want an election. British Columbians don’t want an election. They just had a federal election, where the mandate was clear. They elected MPs from every part of this province to go to Ottawa to get stuff done, to build our province, to build our country.

I think here is an opportunity for us to work together to pass good legislation, to send the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions the message he needs to be able to go and tell industry, to tell the First Nations that are equity partners in this work, that we are ready to get to work. We are ready to streamline. We are ready to be more efficient than ever. We’re ready to build.

It is very clear that on this side of the House, we are working every day to build projects. We are working every day to create jobs and opportunities for British Columbians in every part of the province, not just in urban parts of British Columbia but in rural parts of British Columbia, because those communities matter to us.

[2:00 p.m.]

You have an opposition that is clearly divided. You have an opposition that clearly doesn’t have a vision, and you have an opposition that is saying no to everything. That’s unfortunate.

British Columbians will know, and they will remember, that it was the B.C. NDP government, led by our Premier, that met the moment, that stood up against all odds, against a President of the United States that challenged our sovereignty, that challenged us in every way. They’re going to remember this Premier, that minister and this government standing up for them each and every day.

That’s what makes me proud to be the MLA for Langford-Highlands. That’s what makes me proud to be the Minister of Forests. This is the work we’re doing each and every day. We’re going to build British Columbia.

We’re not going to say no.

Hon Chan: We’re just very eager to speak on Bill 14.

I find it funny that the Minister of Forests just spoke, a nice speech there, when they are saying that we want an election, but it’s actually their government that introduced two bills, 14 and 15, as a confidence matter. I’m not sure why the minister, just to understand, why they put it as a matter of confidence, and now they accuse us of wanting an election.

Anyhow, since the Minister of Forests is leaving, I can go back to my notes.

I rise today to….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder to everyone that we don’t mention who’s not in the House.

Hon Chan: Yeah, he just stepped out when I spoke up.

Deputy Speaker: Just a reminder that we don’t mention who’s not in the House.

Hon Chan: All right, yes. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I rise today to speak on Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act. Let me begin by recognizing something that we all know to be true: British Columbia is heading towards an energy deficit. I agree with the speech that the Minister of Forests just gave. We need to act.

The province’s population is growing, industries are expanding and the government’s own plan for mass electrification, from cars to homes to industry, all require a dramatic increase in a reliable clean energy supply, and we know that. However, we are at a crossroad, and there’s no denying the urgency.

That’s why I’m genuinely excited to see Site C finally coming online. After more than a decade of planning, consultation, construction and investment, a project that was initiated by the previous government, we are now seeing the fruits of a long-term vision. That is what foresight looks like. That is what real planning for future energy security entails.

Site C was deemed controversial at the time, even by the current government. The current Energy Minister himself publicly questioned the necessity of the Site C dam. In a 2011 media interview, he raised concern about the province’s surplus of expensive power and the financial burden it would place on ratepayers. He pointed out that the government’s narrow approach of energy self-sufficiency excluded key power sources and led to overcommitment to costly private contracts, casting serious doubt on whether Site C was even needed.

When this government first came to power, they were quick to talk about cancelling Site C. Now the same minister is doing a victory lap, praising how Site C is essential to B.C.’s future. Welcome to British Columbia; this is your government.

Back in 2015, as the B.C. NDP spokesperson on B.C. Hydro, this Minister of Energy pushed for the Site C project to be referred to the B.C. Utilities Commission. He slammed the previous Liberal government for moving ahead without independent oversight and questioned whether the project was even in the public interest. Yet today, we have Bill 14 doing exactly the opposite, all under the banner of streamlining. Welcome to B.C.; this is your ironic government.

There’s an old Chinese saying,
今天的我打倒昨天的我
gamtin dik ngo daadou zoktin dik ngo,

which means, “The me of today defeats the me of yesterday.” That’s exactly what this government is doing: flip-flopping. No credibility. No accountability. No consistency.

[2:05 p.m.]

I praised the previous government’s Site C project for being foresighted. That’s the kind of strategic thinking we should be replicating today. Let’s be honest: if the NDP government truly believes in electrifying everything — I mean everything from heating systems to heavy industry — then one Site C is not enough. In fact, we will need two or even five Site C–sized projects to meet our energy needs in the next couple of decades.

Here’s the problem. Infrastructure of any scale takes time. It takes careful exploration, detailed environmental studies, First Nation consultation, community input, land assessment, extensive engineering, etc., followed by even more years to build and bring it online. What has this government done in the past eight years? Next to nothing, when it comes to securing long-term, large-scale clean energy.

Instead, they’re now slamming the panic button, and Bill 14, the so-called Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, is the result. It’s not a long-term strategy. It’s not a bold vision. It’s a reactive scramble, a legislative band-aid to cover up eight years of government inaction.

Let’s not forget the broader context. British Columbia is now facing a record deficit and debt. We’re talking a $14 billion deficit just this year alone. This NDP government is maxing out British Columbia’s credit card just to cover the basics: health care, education, policing, housing, transportation, etc. They can stand up and cheer all they want about how they are funding projects, but we’re not funding these projects, we’re borrowing for them.

It’s not just borrowing. We’re borrowing with interest, piling debt on top of debt to keep the lights on. That’s not fiscal responsibility. That’s a province living beyond its means, mortgaging our future to cover its mismanagement today. The truth is that we are broke. It’s not sustainable, and no amount of political spin or a few good announcements can change this math.

I’m not surprised that this government is turning to Bill 14 to grab unchecked power to push through smaller-scale energy projects, ones that are short-term, piecemeal, and far more expensive per kilowatt hour. That’s not smart planning; that’s desperation dressed up as innovation.

That’s why they have the B.C. Hydro call-for-power campaign. They say it’s about streamlining approvals, but let’s call it what this really is: a rush job, a last-minute attempt to expedite projects only after realizing it’s far too late, that we are on the verge of an energy shortfall.

The irony is painful. After layering on regulation after regulation, pushing investors out of the province, and presiding over years where no meaningful renewable energy projects were even proposed to B.C. Hydro, this government now wants to make it look like they’re a champion of clean energy — by bulldozing oversight, fast-tracking projects without environmental assessments, and centralizing power in the hands of the cabinet, its staffs and the B.C. Energy Regulator.

That’s not leadership; that’s damage control. You don’t get to spend eight years making it harder to build clean energy projects and then act surprised that we don’t have enough power. You certainly do not get to claim the moral high ground on renewables while gutting democratic process in the name of speed.

The people of British Columbia deserve better than rushed legislation and after-the-fact solutions. They deserve a government that plans ahead, like the government that had the vision to start Site C, not the one that now scrambles to play catch-up.

Yes, let’s consider more renewable energy. Let’s build wind farms, solar arrays, new transmission lines and even explore the potential for small, modular, nuclear or geothermal, but let’s do it with transparency, accountability and long-term planning, not with the rushed, short-sighted decision that forced this government into creating Bill 14 out of desperation and now a matter of a confidence vote.

This legislation, under the guise of streamlining renewable energy development, is actually a sweeping power grab by the B.C. NDP government, one that centralizes unchecked authority in the hands of cabinet and the B.C. Energy Regulator. Let’s be clear. Supporting renewable energy does not mean we should abandon transparency, public oversight or democratic process, yet this is precisely what this bill proposed.

[2:10 p.m.]

The government claims that this bill will streamline renewable energy approvals. At first glance, this sounds promising. We all want clean energy projects to succeed in B.C., but let’s not ignore the real reason these projects are stalled in the first place. It’s because of this NDP’s own overregulation and red tape, which has driven investment away and made it nearly impossible to complete major infrastructure projects in a timely manner.

Now, after years of creating bottlenecks, they want to appear like a hero by offering a single-window approach, a system that currently covers nine wind farms and the North Coast transmission line. But by order in council, the cabinet now can expand this to cover any renewable resource they choose without debate, without public input and without any oversight. Then we no longer need to debate here.

While the streamlined system may be sold as a fix, it’s really just a means to centralize power, and we should be very wary about how this authority is being structured.

One of the most alarming features of Bill 14 is that it allows certain renewable energy projects to be exempt from the environmental assessment process. Let me repeat that. This bill gives the power to the government to let projects skip one of the most important safeguards we have, the very process designed to assess and mitigate the long-term impact of industrial development on our ecosystems, our wildlife, our water and our communities.

This is not a small administrative change. This is a fundamental shift in how we protect British Columbia’s environment from being harmed. And while the government claims this exemption applies only to a limited set of projects, the legislation itself makes it crystal clear. Any project without a dam — and that includes many wind, solar and transmission projects — can be added to the exemption list later by regulation.

In other words, cabinet alone can decide which projects are subject to scrutiny and which are not, behind closed doors and without public debate. That’s a massive loophole here, and it opens the floodgates for industrial-scale energy developments to move forward without proper oversight or at the whim of an executive branch.

Perhaps just as troubling is what isn’t being talked about. This bill also gives the cabinet the power to block or disapprove renewable energy projects, again without any public oversight, justification or transparency. That’s an enormous amount of unchecked authority. It raises serious concerns about fairness and potential conflict of interest.

In a province where clean energy should be a shared, transparent and equitable goal, we’re instead giving one political party, the NDP, the ability to pick winners and losers behind closed doors. That’s not how good governments work. Let’s not kid ourselves. This is not about cutting red tape. This is about cutting accountability.

The environmental assessment process exists for a reason. It forces developers to consider the impact of their projects. It gives the First Nations, local governments and citizens a voice. It shines a light on potential environmental risk before the damage is done. By sidelining this process, the NDP government is not just speeding things up; they are rolling the dice with our natural environment.

The bill also introduces a so-called single-window system by placing the B.C. Energy Regulator in charge of energy project approvals, removing the need to go through multiple ministries.

Now, in theory, this might sound efficient, but let’s be clear. Streamlining is not a synonym for safeguarding. Just because you make the process faster doesn’t mean you’re making it better or safer. When you centralize authority in the hand of a single regulator with minimal checks and balances, you increase the risk of bad decisions being made with minimal transparency and even less accountability.

[2:15 p.m.]

This kind of fast track invites corners to be cut. It invites environmental shortcuts in the name of political convenience. That’s not just speculation. Experts like West Coast Environmental Law have raised the alarm, warning that Bill 14 opens the door for projects to move forward without the kind of meaningful environmental scrutiny that has, for decades, protected British Columbia’s watersheds, forests, salmon habitats and rural communities from long-term damage.

The government says we must act urgently to address climate change and build clean energy. Sure. I agree. But urgency cannot become an excuse for recklessness. We must not throw out the very environmental protections that define who we are as a province just because this government is under pressure to look like it’s doing something. British Columbians want real action. That’s true. But they also want it to be done right.

This brings me to my second concern: the lack of meaningful consultation with the Indigenous communities. Indigenous nations across B.C., from the coast to the Interior, have been pioneers in clean energy. They have developed solar microgrids, hydro projects — the community-driven solutions that serve remote populations and uphold environmental values. They have led with integrity, vision and respect for the land.

Yet this Bill 14 was dropped and introduced without transparent or inclusive engagement with many of those same communities. Where was the government when it came time to consult? Where was the listening, the sharing of power, the free, prior and informed consent?

The Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council has already spoken out against the bill. So not just the opposition, the Conservative Party, is opposing. The communities are opposing, warning that their energy projects could be derailed. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs is echoing those concerns. If we truly respect Indigenous rights, we cannot pass legislation that sidelines Indigenous voices and jeopardizes Indigenous economic development.

While we all agree that transitioning to renewable energy is essential for our province’s future, we must also acknowledge a fundamental truth. Even clean energy projects can have serious environmental consequences if they’re rushed, poorly planned or implemented without proper oversight.

Let’s not forget that large-scale hydro projects, while carbon-neutral, can flood entire ecosystems, displace wildlife and disrupt aquatic habitats. While projects involving dams are currently excluded from Bill 14, smaller-scale projects like wind farms and transmission lines are not. They, too, carry significant environmental risks when poorly planned. Wind farms, for instance, can interfere with bird and bat migration and alter natural landscapes. Transmission infrastructure can carve through forests, cross wetlands and damage ecologically sensitive areas.

Yet Bill 14 treats these projects as if they’re automatically low impact, giving them fast-track approval, often without proper environmental assessment. That’s a dangerous assumption. Just because a project is green in theory doesn’t mean it’s harmless in practice. This kind of blanket extension mindset is reckless. We need to apply the same level of environmental scrutiny to renewable energy projects as we do to any other major industrial development, because clean energy is only truly clean if it respects and protects the natural environment it relies on.

Right now there are already growing tensions between conservation goals and clean energy development, yet Bill 14 completely ignores this reality. It treats all renewable energy projects as inherently good and therefore deserving a free pass, regardless of the size, location, ecological footprint. There’s no nuance, no careful weighing on impacts, no meaningful planning framework to ensure that these projects actually enhance rather than undermine our environmental legacy. That’s not smart policy. That’s lazy policy. That’s reactive and overly simplistic.

[2:20 p.m.]

We cannot afford to pit one priority of building green infrastructure against another equally important goal: protecting British Columbia’s biodiversity, watersheds, wildlife corridors and rural communities.

Bill 14 doesn’t just stop at expediting approvals; it goes much, much further. This is where the legislation becomes deeply troubling. This bill grants the B.C. Energy Regulator unprecedented authority. It allows the regulator to change the very law and rules that govern itself, including the Energy Resource Activities Act, without any approval from the Legislature.

Let that sink in for a moment. We’re handing the regulator the ability to rewrite its own playbook with no votes, no debates, no public input and no oversight from the elected representatives in this chamber. That’s not democratic. That’s not transparent. That’s not how we should be governing a sector as important as our clean energy future.

It doesn’t end there. Bill 14 further empowers the regulator.

First, under Bill 14, the regulator would have the power to suspend and cancel public hunting, trapping and angling permits. These are not just hobbies; these are activities deeply rooted in our traditions, culture and lifestyle of British Columbians for the past 100-plus years, particularly in rural and Indigenous communities.

These are long-standing rights, not privileges to be revoked without justification. For many, hunting and fishing are not just part of how they put food on the table; they are part of how they pass knowledge down through generations. Yet this NDP government is now giving it to unelected officials and bureaucrats to confirm, reduce, extend or terminate licences. These officers have the ability to shut those rights down at will and without public consultation, without a hearing and extend it indefinitely.

Have we just moved to a dictatorship state? A place where decisions on our rights are made behind closed doors by unelected officials, where the rights and freedoms of British Columbians can be suspended at the whim of a single officer. If we’re not careful, this is the kind of unchecked power we risk giving away with Bill 14.

Second, the bill allows the regulator to override existing safety regulators for certain renewable energy projects. Let’s be clear. Those safety standards exist for a reason. They protect workers on construction sites, technicians in the field and families who live near these projects. Removing these protections in the name of speed or cost efficiency isn’t progress, it’s negligence. We would never tolerate the removal of workplace safety standards in other sectors. So why should renewable energy be an exception?

Let me ask this. If these safety regulations can now be overridden, omitted or suddenly deemed unnecessary, does that mean they were never essential to begin with? Were they just bureaucratic burdens this government placed on the province for the past eight years?

If that’s the case, then the ministry responsible should come out and publicly apologize to British Columbians for wasting their time, money and resources enforcing what this bill now implies were unnecessary rules all along. You can’t have it both ways. Either safety matters or it never did. And if it matters, it must not be discarded for political convenience.

Third, and perhaps most shockingly, this bill gives the regulator the power to determine whether land is of heritage significance, even land that may be sacred or culturally vital to First Nations or the local community. And here’s the real kicker. Regulators also get to appoint a person who makes that determination. There’s no independent process, no community involvement, no accountability.

[2:25 p.m.]

Imagine the conflict of interest. Imagine the irreversible consequences of allowing someone with no cultural connection to a place to declare that it holds no significance, all because it clears the path for a project to go ahead: clean energy. This isn’t just bad policy. It is a complete disregard for reconciliation and shared stewardship.

Finally, Bill 14 gives the regulator authority to approve or disapprove changes to land use within the agricultural land reserve, all without consulting with the Agricultural Land Commission.

Linda Hepner: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Linda Hepner: Thank you to my colleague for giving up that moment of time for me to be able to welcome, to the House, grade 5 students from my riding in Surrey–Serpentine River, from the Frost Road Elementary School. There are three classes of grade 5 students here today.

I would like the House to welcome them and to let them understand that what’s going on this afternoon is a debate about this bill on renewable energy and streamlining processes in the House, so that they understand that we’re here to make a difference in their world. We’re so excited to have them here.

Thank you to my colleague.

Debate Continued

Hon Chan: Welcome to the House, students. Today we are talking about Bill 14, and I will continue about the agricultural land reserve.

The problem is, now, without consulting the Agricultural Land Commission, the very body tasked to safeguard our farmland and protect B.C. food security…. This is not just a procedural oversight; that’s a dangerous precedent. At a time when food prices are climbing and arable land is shrinking, we should be doubling down on protecting farmlands, not bypassing the very institution designed to do so.

When you look at all these powers together, a pattern emerges. Decisions that affect people’s lives, communities, cultures and safety are being centralized in the hands of a regulator with no built-in accountability. This is not about clean energy anymore. This is about unchecked authority, and British Columbians should be very concerned.

This bill also enables the B.C. Energy Regulator to introduce new fees, levies and costs retroactively. Let me repeat that — retroactively. That means companies, organizations or even individuals could find themselves suddenly responsible for paying costs they had no way of anticipating when they started their projects — costs that were never disclosed, consulted on or agreed to at the outset. That isn’t just unfair; that’s alarming.

It creates a regulatory environment where the rules can be changed after the fact and where the finish line can be moved once the race has already begun. How does that build investor confidence? How does that foster innovation and then attract responsible development? This doesn’t. This does the opposite. It sends a message that British Columbia is unpredictable, unstable and hostile to long-term investment.

This kind of unpredictability is a nightmare for business planning. It penalizes exactly the kinds of companies — clean tech start-ups, Indigenous partnerships and community-led initiatives — that we should be empowering. Instead, it puts them at the mercy of bureaucratic whims and retroactive penalties.

What’s worse, it opens the door to political favouritism. With no oversight, this government could selectively penalize or reward different groups based on their preferences, ideology or relationships. That’s not governance. It undermines the rule of law and the principles of fairness. It’s not just bad policy. It’s dangerous policy, this Bill 14. We can’t build a reliable energy future on top of an unreliable and politically manipulable regulatory foundation.

The bill introduces a separate orphan fund for renewable energy projects, intended to address projects that are abandoned or left incomplete. While this is conceptually useful, it currently lacks key safeguards. There’s no independent oversight, no reporting framework and no guarantee that the fund will be transparently managed, and the authority to draw from or manage the fund sits squarely with, you guessed it, the regulator and the cabinet.

[2:30 p.m.]

This should be a red flag for every British Columbian concerned about public money and environmental liability. What we are seeing with Bill 14 is a continuation of the authoritarian tendencies we saw in Bill 7. This bill sought sweeping powers over land use planning.

Now Bill 14 gives those same unchecked powers over energy developments. The government claims they are just advancing nine wind farms and transmission lines, but hey, this bill allows them to take control of any project they choose, anytime, anywhere, under the banner of renewable energy. There’s no clear limit to their reach, there’s no meaningful oversight by the Legislature, and there’s no accountability to the public.

In conclusion, yes, we need more clean energy projects. So stop saying that we are not supporting clean energy projects. We are, clearly. We need to build infrastructure for a low-carbon future, and more quickly, but Bill 14 is not the best way to do it.

It strips away environmental protections. It bypasses Indigenous and community consultation. It gives one government and one regulator total authority without legislative approval. It leaves our natural lands, our heritage sites, and even our hunting and fishing rights at the mercy of the cabinet and unelected bureaucrats. We should not trade democratic process for executive convenience.

This bill is not about clean energy. It’s not about Donald Trump. But it is about control. If we care about transparency, accountability and real climate leadership, that’s not what Bill 14 is about.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s my pleasure to speak in favour of this bill, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act. What this bill does, along with the work that the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions has done, is lay a vision for this province of clean, abundant energy that we can all be proud of. It’s important to note that with this bill, what it means is we’ll be able to get to these projects faster, to build up our clean energy grid in B.C. and connect energy through all corners of our province in a really powerful and visionary way.

I’m so proud of the work that’s happening with our government to make sure that we can fast-track what’s good for this province: clean energy, solutions for climate change and securing our energy independence. All of these things are needed now and in the future.

What it lays out, through these tools in this act and the vision that the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions is laying out, is a future in our province where there’s abundant clean energy, where we can transition away from fuels that are adding to our emissions, and where we can do the transition work on the ground on every corner of this province. It’s a beautiful vision that everybody should get behind. The tools that we are putting in place with this bill will help us do exactly that. It’ll help us build up this vision of this province that we all should be supporting.

What this bill allows us to do is to streamline the permitting process for renewable energy projects and transmission lines. The minister had done a call to power, and I just want to spend a little bit of time talking about what that call to power means for this province: the first call to power that happened in 2024, and the approval of projects that were $6 billion worth of investment in the province, $3 billion of which was equity for First Nations across this province.

What will that do for our grid? We know that that will increase the supply by 8 percent of clean energy, equivalent to the Site C dam, and that’s enough power for 500,000 new homes. We think about that impact. And we’re just getting started. The minister announced recently another call to power, which would double that.

[2:35 p.m.]

As somebody who is not only part of this government but a citizen of this province, I’m really proud of that. I’m proud of the transformative nature that that could have on the future of some of our guests here today that are in elementary school and the future of this province and the future that we can build together.

We need to do that quickly. We need to do that in a way that respects all of our beautiful environment, respects First Nations people but moves quickly. This bill gives us the tools to exactly do that. What it would mean is that there would be a single permitting agency for renewable energy projects and transmission lines. It will simplify the approval process for these projects, eliminating the need for cross-ministry and agency permitting.

The opposition talks quite a bit about red tape, but I find it interesting that when this bill before them is about making sure that we can streamline things to get things built faster, they’re speaking against it. I find that confusing — not only for myself and the government that listens to it but, I’m sure, for the public.

What we have before this House is something that takes the tools that we have as a government to reduce the timeline it takes to make sure that permitting goes quickly, to make sure that there can be certainty in our processes so we can build things quicker, we can build to the needs that our clean energy grid demands and the needs of the future. I find that really inspiring.

To talk a little bit about the importance of reconciliation to the work that we’ve done and are doing: as a government and, I know, personally in my role, we work very closely to make sure that our work and our commitment to UNDRIP is happening in every aspect of our government. It’s been a core part of the work that we’ve been doing for a few years now.

A very important part of that, which I think should be noted, was to make sure that all of our laws align with our commitments under the constitution and the honour of the work of the Crown that we need to do.

That’s why in 2021 we amended the Interpretation Act and added 8.1 to that Interpretation Act. What that clearly states is that every enactment in law in British Columbia cannot derogate from the rights of Indigenous people in the constitution. We are so committed to that that we put it clearly in our Interpretation Act, which is a tool to interpret every single piece of legislation in British Columbia.

I want all of our First Nations partners to know that that commitment is strong from all of us and that, I think, is exemplified in the nature of the projects that we’re moving forward in a streamlined way, where $3 billion of the $6 billion is First Nations equity. We are not only doing something to grow our grid; we are supporting First Nations partners across this province.

Another really powerful thing about this streamlined process is the North Coast transmission line. That’s going to help connect this province, connect clean energy to corners of this province to spur economic growth. We on this side of the House are supportive of making sure that every community across this province — rural, remote, urban — has the opportunities that they need to have a strong economy. One of those is making sure that they have access to clean energy and that all those economic opportunities that come with access to that clean energy are supported.

The streamlining of that process to build the North Coast transmission line is another really inspiring part that lays the groundwork for what our future could be in this province and the future that we can build together if we focus our resources in the right direction, if we put the energy and time that we have in a focused way to make sure that these projects are getting built in a timely way and that we’re pushing forward with our vision for the future.

There’s another level that we’ve all been facing in the last few months. Certainly, I’ve been debating for about 49 hours in another part of this House about how we’re responding to unprecedented threats that we’re facing from our partners that we used to have down south — and, hopefully, one day will. That’s a threat to our sovereignty. That’s a threat to how we can depend on our partners.

[2:40 p.m.]

We have to shift away from relying on what was a strong relationship for many things, including our trade. One of the things we’ve all been focused on since then is ensuring that our sovereignty is protected, I think, also — you’ve heard from the Prime Minister — energy independence.

Energy independence is vital to how we make sure that our industries have a source of energy, that we’re not tied to grids that we can’t depend on and that are unreliable across border in the context of a trade war and what could be threats to our sovereignty.

As a government, we’ve responded in many ways, and legislation before this House really demonstrates that, whether it’s our Bill 7, Bill 14 or another bill before the House that is about speeding up our hospitals, schools and other infrastructure that’s badly needed in this province.

It is time for us to stand together, for us to realize that our power is in investing in our people, investing in our energy infrastructure and investing in our future. Our government, I know, sees that vision and sees the vision of a clean future where we’re addressing climate change, where every corner of this province has access to clean energy, where we can build up the economies that we know we need to rely on in the future and today, and where we’re independent in every way that we can be.

I believe in the people of this province. I believe in their ability to meet adversity, to adapt and to become stronger. But we, as a government, need to make sure we have the tools in place to respond to that and to make sure that investment stays in this province by moving quickly when it comes to certainty in regulatory regimes, when it comes to responding to the growth that we need to see all over our province.

It’s a real pleasure for me to stand up and support the work of the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions in bringing this bill forward. I’m really excited about what it means for the province and excited about what it means for clean energy and addressing climate change in the future.

There are a few things that, I think, just in closing, I’ll talk about that come with the call to power. The 2024 call to power projects — ten new wind and solar projects; 5,000 gigawatt hours are enough power for 500,000 homes, as I mentioned before. The second call to power will double it. These accelerated timelines will mean that these projects are done faster and they can be part of the grid faster.

This is a plan that is meeting the moment and also meeting the future for this province, and it is something that I think we should all be proud of. I would hope that everybody in this House would support the good work that’s contained in this bill and the impacts it will have on the future of this province.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m pleased to speak to Bill 14, with significant changes on how energy projects are assessed and regulated in our province. I fully recognize renewable energy as an important step in our climate goals, our affordability goals and our energy sovereignty goals.

In getting these projects online, however, Bill 14 gives sweeping new powers, as has been mentioned, to the B.C. Energy Regulator. This is a Crown corporation originally created to serve the oil and gas industry. This bill would expand the regulator’s mandate to include renewable energy projects like wind, solar and geothermal, as well as major transmission infrastructure.

The title says this bill is about streamlining, but what it really seems to be streamlining is environmental protections — consolidating authority within a regulator that many communities do not trust to act in the public interest.

As I said, the original purpose of the Energy Regulator was very much to facilitate the development of the oil and gas industry in the province and act as a one-stop concierge, so to speak. While that has shifted since inception, the origin story goes a long way to explain the current state of its compliance and enforcement. Formerly the Oil and Gas Commission, the Energy Regulator is both a one-stop shop for all approvals and in charge of keeping companies in line with the laws.

[2:45 p.m.]

By way of the Energy Resource Activities Act, the regulator has special powers over the Environmental Management Act, Water Sustainability Act, Land Act, Wildlife Act, Forest Act and Heritage Conservation Act, among others, noting that all these need to be followed in permitting these projects.

This means the regulator can make decisions and issue permits to clear an archaeological site, for example, or cut down forests to clear land for fossil fuel projects. It also means the regulator is responsible for enforcement if a project like Coastal GasLink is breaking any of those laws.

The Energy Regulator is commonly known to be industry regulating itself, paid for through industry fees and seen by many as a rubber stamp entity. So far it has not effectively represented public and Indigenous values or scientific rigour in its decision-making. The Crown corporation claims to be independent but, as I mentioned, is funded by industry, overseen by a government-appointed board and lacking in transparency.

Compare this to the B.C. environmental assessment office. Their inspection reports are regularly published to their website. B.C. Energy Regulator reports are not publicly available. BCER has faced significant criticism for its oversight of the Coastal GasLink project, particularly regarding environmental compliance. Despite conducting over 500 inspections, the BCER issued only 12 minor tickets totalling approximately $2,760. In contrast, the EAO has levied over $1.4 million in penalties against Coastal GasLink for repeated environmental non-compliance.

Furthermore, investigative reports have revealed instances where the BCER identified potential environmental infractions but did not take enforcement action. Recent reporting by the Narwhal and the Investigative Journalism Foundation detailed how, in many cases, the B.C. Energy Regulator did not fine or reprimand companies when they apparently broke regulations intended to protect the environment and public health and safety.

Is this who we want regulating our clean energy future? Public support is not a given; it must be earned. After the BCER failure to properly regulate Coastal GasLink, support and trust with northern communities must be restored.

How has the province learned from the terrible failures with Coastal GasLink? How are they improving operations at the BCER? We’ve asked this question in briefings but received vague answers. The problem is that many of these items are to be resolved through regulations that will follow that we can’t see at this moment.

How will cumulative impacts be assessed? Who will be responsible for consultation with First Nations? How will the regulator conduct public engagement? What processes will take place in lieu of an environmental assessment? These are important questions that need answers before this bill becomes law.

The BCER must evolve beyond facilitating industry to a credible, science-based, rights-respecting public agency, especially if it is going to be trusted with regulating B.C.’s clean energy future. Unfortunately, none of that is part of this bill.

I would like to speak for a moment about the North Coast transmission line, specifically referenced in this bill — a $3 billion, 450-kilometre hydro transmission project. According to B.C. Hydro, it’s expected to power a wide range of industrial customers.

The impacts on people, land and wildlife are substantial. The proposed route would affect over 100 private properties, including valuable agricultural land. It would cross traplines, woodlots and come within 200 metres of archaeological sites. It overlaps with winter habitat for moose and crosses rivers that support at-risk white sturgeon. These are not minor details to be streamlined. They are critical to the ecological and cultural fabric of northern B.C.

The government has been promoting this line as essential infrastructure. Some of these…. The Third Party caucus supports port electrification, hydrogen processing, maybe even some critical mineral processing and mining to help with our electrified future.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Leader of the Third Party, I want to recognize the member for Surrey–Serpentine River.

Linda Hepner: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the recognition, and my apologies to my Green Party colleague. I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[2:50 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Linda Hepner: We have another class of grade 5 students from the Frost Road Elementary School in the Surrey–Serpentine River riding, so welcome them to the House.

Just to let them know, there are three Houses going on right now, so that they don’t think we’ve all gone on vacation.

Thank you for making them feel welcome here this afternoon.

Debate Continued

Jeremy Valeriote: As I was saying, we can support some of the purposes of the North Coast transmission line — port electrification, possibly some critical mineral mining for electrification and hydrogen processing. I will leave liquefaction of natural gas aside as a separate item that we are unable to support and that will, potentially, use most of this electrical power.

The Energy Minister went as far as to say that if the line isn’t built, and built quickly, those industries may not proceed in the northwest. When I asked in estimates debate who the line is really for, the minister responded: “First and foremost, the residents of the northwest.” That’s a very different story from what’s said in press releases, and it really changes the picture on the North Coast transmission line.

I look forward to committee stage to get some clarity on this. British Columbians deserve transparency and clarity on this. They deserve to know whether the line is being truly built for them or whether they’re being asked to bear the costs of subsidizing industry of any kind. Make no mistake, the costs are real. If public money is used to build this line, we’re shifting the financial burden onto everyday ratepayers. If used for LNG, it would be a step backward on the government’s commitment to end fossil fuel subsidies.

This government has made clear that if B.C. wants to meet its climate objectives, new LNG development must be powered by electricity. The 2023 report from the Pembina Institute showed that electrifying just B.C.’s oil and gas sector would require more than eight times the electricity produced by the Site C dam. That’s an astonishing figure, and it raises serious questions about priorities. That’s not only eight Site C dams, but also eight calls for power of the size that was just issued.

We should be using our clean electricity to power real climate solutions, not fossil fuel projects. I can’t emphasize enough how little sense it makes to produce clean energy only to liquefy fossil fuels to ship across the Pacific to be burned.

By bypassing environmental assessments, we’re bypassing the process designed to identify and mitigate impacts but also to build community support and social licence for these. A few years ago this government updated the Environmental Assessment Act precisely to ensure a more holistic view of impacts and to fully respect the rights of Indigenous peoples. Weakening those standards now sends the wrong message at the worst possible time.

On the process of this, we can’t make the mistake of equating speed with progress. The push to cut red tape too often means cutting out communities, cutting corners on environmental protection and cutting short the consultation with Indigenous peoples.

This debate isn’t just about regulation; it’s about trust. It’s about whether British Columbians can believe that the systems in place will protect their environment, respect Indigenous rights and ensure that decisions are made in the public interest. The public can’t know that — in fact, this House can’t know that — because most of this will be sorted out in regulations.

In B.C., developments like mines, pipelines and large infrastructure projects must undergo an environmental assessment. They’re not red tape; they’re rigorous, science-based and designed to ensure that we understand the impacts of major projects before shovels hit the ground. I’ve participated in these, and yes, occasionally they hit a snag that is frustrating for industry and even frustrating for regulators. But on the whole, they’re meant to introduce science and build socioeconomic licence and protect the environment.

The process typically takes three to five years when it’s conducted by the environmental assessment office. It’s an independent agency that reports to the Ministry of Environment, not to industry, and when violations occur, the environmental assessment office has issued real penalties, including for projects like Coastal GasLink.

[2:55 p.m.]

What we’re seeing now is a dangerous trend, a growing trend of cutting red tape, dismantling of protections in the name of speed. This isn’t a theoretical concern on the precautionary principle. We’ve seen the consequences. We saw it at Mount Polley, where a tailings dam failure devastated a watershed. We see it in the southeast, where selenium from coal mines continues to poison rivers. We saw it on Banks Island, where a project that never underwent an environmental assessment dumped waste into the ocean and declared bankruptcy, leaving the community to deal with the mess.

These are all painful reminders of what happens when we rush to deregulate. We need to stop treating regulation as a barrier and recognize it as the safeguard that it is. If we’re serious about building clean energy — we are serious, and we fully support that — we also have to be serious about doing it right.

That means strengthening regulatory protections, not weakening them. It means ensuring free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous peoples. It means creating space for meaningful public participation that builds public support. The cost of getting this wrong is not just financial. It’s environmental, social and generational.

In closing, how we build these renewable energy projects really matters. This energy transition must be built on a foundation of strong environmental standards; meaningful Indigenous consultation; and transparent, independent oversight. It must earn and maintain the trust of the public.

Bill 14 risks undermining that trust. If we want to build a clean energy future that lasts, we must ensure that the public is not just consulted but confident that their voices, their values and their environments are protected. That’s how we build support. That’s how we build legitimacy. That’s how we build social licence and a truly sustainable future.

The B.C. Green caucus has a small number of concerns with this bill that we will bring forward at committee stage. We will hope to hear those resolved or bring amendments, and we look forward to the next phase of this bill.

Ward Stamer: I enjoyed very much the previous two debates from the government side. What was interesting is that we were supposed to be debating and talking about the processing of streamlining projects, electrification projects, and really, what we got from the previous two members was an election speech — you know, ramping up about sovereignty and the fact that we’ve really got to do this.

Let’s be candid about our expectations on electrification. Never once did this side ever say that we were against electrification — not once, okay?

If we want to talk about forward thinking in this government, let’s go way, way, way back to 2021, where it says: “Where does B.C. Hydro find itself today?” A whopping four years. It says right in here: “B.C. Hydro is well positioned to serve our customers’ provincewide electricity needs for most of the next decade, with additional demand-side measures, before adding any new clean and renewable energy resources. Our integrated system is currently in a surplus.”

Well, the Energy Minister knows, just like I know, that we no longer have a surplus — period. I can’t imagine what my grandfather’s generation would think right now. My grandfather was involved in power generation in Revelstoke when he got back from serving in World War II. Those people were incredibly proud, not only incredibly proud of what they were able to build but forward-thinking enough so that we could have that capacity in the future.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

I kind of giggle and laugh now when we hear the minister taking responsibility for Site C, a project that hasn’t even really come online yet, something that was previously designed and purposely brought before this House and that was actually soundly defeated by the opposition of the time, the NDP — now taking credit for that project, taking credit for LNG. Next they’ll be taking credit, I’m sure, for Mica in Revelstoke and possibly the Bennett dam.

[3:00 p.m.]

Honestly, where is the forward thinking in this whole process? I mean, we’re supposed to be talking about streamlining protocols. Well, the only reason why we’re even having this discussion today, even the purpose of having Bill 14, is that there hasn’t been any planning or forward thinking. Now we’re so far behind that they have to do everything they possibly can to cut through everything that’s necessary in this province. One of those things is making sure that there’s proper public consultation, there’s proper environmental assessment and it’s done properly.

I’ve spent the last three days trying to go through this process. I’m trying to determine numbers, and I haven’t seen any numbers on any of this stuff when it comes to cost. All I’ve seen is a wish list. We talk about ten projects: nine that are wind, one that is solar. I’m trying to go through the math, and that’s just about impossible, especially with this government because we know how good they are with math. I mean, what’s that deficit going to be now — $13 billion, $14 billion, $15 billion? Hell, let’s make it $20 billion. It doesn’t seem to matter to them how much money we need to spend.

Even though we do have one of the lowest rates for electricity in North America, I can guarantee you that’s going to change under this government. When I’m looking at some of the numbers…. I’d like to be able to talk to that because I think the other side had a fair amount of latitude when it came to not even talking about the process but talking about sovereignty. I’ll get to that in a minute.

The reality is, when you look at these first ten projects…. The previous member that was speaking mentioned it was $6 billion. Well, we were told each project was $750 million, so that comes in at $7.5 million, not $6 million.

Now, if the Energy Minister wants to refute that, maybe he can actually show us some real numbers of what these projects are supposed to cost.

We haven’t seen anything, have we, Mr. Minister? Not a penny.

But oh, hey, we’ve got non-disclosure agreements, and we’ve got a bunch of stuff going on behind closed doors, but we’ll get to it. We’ll let you know how much money it’s going to cost.

This next request for proposal hasn’t even been done yet. He’s talking about it, but it hasn’t even been done yet. It’s not even on the paper.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I will just…. I’m not sure why the minister is coming to the Chair, but we’ll deal with that in a moment.

I will say this is not question period. We’re here to debate Bill 14, and I’m very interested in understanding how that’s going to affect residents in British Columbia.

Please carry on.

Ward Stamer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The reality is that we have an energy electrification deficit in this province — end stop. We knew this was coming years ago. B.C. Hydro did not adequately plan for the future. Now they’re trying to wrap everything together in clean energy because of some unknown reason other than that we’re supposed to save the planet all by ourselves.

When you look at other alternatives…. In renewable, there’s also biomass, okay? Nowhere does it say that we couldn’t be using biomass as that alternative for renewable energy. It doesn’t say that. In the last introduction of proposals, there was one biomass project that was identified, and it wasn’t awarded. Okay?

The second part is that when we look at baseload, we look at redundancies, we look at streamlining the process….

The minister doesn’t want to hear my speech, so that’s great. We can talk about numbers when we get to committee.

The reality is that we need to have certainty of supply, not only for electrification and electricity but for a wide variety of things in this product. Without input, we don’t have output.

When we have opportunities here to be planning for the future, and we’re talking about the North Coast transmission line, which is basically just the doubling of the existing 500-kilovolt line that goes from Prince George to Terrace, that’s one thing. That’s distribution of power. But where is the power going to be coming from?

Some of the concerns that have been brought on this side of the House not only in the streamlining process that this government says it desperately needs but in the negative impacts to our environment…. We know that if we’re going to be putting these projects together, we’re going to be negatively impacting the environment.

[3:05 p.m.]

When you look at the sheer scope of just those nine wind projects that are going to be built, the amount of concrete that’s going to have to be transported to those locations, the amount of excavation that is going to have to take place, the crossing of all the streams and the reclassification and possibly changing of bridges, those are all negative impacts to our environment.

Yet now the government feels that they don’t have to have any public consultation. They can decide whether there is an environmental assessment or not because we really, really, really need electricity. Well, we’ve known that for years, so that doesn’t make any excuse not to do it properly. It also doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be looking at other tools in the toolbox.

Now, even when we’re looking at streamlining the process…. You know, Site C, I think we all agree, is something that was desperately needed in this province. Even if you look at the planning that was put forward, and how many years, it goes back to 2007, when the initial planning was being done. We’re talking 17, 18 years between that initial process and the planning and the engagement with First Nations, many of whom are still not very happy with the way the project went through, with a negative impact to their lands.

Going forward, we still haven’t determined exactly how that’s going to work out with this process. We know that in the Vancouver Sun today, there were some comments made by Assembly of First Nations Chief Teegee about Bill 15, and a lot of that was around the fast-tracking of process. I’m not entirely sure what they’re going to think about Bill 14.

When you start looking at what’s going on with these projects, with overlapping boundaries with First Nations and all through the consultation process…. I’m just wondering how this is actually going to work if it’s only up to cabinet to make that decision and not allowing the people of this province, the people that are in this room right now, to be able to be part of that process.

I heard earlier today that we’re supposed to be representing all the people in the province. We do. The 93 of us do, from every single region in British Columbia. Some of these regions will not be negatively impacted by these projects that are already on the books, but many of them will be.

I think we’ve already talked about a bunch of the different negative aspects of this project, whether it’s access for landowners; access for the Cattlemen’s Association, which was here this week; access for First Nations; access for community forests; access for forests in general and the licensees that have a legal responsibility and a right to be able to use those forest service roads, the same roads that these projects are going to be using at the same time.

There are a bunch of unanswered questions. That is why this side of the House doesn’t agree with this rubber stamp, because that’s really what this is. This is kind of like: “Just trust us, and we’re going to get it done.” Well, if past projects are any indication of “trust us, we’re going to get this done,” if it ever does get done it’s going to be half as good and twice as much money. That’s what their record speaks for.

When we talk about process, by allowing the regulator to have sole jurisdiction in this, the regulator will be able to change not only the regulations; there can be laws changed as well. Now, again, that’s why we’re here. That’s why the members in this House are here. It’s to hear from the public, hear their concerns and make the laws. It isn’t for the cabinet to make the laws.

That’s why we’ve had so much push-back from Bill 7. That’s why the government took amendment 4 out of Bill 7. It was specifically because of that.

This legislation also gives the regulator the authority to suspend or cancel permits. These are existing permits. These could be permits for hunting, trapping, angling, possibly community forest licences, possibly forest licences. The list goes on. Again, this allows the government to rewrite whatever they want. So excuse me if I’m a little bit skeptical on the trust side of things.

[3:10 p.m.]

In the last little while, certainly in the last eight years, this government has been able to do whatever they want, when they want, when they have those types of powers, without any checks or balances.

Now, we also heard from the other side about sovereignty and that we shouldn’t be relying on our neighbours to the south for anything. Well, they’re right. My mom used to tell me all the time: “Don’t worry about what somebody else is doing; worry about what you’re doing.” That’s exactly what this side of the House is doing. We are worrying about what we’re doing here in British Columbia.

If people out there aren’t totally familiar with the way electricity works in this province, it’s buy and sell. We sell power to the U.S. at peak times, for peak dollars, and then we turn around and import cheaper power at night. That’s how it has always worked, but now we are a net importer of power. Last year it was over $500 million that we had to import, and I’m guessing it’ll be more this year.

Even though our largest clean energy generator is hydroelectric, we’re still at the whim of Mother Nature. We still may not have enough water for electricity on the demands that we have. We also have a Columbia River treaty that hasn’t been renegotiated.

Part of that treaty is the Americans’ ability to tell us how much water we should be sending downstream. Part of that agreement is money that we get back from the Americans on that power-generation portion of the water that we provide naturally through our dams. That’s up for renegotiation as well. Believe it or not, we still rely on each other for the most trade of any two countries in the world, regardless of who’s sitting in the Oval Office at this time.

I look forward to the opportunity, when we get to committee, to be able to ask the minister specifically on the numbers that I asked for before. We cannot afford to move forward on any of these projects without knowing exactly how much they’re going to cost, how much power they’re going to create and when that power will actually be generated and distributed in this province.

Now, I can argue from everything I’ve seen online, and people back home can check it out for themselves, that when you look at wind power in most jurisdictions, it’s half of what they say it’s going to be — half. If each one of these power generation plants that have already been approved comes online at 160 megawatts, I would say they’re going to be less than that.

When the member across says that we’re going to be able to generate enough power for 500,000 homes, from these last ten that have been announced, I would vehemently disagree with that. In the past, in any other jurisdiction in the world, that isn’t true. Not only are we going to get half of what we think we’re going to get or what has been planned; it’ll end up costing us twice as much in the future.

One of the other things that affects many of us that aren’t in the Lower Mainland…. It does affect some in the Lower Mainland, because maybe this’ll be a wind farm coming near you. Maybe it’s going to end with the next one being down in the valley. We don’t know. It could be in the next call for power.

This allows the regulator, single-handedly, to change the regulations in regard to the ALR. I know there are members on the other side that would disagree with that, but with this streamlining of processes, what’s to say that that doesn’t happen? That’s what I see in my notes.

It also talks about what land is heritage and what is not. That was specified as well. They get to determine what is now heritage and what isn’t.

[3:15 p.m.]

Another thing it does is to allow the cabinet to decide who gets these projects. Again, no oversight, no consultation. I mentioned it earlier, in my remarks to the member across: where are the numbers? Where are the agreements? We’ve seen nothing.

Now, I’ve heard stories that many of these projects that have already been approved have significant financial challenges on the structuring of the way the corporations were designed and where the financing is coming from. There is no clear timeline on when these projects are going to be built or to come online.

This streamlining process is supposed to enable the government to speed this up, so that this power will be available sooner than was originally planned or originally needed, but we have seen nothing concrete in timelines. Is it two years, five years, eight years, ten years? We have no idea, yet we’re supposed to take it on faith. “Not only are we working on it; we desperately need it. We need you guys to basically give us a blank cheque.” But we have no idea when these projects are coming online.

Another thing, when we talk about streamlining the process, is that I can’t even find a demand list from B.C. Hydro. I can’t even find exactly what our load demands are, even a projection in five years. I would really like the opportunity, once we get to committee, to have these conversations.

It’s very difficult for me to formulate an opinion, especially to be in a mindset where I’m going to be able to accept and approve of what the government is doing, without at least giving me the information necessary to make an informed decision. Right now, we’ve received basically nothing.

All we’ve received is: “We really, really need the electricity, and we’ll do everything we possibly can, but it has to be clean.” Well, how clean does it have to be? How clean? We know that the targets that were originally designed by this government for 2030 seem to be changing. We just heard this week the Energy Minister mentioning that if LNG 2 comes online, those emission targets and those emissions wouldn’t count, because it was actually planned pre-2030. Wow.

Now they’re changing the parameters of how they determine what their targets actually are. Does that mean that they’re going to change the parameters of what’s clean and what’s not clean?

I can argue that if we’re going to use biomass as a renewable resource or renewable generation, this is exactly what it says: renewable power. It doesn’t specify that we can’t use biomass. The last call for power had one biomass in there. Unfortunately, they weren’t successful. Does that mean that that’s going to be included in this next round of requests? I can guarantee you that biomass does not have zero emissions. It may be close, but it’s not net zero.

I’ve said this before, and maybe it’s only a personal reflection that, quite frankly, net zero is for zeros. We’re never going to get to zero. Nowhere in this world is it zero. Why are we destroying our economy by trying to get to zero, particularly when the government is moving the goalposts when it comes to what actually counts for climate targets and what doesn’t?

All the electricity that we import, as I mentioned earlier, from the U.S. — none of that counts. If all of a sudden, some of the northern states wanted to use pure, coal-generated power and turn around and trade it with us for the electricity that we supply to them, that doesn’t count. It’s across the line, so it really doesn’t matter.

I heard a comment, also earlier today, about not supporting LNG, liquefication of natural gas. Well, part of the challenge of that is that we are sacrificing clean hydroelectric power from Site C to be able to use that power in Kitimat. Now, I can argue that we should probably be using more natural gas power generation, because that liquefied natural gas is replacing the dirty coal that other jurisdictions in the Asia-Pacific are using right now, and I feel pretty good about that.

Even though it’s another jurisdiction not even trying to reduce their emissions, we’re actually forcing them to do it by supplying them with a cleaner form of energy. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

[3:20 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, I wonder if we could get back to Bill 14.

Ward Stamer: Back to the process? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for keeping me on the task at hand. The previous Chair didn’t seem to be too concerned about that, but thank you very much for bringing me around to that.

When we look at a couple of the bills that are before us, including Bill 14…. I think a previous member talked about it last night. There’s a reason why we got to this place. Two reasons, actually. The first reason was that we prided ourselves in this province to have some of the strongest environmental standards in the world. Some of us might say that we were forced to do it. Some of us wanted to do it; some of us didn’t want to do it. The reality is that we all support it. We’re better for it.

This streamlining, masking, is really not what we need. We need to be able to make sure, with the guidance of this House, that those environmental standards are maintained, not just with our First Nations, not just with public consultation but with the people in this room that have just as much experience on this side as the other side. That’s what’s important: to make sure that we do it right and not to start running around and pretending that we’re desperate. Well, the only reason why we’re desperate is because of lack of planning. That’s why we’re desperate.

I can argue that there are other ways of bringing electrification to our grid faster than some of these projects. Yes, it may include other forms of renewable and cleaner energy. We haven’t even discussed nuclear. That doesn’t even want to be part of the table. Yet there are so many other jurisdictions in the world that rely on nuclear power every single day. I can argue it’s one of the safest forms of electrification there is now in the world. They’re not just shutting all their nuclear systems down. They know it’s part of the overall package of supplying dependable power when we need it.

When we have a government that ends up pushing us basically into a corner with changes to electrification…. All the new builds are electrified. We ought to have EVs. Mandate us till 2035, where it’s mandatory and you won’t be able to sell a new vehicle. Where actually is this power going to come from?

I can argue that in downtown Vancouver or West Vancouver, if half the people down there had an EV, there’s no way they’d charge them at their residence. They’d be charging them out in Abbotsford and trying to find a way to get out there to go get their car. That’s the forward-thinking that this NDP government has offered us.

Now they’re in a bind, they’re desperate and they want us to give them a blank cheque with this Bill 14. Well, not from me and not from anybody else in this House until they can convince us that the proper environmental standards are going to be met, that we’re going to be able to see all the costing before it goes online, that we’re going to be able to see what the negative impacts to the environment will be.

When will these be coming online? When are they going to be built? Is it two years, five years, ten years? How many years? What assurances do we have there won’t be any cost overruns? Streamlining is supposed to improve the process, make it cheaper. Well, the proof will be in the pudding. Who’s to say that they won’t have cost overruns?

I mean, look at the Trans Mountain project. This government was against it tooth and nail. Now, of course, they support it because we need the exports of oil, but look at the difference of that initial cost and how much it ballooned through the process.

Yes, we can argue that part of it is because the federal government came along and took supervision of it and didn’t do a very good job of it. The other part is there were a bunch of weather-related issues. COVID got in there, supply chain issues, the whole nine yards.

Who’s to say that’s not going to happen again? Particularly when we talk about the U.S. and the tariff threats. How confident is the government in these costing proposals that they’ve already agreed to? What happens if they go over budget? Who is going to pay for the difference?

[3:25 p.m.]

In closing, I have many unanswered questions when it comes to this bill, particularly in not being able to know exactly what we’re dealing with and not having the flexibility to be looking at all the opportunities when it comes to electrification.

I take exception when the other side says: “You’re against electricity.” Of course we’re not. But the reality is we need all the power generation tools, not just strictly wind and solar, because we know that if the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine, we don’t get any power out of that stuff. So we need to be able to make sure that we have an equal balance when it comes to our future growth for electricity in this province.

I yield the rest of my time.

Sharon Hartwell: I rise today to speak against Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

At first glance, this bill looks like a response to a real problem: the long delays and the red tape that have stifled the investment in renewable energy across British Columbia. For years, this NDP government has layered on so many regulations and costs they’ve driven investment out of the province. Now they want to pretend they’ve seen the light. They want British Columbia to believe they are removing barriers, supporting clean energy and inviting opportunity back into our communities.

Let’s be clear about what Bill 14 really does. This bill goes far beyond cutting red tape. It hands sweeping, unchecked powers to the NDP government and the B.C. Energy Regulator, powers that should alarm every citizen no matter where they stand on renewable energy. Bill 14 allows the government to exempt projects from environmental assessments, sidestep the agricultural land reserve, ignore safety standards and even retroactively impose fees and levies on projects, all without the approval of this Legislature.

It gives the regulator the power to cancel hunting, trapping and angling permits; decide what lands they qualify as heritage sites; and amend its own governing laws without accountability or public oversight. This isn’t good governance. This isn’t clean energy done right. This is a blank cheque for government overreach. This side of the House will not stand by as this government centralizes power; strips away local input; and places the livelihoods of farmers, hunters, anglers and rural families at risk — all under the cover of streamlining.

This Bill 14 is not a solution. It’s a threat to fairness, accountability and the democratic principles that we all share. One of the headline promises of Bill 14 is that it creates a so-called single window for the approval of renewable energy projects. On its face, this sounds reasonable. We all know that under the current system, project proponents often have to navigate a maze of ministries, regulators and overlapping requirements just to get a renewable energy project off the ground.

Today a company hoping to build a wind farm or transmission line in British Columbia has to secure approvals from multiple ministries: Energy, Environment, Transportation, Agriculture. Each brings its own timelines, its own paperwork and its own costs. There’s no doubt that this has been frustrating for industry, for investors and even for communities that want to see new projects online.

Bill 14 does not just streamline approvals. It centralizes control. Right now the bill covers nine wind farms and the North Coast transmission line, but, under this legislation, the cabinet has the power to expand the single-window system to cover any renewable resources they choose by order in council with no legislative debate. That means the government can unilaterally decide which projects are swept into the system and which ones are exempt from environmental assessments, safety standards, farmland protections and public consultation. It’s not just about cutting red tape; it’s about cutting oversight.

Instead of building a system that is faster and fairer, the NDP is creating a system that is faster and less accountable. Make no mistake. It concentrates enormous power in the hands of the Premier and cabinet, bypassing the very democratic checks that British Columbians expect. We need to fix the permitting system, but we cannot fix it by tearing down accountability.

[3:30 p.m.]

Another worrying component of Bill 14 is the creation of a new orphan fund specifically for renewable energy projects, a fund that will exist separately from the existing orphan well fund used in the oil and gas sector. On the surface, this sounds like responsible planning. We know that in the oil and gas industry, orphan wells, wells abandoned without proper cleanup, have created serious environmental and financial liabilities, leaving taxpayers on the hook when companies walk away from their obligations.

So the idea of having a dedicated fund to address potential cleanup or decommissioning costs for renewable energy projects seems prudent, but once again, the devil is in the details. Bill 14 gives the B.C. Energy Regulator sweeping power to recover the costs of this orphan fund through fees and levies, including the power to impose these costs retroactively. That means the regulator can go back in time, look at projects that were already approved or underway and hit those proponents with unexpected new charges to fund this account.

For companies trying to invest in British Columbia, especially in an industry that government claims to want to promote, this creates massive financial uncertainty. How can a business plan a multinational multi-million-dollar renewable energy project if they don’t know whether the regulator will come back a year later and impose retroactive fees to cover unrelated projects or future liabilities?

Let’s also remember that this is all happening without clear limits of transparency. There’s no clear formula in the bill for how these levies will be set, no certainty around which projects will pay and no protections to ensure that responsible operators aren’t punished for the failure of others. Ultimately, these costs don’t just stay on corporate balance sheets; they get passed on to consumers, ratepayers and to local communities.

On this side of the House, we believe in responsible regulation. We believe companies should clean up after themselves. But we also believe in fairness, predictability and transparency, and Bill 14 provides none of these when it comes to the orphan fund. We cannot build a thriving renewable energy sector on the back of unpredictable retroactive taxation. Investors need clarity. British Columbians need accountability, and this bill, as written, fails on both fronts.

Another concerning aspect of Bill 14 is how it restructures the approval process through what the government calls three levels of streamlining. At first glance, this sounds like a technical change: grouping projects into different categories depending on the size of their complexity. But when you look closely, you see that the government is creating a framework that allows them to pick and choose which projects go through which level of oversight and, more troublingly, which projects can skip environmental assessment altogether.

Right now Bill 14 names nine wind farms and the North Coast transmission line as the first projects covered under this new system. But here’s the key point. Under this legislation, cabinet has the power by regulation to add any renewable project that does not have a dam to this fast-track system without coming back to the Legislature. That includes geothermal, solar, tidal, biomass and many other types of projects across this province.

The largest change here is the government’s ability to exempt projects from the environmental assessment process, a process that certainly needs changes to speed it up but exists for a reason. Environmental assessments are not just bureaucratic exercises. They are the mechanism by which we study a project’s potential impacts on land, water, wildlife and local communities. They ensure that the risks are identified, that mitigation plans are in place and that the public has a voice in projects that affect their environment.

With this bill, the NDP is creating a system where the government can, at its sole discretion, decide which projects are shielded from that scrutiny, and it can do so without debate, without consultation and without accountability.

We absolutely need to improve efficiency in how we approve projects. On that we agree, but efficiency cannot come at the expense of democratic governance. When you eliminate environmental assessments, you don’t just save time, you eliminate a vital safeguard. We need a permitting system that is faster, yes, but also fair, rigorous and protective of the public interest.

[3:35 p.m.]

Bill 14 tips the scales too far toward unchecked government power, and British Columbians deserve better.

As we go deeper into Bill 14, we come to what may be its most dangerous and undemocratic feature, the power it hands to the B.C. Energy Regulator to change its own governing law and impose retroactive fees, all without approval or oversight from this Legislature.

Let’s be clear. The Energy Resource Activities Act is the foundational law that governs the B.C. Energy Regulator. It sets out the regulator’s powers, its responsibilities, its limits and its obligations to the public. This is not some minor set of technical rules. It’s the legal framework that keeps the regulator accountable, transparent and subject to democratic control. Yet Bill 14 allows cabinet to delegate authority to the B.C. Energy Regulator to change, apply, disapply or modify provisions of that very law. In other words, the referee now gets to rewrite the rule book for itself.

Can we imagine a world where we let a mining regulator rewrite mining law on its own terms, or where the liquor and cannabis regulation branch would rewrite liquor laws in its own discretion? Of course not. But under Bill 14, this government is prepared to hand over that kind of sweeping power to the B.C. Energy Regulator, all under the banner of streamlining.

This is a profound and unacceptable concentration of power. It strips away the role of the Legislature. It erodes the principle of democratic accountability, and it effectively creates a regulatory body that can operate without meaningful checks and balances.

On top of that, the bill gives the regulator the power to impose fees and levies on projects, including retroactively. This means the regulator can look back at projects that were already approved in progress and slap on additional costs after the fact, costs that companies can no way be anticipating.

What does that mean in practice? It means that a company that has secured financing, built a project and followed every rule of the day could find itself facing new, unexpected financial demands years down the line. And let’s be clear. Those costs won’t just stay on corporate books. They’ll flow downstream, hitting taxpayers, local governments and, ultimately, ordinary British Columbians. The uncertainty this creates is toxic to investment.

Businesses can handle risk. They cannot handle unpredictability. Retroactive levies tell investors: “You are not safe here.” At a time when B.C. is desperate to attract capital for clean energy projects, this bill undercuts our competitiveness. Responsible governments do not grant regulators the power to rewrite their own mandates. They do not allow retroactive taxes. And they do not ask businesses, workers and families to operate under moving goalposts.

Bill 14, as written, is a blank cheque for bureaucratic overreach, and this House should not sign it. Under this legislation, the regulator is given the authority to apply or disapply heritage designation for a piece of land that is of cultural significance to British Columbia, to a local community or to a First Nation. Even more concerning, the regulator itself gets to choose the individual who decides whether something qualifies as heritage or not.

This is an unprecedented concentration of power in the hands of a regulatory body whose core business is supposed to be overseeing energy projects, not making determinations about culture, history or Indigenous heritage. Heritage designations are not just bureaucratic stamps. They are statements of what we, as a society, choose to value and protect. They reflect the deep histories of our province.

To allow a technical regulator designed to fast-track energy projects to override these protections and to handpick the person making those decisions is an affront to public trust. It raises obvious questions. Whose interests will guide these decisions? Who will appoint the regulator? How will communities or First Nations have a meaningful say in whether a site is protected or not?

The answer under Bill 14 is grim. They may have no meaningful say at all. This approach risks damaging relationships with Indigenous governments, undercutting reconciliation efforts and fuelling conflict at a time when we should be seeking partnership and consensus. It also disregards the concerns of rural communities, of local governments and of British Columbians who care about protecting our shared history.

[3:40 p.m.]

Streamlining approvals cannot mean bulldozing important protections. Responsible governments don’t sacrifice heritage at the altar of speed. They recognize that economic development and cultural preservation must go hand in hand, and they ensure that decisions about our shared past are made with care, integrity and broad public input, not behind closed doors at a regulator’s office. Bill 14 fails on this front, and this House must stand up and say so.

Another deeply troubling provision in Bill 14 is its removal of the Safety Standards Act when it comes to level 3 streamlined projects. Level 3 projects under this legislation are the most heavily fast-tracked and least regulated, yet Bill 14 explicitly states that for these projects, the safeguards provided under the Safety Standards Act no longer apply.

Let’s be clear about what that means. The Safety Standards Act exists to ensure that work is done safely, that workers, contractors and the public are protected from preventable harm. It governs electrical systems, gas installations, equipment standards and much more. It’s not some optional add-on or red tape. It’s the backbone of safe infrastructure development in British Columbia.

By removing these protections, Bill 14 is not just streamlining projects; it’s cutting corners on safety. It’s telling workers and communities that you don’t need the same level of protection if the project has been fast-tracked. That is completely unacceptable. No renewable energy project, no matter how urgent or well-intentioned, is worth endangering lives. If the government wants to modernize permitting, it must do so without sacrificing the health, safety and dignity of workers and local residents. Bill 14, as written, fails that basic test. And this House should reject it on that ground alone.

Bill 14 also gives extraordinary power to the B.C. Energy Regulator to suspend or cancel permits for hunting, trapping and angling. This isn’t just a technical detail buried in the legislation; this is a direct attack on the rights and livelihoods of thousands of British Columbians.

Let’s remember who holds these permits. We’re talking about guide-outfitters whose businesses depend on those licences. We’re talking about rural families who have hunted or trapped on the same land for generations not just as a pastime but as a way to help feed their families and maintain their cultural traditions. We’re talking about anglers, both recreational and commercial, whose activities support local tourism economies across this province.

The B.C. Energy Regulator has no business interfering in this space. It is an agency designed to oversee energy development, not to manage wildlife resources or regulate people’s ability to access the back country. Yet under Bill 14, the regulator is being handed sweeping authority to pull someone’s permit with no hearing, no clear criteria and no requirement to provide compensation. This is not just bad governance. It’s a betrayal of trust.

How can we tell rural British Columbians that their livelihoods and traditions can be cast aside at the stroke of a pen by a bureaucrat who was never elected, never consulted with communities and may never set foot in the regions most affected? We believe government should serve the people, not run roughshod over their rights.

We believe in protecting rural livelihoods and upholding traditions. Bill 14 tramples on those values. On behalf of the hunters, the trappers, the outfitters and anglers across British Columbia, we stand here today and say: “This is unacceptable, and this provision must be rejected.”

As I come to the close of my remarks today, I want to leave this House and the people of British Columbia with a clear understanding of what is truly at stake in Bill 14. The government wants you to think that the bill is simply an effort to fast-track wind farms and transmission lines.

Let’s be honest. After years of the NDP government piling regulation upon regulation, chasing away investment and making it nearly impossible to get major projects built in this province, it’s no surprise they now want to signal to the public that they are open for business when it comes to renewable energy.

Let’s not be fooled. This legislation is not just about cutting red tape, it’s about handing over extraordinary, unchecked authority to the B.C. Energy Regulator and, by extension, to the NDP government itself.

[3:45 p.m.]

Bill 14 allows the government and regulator to rewrite their own rule book without approval of this Legislature. It gives them the power to cancel hunting and trapping and angling permits at will, to suspend safety standards on fast-tracked projects, to unilaterally determine what qualifies as protected heritage land and to override long-standing protections for the agricultural land reserve — all of this with little oversight, little accountability and no meaningful reporting on actions taken. This is not just poor policy-making; it’s a dangerous step towards centralization. Unaccountable government power.

Let’s be clear. Bill 14 is little more than the authoritarian powers the NDP sought under Bill 7, now wrapped in the politically convenient packaging of clean energy. The government claims this is about advancing nine wind farms and a transmission line, but the truth is that this bill gives them unlimited power over any renewable project they choose to target in the future.

British Columbians deserve better than this. We deserve a permitting system that is efficient and transparent, that welcomes investment while safeguarding our workers and our communities. We deserve a government that respects rural livelihoods; protects the rights of hunters, anglers and farmers; and ensures that cultural and heritage sites are preserved with care and consultation, not bypassed at the discretion of unelected bureaucrats.

The Conservative Party of B.C. will always stand for fairness, accountability and respect for the people and places that make British Columbia strong. Bill 14 fails those basic tests.

I urge every member of this House to stand with us and reject this deeply flawed piece of legislation.

Sheldon Clare: Today I rise on behalf of the people of Prince George–North Cariboo to speak in firm opposition to Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act. That’s a mouthful, and so is this act.

This bill in both structure and spirit poses a direct threat to our communities, our lands and our future. While the premise of advancing renewable energy sounds noble, Bill 14 sacrifices fundamental principles of consultation, safety, environmental protection and local decision-making. It is a centralization of power masquerading as climate action, and, for that reason we must vote no.

In my presentation, I will outline in some detail the numerous flaws embedded within this legislation. I will begin by addressing the glaring absence of meaningful consultation with First Nations, particularly the Indigenous Peoples within Prince George–North Cariboo. These are not mere stakeholders; they are rights holders whose territories demand respect.

From there, I will move to the concerns of farmers, ranchers, rural communities, those who steward our public and agricultural lands. In places like Nazko, Wells, Quesnel and Kluskus, ranchers and residents have been left in the dark while wind energy projects encroach upon the lands that they depend upon. I will also provide examples of how Bill 14 threatens livelihoods, access and the stability of land-based economies across northern British Columbia.

In addition, I will speak to the impact upon guide-outfitters, hunters, trappers and anglers — British Columbians whose permits and traditional activities are placed in jeopardy by clause 18, which grants sweeping authority to suspend or revoke Wildlife Act licences without appeal or compensation. These are not theoretical harms. They are immediate, measurable economic threats.

Further, I will explore how this legislation removes or sidesteps critical environmental protections. Clause 14 strips key wind and transmission projects of environmental assessment requirements, placing sensitive ecosystems at risk, from the fragile zones of Bowron Lake Provincial Park to the grizzly habitat in Cariboo Mountains Park. I will explain how public recreation lands are at stake and how undermining these lands also undermines our collective well-being and culture.

[3:50 p.m.]

Equally dangerous is clause 17, which excludes level 3 projects from the protections of the Safety Standards Act. I will detail why this undermines worker safety in British Columbia, citing national and international examples where deregulation has led to tragedy. Worker safety is non-negotiable, and this bill betrays that fundamental principle.

Then I will turn to the legal implications of clause 21, which retroactively validates government actions before this law was even passed. I will explain why retroactivity violates the rule of law and invites constitutional challenges. Good governance cannot be built on the erasure of legal accountability.

In this speech, I will also challenge the NDP government’s ideological push for unreliable, large-scale renewable infrastructure without a corresponding investment in energy grid stability or storage of power. I will address the implications of rising electricity demand, aging infrastructure and the false premise that wind and solar alone can provide reliable energy for B.C.’s future. It’s clearly not the case that that would be good enough.

To drive all this home, I will provide a quotation or two from British Columbia leaders and provide a vision for responsible energy independence, a path that includes Indigenous partnership, rigorous environmental reviews, investment in infrastructure and local oversight.

Finally, I will issue a direct call to action to vote against Bill 14. In its current form, this bill is not about building a better energy future. It is about silencing communities, consolidating power and cutting corners. Let this chamber not be remembered for allowing such measures to be passed unchallenged.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I apologize for interrupting you, but I think we’ve got an introduction coming here.

Elenore Sturko: I apologize to the member for Prince George–North Cariboo for the interruption.

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Elenore Sturko: Thank you to my colleagues here in the chamber.

I’d like to introduce…. We have students from the Cloverdale Learning Centre here, along with their teacher, Tracey Lane, a group of about 16 Grade 10s and 12s and four accompanying guests. I’d like to welcome them to this place. We’re listening to some very exciting debates on Bill 14. They’re behind us.

I hope you enjoy your time on the precinct. Will this House please make them feel welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member.

Indeed, welcome to everybody in the gallery today.

Apologies for the interruption, Member.

Debate Continued

Sheldon Clare: No apologies are necessary. It’s like being in class once again with a good group of students here.

Regarding consultation failures with Indigenous Peoples, at the heart of Bill 14, I believe, is a grievous betrayal of the principles of consultation, consent and respect. The bill’s entire framework was developed and introduced without the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples, whose territories stand to be directly affected.

Nowhere is this more shamefully evident than in the northern Interior riding of Prince George–North Cariboo, where multiple First Nations governments maintain long-standing stewardship over their ancestral lands.

Let me be clear. The government has failed to consult, engage or even notify these Indigenous peoples whose territories are affected by this legislation.

The Lheidli T’enneh, based in Prince George, whose name means “the people from the confluence of the two rivers,” a sacred reference to the Fraser and Nechako Rivers, as we now call them.

The Nazko Peoples, located along the Nazko River west of Quesnel, deeply tied to hunting, trapping and cultural activities at risk under this bill.

The Lhtako Dene Peoples, also near Quesnel, whose historical and territorial interests span Cariboo district lands slated for energy development. This is part of the Lhtako Dene Peoples, the protectors of the Quesnel River and its tributaries.

The Lhoosk’uz Dené, or Kluskus, as they’re also known, whose home at Kluskus Lake places them directly in the path of proposed wind energy installations.

[3:55 p.m.]

These people are not afterthoughts. They are constitutional partners in governance. Bill 14 attempts to forego the critical process of Indigenous consultation. All people need to be properly consulted. Clause 21 goes further, retroactively validating all actions taken by the regulator from April 1, 2024, onward.

If Indigenous peoples oppose a project, then they must be heard, along with all others affected. If we truly believe in truth and reconciliation, then we must vote against this bill. Without truth, there is no reconciliation, and no reconciliation is possible where silence, secrecy and unilateralism prevail.

Regarding the lack of consultation with farmers, ranchers and local residents, if Bill 14 reveals the government’s disregard for Indigenous sovereignty, it also betrays the hard-working farmers, ranchers and rural residents of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, as you well know, the Cariboo is not merely a landmass. It is a living landscape, sustained by people who work its soil, allow their animals to graze its fields and depend on the rhythms of its seasons. In communities like Quesnel, Wells, Nazko, Likely, Miocene, Horsefly and so many others, including Williams Lake, generations of British Columbians have sustained livelihoods rooted in responsible use of the land — stewardship of that land. Yet under Bill 14, their voices have been ignored.

Clause 15 of this bill is a direct assault on British Columbia’s agricultural stability and local land use autonomy. It gives the regulator sweeping power to permit non-farm uses and subdivisions of agricultural land reserve land for the sake of renewable energy development. Section 15(2) (a) and 15(2)(b) bypass the normal procedures and protections under the Agricultural Land Commission Act. The result? A complete override of the public interest in protecting farmland.

Who among the ranchers in Nazko was consulted before these changes were proposed? Were the cattle operators in Prince George–North Cariboo given any assurance that their grazing leases would remain secure in the face of industrial wind projects? Was the community in Miocene, with its long history of ranching and rural living, offered a seat at the table? The answer is no.

We are talking about lands that have supported livestock grazing, hay production and rural livelihoods for over a century. In Wells, nestled on the scenic route to the Bowron Lakes, which I would encourage all members to take the opportunity to visit — they could stop off at Barkerville on the way — ranchers share land with outfitters, trappers, small forestry operators and recreational and industrial miners. These interdependent systems will be disrupted by land fragmentation, increased road traffic and noise pollution from wind energy infrastructure.

Wind turbines don’t just arrive; they dominate. I’ve been to wind farms. I’ve seen them in Europe. I’ve seen them in northern British Columbia. Their blades stretch high above the tree lines. Their vibrations disorient livestock. Their roads scar landscapes.

Worst of all, the turbine blades are not recyclable. They are buried in pits when decommissioned, leaving future generations with toxic legacies beneath their feet.

This is not theoretical. In Alberta and in the American Midwest, ranchers have reported cattle refusing to graze near turbines, increased herd agitation and reduced birth rates — problems for calves. Yet here in British Columbia, I’m not aware of any commissioning by this government of a single cumulative impact assessment on rural land use conflicts arising from wind development.

According to recent estimates, the Cariboo region contains over 100,000 hectares of land designated within the agricultural land reserve. These lands support cattle, forage crops and diversified small farms that contribute millions annually to British Columbia’s agricultural gross domestic product.

[4:00 p.m.]

Bill 14 places that legacy in jeopardy, without a single economic impact study or consultation with regional farm organizations such as the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, the Livestock Producers or others. As one Quesnel-area rancher recently put it: “We’re not against green energy, but we’re against being sacrificed for it.” That quotation says more than any policy memo from Victoria. It speaks to the reality on the ground, families being pushed aside in favour of politically convenient projects.

Have we considered what this bill means for food security in British Columbia? ALR land exists for a reason: to protect the long-term viability of agriculture. Once land is carved up for non-farm use, be it a substation, an access road or a wind tower pad, it is rarely reclaimed. This bill quietly opens the floodgates to farmland erosion under the guise of green development.

What of community input? Clause 15(5) allows powers under the Agricultural Land Commission Act to be subdelegated — subdelegated. That means unelected officials, not local councils or the ALC board, may green-light projects with no public hearing. That’s not streamlining. It’s sidelining.

Let us not forget the recreational and cultural value of these lands. The Cottonwood River riparian area, for example, supports both ecological biodiversity and community fishing access. The Horsefly River Roundtable has raised concerns about resource extraction in the watershed. Are these, too, to be ignored? If transmission lines cross these corridors without review or restraint, the local community will lose a critical space of connection, culture and outdoor well-being.

North of Quesnel, south of Quesnel, all around Quesnel we have tremendous access to the region’s best-maintained provincial parks and areas that once were. But what happens if transmission infrastructure is built nearby? What happens? Well, you get noise. You get property devaluation, ecological fragmentation. These are real, measurable consequences that hurt real people.

We must also remember that the Agricultural Land Reserve is not just a zoning tool. It is a public legacy. It was created in 1973 to protect B.C.’s shrinking farmland. The ALR was a policy born of necessity from those times. It stood against short-term speculation in favour of long-term sustainability. Bill 14 undermines that vision by allowing Crown-appointed regulators to carve into that land without transparency, limit or local control.

If we allow wind farms and transmission lines to pave over ranchland in the Cariboo, where does it stop? The precedent this bill sets will ripple through the Fraser Valley, it will ripple through the Peace, and it will rip through the Kootenays. Farmland, once lost, is lost forever.

Rural British Columbians are not anti–renewable energy. They are, in fact, some of its most committed advocates when included as partners. But this bill treats them as obstacles, not contributors. It rewrites the rules of rural land management without local voices, and that is a failure of democratic consultation as grave as any.

The government should have held town halls in Quesnel. It should have met with ranchers in Nazko, the residents of Wells, the stewards of these lakes — the many, many lakes in this region. It should have been in Prince George. It should have been in Williams Lake. It should have been everywhere. Instead, it was nowhere. It drafted a law that places bureaucratic expediency above community integrity.

British Columbia deserves a renewable energy plan that uplifts, not erases, its rural regions. Bill 14, as it stands, does the latter.

Let us now talk about outfitters and trappers and wildlife permits in clause 18. It’s an extraordinary clause that grants the government and the regulator the power to revoke or suspend hunting, trapping and guide-outfitting permits under the Wildlife Act without any due process and without any guarantee of compensation.

[4:05 p.m.]

This clause is an existential threat to a proud and responsible tradition in British Columbia, the hunting, fishing, guide-outfitting and wild stewardship economy which we all have benefited from. In regions like the Bowron Lake, Cottonwood and Grizzly Lake, guide-outfitters have spent decades cultivating ethical wildlife tourism rooted in conservation, habitat protection and respect for Indigenous and settler traditions alike, while respecting, of course, our parks.

Clause 18(1)(d) empowers the regulator to cancel or modify permits under sections 19, 20 and 25 of the Wildlife Act. That includes the ability to suspend permits without any transparent criteria, public hearing or formal appeal. Section 18(2)(b) explicitly removes transfer restrictions, allowing the regulator to reshape ownership and continuity at will. These are not hypothetical risks.

In Nazko, for example, and the rest of the region, outfitters who guide elk and moose hunts for both locals and visitors could suddenly find themselves out of business if a transmission corridor or wind turbine site is deemed to take priority. At the many lakes in Prince George–North Cariboo, families that rely on spring angling licences could lose them in an instant, merely based on bureaucratic discretion.

Let’s be clear. These permits are more than licences. They are businesses. They are legacies. They are livelihoods. They are the result of investment in gear, land familiarity, insurance, training and community trust. To cancel them without process is to destroy economic certainty in rural B.C.

Where is the compensation? Clause 18 is silent. If a small outfitter loses a licence due to a turbine project in the Kluskus region, they are left with no income, no recourse and no restitution.

This is not streamlining. It is expropriation without due process. Outfitters, trappers and hunters are some of the most knowledgeable stewards of B.C. wildlife with their Indigenous partners. Their annual reports and their on-the-ground observations provide critical data for provincial wildlife management. To marginalize their role is to weaken our entire conservation framework.

Now let’s look abroad. In Scotland and parts of Scandinavia, where wind projects have similarly displaced traditional hunting grounds, governments were required to compensate affected outfitters and implement wildlife offset zones. Bill 14 offers no such balance, just unchecked authority.

What’s more, clause 18 undermines trust. If an outfitter can lose their rights overnight because of a new green energy initiative, what confidence does anyone have in the stability of their rural livelihood? This clause creates a chilling effect, not only on outfitters but on anyone whose legal permissions are now subject to sudden and silent cancellation. This clause doesn’t just enable regulatory discretion. It encourages arbitrariness. It hands vast power to unelected officials with little oversight, little consistency and even less transparency.

Let us not forget that many of the affected peoples are Indigenous. Traditional trapping routes and hunting zones are not just economic; to many people, they are sacred. They form the basis of food security, cultural continuity and intergenerational knowledge. Bill 14 disrespects all of that.

The path forward should be simple. If a government intends to suspend or interfere with a Wildlife Act permit, it must offer a hearing, a reason and a remedy. That is the minimum standard of fairness expected in any democracy. Clause 18 fails that test, so we must reject it or reject the bill that carries it.

Additionally, we must consider the economic stakes. The guide-outfitting sector in British Columbia contributes more than $120 million annually to our provincial economy and sustains over 2,000 jobs, many of them in remote and Indigenous communities. These are not niche pastimes. They are the lifeblood of rural B.C., deeply integrated into local economies and land stewardship models.

Organizations such as the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. and the British Columbia Wildlife Federation have for years cautioned against the erosion of permitting rights without consultation or compensation, and their calls for engagement were ignored in the drafting of Bill 14.

[4:10 p.m.]

There is also a serious legal concern. Arbitrary suspension of licences without cause or remedy may violate the principles of procedural fairness recognized under administrative law.

Consider the story of a third-generation guide near Bowron Lake who recently renewed a decade-long tenure agreement. He’s invested in safety training, conservation monitoring and seasonal employment for youth. But under this bill, he could wake up one morning to find his permit revoked without a single call, simply because his territory intersects with a proposed turbine corridor. Clients cancel, bookings vanish and with them, an entire rural livelihood.

As for Indigenous-owned outfitting businesses, such interference could even violate section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which protects Aboriginal rights, including rights to traditional harvesting and land use.

Clause 14 of Bill 14 may be one of the most reckless provisions in this entire act. It explicitly exempts certain wind projects and major transmission lines from the Environmental Assessment Act, stripping away the very safeguards designed to protect British Columbia’s lands, waters and ecosystems from repairable harm.

Let me remind the House what the environmental assessment process does. It evaluates the long-term ecological, social and cultural effects of industrial projects. It also provides a forum for public input. It ensures that cumulative effects on wildlife migration, watershed health, air quality and community safety are considered before a single shovel hits the ground.

Clause 14 throws that process out the window for projects that government deems streamlined. That includes the nine selected wind energy projects and the North Coast transmission line but also any other project the Lieutenant Governor in Council prescribes in future regulations. That is carte blanche to bypass review not just for today but for years to come.

What becomes of the jewels that are our parks and recreational areas if towers, roads and construction crews arrive with no public input and no obligation to disclose their effects? This is not nimble governance; it is environmental negligence.

British Columbians have a deep and abiding relationship with public lands, whether it’s hiking the Cottonwood River riparian zone, fishing near Otter Lake or snowshoeing in the shadow of the Cariboo Mountains. These lands are more than backdrops. They are expressions of who we are. They sustain wildlife, recreation, mental health, cultural continuity and intergenerational family connection. Exempting these areas from environmental review doesn’t just endanger the land; it silences communities, devalues rural voices and breaks faith with every British Columbian who expects their government to exercise care over the commons.

We must also consider the precedent. If the government can exempt wind farms and power corridors from assessment today, what stops them from doing so tomorrow for mining, hydrogen pipelines or carbon capture infrastructure? The scope of this power is dangerously open-ended.

Accountability is critical. In the absence of assessment, the burden of proof shifts from developers having to prove their projects are safe to the public having to prove harm after the fact. That is expletive-deleted backwards.

If this bill is passed unamended, there will come a day when a project cuts through a protected watershed or cultural site, and the public will ask: “How was this allowed to happen?” The answer will be clause 14 of Bill 14, and we in this House will bear responsibility. British Columbians deserve both clean energy and clean government. Exempting wind projects from environmental review delivers neither. Clause 14 must be rejected.

Clause 17 of Bill 14 quietly strips away critical protections under the Safety Standards Act for level 3 streamlined projects. That means that some renewable energy projects, those with the most aggressive timelines and political urgency, will not be required to meet the same workplace safety regulations as any other industrial undertaking in British Columbia. That is not modernization. It is deregulation, and it places workers, first responders and nearby communities at increased risk.

[4:15 p.m.]

Why is this government trying to selectively exempt wind turbines, electrical substations and high-voltage transmission corridors, with all of their inherent risks, from rules that protect workers every day? There have been many tragedies that stand as examples. What makes British Columbia immune from these protections?

This government cannot continue to claim to be the party of labour while allowing safety to become optional when politically convenient. If a worker on a wind tower falls, if a fire breaks out in a substation near Prince George, will the minister explain that safety rules didn’t apply because the project was streamlined? Safety standards are there for a reason. They are not red tape. They are the line between a healthy return home and tragedy. Clause 17 must be removed.

Clause 21. It retroactively validates all actions taken back to April 1, 2024, even though this bill is not yet passed into law. That’s not governance; that’s legal sleight of hand. This undermines public trust, and it rewrites the rules after the fact, penalizing those who complied in good faith with the law as it then stood. It’s a terrible message to send. Clause 21 must be rejected.

This government is rushing into a massive expansion of wind and solar energy without ensuring our grid can handle the load. Wind and solar are intermittent. Battery storage is expensive and still largely experimental and carries with it its own environmental risks. British Columbia is already seeing its electricity demand spike, due to electric vehicle mandates and building electrification, but our transmission system, especially in northern and rural regions, is aging and overloaded.

This bill puts the cart before the horse. Before we build more unreliable power, we need a serious strategy for grid resilience, hydro capacity and storage innovation — not slogans but substance. We believe in clean energy, but we also believe in democratic accountability and British Columbians’ right to chart their own energy future. As Premier W.A.C. Bennett once said: “We must chart our own course not as a colony of Ottawa or of ideology but as British Columbians first and always.”

Bill 14 imposes top-down decisions, silences local voices and puts foreign-style megaprojects ahead of homegrown innovation. That’s not independence. That’s reckless, big-government centralization. It’s authoritarian socialism. Bill 14 concentrates power, eliminates environmental and safety safeguards, disrespects Indigenous and rural voices, and puts ideology ahead of planning.

British Columbians want clean energy, but they want it done right, with transparency, consultation and democratic oversight.

On behalf of Prince George–North Cariboo and all communities’ lands, voices and futures that are ignored in this legislation, I urge this House to reject Bill 14.

David Williams: Like many before that have spoke, I certainly support renewable energy, but we cannot support a blank cheque for unaccountable regulators to rewrite the rules, suspend safety standards and trample over property rights. British Columbians deserve clean power, not dirty politics.

Bill 14 is the NDP’s belated attempt to say yes to renewable energy after years of driving investment out of British Columbia. But in doing so, they’ve handed sweeping unchecked powers to unelected regulators, powers that go far beyond streamlining.

I speak today not to debate whether or not renewable energy has a place in our future — that’s beyond question. I do rise to speak to the mechanism in which this government seeks to advance it, Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, and with that I express grave concerns. While this bill is being sold as a tool for streamlining, what it truly delivers is unchecked power, unaccountable decision-making and unthinkable consequences for workers, landowners, local communities and anyone who dares to get in the way of an energy project.

According to the bill’s definitions of “renewable energy,” sources are biomass, geothermal, hydro, solar, ocean, wind or any prescribed resource, meaning the provincial cabinet will have the power to define other energy sources as renewable. They can pretty well pick and choose. Let me be clear. This bill is not about clean energy; it’s about centralizing authority. In many ways, it’s a recycled version of Bill 7, which is the same heavy-handed powers now repackaged in green wrapping.

[4:20 p.m.]

I can’t understand the argument from the other side. How does streamlining renewable projects, with little oversight, equate to tariffs or current economic uncertainty with regard to power generation, since this government has not renewed contracts for existing biomass generation plants, as well as some small independent power producers. If time is of the essence, then sign those contracts and get that power into the grid.

In addition, I ask how this government is going to allow the province to find itself in that position. They have had many years in power to address the very concerns they now feel they need to streamline. That’s not foresight; that’s hindsight. In addition, our transmission lines have certainly not kept up to progress.

We are facing uncertainty with streamlining things, because there’s always unintended consequences. Unintended consequences are exactly that. You don’t see them until they happen. We need consultation. We need input.

Let’s address the key points. This bill removes legislative oversight and concentrates power in the hands of the bureaucrats and cabinet. It allows fees and levies with no limits, applied arbitrarily with no right to appeal. It gives regulators the power to rewrite primary legislation, including their own governing laws. Safety standards can be suspended for fast-track projects, without input from workers or unions.

Bill 14 enables the cancellation of guide-outfitter, hunting and angling licences, without a hearing, with no guarantee and with no compensation. It overrides farmland protections, including ALR subdivision and pollution safeguards, without farmer consent or any community or local input.

It has unchecked powers to impose levies and fees. Just to go over a few, section 22(2) of this bill allows the B.C. Energy Regulator to impose levies and fees on project proponents, not through legislation, not through regulation, but by issuing a certificate. One bureaucrat, one document, one dollar figure or a million. There’s no ceiling, no formula, no standardization.

How fair or even legal to allow two neighbouring wind projects to face entirely different levies with no explanation and no appeal process? What investor would look at this and say: “Yes, British Columbia is a place where the rules are clear and fair”? I believe that people that are going to go into business and they’re going to do projects, they want certainty. They want clear and concise rules. That’s not policy; that’s relay.

The power to rewrite legislation without legislative approval. This bill also gives the cabinet, and potentially their delegates, the power to modify the Energy Resource Activities Act. That’s the primary act that governs the regulator itself. But it doesn’t stop there. Under section 20, those powers to apply, disapply or modify can be delegated. In theory, a mid-level staffer could be given the authority to change provisions of a primary legislation, the very laws that were passed by this assembly. For that matter, let’s give it to the janitor.

This is not a regulatory shortcut; this is a constitutional detour. Let me ask this plainly: is there anything in this bill preventing the regulator from being delegated to rewrite his own enabling legislation? If there isn’t, that’s not streamlining. That’s self-governance by bureaucrats, not elected representatives.

Let’s move on to suspensions of licences without hearings. Now I turn to one of the most offensive parts of the legislation, section 18(1)(d), which gives the unelected officers the authority to suspend or cancel Wildlife Act licences, including guide-outfitter licences, hunting licences, angling licences and trapping permits — so much without a hearing. They don’t even get a hearing.

Not only can a bureaucrat terminate a livelihood; they can also extend a suspension indefinitely. Where is the due process? Where is the justice?

[4:25 p.m.]

Is there any limit to how many licences can be suspended or cancelled to make way for a transmission line? Is there any compensation guaranteed in a statute for an outfitter whose licence is revoked? The silence in this legislation speaks volumes, and it says: “You don’t matter.”

Let’s move on to the suspension of worker safety. Let’s talk about workers. Under section 17, Bill 14 allows the Safety Standards Act to be set aside for certain fast-tracked energy projects. Let’s just let that sink in. The very rules designed to keep our workers safe on site can be waived for the sake of streamlining.

Have workers been consulted? Have unions weighed in? Does the minister have any written submissions from tradespeople who support waiving their own safety protections? I would guess not. If not, then why are we sacrificing safety for the need for speed? Clean energy cannot come at the cost of clean conscience.

Let’s move on to trampling agricultural land protections. Next in this bill, it attacks one of the most sacred trusts, the agricultural land reserve, which I believe an NDP government brought in. Section 15(2) allows the regulator to authorize non-farm uses, soil dumping and subdivision of ALR land, all to facilitate energy projects, with or without limits. This means that prime farmland, land that feeds us and sustains our rural economy, can be permanently altered to support an industrial project.

It doesn’t stop at development. Section 6(b)(i) raises the possibility that spillage rules can be waived. That includes oil and hazardous materials. So not only can an energy project be built on ALR; it can also pollute.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Let me ask this plainly. Is this the kind of clean energy we want, projects that can override farmland protections and spill containment regulations? Where is the green in that?

Heritage designation and First Nations protections are undetermined. Finally, I must raise the issue of cultural and heritage sites. This bill allows the regulator to override or ignore heritage designations, even those tied to sites of cultural significance to First Nations. Even worse, it allows the regulator to appoint a person who decides whether or not a site is heritage-protected or not. This is not respectful reconciliation; this is rubber-stamping desecration.

I will try to explain a quick overview on transitional provisions and amendments. Section 22, initial funding via certificate. This allows the unelected BCER commissioner to issue binding levy certificates with no upper limit and no appeal process to project proponents to recover start-up costs for the regulator.

Section 23, existing wind projects. It automatically cancels environmental certificates for projects approved before 2025 and replaces them with permits under the new system, transferring authority to BCER and removing EAO oversight.

It doesn’t stop there. Sections 24 to 26, consequential amendments. They modify the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Energy Resource Activities Act to remove traditional protections where projects are designated under this new framework.

Section 27, commencement. The act comes into force by regulation, not by royal assent, giving cabinet control over the implementation date. So that means that this Legislature and people, going forward, do not have a say. That’s undemocratic.

I’ll give you some real-life examples of how it affects the people where I live, Salmon Arm–Shuswap. The agricultural loss of…. Example: in Salmon Valley and Deep Creek, the agricultural land reserve protects vital farmland across Salmon Valley, Silver Creek, Deep Creek areas, home to many multi-generational families’ farms and irrigation-dependent hay production and raising livestock.

Possible impact under this bill, Bill 14. If a wind or a solar project is designated as streamlined, the B.C. Energy Regulator could override the Agricultural Land Commission and could approve subdivision for industrial access roads, soil disturbance for heavy equipment pads, including pads for the wind turbines.

[4:30 p.m.]

Permanent non-farm uses on prime agricultural land — isn’t that the same land we’re protecting? A local consequence would be that farmers in Silver Creek would find turbines installed next to their hay fields without any ALC hearing or public input and with no guarantee of soil rehabilitation afterwards or after decommissioning.

What consideration has been given to wind projects on livestock? My understanding is that it has a significant consequence when it comes to livestock. Families have worked this land for generations, and now a Vancouver-appointed regulator can approve a concrete base on a farmer’s pasture with not as much as a knock on their door.

Let’s move on to bypassing the environmental review at Fly Hills or Bastion Mountain. The Fly Hills and Bastion Mountain ridgelines are often scouted for wind potential and are home to mule deer migration corridors and recreational trails used by hunters, sledders and hikers. The impact under Bill 14…. These designated projects here would be exempt from environmental assessments, meaning no impact study on wildlife, no trail-user or community engagement, no review of visual, noise or fire risk impacts.

As a consequence, a high-level wind farm could be approved above Tappen, without evaluating the effects on trail access, mule deer or even local tourism. They basically could cut roads and clearcut ridgelines without a single site study. That’s not green energy; that’s greenwashing.

Residents in Falkland or Malakwa are highly engaged in land use issues, from opposing waste sites to speaking out about logging and fire risk. Bill 14 removes public complaint mechanisms for certain energy projects. Level 2 and 3 projects are explicitly shielded from public investigation and requests.

Orphan sites do not apply, so if a developer walks away, locals foot the bill. As a local consequence, a wind developer walks away from a ridge project, say near Westwold, as an example. Residents can file for an investigation, a cleanup and a reclamation — may never happen. They call it streamlining; we call it silencing.

Okay, let’s move on to the transmission line. The North Coast transmission line from Prince George to Terrace sets a precedent. A similar line from Revelstoke or Kamloops through the Shuswap via the Highway 1 corridor or Adams Lake could be prescribed next. It could be approved without full environmental assessment or local consultation. It could involve land clearing, EMF concerns and access disruptions.

A local consequence to the people that live in my area is that the new corridor through Sorrento, Notch Hill or White Lake could be built with no input from residents, the regional CSRD directors or recreational groups. We fought for years to preserve our green spaces and our rail trails, and now we could lose them with a cabinet signature — with no hearing, no input, nothing.

We’re not the only ones that voice these concerns. I’ll give you an example of a few quotes. Fiona Famulak, the president and CEO of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, stated: “While we accept it as a common threat to our economic prosperity that lies outside our national borders, we are not at war.” Criticizing the government’s approach in granting sweeping powers through legislation like Bill 14, suggesting that it’s an overreach, not just by current economic challenges.

Another one, a non-profit group, the Wilderness Committee conservation, have expressed concern that exempting energy projects from assessments and streamlining permitting could erode environmental standards. It was compared to policies like those Donald Trump is currently undertaking. I don’t believe the Premier wishes to be compared to Donald Trump.

The Business Council of British Columbia also expressed cautious optimism regarding Bill 14: “While the bill sends a strong signal that the province wants to accelerate economically impactful projects, the real test will be whether or not the new process can deliver faster, more predictable outcomes.” I ask: why do we need a non-democratic process rather than through careful, thoughtful consultation with stakeholder input?

[4:35 p.m.]

It’s not just this side of the House that sees that we should have more input from all the groups. These are real concerns by real people. Hopefully this does not go through, because it’s certainly undemocratic.

This bill basically gives unlimited levies that can be opposed with no appeal or process or transparency. It can be rewritten by unelected bureaucrats without any oversight. Worker safety can be waived entirely for select energy projects. ALR protections and spillage rules can be bypassed, threatening farmland. Heritage designations, including those important to First Nations, can be ignored or overturned by hand-picked appointees. Not a good situation.

To make a long story short, this bill is not good. The thing is, if the province had been proactive, having a little foresight in moving ahead with projects over the last bunch of years, we wouldn’t be in this situation. There’s no guarantee that by fast-tracking these projects, some of them don’t go south and the taxpayer ends up with the bill. Those are unintended consequences. Anytime you try to build something really fast, usually something bad happens, and I can foresee bad things happening.

Consultation is good. Too much consultation — maybe not good, slows the process down. But you should always, definitely, listen to the people. You should listen to stakeholders. You should listen to business groups, and, certainly, the residents of British Columbia, who will actually get stuck with the bills when they come in if things go south. Those are real consequences to this bill.

Beyond that fact is that we live in a democratic society. I personally believe in democracy. I would certainly hope that the members across the aisle from me also believe in democracy. Democracy is having vigorous debate, having input and having a rigorous system where everybody is consulted and things go along in a democratic way, and that certainly should be the case. Anyways, my opposition is based on real-life concerns.

In conclusion, British Columbians deserve renewable energy, but they also deserve accountable governance, safety protections, due process and a respect for land and culture. I cannot and will not support Bill 14 in its current form.

In Europe, they are taking wind farms out. They may be putting new ones in, but they’re taking them out. In Alberta, they’ve moved away from some of the wind farms. There are places in the world where they’ve actually moved away from some of the projects that we are currently going to be doing. That’s not to say they’re not good. What it says is we need more consultation.

We should also be looking at other energy projects. I don’t think you should pick and choose the winners and losers. I think that it should be a fair process for everybody.

Bill 14 may wear the language of renewable energy, but underneath it is a blueprint for unchecked power. Let’s build a greener future, but not at the cost of our democratic foundation.

Bill 14 is Bill 7 in disguise. It’s a power grab disguised as green policy. It’s not about green energy; it’s about control.

Pete Davis: I’m here to talk straight with the people of this province, the folks who wake up early; work hard; raise families; hunt, fish and steward the land; and expect their government to act with integrity.

This bill, Bill 14, comes with a shiny title, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act. Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it?

[4:40 p.m.]

It sounds like efficiency. It sounds like progress. It sounds like clean energy, low emissions, quicker approvals and a future where all benefit. It sounds like we’re pulling in the same direction, but what we have here is not about clean energy. It’s not about streamlining, and it sure as heck is not about empowering local communities.

What this bill is about is shifting power upward, centralizing decision-making in the hands of a few cabinet insiders, stripping away the voices of ordinary British Columbians and handing even more authority to the unelected bureaucrats and regulators who are completely out of touch with what’s happening on the ground in places like Kootenay-Rockies, the North, the Interior and in rural British Columbia.

Now, let’s be honest for a moment. We all know that projects take way too long to get approved in this province. Every single person in this chamber, whether they’re on the government side or the opposition side, hears from constituents who are frustrated by the endless red tape. We all want good projects to get built, whether it’s hydro expansion, a transmission line, a solar farm, a new wind installation, a mine permit approval. We want to cut the delays, we want to see jobs, and we want to see progress. I know that’s what we all want.

Here’s where we part ways. Speeding things up shouldn’t mean bulldozing over people’s rights. Streamlining shouldn’t mean silencing local governments or ignoring First Nations, shutting out citizens who are directly impacted by what gets built in their backyards. Yet that’s exactly what this bill does. It sidesteps accountability in the name of expediency. It takes the hard work of consultation, negotiation and community input and tosses it out the window.

Now, let me be clear. There’s a right way to approve renewable energy projects. There’s a way that respects local knowledge, honours our community values and builds trust between government and the people that it’s supposed to serve.

This bill doesn’t even try to find that balance. It just contradicts power and pushes ahead without even asking who gets left behind. But not at the expense of giving complete control to a handful of decision-makers, not at the expense of public input, not at the expense of environmental safety and not at the expense of the democratic process that British Columbians expect, deserve and have every right to demand from their government.

Here’s the real problem with Bill 14: this bill doesn’t just cut red tape; it cuts out British Columbians. It slices right through the voices of everybody — the ranchers, the trappers, the tourism operators and the local councils, the First Nations communities and the hard-working men and women who actually live in the areas these projects will affect.

This bill hands a dangerous level of discretion to cabinet alone. It allows a small circle of insiders to pick and choose which projects get fast-tracked, with almost zero public insight, zero debate and zero transparency.

Once a project is labelled “streamlined” by cabinet, just like that, many of the guardrails we rely on as British Columbians start to vanish. Environmental assessments — optional, not required. Public hearings; input from local governments, regional districts and land users; even core protections related to hunting, fishing and trapping rights that have existed in this province for generations, rights that are a part of who we are in rural B.C…. Suddenly they get overridden or flat-out cancelled.

[4:45 p.m.]

Let me ask you this. Who’s protecting the people? Who’s protecting the water, the wildlife, the land, the legacy we leave to our kids and our grandkids? I’m sure, it’s not the Premier or his cabinet with this piece of legislation.

This isn’t streamlining. This isn’t good governance. This is consolidation of power. This is government removing obstacles — not obstacles to bad projects, but obstacles to its own unchecked authority. If you care about public trust, if you care about meaningful consultation, if you care about the balance between development and preservation, then you cannot look at this bill and say with a straight face that it respects those values.

British Columbians ,ren’t stupid. They know when something is being rammed through. They know when government is hiding behind language like efficiency and progress while quietly undermining the very process that we were put in place to protect in the first place.

Let me put this plainly. No dressing this up, no sugarcoating it. Bill 14 gives a small group of people in cabinet and the B.C. Energy Regulator far too much power, power that in a healthy democracy should never be concentrated in so few hands. It’s almost a bad sequel to Bill 7. They can override long-standing processes. They can sidestep public review. They can rewrite the rules after decisions are made.

And get this. They can even impose retroactive fees. You heard that right. They can go back in time, months, even years after a project has already been approved or constructed and suddenly slap a new charge, as if the rules had already been in place.

I mean, who can operate under these kinds of circumstances, under this much uncertainty? Who can build anything, whether it’s a transmission line, a substation or even a small community solar project, when the financial rules of the game can change halfway through? How can a First Nation, a municipality, a business or a co-op trust the permitting process when the government can move the goalposts after the fact?

That’s not just inefficient. That’s not just bad for investment. It’s bad for planning. It’s fundamentally unfair. It punishes people for playing by the rules while letting government rewrite them at its own convenience. That’s not how a fair society should work. That’s not how responsible government should behave.

Since we’re talking about fairness, take a look at what this bill means for the folks in rural British Columbia — the trappers, the hunters, the fishers, the small tourism operators who rely on predictable land access, the Indigenous and non-Indigenous families alike who have passed down knowledge of this land for generations.

Under Bill 14, all of that can be swept aside with a stroke of a pen. A regulator can cancel permits for hunting, fishing, trapping, without warning, without consultation and without appeal. One day you’re a licensed trapper doing what your family has done for generations. The next, you’re locked out of your trapline, shut off of your livelihood, and there’s not one thing you can do about it.

It doesn’t stop there. This bill gives cabinet sole authority to decide which lands qualify as historically or culturally significant. That means communities who’ve lived on and stewarded these lands for generations, people who know that land better than these bureaucrats in Victoria ever would get absolutely no say. Their knowledge, their heritage, their voice completely ignored, dismissed and brushed aside in favour of a top-down decision-making that’s anything but inclusive.

[4:50 p.m.]

That’s not reconciliation, that’s not stewardship, and it’s certainly not respect for the people who actually live where these decisions will be felt the most.

Then there’s farmland. Let’s talk about something fundamental, something every British Columbian relies on, whether they live in downtown Vancouver or a small town in the Kootenays, and that’s our ability to grow food on our own soil. Bill 14 cracks open the door to something incredibly dangerous: renewable energy projects being pushed onto protected farmland, including land within the agricultural land reserve, the ALR.

That land isn’t just dirt. It’s not empty space waiting for some industrial process. That land is sacred to families who have worked this land generation after generation after generation. It’s where kids learn to drive tractors before they learn to drive cars. It’s where farmers get up before dawn to check on their fields, raise their livestock and do the honest, backbreaking work of feeding our province. It’s where local food security starts.

The ALR was created for a reason: to make sure that no matter what, we preserve the land that keeps food on our tables. Now this government wants the ability to push energy projects onto that same land with top-down authority — no guarantee of community consultation, no requirement to consider long-term impacts on food production and no clear plan to balance energy needs with agricultural realities.

We shouldn’t be forced into this false choice: food or energy. That’s a failure of leadership. We can and should pursue both, but only if we can do it the right way, through thoughtful planning, local engagement and policies that don’t sacrifice one vital resource to chase another. This bill doesn’t offer that. It offers shortcuts. It offers centralized, heavy-handed decision-making that steamrolls over local voices and local priorities.

Let’s not ignore the environmental risks, because they are very real, and they are deeply troubling. This bill gives cabinet the ability to be able to exempt entire projects from the Environmental Assessment Act. That means a large-scale renewable energy development could be approved without even having to assess its potential impact on local ecosystems or wildlife migration routes, wetlands and watersheds — on the delicate environmental balance that communities depend on.

When you remove those assessments, you don’t just eliminate paperwork. You eliminate accountability. You remove the process where experts weigh in, where residents raise legitimate concerns, where potential risks are flagged and addressed before shovels hit the ground.

It doesn’t stop there. Under Bill 14, even basic safety standards — the kinds of requirements that protect workers, protect families and prevent disasters — can be waived for certain projects. Just waived. Decided at the cabinet table, without public review.

Imagine this. You live near one of these energy projects, and you find out that the safety measures you expect — the same standards that apply everywhere else — don’t apply here. You ask: “Why?” Well, because someone in Victoria decided it would slow things down. That’s not smart planning. That’s not responsible government. It’s not how we protect people or places or the province we all care about.

At the very heart of Bill 14 is something far more troubling than a policy shift. It’s a pattern we’ve seen emerging more and more often with this government. A slow but steady march towards centralized authority, where more and more power is taken out of the hands of the public and handed to small groups of decision-makers behind closed doors.

[4:55 p.m.]

They don’t call it what it is. They call it efficiency. They dress it up as modernization. They tell us it’s about removing roadblocks, clearing the path, making things work better. But let’s be crystal clear. Democracy is not a roadblock. Consultation is not a nuisance. Oversight is not some outdated relic of the past. These things are the pillars of good governments. When a good government starts viewing those pillars as inconveniences, we should all be deeply concerned.

We do not protect democracy by speeding up approvals. We protect democracy by ensuring that everyone, no matter their income, their postal code or their political affiliation, has a voice. We protect democracy by treating rural and urban communities with the same respect. We protect democracy by upholding the principle that the rules should apply to everyone, not just the people who happen to be sitting in cabinet this week.

Efficiency matters. I agree. But it cannot and must not come at the cost of fairness. It must not come at the cost of public input. It must not come at the cost of environmental safety, food security or centuries-old traditions of land use and stewardship. Once those things are gone, once you give that power away, once you let government override local voices, once you start cutting the corners of democracy, you don’t just get it all back with the next election or the next press release. That damage, once it’s done, is hard to undo.

Now, let me be absolutely clear. I want to see British Columbia thrive. I want to see energy built. I want to see investment flow into this province. I want to see innovation, jobs, opportunity and a clearer future for our kids. But not like this.

We cannot trade away the trust of British Columbians for speed. We cannot bulldoze farmland and silence communities in the name of progress. We cannot undermine safety, transparency and accountability just because it’s politically convenient. That is not progress; that’s recklessness, wearing a nice name tag.

There’s a better way forward, one that brings people to the table instead of shutting the doors, one that respects the experience and knowledge of local communities, one that honours our land, protects our waters, upholds our rights and creates good-paying jobs without steamrolling democracy in the process.

I cannot support this bill. Not because I oppose renewable energy. That’s far from it. Not because I’m against getting things built. I know we need to get things built. It’s because, I believe, with every fibre of my being, that the people of this province deserve better. They deserve a government that listens. They deserve stable rules, fair process and a seat at the table when decisions are made. They deserve a government that puts people before power, always.

Let’s scrap this bill. Let’s go back to the drawing board. Let’s build something worthy of this province, something that puts British Columbians, not bureaucrats, at the heart of every single decision.

Korky Neufeld: Well, today we’re being asked to consider another bill, Bill 14. You know, after reading through the bill, it began to look a little bit familiar. I scratched my head, and you know what? It dawned on me. It’s Bill 7, 2.0, another version.

[5:00 p.m.]

It kind of reminded me of a song that popped into my head from Trooper, “3 Dressed up as a 9,” because it’s window dressing with environmental projects attached, a piece of legislation the NDP government claims is about streamlining renewable energy approvals in British Columbia.

On the surface, that might sound appealing. I mean, who in their right mind would not support a faster path to clean energy development? Nobody. Particularly in an era where environmental stewardship and energy transitions are top of mind.

Once again, we see that this bill is not what it appears to be. Bill 14 is not simply a matter of cutting red tape or expediating wind farms. It’s a sweeping power grab that hands unchecked authority to both cabinet and the B.C. Energy Regulator. Let me repeat that. It is a sweeping power grab that hands unchecked authority to both the cabinet and the B.C. Energy Regulator, while bypassing legislative oversight and public accountability at every turn.

Boy, that sounds like Bill 7, doesn’t it? This bill establishes what the government calls “single window for approvals.” Boy, that term sounds efficient. That term sounds innocuous. A mechanism to unlock renewable energy development, simplify bureaucratic hurdles and expediate projects vital to British Columbia’s future.

But when you peel back the layers and you uncover the truth, this is not just a fast track for green energy; it’s a bulldozer clearing the path for regulatory erosion. A bulldozer clearing the path for regulatory erosion.

Let’s be clear. This single window they mention replaces the role of multiple ministries — they’re established for a reason — and concentrates authority in the hands of unelected officials. I don’t know about you, but 93 of us were elected by the public to represent them in this House, not a bureaucrat or some official who can’t be held accountable when voting comes along. The 93 MLAs are. It belongs back in the Legislature to be debated and questioned and examined.

It may begin with nine wind farms and the coast transmission line, but the bill gives cabinet carte blanche to expand its application in any renewable project at any time, with no requirement to return to this Legislature for debate or approval. That is the troubling part of this. That’s what’s got this House concerned. And I think it should concern every British Columbian.

It disapplies key protections under the Agricultural Land Commission Act, removing critical guardrails that ensure farmland is used responsibly. And that is actually only the beginning.

Bill 14 allows the B.C. Energy Regulator, an entity that should be focused on impartial oversight, to rewrite the very regulation that governs its own conduct. An entity that should be focused on impartial oversight can now rewrite the regulation that governs its own conduct.

To state it another way, the regulator will have the power to change the Energy Resource Activities Act itself, not through the Legislature, not through debate with 93 MLAs — the regulator. That’s like the referee rewriting the rulebook in the middle of the game.

British Columbians…. It’s the Legislature, the people’s representatives, who are completely sidelined. We are all public servants. We’re accountable. There’s a mechanism for us to be accountable. A regulator isn’t.

It looks a lot like a power grab: Bill 7, 2.0, with no accountability.

[5:05 p.m.]

Worse still, this bill gives the regulator the authority to impose new fees and levies retroactively back to April 1, 2024. Say what? Contracts have been written. Agreements have been made. Hang on a second. We’re changing the goalposts. We’re changing the rules in the middle of the game. That’s right. Projects could be hit with charges of costs they never agreed to, they never anticipated and they never had a chance to budget for, legitimizing any action taken since April 1, 2024 retroactively, regardless of public accountability and procedural fairness.

This legislation governs first and explains later. How can we say this will promote long-term investment and certainty in British Columbia? When people need certainty, when investors who want to pour millions of dollars in longevity into our province, we change the goalposts and say: “Oh, by the way, what you did last year — well, now the rules have changed. The goalposts have changed. Sorry.”

What about safety? Well, I’m glad you asked. Under this bill, the application of the Safety Standards Act can simply be suspended for certain large-scale projects. Yeah, you heard it right. The basic safety standards that protect workers and the public can be swept aside, arbitrarily, by a regulatory whim.

This legislation even undermines the role of heritage and cultural protection in our province. The regulator will have the authority to apply or disapply heritage designations for land of cultural or historical significance to communities and Indigenous people.

Not only that, the regulator gets to choose the individual who decides whether a site is a heritage-worthy site — not the community, not the Indigenous community. A bureaucrat in Victoria. Well, that’s not consultation. That’s not respect. That’s manipulation of process.

In a move that borders on the absurd, the bill even allows the suspension or cancellation of hunting, trapping and angling permits — businesses that have been established over the years, who have proven themselves to be environmental stewards of the land. Cancel it, just like that. Jobs lost, investment lost, with no possibility of recourse. What possible justification does the Energy Regulator have for interfering in those activities? It’s a mission creep of the highest order.

This bill bears a troubling resemblance to Bill 7. It’s a power grab. It’s another piece of legislation where this government attempts to centralize power and bypass democratic oversight. Bill 14 is the same dangerous philosophy, just wearing a mask of renewable energy. It truly is Bill 7, 2.0.

Now, this side of the House and I support renewable energy. B.C. needs it. Our caucus supports it. We need transmission infrastructure. We need jobs, economic growth, a low-carbon future. But we do not need to sacrifice democratic process, environmental responsibility or Indigenous rights to get there. That’s what this bill does.

Yes, we should find ways to responsibly streamline permitting processes. My goodness, we’ve been asking for that for eight long years. But we should never do so by gutting transparency; by ignoring this Legislature; by silencing community voices, especially those of Indigenous nations whose rights are directly affected. Streamlining should never mean silencing.

[5:10 p.m.]

This legislation fails the test of good governance. It hands sweeping authoritarian powers to the cabinet and to the Energy Regulator while undermining safety. It also threatens environmental and cultural protections. It opens the door to political interference in land use and conservation decisions.

The NDP may sell this as a way to get wind turbines in the ground, but nobody is fooled. Bill 14 is not about building energy infrastructure; it’s about building political power that’s going to be unchecked, unbalanced and unaccountable.

I urge this House to be careful, to study and review the implications of this bill and demand a real path forward, one that supports renewable energy without sacrificing our democratic institutions, without removing environmental safeguards and without losing public trust. That’s what this bill does.

Let us go through some of the clauses that should concern every British Columbian. Let’s start with part 1, interpretation. Clause 1, definitions, “renewable resource” definition. Well, the definition is broad, and it’s kind of future-orientated, allowing the inclusion of emerging technologies via regulation. However, the exclusion of hydro dams appears inconsistent with the otherwise inclusive approach, raising the question about the rationale, and whether environmental concerns were behind the exclusion.

Then there’s the Environmental Assessment Act disapplication. Excluding projects from the EAA oversight significantly weakens environmental scrutiny, creating a legal vacuum until future regulations are introduced. Let me read that again. It’s creating a legal vacuum until future regulations are introduced. Well, that sounds conveniently vague. It also bypasses public participation and transparency.

Then there’s the primary act. Centralizing oversight under the Energy Resource Activities Act gives the Energy Regulator disproportionate control over approvals, potentially undermining multi-agency checks and balances. Here British Columbians should be questioning the government’s intent.

Let’s move on to clause 2, streamlined projects. It allows cabinet, not the 93 elected MLAs, unchecked discretion to designate future projects as streamlined, raising rule-of-law and accountability concerns, because there’s no mandatory criteria, leaving decisions politically vulnerable and opaque. Well, that’s only part 1, interpretation.

It gets really good, because now we move to part 2, streamlining permitting. As I said, for eight years, people have been asking that. Finally, we’re here. Well, let’s see what they mean by that. Division 1, level 1 streamlining, clauses 3 and 4, the creation of three streamlining levels — that’s right, three — which lacks clarity on what criteria distinguishes one from the other.

Subdelegation of regulatory instruments dilutes accountability and risks regulatory capture by industry, especially without oversight and appeal mechanisms. That’s right: no recourse for appeals. We just have to accept it, and they say: “You know what? Trust us. We know what’s best.” Well, we’ve heard that before.

Now, we move on to division 2, level 2 streamlining. Remember, there are three of them. Clauses 5 and 7 carve out substantial parts of the Energy Resource Activities Act from applying to designated projects, weakening environmental and public-interest protections. Notably excluded are sections relating to dormant and orphan sites, suggesting reducing long-term liability for developers but increased risk for the publicly funded cleanup. Public participation mechanisms, like investigation requests, are suspended, undermining citizen oversight.

Well, let’s move on to division 3, level 3 of streamlining. Remember, there were three of these. Clauses 8 to 10 continue a concerning pattern of regulatory exemptions and centralization, and they allow removal of suspension and ownership requirements, which may permit speculative or undercapitalized proponents to obtain approvals without full accountability.

[5:15 p.m.]

I think that’s what’s the troubling part. There’s no accountability, no guardrails and no public consultation. It’s all done behind closed doors. We’ve just got to trust them.

Division 4, general, clause 11, fees. Well, this clearly resembles Bill 7, 2.0. Cabinet control over fees and the ability to waive them at will can distort market fairness, offering preferential treatment to some developers without transparent criteria.

Clause 12, recovery of expenses. Retroactive levies raise fairness and potential constitutional issues if not properly constrained or transparently applied.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Clause 13. The power to modify the Energy Resource Activities Act grants cabinet significant legislative power via regulation, potentially violating separation-of-powers principles by essentially allowing law-making by executive order.

The Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

Korky Neufeld: I move adjournment of debate and reserve the right to continue at a later date.

Motion approved.

Jessie Sunner: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and asks leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 5 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2025

Nina Krieger: Section C reports Bill 5 complete with amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Later, Hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: So ordered.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m., Monday, May 12.

The House adjourned at 5:17 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:10 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

On Vote 39: ministry operations, $25,986,000 (continued).

Kiel Giddens: Welcome back, everyone.

Right before we adjourned for lunch, I think I jumped the gun a little bit and asked the question about the ministry budget right off the bat. Guess how excited I was to get started here. I appreciate the minister’s response, but I wanted to maybe elaborate that.

Does that budget…? Could the minister maybe describe whether that includes increases or cuts to various departments? Are there any programs or offices being closed, merged or expanded as a result of this budget?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question.

The budget for the Ministry of Labour, as the member will know, is comprised of resources that, for the most part, power the employment standards branch, as well as our work on policy, the public service office, the minister’s office. But really, it’s the employment standards branch that is the lion’s share of the ministry’s budget. That is the budget that is not the WorkSafe-recoverable part of the budget, which, of course, is under the authority of WorkSafe.

I’d say that the budget has been fairly static over the last number of years. There is no change in programs or closure of programs. We have the same number of employment standards offices that we’ve had.

As I’d indicated in my answer just before the lunch break, though, we have experienced quite an uptick in casework for the employment standards branch over the last few years. Therefore, we’ve adjusted the budget for the employment standards branch. In ’22-23, there was an increase of over $7 million. That resulted in an increase in FTEs by 40 so that we can better serve the parties who are coming through the employment standards branch.

[1:15 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the minister’s response.

I’m wondering, just as we’re getting into the total FTEs, if the minister could clarify the total for this year. I believe last year I read that there were 393 total FTEs, 182 being in the employment standards branch. If the minister could describe just how many, total, this year and then how many specifically related towards employment standards.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The total FTEs in ’24-25 was 408, and 182 of the 408 were at the employment standards branch.

I should note, however, that of that total FTE count, 100 are with the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal, 41 are employers advisers, and 64 are workers advisers. Those FTEs are initially paid for by the ministry, and then they are recovered from WorkSafe. WorkSafe reimburses for them.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you very much to the minister for clarifying and breaking those down a little bit further.

I note that, as well, the ministry or government as a whole had a hiring freeze that was implemented on, I believe, December 11, 2024. How many FTEs were in place at that point, compared to now, I guess?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Could I just clarify from the member, please? Is he asking for what was the number of FTEs in December 2024, compared to what is the number of FTEs at this point?

Kiel Giddens: Yes, that is correct.

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The total FTE count that I gave is the average count for all of last year. There wouldn’t have been a significant difference in December 2024. The workers in the employment standards branch, of course, are front-line workers.

That is the count. If the member wishes, we could send staff away to do that count and provide a refined number. I don’t think it would be significantly different than the number that’s there.

Kiel Giddens: I wouldn’t mind getting that number, and it could be after. It doesn’t have to be right now, certainly, but just having that refined number, I think, would be useful to note later.

I guess maybe a more general question on it, though: can the minister confirm that the Ministry of Labour is complying with the Premier’s directive of a hiring freeze? Also, I’m wondering if the minister could confirm whether or not the ministry is committed to not hiring any more outside contractors or consultants, as they can’t hire more staff because of that freeze.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Yes, with respect to the hiring freeze, the ministry is following all of the internal direction received from the head of the public service — in the context, of course, of a ministry that is primarily about front-line services.

Secondarily, with respect to contractors, no, the ministry is not making use of external contractors.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for the confirmation on that. It’s helpful to note.

Just on that, maybe a little bit further, can the minister identify which portion of the budget is towards internal administration versus that front-line service delivery? We talked about employment standards, but there’s also an enforcement component that I would include in that. If that can be broken down, that would be useful.

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: What I can tell the member is that the total budget for the employment standards branch and the labour policy and legislation division of the ministry is $21.78 million or so, and the executive and support services is close to $3 million, about 8 percent of the budget.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for the breakdown, including the percentage, actually. That’s useful to have, so I appreciate that.

On April 1, of course, there was a change since the budget was first introduced, in that, obviously, the removal of the consumer carbon tax is taking a significant portion of provincial revenue out of what we initially learned in the March 4 budget. I’m wondering if this means any changes that are not included in the budget documents that may include changes to the Ministry of Labour budget or if there are any risks of change in the future.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I just need to correct the number that I gave in the previous answer. Apologies. I was looking at the wrong line. The number for labour programs is $23.903 million, not $21.783 million. Apologies for that. The percentage calculation is a little rough because it was done on the spot, but that is definitely in the neighbourhood.

I’m not aware of any changes to programs occurring.

[1:30 p.m.]

I think it’s worth really noting that, just with respect to the time we’re in, we know that working people are going to be and currently are being dramatically impacted by the trade war that the President of the United States is perpetrating against our country.

Obviously, our government is quite seized with the potential impacts on different sectors of the economy, on workers, on the volatility, on potential disruption, on potential job loss. I know the member is aware of the modelling that was done by our Finance Ministry in that regard.

Of course, we are very attuned in this budget to ensuring that we are doing everything that we can to protect front-line services. Certainly, in terms of our work with respect to…. Particularly, ensuring that we have that strong floor with respect to labour standards that the Employment Standards Act represents and our ability to process disputes through the board — that has been a key priority for this government.

As I’d mentioned, we made a significant investment a couple of budget cycles ago to improve the accessibility of that process for workers. We’ve made a significant commitment to front-line services. That’s where we sit at the moment.

Kiel Giddens: I guess I’m just trying to understand the risks of change from that April 1 policy. I recognize we are in an uncertain time, but because these are front-line services we are talking about, I think workers just want to be able to have confidence that the employment standards branch, in particular, can get their disputes heard in a timely manner. I’m trying to understand that.

I’m just wondering, again, if the minister could describe if there are any labour policy programs or the employment standards branch that might have risks to their budget being cut as a result of the April 1 change in the consumer carbon tax.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The Ministry of Labour has not received any direction with respect to changes in front-line services.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe I’ll wait for government’s guidance in the future on that. I’m sure we’ll hear more, down the road, from the Finance Minister.

In the meantime, I think just understanding what is happening in the employment standards branch…. I do appreciate the labour policy and programs and employment standards branch combination of just about $24 million that the minister described.

If the minister could just maybe specify the amount specifically to the employment standards branch within that number? I know that the minister will recall her predecessor, back in 2023, announced that the branch’s operating budget would be increased by nearly $12 million over three years to hire as many as 33 more full-time employees.

I just read this in a press release, I recall, that said: “To resolve disputes between workers and employers, provide guidance on B.C.’s employment standards and process employer registrations for temporary foreign workers.”

I’m just wondering, with what the budget is for employment standards, has that $12 million been completed? Or was there a cut in this year’s budget?

[1:35 p.m.]

The minister, I believe, noted that 182 FTEs remain the same. I’m just wondering if this was actually fulfilled or not.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: You wanted the overall. The first number that I had given you, $21.783 million, is the employment standards branch budget for ’25-26. In 2022-23, the budget of the branch was $14 million.

We’ve seen, yes, the increases that we had committed to roll out over the last few budget cycles, but including even an additional amount in 2024 of about $1.4 million — again, recognizing the need for increased FTEs. That is how we wound up with the additional 40 FTEs over the last few years.

Kiel Giddens: All right, I think I can leave that, for sure, for now. I appreciate the response from the minister.

I’m sure the minister talks regularly with the B.C. Federation of Labour. In response to the budget, I just noted that they did express some concerns over what they would still characterize as underfunding of the employment standards branch and the Labour Relations Board. They were still citing long wait times and backlogs in the systems, so they did urge government to increase funding for these agencies to continue to strengthen workplace stability and certainty.

I’m wondering if the minister can describe the impacts of underfunding these functions. What does that mean in the context of what government is aiming to do for workers and employers?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: What I would say is that our government has really stood up for working people in this province.

With respect to employment standards, one of the very first actions that our government took was a critical one, and that was to eliminate the workers self-help kit, reversing a generational trend that had been brought in by the previous government to really deprive working people of access to support, to be able to actually pursue dispute resolution through the employment standards branch.

That is something that had been called for by the B.C. Federation of Labour, by affiliates, by worker advocacy organizations for many, many years. We know that made a direct and materially positive impact on working people, when they were able to access worker advisers and get more support to work through the employment standards process.

We’ve increased minimum wages.

We’ve taken the initial steps to address the development of app-based work in our province and provide the first recognition of those workers as employees and provide them with access to a floor with respect to standards of work.

We eliminated the training wage.

We set minimum ages for employment, to protect youth from hazardous work, something that was lacking in this province until our government came in, in 2017.

Of course, we brought in paid sick leave during the pandemic, understanding the incredible risks that workers were under, particularly during the pandemic.

We’ve taken a number of steps and commensurately increased the resources of the employment standards branch to be able to address those concerns that workers and employers have. Yes, of course we recognize that there’s always more to do, and the branch is working on ways of identifying how to streamline services and how to better serve the parties that rely on their services.

Along with the improvements that we’ve made for the conditions of working people, we’ve also improved the funding so that they can access dispute resolution.

Kiel Giddens: I do recognize the government has had a very active agenda that they’ve tried to implement here, but the fact is the service plan still has a measure of targets of 80 percent of employment standards branch complaints that are supposed to be resolved within 180 days. I know this has been a challenge that the ministry has been trying to resolve, these backlogs that have been talked about in the branch.

I’m wondering if the minister could just confirm the actual results of complaints resolved within 180 days over the last three years and what this year’s target would be.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: In the last three years…. In 2022, 39 percent of complaints were resolved within 180 days. In 2023, that number was 35 percent. In 2024, it was 32 percent.

Kiel Giddens: There still is obviously a challenge that the ministry is needing to work with here to get to that 80 percent, and we’re in a bit of a trend there. I’m wondering. With that, does the ministry have a plan to mitigate this issue, going forward? I recognize that the minister is not in support of self-help tools, but what else would be the ministry’s plan to be able to resolve this?

I recognize this is probably a challenge that’s going to be one that workers who are trying to access the system — that these backlogs are creating uncertainty…. They’re also creating uncertainty for employers as these disputes are working their way through the system. If they take more than 180 days, then that’s a real challenge. I’m wondering what the ministry’s plan is to deal with this.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I want to put some of this in context with respect to the important work that staff at the employment standards branch do.

[1:50 p.m.]

The branch resolves just over 7,000 complaints a year. Over the last five years, they have recovered, on average, close to $9 million per year in wages for workers. There are over 112,000 calls that come in to the ESB multilingual information line, and that’s employers and workers looking for assistance.

One of the innovations that the branch is developing to try and assist with earlier intervention on resolving disputes is the introduction of an alternative dispute resolution pathway for certain kinds of complaints that meet criteria. The objective of this is really to bring a more streamlined process that brings the parties together in a more informal way through mediation to see if it’s possible to resolve their dispute in that way before advancing it to a more formal stage. Of course, it’s totally voluntary; either party can decide to participate or not.

What we found during the pilot was that where both workers and employers participated in this pilot, more than 75 percent of complaints were able to be resolved through that process. So that is one way in which the branch is continuing to look at how to refine the outcome of that pilot, how that might be incorporated on an ongoing basis into the processes of the board.

That is in addition to a number of steps that have been taken to try to improve transparency of access to the employment standards branch system, which includes a guided pathway to assist both employers and employees to understand what the minimum standards are and understand where there may or may not have been breaches of the act. That’s a tool that’s available through the internet.

There is a more…. The internet is more accessible than in the past. There are some new internal administrative tools, including a new case management information system that’s meant to help staff streamline their internal processes, a new investigation process to meet the new legislative direction that was implemented by our government in the last mandate.

The branch is always looking for ways to improve processes in order to improve the timelines. I would say that one of the good metrics, for sure, that we see through the branch is that over 80 percent of complaints are resolved within 120 days once they are assigned to an investigator.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the response.

I would like to learn more about that alternative dispute resolution pilot and find out if that is going to be something that can move the needle on this. I appreciate the minister providing the 120-day stat that was just provided, but we still have the case where 68 percent of cases are not resolved within that 180 days.

A quick question: is that pilot on that alternative dispute resolution something that is forthcoming, soon to be expanded further? What’s the long-term plan for that?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The ADR pilot concluded at the end of 2024, and changes have been made to how the branch operates, to integrate the alternative dispute resolution mechanism into the work of the branch. There is an intake team of ten people who are working with all the ESB investigators, and that team is dealing with scheduling over 40 resolution meetings every week.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for that response.

Just on the complaints, it sounds like there is pretty rigorous tracking. I’m wondering if, for the last four years, that could be broken down by industry sector. I think that’s something that previous critics have also been provided. I’m wondering if the minister could provide the number of complaints made, by industry sector, for the last four years.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: This is an area where the critic and I are both, maybe, aligned in our data nerd tendencies. It’s also one of the first questions that I asked when I became the Minister of Labour. Unfortunately, while I appreciate that previous critics have asked for this specific data in previous rounds of estimates, we’re actually not able to produce a report, given the limitations on the data system within the branch.

The data that the investigators and the officers are working with is what is self-disclosed by the worker. They may or may not disclose what sector they’re in. It can be very difficult to go back and try and figure that out. I appreciate that this is really a limitation on our understanding of which sectors of the economy we see more violations of the employment standards branch in.

It’s something that we’ve identified internally. I’d be more than happy to — as we are working through this issue and, hopefully, making some progress on being able to collect more refined data — commit to, certainly, sharing that as it becomes available.

[2:00 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the nerd alert moment that we’ve just had between the minister and I, and I appreciate her response.

I think that data is going to be critical. If we’re going to look for material improvements to the employment standards branch, I would agree with the minister that data and tracking and making sure that we can understand where the pinch points are is going to be really important. I’d be pleased to follow up when there are updates on that and stay in touch with the minister on that topic.

I’m going to move on away from the employment standards branch onto a different topic. Just noting in the minister’s mandate letter, of course, it includes the Parliamentary Secretary for Labour. The letter says the focus is to “support the development and maintenance of relationships with organized labour to ensure their feedback is considered in policy development.”

I met, obviously, the parliamentary secretary, and I know she has strong labour roots and has exposed that in the House and made sure that folks are aware, and she’s likely doing a great job. Can the minister explain what the budget and deliverables of the parliamentary secretary are?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Just to be clear, there’s no separate budget for the parliamentary secretary. The parliamentary secretary works under the very small budget that we run the minister’s office operations out of.

I think, as the member would have been aware, our parliamentary secretary was on maternity leave, albeit for a very brief time, during the spring session. It’s been a very, very exciting and active spring session for the parliamentary secretary, who also serves as the military families liaison, which is a very important role, given the parliamentary secretary’s connection to the Navy, given her location and given that her community is in Esquimalt, where military services are located.

We’re actually just still really in the process of working out the work plan for what the specific work of the PS will be. Certainly, there are many, many opportunities for engagement with partners and stakeholders through this ministry, more than the minister would be able to accommodate in their calendar.

It would be my expectation that the parliamentary secretary will aid in ensuring that we have really good outreach to all of our partners on the specific issues that I’m mandated to be focusing on in my mandate letter.

[2:05 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that update, and we’ll look forward to seeing the work plan when it becomes available.

I do appreciate the parliamentary secretary’s role as the military liaison for the New Democrat caucus as well. The member from Prince George–Valemount is the military liaison for the Conservative caucus, so that’s great to see that there’s alignment and need that…. That relationship should exist.

Going forward, and considering the role of the parliamentary secretary, I’m just wondering why there isn’t a similar function to engage with employers. There is obviously, as the minister noted, a wide range of stakeholders and different types of employer groups, different types of employer-employee relationships. Some of those may be with union-affiliated workplaces; some not.

I’m wondering why the role couldn’t have been focused on sort of that broad employer-employee relationship, as I note that the top line in the mandate letters to all ministers was to grow the economy by creating good jobs across British Columbia. I do note that employers play a key role in that. And their relationship with their employees, with workers and vice-versa, that’s where some of that top-line mandate is actually going to be met. I’m wondering why there isn’t an equal focus on employers.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I just want to be clear that there is really no disproportionate sort of emphasis on one group of stakeholders or another. And of course, as I said in my opening and as has been my experience throughout my career in labour relations, it really is all about relationships. We are as successful as the relationships that we have in trying to work through differences of opinion that we may have, in order to arrive at what is, hopefully, a good common outcome.

That is always the approach I have taken into the work I have done with employers. I’ve certainly taken that into my work in government. I have met with the B.C. Business Council, with construction sector employers, both regional associations as well as COCA. I met with those employer organizations many, many times when I was Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. I met with Restaurants B.C. I met with individual restaurant owners, greater Vancouver chamber of commerce, Uber, DoorDash.

I have spent a considerable amount of time working with, meeting with and hearing from the employer community. I absolutely understand the importance of all stakeholders who have touchpoints with this ministry. Additionally, the senior staff of this ministry have those connections.

With respect to the work of the parliamentary secretary, you may be aware that in the previous mandate, the parliamentary secretary was really focused on work that our government had prioritized around gig work in particular. Again, where there are smaller, discrete projects, the parliamentary secretary can be certainly available to assist with those.

But I would say there is absolutely no intention for there to be any disproportionate emphasis on one stakeholder or another in this ministry.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the response from the minister. I would hope that there is a balance in some of those differing viewpoints and making sure that those are being taken into account.

I’m going to move on from there.

[2:10 p.m.]

Of course, there was a labour code review conducted last year with submissions that were due last August. I’m wondering if the minister could provide an update on when the labour code review panel report can be expected to be released.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Thanks to the member for the question.

I appreciate that there has been some distance between when the code review was submitted and today, and really, I will say that it is in large part a function of the timing of the code review. It was struck, did its work over the summer and reported in just as we were coming up to writ drop, and of course, we were into interregnum. And then we had a new minister, and then we had a new deputy, and then we had January 4 and the launching of the trade war by the government of the U.S.

It is true that our attentions have been focused on some broader issues. However, I appreciate the interest and the desire for everyone across the labour relations community to see what the panel’s recommendations were and have an opportunity to comment on that report.

It will be out very soon. I would say it would be my intention that the report would be out to the community by early summer so there would be an opportunity for some time for folks to respond on it before we determine the disposition of the recommendations that are there.

Kiel Giddens: I actually very much appreciate the ballpark timing. I think that’s useful. I’ve had many, many questions from various groups about this topic.

Timing-wise, going forward from that…. I’m just wondering if the minister has already had a chance to review the report and if legislative changes from the recommendations can be expected this fall, or would that be at a later date?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: That is too soon. There will be determinations about that down the road.

Kiel Giddens: I guess part of the reason I’m asking, again, is there’s just lots of interest and questions about this topic, and part of that stems from the fact that the government has sometimes chosen to diverge from the review panel recommendations. For example, the minister will recall, in 2022, their removal of the two-step certification in introduction of card check was actually not what the panel recommended.

I’m wondering how organizations or the public can actually really trust the review panel process at all if the government is going to ignore some of these recommendations and go a different direction.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Well, I would just say that the report will come out, the recommendations will be there, and then we’ll make a determination about how we move forward in the context of what is in my mandate letter, what our government’s priorities are and what we hear from stakeholders.

Kiel Giddens: Another recommendation that was ignored was actually one that came out last year in Bill 9. This was a labour code change in a miscellaneous statutes bill, but it was in the middle of when this labour code review panel was out for consultation. So it made many organizations pause to wonder why they were making recommendations and the submissions into this process.

The amendment in this case, of course…. The amendment to the definition of “strike” gave provincial regulated employees a bit more of a free pass to engage in mid-contract strikes in response to federal pickets that the Labour Relations Board can’t actually regulate.

[2:15 p.m.]

During a time when we do have that significant economic risk that we talked about, particularly around trade, this legislative change to the code has also actually increased labour relations pressure at critical infrastructure like our ports, our railways. This change could have the potential to significantly worsen the impacts of federal strikes on our economy.

Again, I wonder how the public can really trust that the government is keeping our economic interests at heart, if they’re ignoring these labour code review panel recommendations to implement some more politically motivated agenda — legislation, in this case.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: It’s my understanding that it has long been the practice in British Columbia for provincial unions to respect federal picket lines and that, as a result of a dispute in the federal arena at the ports, the Labour Relations Board made a decision clarifying that there was, in fact, a gap in the code in that regard.

We moved to close that gap so that we could codify what was the long-standing practice in the province. I think it is really about ensuring that there’s a level playing field, that there’s clarity and that there’s some predictability about which rights are being exercised in which arena.

Kiel Giddens: Being newer to the Legislature, I would appreciate just an update, maybe, on when that code change happened, which the government chose to change last year. When was it taken out of the previous practice in British Columbia?

Then maybe a follow-up to that: I’m wondering if the Ministry of Labour conducted an economic risk assessment of Bill 9 changes, now that we’re focused on Team Canada and overall risks to B.C.’s economic future — if this has been revisited at all.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: It’s my understanding that it was the long-standing practice to interpret the code in British Columbia as allowing provincially regulated workers, who are also co-located with federally regulated workers, to respect picket lines if they were set up by federal workers, if it was a federal picket line.

The labour board decision that I’m referencing changed that practice, altered that practice and pointed to a gap in the code that government then corrected in the way that you’ve identified.

I want to be clear that what we are speaking about here is federally regulated worksites where there are also provincially regulated workers who are covered by the provincial labour code. It’s a fairly narrow application.

With respect to the impact of this, we have not received any concerns about any actual impact of this since the change was made in 2022.

Kiel Giddens: I’ll have to learn more about this, but now I’ll appreciate the update from the minister. I’ll have to dig into that a little bit more as I’m learning the file.

[2:25 p.m.]

As I referenced already, in 2022 the government passed Bill 10, which made it significantly easier to unionize in the province by eliminating secret ballot votes for a union that demonstrates 55 percent or more employees who’ve signed membership cards. Secret ballot votes are only now required if 45 to 54 percent of members have signed cards.

I’m wondering. Since this change, how many unions were certified by a secret ballot vote, compared to card check? Can the minister break that information down by year?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: In the annual report of the Labour Relations Board for 2023, which is the most recent full data available, with respect to the number of certifications granted, there were a total of 194 certifications.

With respect to single-step certifications, there were 152 that were granted without objection. There were 27 granted after an objection was resolved. There were ten certifications that were granted after a representation vote, and five granted after a representation vote after there had been an objection resolved. That data is on page 22 of the LRB 2023 report.

[2:30 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the specific numbers. I’m going to go through those in further detail likely afterwards, but the specific page reference from the minister is also useful.

Thank you for that.

I guess, when government made the change…. Maybe it would be good to understand how these numbers…. Is this kind of what was expected from the Labour Relations Board as part of this change? I’m wondering what specific evidence, really, the ministry relied on to….

As I understand, the rationale at the time was saying that…. That the previous process for union certification was undemocratic or prone to employer interference were a couple of the rationales used. I’m wondering what evidence the ministry used to conclude that.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I would say that, just to start my response to this question, it’s important to note that the right for an individual in Canada to join a union is a constitutional right. It is a right pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There has been much consideration of this question by the Supreme Court of Canada, and I think that’s an important frame for this discussion.

When it comes to the work that the labour code review panel conducted in 2018, there was significant evidence presented by many unions, by workers. There was a lot of testimony about their experience of employer interference during union drives, which, in some cases, either prevented employees from even considering pursuing unionization as an option or had frustrated the process.

[2:35 p.m.]

When it came to the panel’s recommendation to keep two-step but monitor for employer interference — which would have been a terrific administrative burden, incidentally — government was of the view that the evidence was sufficient to warrant acknowledging that when an individual makes a decision to sign a union card, they at that time are making their decision and that the gap in time between signing a card and waiting for a secondary process to validate that decision provides an opportunity for some frustration of that right.

I want to say here that I’ve spent lots of time with lots of different employers over the course of my career, not only public sector employers, where in some respects the labour relations environment is much more straightforward. I do not in any way want to suggest that for those employers who do interfere with an individual’s constitutional right to join a union, that is representative of employers generally. It certainly isn’t.

Certainly, what the board saw was a significant increase to unfair…. What we’ve seen is an increase, certainly since single-step certification, in actual certification numbers, which says, I think, that workers are better able to exercise that right.

I want to observe from my own personal experience that particularly in privatized health services, I met with many workers whose right to join a union was absolutely frustrated by employers, who were afraid in their working conditions. I don’t want to suggest, again, that that is representative.

I know of that evidence firsthand. I participated in that 2018 labour code review, at that time, as a stakeholder and heard much of the testimony that was offered. I would say that since those changes have been made — while, yes, we have seen an increase in certifications overall — I haven’t seen or haven’t heard particular concerns other than that we have some delays at the board, which we may have an opportunity to canvass for sure.

In terms of how the mechanism is working, I have not had significant concerns or been aware of significant concerns being expressed to this office.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for the response. I realize she comes from a personal background and experience in concerns over employer interference, but this is an issue that’s personal to me as well.

I’ve got a family business that’s been going for 111 years in Kamloops, and this is something that I saw the last time this policy was in place. There was significant…. In our small business…. It’s an appliance and electronics repair business in Kamloops. This almost broke this business, from this change in the 1990s. My dad is trying to keep this business open to provide good jobs for his employees. My uncles work there. I worked there as a kid.

I remember certain coercion from employees who were trying to drive to unionize, and my dad and my uncles laid out the facts that the business couldn’t survive because it was too small. It also wasn’t a business where this is extreme profit-taking. This is a very modest family business.

This is a personal topic to me actually. I go back to the fact that we have democratic rights that are also constitutionally protected. I appreciate it is the right to join a union. That’s constitutionally protected. There’s also a right not to within that. There’s nothing forcing us to do so.

[2:40 p.m.]

With that, maybe a very simple answer. Does the minister believe that eliminating the secret ballot is more democratic than requiring a confidential vote?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Yes.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for a simple response. I know we will agree to disagree on the policy position and move forward from here.

I would like to ask a few follow-up questions related to this policy, as the Labour Relations Board is navigating their piece in it as well.

Has the ministry conducted any post-implementation analysis on whether the card-check model has increased coercion or peer pressure among workers during union drives? If that is the case at all, will the minister consider any other options for this policy?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I think one of the important features of the labour relations system in British Columbia, which really dates back to Paul Weiler and the 1970s, when the infrastructure of the current Labour Relations Board and system was set up, is that balance of employer interests and worker interests.

With our labour relations system in the province, there has tended to be at times a bit of a pendulum swing, and it has worked more effectively in balance at certain times than at other times. I would say that on the whole, looking at the whole history since Paul Weiler established the current approach that we have to labour relations, we’ve been pretty successful in trying to maintain that balance.

I appreciate the member’s story and experience. I come from an environment where democracy is a very, very deep-seated value in the workers I’ve worked with and the organizations I’ve worked with and represented over the course of the years.

I think that we should have faith in the Labour Relations Board to conduct their statutory obligations under the code with respect to allegations of unfairness in the process, whether they come from the employers’ side, the workers’ side or the unions’ side, because we do have processes to resolve those disputes. Where there are allegations of improper conduct under the code, we have processes in place.

We can take this question away to look at whether there’s been a particular uptick in cases of one sort or the other in this respect, around certifications. We don’t have that information right here, but we can check with the board on that.

Again, I would say that we have really striven, I think, in this province…. I think our government has really placed a priority, absolutely, on having a balance. That is borne out in how the board functions and the kind of experience that both employers and workers are having at the LRB.

Kiel Giddens: As I’m learning this, as well, I would appreciate understanding some of those processes that the board goes through. If there are any updates or examples that could be shared today, that would be useful.

At the same time, I do think that making sure that there are fair processes…. The board is in place as a quasi-judicial board. It’s very important that this be done fairly.

I’m wondering if the ministry or the board has ever audited a union-card-signing process. We obviously want to make sure…. The minister talked about wanting to prevent employer interference, but I also want to make sure employee coercion isn’t becoming another challenge here.

[2:45 p.m.]

I wonder if any audits have actually been done to make sure that it’s not happening. If not, then, perhaps, why?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I can say that, yes, the investigators who work for the Labour Relations Board and who are responsible for working with the parties when an application is received, absolutely do have the ability to audit, and they do, in certain circumstances, audit membership cards. Because the Labour Relations Board is a neutral arbiter of the code, they take that responsibility very seriously and want to ensure that there is fairness on all sides, with respect to their responsibilities.

I can offer to the member, as well, that we have not seen any significant increase in unfair labour disputes, for example, since single-site certification was brought in. Those numbers are just really flat in terms of what the board reports out. Again, that information is available in the board’s annual report.

I would be happy to offer the member a briefing with the chair of the Labour Relations Board to understand more clearly how the board operates, how the board fulfils its obligations under the labour code, which are very, very strict with respect to ensuring administrative fairness in their proceedings.

The Chair: It appears to the Chair that the exchange has strayed from matters that are canvassed, generally, during estimates process, so I encourage the committee to focus on matters that are directly related to the estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

Kiel Giddens: Sure, and my follow-up questions are related to costs at the Labour Relations Board, so I’m going to continue. But I do appreciate that, Madam Chair.

I do appreciate the minister’s offer for a briefing with the chair of the board. I did work in the Labour Minister’s office previously, so I am aware of the function. I was the acting chief of staff for a period, as well. But I have not had the chance to meet with the current chair so would appreciate that, and I take the minister up on that, certainly.

[2:50 p.m.]

Maybe we’ll move on from this line of questioning and get into the board’s costs and caseloads very quickly. Has the board received any funding increases to manage caseloads, backlogs or appeals? I am hearing that there are backlogs happening, and I agree that when a grievance is filed, or a dispute on a raid or something like that, all of those decisions are before the board.

Has there been any increase in that caseload, and what does that look like? What actually is the wait time to get in to see the board at this time?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: For the member’s benefit, of course — he’ll know, having worked in the Labour office some time ago — the labour board is an administrative tribunal and, as such, technically, the operations of the board are part of the Attorney General. It’s just why we don’t have those numbers that the member requested at our fingertips.

We can take the question on notice and provide them after, but we would have to consult with the board and with the Attorney General’s ministry in that regard. I should just clarify that, of course, I would certainly strongly advise and recommend to my colleague the Attorney General to facilitate a briefing between the critic and the chair of the labour board.

Kiel Giddens: Yeah, I would appreciate the follow-up. Thank you for the offer from the minister on that.

I’m just noting that there are a number of public sector collective agreements that are up for renegotiation this year. I’m wondering if the ministry has allocated funds specifically for supporting or mediating major public sector negotiations.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Just to say that public sector bargaining comes under the Ministry of Finance, and any questions regarding public sector bargaining would be appropriately directed to the Minister of Finance.

Kiel Giddens: I’ll certainly follow up in the Finance Ministry estimates on that.

With that, maybe, Chair, would it be okay to take a brief recess? I’m going to move to a different topic: WorkSafe. I thought, perhaps for the minister’s benefit as well, that maybe a brief recess might be okay.

The Chair: The Chair deeply appreciates the suggestion by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. We will take a ten-minute recess. Please return at 3:05.

The committee recessed from 2:55 p.m. to 3:06 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order for the Ministry of Labour.

Recognizing the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to the chair to join this afternoon’s discussion of the estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

Actually, before I get into questions here, I’m going to start maybe discussing the important provincial agency of WorkSafeBC. It’s a unique agency, certainly. It’s entirely funded by employer premiums, so it is unique. But I know that the Ministry of Labour does have oversight, and the legislation exists within the ministry, and it is critical.

As I said off the top of my remarks, I think we can certainly agree that we want to prevent worksite accidents from happening, to begin with. No one should fall ill or be injured or, heaven forbid, lose their life simply because they went to work that day.

Maybe just to start off the discussion on this, I’ll give the minister, since this is her first year in the role, a bit of a chance to describe the ministry’s role in overseeing WorkSafeBC and how that’s reflected in the budget. Also, how many workers were covered, in total, in the province in the last year?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Can I just clarify that last point from the member? How many workers were covered, in what respect?

Kiel Giddens: Sorry, maybe I can clarify that a little bit further for the minister. Does WorkSafeBC include the entire number of workers in the province that have ability to access the important workers compensation system that we have?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I’ll just start by first noting that we’ve been joined by the WorkSafe team, who are, again: Kevin La Freniere, head of stakeholder experience, marketing and communications; Todd McDonald, the head of prevention services; Mark Heywood, head of assessments and finance and chief financial officer; and Tanya Houghton, senior director of health care and specialized claim services. They will be providing the technical advice to me during this section of our discussion.

The member asked: what is the Labour Ministry’s, and the Labour Minister’s, role and relationship with WorkSafeBC? Before I get there, I just wanted to also take an opportunity to highlight the critical importance of worker safety, I think, to all of us, the critical role that WorkSafe plays in that regard and the historical evolution of how WorkSafe as the regulatory body for workers’ injury and illness claims came to be.

I know the member will probably be familiar with some of this story, but our very first workers compensation act in British Columbia was developed in 1902. A further act came into being in 1917, at a time when, across the country, there was a discussion about both how to protect workers from workplace injury but also how to deal with what happened to workers when they were injured at work.

I think we all know about the dangers of industrialization, of the industrial revolution and the kinds of circumstances that many workers found themselves in, particularly in British Columbia. I mean, we had one of the very worst industrial disasters, in 1887, in Nanaimo at the No. 1 Esplanade Mine, where 150 workers died as a result of an explosion of coal dust.

Today we know, and the member was referencing earlier, that we just commemorated the annual Day of Mourning, which is a national opportunity to pause and reflect, all of us together, on those lives that were lost over the previous year and to really recommit to doing everything that we can to make sure that every single worker comes home safe at the end of their shift. Last year we lost 146 workers, and that’s 146 too many. We all, I know, agree on that point.

The evolution of workers compensation was really influenced by work that was done in the 1910s by William Meredith, who really challenged this notion that there was sort of a joint negligence approach. He really in doing his work for the Ontario government that wound up becoming the Ontario Workmen’s Compensation Act, shifted the debate to one of a more mutual insurance approach. We recognized that it was important that we work together and that we provide a collective approach to insuring workers at work.

In exchange for the establishment of a framework, of a process, in which…. There was the establishment of a board to oversee the collection of funds, ensure the establishment of reserves and then assess employers and companies based on the degree of hazardousness of various industries.

[3:15 p.m.]

This board would then be responsible for paying claims to workers if they were injured or acquired an illness at work, and of course, the whole system of pensions also kind of evolved from that.

In exchange for that system, workers surrendered their right to sue employers for damages under common law. I think this is a very critical point that we cannot forget, because it is actually at the very heart — it continues today to be at the very heart — of how this no-fault insurance system operates for workers. Workers do not have the right to sue.

We’ve invested in this system to do everything that we can to keep working people safe at work. I mean, we are always learning new things and learning better ways, and technology opens up new pathways for safer work all the time. But I think that framing is a critical one to never forget.

WorkSafe, what has eventually become WorkSafe, is the regulatory agency for workers compensation in British Columbia. It operates under the Workers Compensation Act. It’s an independent agency, and it has the mandate and the statutory obligation to, essentially, oversee what is a no-fault insurance system.

The Ministry of Labour is responsible for the WorkSafe act. Its statutory home is with the Ministry of Labour. Of course, we do ongoing work and ongoing dialogue with WorkSafeBC with respect to the safety of working people across the province.

That ranges from issues with respect to current concerns or current problems that may be emerging and providing an indication of policy advice on what areas are particularly important to also working as a convener between different ministries and WorkSafe, because of course, there are a number of different areas of government that interface with WorkSafe. There are a number of different issues that require cross-ministry involvement.

I would point to crane safety as an area where there’s a lot of interest and discussion happening amongst different parts of government right now. That’s something that, certainly, I’m quite concerned about.

So that is the relationship between WorkSafe and government.

In the 2024 year, the number of workers covered by WorkSafe was 2.7 million. That is about 99 percent of British Columbia’s workers who are covered by WorkSafe. The WorkSafe act articulates what is a worker and an independent contractor. If an individual is working as an independent contractor, they are not considered a worker. So 99 percent of people working in British Columbia are covered, and there are 285,000 employers registered with WorkSafe.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for a very fulsome history of WorkSafe. I think that’s helpful for the public and certainly helpful for some of the colleagues that may be new to the Legislature, private members that may be here today.

Just for the minister’s benefit, perhaps she has seen it, I was recently on the Knowledge Network. There was a documentary that went into B.C.’s labour history. It was quite fascinating. It talked about some of those exact same pieces that were just described.

[3:20 p.m.]

For all members’ and the public’s benefit, that might be something worth getting from the Legislative Library, just to learn a little bit more about….

Interjection.

Kiel Giddens: Dad vibes. Yeah, exactly.

I appreciate something else the minister really said that hits all of us close to home. I’m thinking about someone dying simply because they went to work. The number of 146 workers, I agree, is too many.

In one of my early jobs in my career, I was attending the University of B.C., and I worked as a research assistant for a professor in the department of forest resource management. The first task I was given was to do research related to an increase in fatalities in the forestry sector, particularly in the tree-felling and logging side of the business.

Obviously, there was a trend at that time, something that had materially changed. It was at the time of the mountain pine beetle uplift in logging activity and some changes that were happening in the industry. It was important to get on top of it.

As we’re looking at trends, I note that, I think, last year there were 175 fatalities; this past year there were 146. Over those two years — maybe it could even be spread over three years, if that’s easier — are there rate classifications that we can point to? Can those 146 be broken down further into what areas those fatalities actually took place in, maybe just with that example in mind that I used in the forestry sector there?

I know that WorkSafe does have different classifications, obviously. If the minister could provide a little bit more granular update, I think that would be helpful for the House.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: With respect to the member’s question about which specific classification units and which specific classifications, there are hundreds of actual classifications under WorkSafe, and then those classifications are refined into broader sectoral areas.

[3:25 p.m.]

We don’t have, just at our fingertips, how those 146 fatalities are broken down by sector, because the tendency within WorkSafe is to look at the nature of the injury or illness. What I can say to the member is that in 2024, there were 37 deaths due to asbestos-related disease.

Of course, those are actual incidents that would have occurred, in many cases, decades ago potentially. The member will be aware that there are many workers who were exposed to asbestos over the course of their careers that are in surveillance programs and are tested regularly and wait for the news about whether or not they have an asbestos-related disease.

There were 41 deaths due to other diseases. The occupational cancers, for example, would be covered under that category. Under occupational disease, a total of 78. There were 30 deaths attributed to motor vehicle incidents and 38 attributed to other traumatic injuries. Those would be falls, for example, and those would be the kinds of injuries that you would see in construction at times, in forestry at times.

With respect to the technical team’s observation about the sectors where we tend to see the highest number of fatalities, it does tend to be construction — that is, in part, due to the latency related to asbestos-related diseases — and transportation, with respect to where we’re seeing traumatic injuries. We can provide more refined data with respect to sectors, if that’s helpful to the member.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for that breakdown. I’m going to remind myself of some of WorkSafe’s terminology, going forward, to make sure I can explain their various classifications properly, so I appreciate that update and clarification.

Since the minister raised, in her opening remarks, crane safety, I’m maybe going to start there. Obviously, as we look at fatalities that happened in the province…. I know many of them were asbestos-related, but for some of the others, obviously, we want to start looking into the prevention side and what steps we can take as a province. Maybe crane safety is a good place for us to start on that topic. It’s one that I know we have discussed a little bit already.

It has been, of course, nearly four years since the tragic crane collapse in Kelowna that claimed five lives. For members from Kelowna, I know this would have hit pretty close to home for folks, those friends and family and all, indeed, in the community there.

I know that WorkSafe completed its investigation back in May of 2023 but has not released their report. They’ve cited ongoing legal proceedings, but the family, industry and stakeholders and the public are still really wanting to know what learnings need to happen from that particular incident, since it was pretty unprecedented and devastating.

I’m wondering what steps the ministry is taking to ensure the timely release of this report and to really inform some of these safety improvements that could be needed.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: With respect to the Kelowna crane incident, I just want to reflect on how incredibly moving and heartbreaking it was to stand with Cailen Vilness’s father, Chris, at the Day of Mourning ceremony and to hear firsthand from Mr. Vilness about the impact of losing Cailen on their family, and of course, not just Cailen but the four other workers who were killed in that incident. I know that the whole province mourns with the community in Kelowna at that monumental and terrible, terrible loss.

With respect to the report, the RCMP investigated; WorkSafe investigated. The RCMP have, as I understand it, referred their report to the B.C. prosecution service for a determination about charges, and the Crown has requested that WorkSafe not release their investigation report until a determination is made about charges. That’s really to protect the integrity of the judicial process with respect to the determination of charges.

I just want to say that I understand it’s been four years. I understand it’s a long time. I understand it’s hard for the families to wait for the answers. In these incidents, it is so important that we allow the judicial process to unfold with its full integrity so that, as they go forward, we can respond appropriately and learn what we need to learn from that process.

I will say that, of course, it’s not as though anyone has waited to implement learnings from the investigation, because we know that it is critical to act on what we know. That’s kind of the precautionary principle, right? We know what we know. “Know better, do better” is the approach.

[3:35 p.m.]

That incident spurred a number of regulatory changes to ensure that we improve the safety of workers who are both operating cranes and operating the rigging associated with cranes.

There has been a notice of project provision put in place to require that when cranes are being put up on sites, there is notice to WorkSafe so that they can be inspected. There has been a significant increase in the number of inspections of cranes. There has been, also, an increased number of resources added to WorkSafe’s internal crane safety team in order to ensure that there’s more support to operators, to employers and to ensure that there’s more oversight of crane safety across the province.

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

I do think it’s so important that we learn from these incidents. Obviously, we’ve talked about this tragic incident in Kelowna, but the Oakridge incident last year…. Again, we’re aligned on trying to make sure that we prevent these incidents from happening.

I recognize some of these new regulations that have come into effect, like the notice of project that came into effect last October. But there are still some concerns about the adequacy of the measures.

I’m wondering if the minister could provide a little bit more detail on how WorkSafe is monitoring the implementation of these regulations, since they are new. Are there plans to assess their effectiveness?

I recognize that the minister referenced the fact that there are a lot of cranes — by what I’ve been told, up to around 400 cranes — operating across the province. It sounds there are resources being allocated, but maybe the minister could elaborate a little bit more, put some numbers into that. How many resources are there that WorkSafe has added to this, and how is that implementation actually happening to inform these improvements?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: With respect to the work that WorkSafe undertook in light of the Kelowna tragedy, there was the pulling together of the construction sector — a number of stakeholders, labour representatives, tower crane operators, employers, prime contractors, rental companies, the B.C. Association for Crane Safety — to really look at what measures needed to be taken immediately in order to improve crane safety across the province.

The work of those 150 people who got together resulted in the initial development of a crane safety program, which led to some regulatory change, such as the notice of project provision, an increase in the inspection team from ten to 17 FTEs and a significant increase in the number of inspections. I can tell you that in 2019, for example, there were 763 inspection reports. In 2024, there were 1,001.

I think what’s really significant, though, is what we’re seeing in terms of increased orders, because the process of a WorkSafe officer having found a violation and writing an order identifying a problem that an employer has to correct…. That number has increased significantly. There were 310 orders written in 2019. There were 802 orders written in 2024.

I will just say that I think with respect to…. There was also, I will just note, a process implemented to require the certification of crane operators. And I will say that there certainly is more work to do in this regard to ensure that we have of all of the…. The member rightly identified approximately somewhere between 350 and 400 tower cranes in operation across the province, but probably an equal number of other kinds of cranes — mobile cranes, gantry cranes, etc. — are also in operation.

I would just say that our government has a very ambitious agenda to build B.C. We need more hospitals, more schools, more mines, more bridges, more of everything. That work of actually building British Columbia absolutely relies on skilled trades, and it relies on cranes. We know the cranes have got to be safe, and the crane operators have got to be supported.

I assure you that, from my perspective and where I sit in this ministry, that is the direction to WorkSafe, that this is a top priority. We’re going to make this occupation safe in British Columbia.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that fulsome answer. I do think it’s something that we have to monitor pretty vigilantly. I’ve spoken with both labour groups and employer groups, and I know that there’s a lot of…. Everyone is on the same page that this is an issue that we need to put some extra attention on right now.

Just with cranes operating in the province, some of them are components that are built from different jurisdictions, for example, and making sure that each crane is…. I think some of the steps are good, but let’s keep on this together as a province. I appreciate that.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’m going to move forward a little bit more quickly, noting the time and where we’re at right now. I’m going to skip a little bit of what I was intending to cover, but I’d like to get into…. Obviously, we have this workers compensation system. It’s important that it’s there for workers when they need it. It’s also important to understand that for employers, this is a fund that’s financed entirely by their premiums. So it’s important to really have a discussion about what’s going on.

Can the minister maybe provide the current value of WorkSafeBC’s reserve fund and how much was collected in employer premiums last year?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Just to be clear about, again, the structure, the framework that WorkSafe operates in as the regulatory body responsible for workers compensation…. Again, I’ll take us back to the great compromise and the fact that the reason why WorkSafe is funded by worker premiums is because workers don’t have a right to sue their employers.

That is always, I think, an important framework to bear in mind when we’re talking about what are the needs of the system, the needs of workplaces with respect to investing in prevention, in education, in inspection, in enforcement and, of course, in the provision of claims and pensions.

Last year there was $2.4 billion collected in premiums, and the current reserve sits at $5.4 billion.

Kiel Giddens: I understand some of the history, and we’ve talked about that, but I think it is important for us to put this in context — that these are employers paying into it. We want a sustainable fund, but we also want it to be fair for all who are, especially…. It essentially ends up being from the employers’ side. What they pay on their payroll rolls into this, so it’s, in effect, a payroll tax, on their part.

[3:50 p.m.]

It is making sure that we have a fair model for them that is going to be there for workers, but in a time when we’re in this economic uncertainty, we want to make sure that those jobs are actually going to be there, that those employers aren’t going to go out of business. Are we doing the things that we can?

I know we canvassed this in question period, but I would like to ask again about the WorkSafeBC premiums and the surplus funds. The surplus does belong to employers, in effect. The premiums, as I’ve talked about…. I’m wondering…. In question period, the minister said it’s not possible, but other jurisdictions have done this. Why not return surplus employer premiums to employers at this time?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I have to say I could not disagree with the member more. WorkSafe premiums are manifestly not a payroll tax — absolutely not.

Premiums are paid by employers as part of the bargain that was struck when workers gave up their right to sue their employers for injury and illness at work. There is no way in which that can be construed as a payroll tax; that is just simply not correct.

This is an insurance system; it is a no-fault insurance system. It is based on a mutual insurance model — again, one in which workers do not sue their employers. I mean, I guess that’s an option, if we want to have that conversation about going back to those times, but this is the system that we have.

I would say that it’s a bargain at half the price for employers. Frankly, there has been a significant return to employers, in the order of $2.4 billion over the last five years, due to the very prudent management by WorkSafe of the claims rate. The rate has remained flat over the last eight years at $1.55 per $100 of assessed payroll, when the actual cost of providing the services that are provided by WorkSafe would be $1.78 per $100 of assessable payroll.

WorkSafe is working very hard to provide stability and predictability to employers by taking an approach to rate-setting that smooths the rate, and it has been successful — largely due, frankly, to returns from investments, which we’ve seen in many parts of the economy. Many funds that are held, of course, have seen, in the pre-COVID period and the COVID period, increases in investment income.

I would say that in terms of who’s benefiting here, I think that this is a good system for employers. It is a slightly different system. We have slightly different legislation here than we do in other provinces, so we have to be careful to compare apples to apples.

[3:55 p.m.]

Other provinces have higher rates; employers pay more than they do in this system. We are very committed to and interested in stability and predictability for employers, and we’re interested in doing what we can to ensure that we don’t have rate shock.

I think WorkSafe is to be commended in that regard in terms of their approach.

Kiel Giddens: I guess I look at other jurisdictions in Canada that are taking a different approach. I’ll focus on Ontario. The Ontario Minister of Labour said: “In the last year, the WSIB provided historic, 50-year-low premiums to over 320,000 employers and surplus rebates to over 280,000 safe employers.” Very similar to the messages just heard, but obviously, they are going with a rebate in this case. He went on to say: “Ontario is looking to provide relief to employers through an additional distribution that will help them keep workers on the jobs whatever comes our way from President Trump.”

I think we can all agree right now we want to keep workers on the job in a time of economic uncertainty. Again, what is the difference between B.C. and Ontario in this case? Why isn’t B.C. looking at something similar?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Well, I’ll just say that with respect to Ontario, I’m not an expert on the Ontario system. I know that their legislation is considerably different than British Columbia’s. I don’t think it is a fair comparison with respect to how we are applying our approach to rates here.

I would say, for example, that in 2021, employers across the province saved $423 million by the fact that their rates were kept stable. In 2022, employers saved $368 million because their rates didn’t change. In 2023, employers saved $408 million because the rate didn’t change. In 2024, $348 million was saved. And the projected savings to employers in British Columbia for 2025 is $457 million. I would say that is a pretty good return to employers.

Absolutely, we are all invested in ensuring that we do everything we can to keep producers producing and workers working in these very challenging economic times, for sure. We also want to make sure that we have the resources that we need to keep workers safe at work.

Kiel Giddens: I can appreciate that we’re trying to keep rates affordable here, but we are in an unprecedented economic time as well, and employers are stretched at this time.

Maybe New Democrat Manitoba could be a better example. They just recently announced that eligible employers will receive a credit equivalent to 50 percent of their 2024 premium. That’s worth about $122 million that will be actually returned in a credit, so that is another option, obviously, for the government.

I look at the government’s policy at ICBC of issuing rebates. Again, this is from a Crown corporation that has an accident fund. I’m wondering why WorkSafe’s fund in this case is being considered different from ICBC. Given that they are both a no-fault model, could it not return funds to small and medium-size employers in particular?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I want to, just in exploring this issue, really, I think, maybe disabuse folks of the notion about how any sort of a rate reduction would work.

You know, I think the problem here is that if you start rebating or cutting cheques, that’s going to large employers, right? We have a system…. The whole WorkSafe system is really based on hazard rating. I talked about that way at the beginning, the whole origins of how we determine safety risks in different industries, and their rates are set. The rates that a business actually pays are dependent on what’s the experience rating in that sector.

The basic principle, really, is that if there’s a high injury rate, those employers are paying higher premiums because they have less safe workplaces, and they’re generating more business for WorkSafe. Employers who have lower injury rates, they pay lower premiums. Really, small businesses, happily, are reasonably safe places to work in British Columbia.

If you work in an actuarial service, your rate is 16 cents per $100 of assessable payroll. If you work in accounting, it’s 16 cents of assessable payroll. Those aren’t necessarily always small businesses but, you know, often. My accountant is a sole operator.

[4:05 p.m.]

If you work in appliance service or repair, your rate is 15 cents per assessable payroll. If you work in an auto dealership in sales and service, it’s $1.18 — still way under the average of $1.55, right? A big-box retail store, $1 per $100 of assessable payroll; a blind manufacturer, $1.02; a carpet manufacturer, 93 cents; a computer consultant, 16 cents; and a drugstore, 58 cents.

I think you take my point that if you’re going to make a move on something as sensitive as the approach that WorkSafe has crafted over many years, again, to ensure stability and predictability for employers, we need to be very, very careful about what outcome it is that you are looking for.

Again, different provinces have different approaches, legislation and targets. It happens that British Columbia and Manitoba have the same kind of target level for the accident fund. We both want it to be funded at a minimum of 130 percent. It so happens that Manitoba’s is far in excess of that right now, and ours is not. There, again, you have to be very careful to be comparing apples to apples.

What we do not want to do is start issuing cheques to big employers that risk having to increase rates overall for those very small businesses that we are seeking to support. There would be a very perverse and adverse outcome if we followed the advice of the member.

I guess, again, I would just come back to the importance of the prudent approach that WorkSafe has taken to manage rate-setting and to ensure that, in fact, employers have received a significant benefit — a $2.4 billion benefit over the last five years by the fact that their rates have been kept stable. There is no change: 2018 and 2025 — the same rate.

I think we want to be careful that we’re not making any moves that kind of put more pressure on future rates down the road, particularly in a time where we’ve got such economic uncertainty.

Kiel Giddens: Yeah, respectfully, I think the minister and I are, perhaps, in a bit of a disagreement here on this particular topic.

Only, I didn’t get an answer to the question on what makes ICBC different from WorkSafe in this case. The minister also missed the second part of my question. I wasn’t talking about large employers in this case. My question specifically was: could WorkSafe not consider returning funds to small and medium-sized employers in particular?

There are options that WorkSafe could have, and for a small or medium-sized employer, it could be the difference between someone keeping their job or not, if the employers have to make tough choices in their small business, in particular. There are other options that WorkSafe could consider as well: tiered models, rewarding companies with rebates for safety, premium discounts and rebates based on safety or things like that.

Are there other things that have been considered that could be structured into the premium, if it’s not going to be a rebate in this case?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I would just point out again that I…. Actually, I found in preparing for estimates, reviewing the classification and rate list really interesting reading because it does really give you a sense of the length and breadth of work that’s done in our incredible province, and it gives you a really good sense of where the riskier work is and what are the riskier workplaces.

I have to say that I did not find, in going through the classification and rate list, a whole lot of red flags around business undertakings that I think would normally be captured by the small business category. To suggest that there’s any sort of big savings there for businesses who have 15, 20, 25 cents per $100 of assessable payroll in premiums…. I don’t think that’s where the savings are for anyone and, again, at the risk of destabilizing WorkSafe’s approach to rate setting, which could result in higher rates for everybody down the road.

I would say that these are issues that the board takes into serious consideration when they undergo their statutory responsibility to determine rate setting, which they do every year, which they consult with the community on, with the province on. They’ll be doing that for setting the 2026 rate in the coming months.

I would just note, as well, that, frankly, there are ways that employers can lower their premium costs. They can create safe workplaces. That is the number one driver of a low rate cost: a safe workplace. They can work to support workers’ return to work in a timely way. That also reduces claim costs and therefore reduces their experience rating.

We know, of course, there’s a delicate balance here when it comes to return to work. We don’t want to be pushing workers to return before they’re able to, but we also know that it’s really important to get workers back to work when we can. They do better. Workers do better if they get back to work within six months of an injury, if they’re able to.

[4:15 p.m.]

There are ways that employers can lower those costs by ensuring that they are creating safe work environments. All of these factors are related to how their experience rating is assessed.

Again, I think the very fact that there has been a stable rate, a rate that is below the actual cost of delivering services…. The actual cost of delivering services is $1.78 per $100 of assessable payroll, not $1.55. There is already a significant subsidy, if you will, going to the employers community by the prudent approach of WorkSafe around how they set rates.

The fact that $2.4 billion has essentially gone back into employers’ pockets or $457 million this year…. I would say again: this is a good system for employers.

Kiel Giddens: I actually agree with one of the minister’s points that there are things that we can do collectively and employers can do collectively to keep premiums low and safe workplaces. But there are also things we can do collectively as a province within this context of Team Canada to help these employers actually stay in business. It’s part of the reason I’ve been asking this line of questions right now.

Maybe just moving a little bit forward, though, is the ministry or WorkSafe concerned at all that rising claim costs — particularly complex, long-duration ones that could be there — are at any risk of eroding the fund’s long-term stability at this time?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I’m sorry, Chair. Can I just ask for a two-minute recess?

The Chair: Absolutely. We will take a five-minute break, returning at 4:22.

The committee recessed from 4:17 p.m. to 4:26 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, we’re back in session.

Minister, go ahead.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Thank you, Chair.

With respect to the member’s question about the increased pressure resulting from more complex claims, it is true that WorkSafe has seen an increasing trend in the number of claims with complex injuries, particularly related to psychological injury and complex pain. Those are injuries that tend to attract higher claims costs, because they tend to be longer in duration and tend to require more health care costs. That trend could potentially put pressure on rates in the future.

I think what we’re seeing around psychological injury, in particular, is part of a trend around increasing mental health claims across Canada and in many other countries. Just to note that the allow rate on psychological injury claims has increased since 2018 with the introduction of presumption and policy and practice changes that have clarified how the evidence of traumatic event and significant stressors are assessed.

Of course, we introduced psychological presumption, because we know how important it is to be supporting psychological health and safety in the workplace, particularly for those occupations like first responders and folks who are working in situations where they are regularly exposed to traumatic events.

For sure, this is an area that needs very close monitoring, very close support and a lot of work around supporting employers, providing employers with tools and employees with tools to maintain psychologically healthy work environments.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate that answer from the minister. I think I’ve heard some of the same things around the psychological claims, so it’s something for us to monitor, going forward.

Maybe I will skip a little bit to some of the psychological claims, in particular. I know this has been canvassed in past years in estimates as well, but we’ve also talked about it a little bit in this House during this session during question period. I’ve shared a couple of personal stories, but another personal side of this is the fact my mom was a nurse, so nurses have a pretty special place in my heart.

I know that I’ve heard, since getting into this elected role, from many front-line nurses who are reporting increases in violence and threats in hospitals, and they’re reporting psychological claims. I’ve read that WorkSafe accepted nearly 3,000 violence-related injury claims in 2023 and a growing number from nurses. Some of those end up leading to other psychological claims afterwards, PTSD and things like that as well.

[4:30 p.m.]

B.C. nurses and health care workers. Sometimes this could be verbal or emotional abuse. It can be exposure to weapons. We’ve heard stories of even things like machetes and a crossbow that have been in hospitals. All this is very traumatic and quite dangerous.

Can the minister table how many health care workers have made a claim to WorkSafe in the last year and for each of the last five years?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: In 2024, there were 3,611 claims for acts of violence or force. That was a 3 percent increase over 2023.

By subsector, 55 percent or 1,979of the claims allowed were from health care and social services subsector.

By occupation, 17 percent or 605 of the claims allowed were from nurse’s aides, orderlies and patient services associates — those are, basically, care aides and community health workers — followed by 16 percent or 566 claims for social and community service workers and 14 percent or 504 claims for nurses, including RNs, LPNs and registered psych nurses. That is for 2024.

Just by way of a changeover over the last five years…. For nurses, for example, in 2020 there were 497 claims versus 504 in 2024. For nurse’s aides, orderlies and patient service associates, there were 503 in 2020 and 605 in 2024. For social and community service workers, there were 386 in 2020 and 566 in 2024.

Kiel Giddens: I do recognize that the minister shares my deep concern with health care workers here. I don’t doubt that at all. Again, this is an area where we can agree to work together on finding ways to keep health care workers safe. These are front-line workers that we do need. I think WorkSafe has an important role in this, of course.

Could the minister…? I appreciate all the stats provided. I think that’s useful for the public. Are regular WorkSafeBC inspections being conducted in hospitals and care facilities where violence has been reported? I’m wondering if there are numbers on how many inspections have occurred and if they’re broken out by health authority.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: With respect to the question about regular inspections: yes, absolutely. In fact, during 2024, in the health care and social services sector, WorkSafeBC officers conducted 1,970 inspections and issued 138 violence-related orders and seven warning letters.

I note, as well, that health care has long been identified as a high-risk occupation, and it is a part of WorkSafe’s high-risk strategy. There is a dedicated team of 35 prevention officers who specifically work with the health care sector.

What I would say, in addition to that, just in terms of the data, is that it is…. Well, we don’t have the data by health authority available, and, of course, that would be subject to levels of injury and privacy and whatnot. I can ask WorkSafe to take that away and see what they are able to produce by way of a health authority breakdown.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the minister for those numbers. I think that’s quite useful to understand. I think it would be helpful to see that by health authorities. If that could be something we could follow up on later, that would be very much appreciated.

Once those orders and letters and post-inspection reports…. I’m wondering if there’s a…. That’s the enforcement side of things, but is there a formal mechanism for WorkSafe to coordinate with the Ministry of Health and health authorities on improving safety standards in high-risk settings like ERs and psych units, for example? If there is, how is WorkSafe monitoring how that’s going?

How are they monitoring the performance on that? I do think that continued relationship between WorkSafe and the health authorities is going to be critical to them providing actual recommendations and actual improvements that matter in this case and for that to actually have some benefit in the system.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: As I mentioned, health care is one of the largest employers in the province. It is also, as we know, one of the riskiest employers in the province. There is regular contact in a formal and a really systematic way between WorkSafe and the health authorities, both at a senior executive level.

I’d say that the leadership council of health authorities, all of the CEOs are regularly being briefed on talking about occupational health and safety issues. Also, really at the operational level, those executive directors who are responsible for occupational health and safety are in regular communication with the WorkSafe officers that are assigned to their sites to facilitate all of the work that WorkSafe is doing with respect to monitoring and inspecting.

I think the member well knows that where there is an incident, an incident report is filed by a worker. That goes through a whole very rigorous process and winds up with WorkSafe. WorkSafe will come, and they will interview the parties involved. They’ll interview the worker, they’ll review the incident report, and they’ll take what they learn from that and determine whether there are penalties or orders to be written or more work to do to help the employer.

I mean, I think there’s always an opportunity, clearly, for learning about how to make workplaces more safe, particularly in those areas we have that are particularly risky in health care. WorkSafe is, in an ongoing sense, kind of assessing for performance and compliance.

I think we understand that in health care, for sure there’s more to do.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the response from the minister. I agree that in health care, there’s more to do. I’m sure this is an issue we’ll continue having discussions on, going forward.

[4:45 p.m.]

This next one is just a topic that I had committed to the B.C. Teachers Federation I would raise. I’m wondering what WorkSafe is doing to respond to the rising number of workplace violence incidents reported by teachers across B.C., including verbal threats and physical assaults.

Some of these can even be happening in elementary schools. In my own riding, I’ve had teachers approach me about this topic, actually, if the minister could respond to that. Also, how many claims related to violence against teachers were accepted by WorkSafe last year? Lastly, what are proactive steps that WorkSafe may be taking in this regard?

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I just want to thank the member for the question and just say that I have such incredibly deep gratitude for the work that educators, educational assistants, everybody in our K-to-12 system, do to support kids in British Columbia. I served for two years as Education Minister at the height of the COVID pandemic, and it was a real eye-opener in terms of just how the conditions of work have really changed in our schools.

I know that many folks working in those areas are taking on…. Everything that happens out in the world lands in a classroom at some point or other, and their jobs have become very challenging, and I’m very grateful for all of the work that they do.

There’s no question that there has been a rise in violent incidents in school. I hear that from the same stakeholders that the member does. I hear it from teachers and EAs in my own community. For teachers and assistants, which includes elementary and secondary teachers and teachers assistants, there were 503 violence-related claims in 2024. What public-facing and front-line workers are experiencing in terms of the rise of violent incidents has prompted a review of the violence regulation.

[4:50 p.m.]

I think part of what we really want to achieve with that is to really have a good look at what we need to be doing upstream by way of risk assessment and building in protections at that point. Those will be issues that WorkSafe will be conducting public consultations on in the reasonably short term.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you very much to the minister. I will agree that we have a lot to be grateful for, for the educators that teach the next generation and look after our schools.

I’ll maybe correct that the question was not just on behalf of the BCTF. It was also CUPE. They discussed the matter with them together. I appreciate the minister’s response. I think that’s helpful for their knowledge, and I sincerely appreciate that.

At this time, I’m going to…. We’re running low on time. I may not have time for more questions, so I do want to thank the minister and thank all of the staff, especially in unique circumstances today with being via video, for all these questions.

The member for Langley-Abbotsford would like to ask a couple of questions on a different topic, but we can’t tell if the other ministry staff are still here because we can’t see them physically. I just wanted to clarify with the minister whether they’re still available. This is not a WorkSafe topic that we’re bringing up right now.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Yes, they are available to us. We’ll just go across the hall and get them.

Harman Bhangu: My question to the minister…. I just want to give you a little background about the collective…. It’s the community benefits agreement program. I would like some clarification on which union…. I am a part of the Teamsters 213, and I can never, ever recall them ever giving me a whiff of even going to a job like this.

I know when this all was being created, we had a meeting at the Sheraton, back in 2018, when everything was going to go about. We all put our names on the list, but what has happened is that they’ve created their own internal dispatch system where they pick and choose. There are people who literally got their memberships a couple of months ago, and they’re going out before members who’ve been there for 20, 30 years.

There’s a lot of conflict that’s been happening there too. A lot of these jobs are cherry-picked. There seems to be a union rep named Amneet Sekhon, who has a dad in the business, Pardaman Paul Sekhon, P. Sekhon Trucking. He also has a brother Rocky, Rocman Trucking and Contracting. What’s happened. I can tell you the whole storyline.

Amneet Sekhon used to drive. He used to work for a company, BA Blacktop, for his dad. All of a sudden he gets into the union. The next thing that happened was that his dad ends up getting a direct-hire program to BA Blacktop in front of other members who are going and working for this company. The next thing you know, they get a brokerage. Then the brother gets a brokerage. Then the union goes towards a system where you have to go through a broker.

There’s a collective bargaining rate that’s involved here at Teamsters 213, but none of the members seem to be getting paid that rate. They go through a broker. They take off a service fee, and they send the other truck out. Why are the members losing on this? Where is the oversight by the Labour Ministry?

I actually had brought this up with the previous Labour Minister as well. You know, I didn’t get any answers, but I wasn’t in the House back then. This is something that’s really, really near and dear to a lot of the truckers out there right now who can’t even work on a job.

I also know that at the end of the day, if a company doesn’t get enough union trucks, what happens is they get a special agreement, a hiree for the next day that only the brokers can put forward. And it always seems to be that a certain select few brokers are the ones who get the call-outs for this. I can get you several firsthand witness testimonies. I can bring in anyone that you’d like to speak to on this.

This is a huge concern. This is the systemic nepotism that makes unions look bad. I come from a union. I do like the model. I do like workers’ rights. I agree with that. But this is blatant corruption and systemic nepotism.

I just want to know. What is the ministry doing with this? I know that several members have contacted their MLAs over the years. They’ve been neglected. I was one of them, and I know several others.

[4:55 p.m.]

I’d like to know: what are the processes that you’re doing to keep every check and balance, to make sure these unions operate properly under a collective bargaining agreement? It comes off as a great thing, but I’m telling you it is not being handled properly.

I’d like to know: what is the oversight? What does this ministry plan to do? There are a lot of truckers out there that are struggling, that have paid dues to this union, that have provided a lot — worked on the streets, the critical infrastructure that has built this province — and now, at the end of their work life, they’re being kicked to the curb.

I don’t think that’s fair, Minister. I’d like to know: what is the plan? If you can’t answer it all, I do understand. I would like something written in response that can clarify all of this.

This is a major issue in the trucking community. When you have rookie drivers that don’t even know about paving…. They can’t even back into a paver and keep it in there, and they’re hitting power lines. This is a huge concern. This drives up costs for jobs. This makes a huge safety concern for every community that trucks go and work in.

I would really like a detailed explanation on this. And I thank you very much for taking this question, Minister.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question. There was quite a lot in there. It’s quite a detailed case that obviously has some history to it that I think we would benefit from having more detail on.

What I would suggest we do is that somebody from my office reach out to the member, get the details so that we can determine whether that’s a question that the Ministry of Labour can answer with respect to oversight under the collective agreement — has there been a breach? Is there an unfair labour practice? — or whether there’s an issue related to transportation that should go to the Ministry of Transportation.

If that works okay for the member, that’s what I’d suggest we do by way of follow-up.

Harman Bhangu: I would like to know, if we do have a meeting and there is some stuff that doesn’t seem right, if you would commit to doing an audit. I do believe there needs to be somewhat of an audit done here and some checks and balances.

These are hard-working British Columbians, salt-of-the-earth-type people that have one truck to provide for their families. We saw what happened on Highway 1. I can assure you that not a single truck dispatched by those family brokers were sent to that job, because that agreement was supposed…. Usually, the Teamsters pays within 30 days. There was a special agreement given for 45 days. There are a lot of things, inconsistencies we can get into in depth in that meeting.

I thank you very much for taking the question.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: What I would say to the member is that I think the first step is, like any grievance file, we’ll go, we’ll sit down and get all of the details about what the case is. It’s not clear to me whether this is a case for Labour or for another ministry, and I want to make sure that we get the member directed to the correct ministry.

I certainly appreciate the member’s advocacy for truckers.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the member for Langley-Abbotsford for his passion for truckers in the province, as well, and I appreciate the minister taking that question.

In guidance from the Chair, I think we have time for a few more questions, so I’ll just quickly move topics here. In December of 2023, administration costs for WorkSafe overall were up $50 million — 8.8 percent up from 2022, by my count — for a total of $618 million. What I’ve read….

It says as a result for planned increase in staffing and negotiating increases in salary…. Are there updated numbers for 2024? What are WorkSafe’s projected administration costs for 2025? Of that, how many FTEs would that include?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: The number of FTEs, the full-time-equivalent employees at WorkSafe for 2024, is 3,794. Just for comparative purposes, in 2023, it was 3,593. Now, that’s an increase in staff, to be sure, and there are a number of reasons why there’s an increase in staff and an increase in administrative costs. It has to do with an increased number of claims and with an increase, as the member had noted earlier in our discussion, in the complexity of claims.

In response to our government’s determination to do everything we can to create safe work environments and to improve safety protections and provisions in the WorkSafe act for workers, that has resulted in a need to have more officers and to have more work being done, both on the prevention side and the claims side. That accounts for what the member sees with respect to the increase.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe just a follow-up question to that. In the last public report by WorkSafe that I was able to review, corporate administration increased from $78 million to $92 million. That was of the total amount that we just talked about there.

Can the minister maybe explain the $14 million increase in a single year? Are there any updated numbers for this year?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Apologies if I didn’t quite understand the member’s question or the specific reference. I’m not clear about where there is specifically a $14 million increase, but I’d be happy, if my answer doesn’t answer the question, just to take that on notice and get the information to the member.

I’m advised by the team that, again, the increases that you’re seeing in administrative corporate costs are related to salaries. They’re related to increased FTEs.

As the member will understand, there has been an increase in FTEs with respect to the work our government has done around providing protections for app-based workers, which has required additional resources, as well as more work being done with respect to claim suppression in addition to the additional resources in prevention and claims that I previously mentioned.

Kiel Giddens: I think that’s something we could follow up on after, for that specific corporate administration piece.

Maybe one last question on WorkSafe’s accounts. I noted that WorkSafe adjusted their accounting measures. They found that premium income significantly increased, from $2.278 billion to $2.686 billion. I’m wondering if the minister can explain why there was a $408 million discrepancy based on the accounting system, and how that worked.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I’m actually going to ask if the member would agree to just sending that question to us in writing so that I can have WorkSafe respond to it appropriately. We’re unsure about what accounting change the member may be referring to, and I want to make sure that we get the right piece of information back to him.

Kiel Giddens: I’d be happy to share that and follow up afterwards.

I think, with that, I’ll conclude my questions today. I want to thank the minister for this discussion we’ve had all afternoon today. I also want to thank the entire ministry and staff for all of the hard work to look after a fair and balanced employee and employer relationship, whether that’s from the safety of workers, how our workplaces are governed in a fair way and the dignity of workers.

I appreciate this work, and look forward to the time ahead when we can continue to have some of these conversations. I know we had some points of debate, but that’s part of what this is all about.

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you again to the minister.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if you would like to make any closing remarks.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I would, just a few remarks.

First, I just want to express my gratitude to the critic for his patience with this this unusual process, and my gratitude to the various Chairs that we have had this afternoon and to the Clerks who are supporting this process.

It’s definitely not an ideal way, and I would much prefer that we could have conducted estimates in person, because frankly, I really enjoy the estimates part of the job. I think it’s really important to talk about the work that we do.

I regret that you didn’t have an opportunity to actually lay eyes on the staff who are behind the scenes in the public service, both in the ministry and on the WorkSafe side, doing the work day in, day out to provide important services to British Columbians.

[5:10 p.m.]

I’m very grateful for all of their efforts this afternoon to support me through this process.

I guess I really just want to reiterate that in these times, when we live in such volatile times, and we have sort of bounced from an existential crisis in the form of the COVID-19 pandemic, in which WorkSafe, for example, played a very critical role…. Our employment standards branch played a very critical role in supporting working people.

We have now found ourselves in the midst of a complete reformulation of our global economy, and we’ve found ourselves the targets of a trade war that we certainly didn’t ask for and certainly didn’t want. I think we’re all concerned about the impact that these times have on working people — people who are looking for a decent life, for good jobs, who want to earn a living and provide for their families.

Again, there are areas where it is our relationships that will sustain us through these difficult times. There are so many challenges, to be sure, but important work ahead to make progress on the key objectives that we have around growing our economy, making sure it’s based on good jobs and making sure that those jobs are safe and that everybody comes home at the end of the day.

That is what I have dedicated a good part of my life to, and in any forum I’m working in, it is always top of mind for me. It’s what I’m going to spend my time primarily concerned with as I’m occupying this role.

Again, thank you very much to everyone for the conversation. Thanks to the critic, to his members who asked questions, to stakeholders who reached out to him and put questions forward through him.

I look forward to the work ahead, and with that, if I had a vote in the chat, I could move a vote.

The Chair: Minister, I will be moving the vote, so don’t worry.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: You’re going to move the vote? Okay. There you go.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and all members.

Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 39: ministry operations, $25,986,000 — approved.

The Chair: Minister, there is now text for…. If you could read that motion.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee is now adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:12 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 1:03 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 5 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2025
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I shall call Committee of the Whole on Bill 5, clause 6, to order.

On clause 6 (continued).

Peter Milobar: I’m just wondering what type of, if any, economic modelling was done by the ministry for moving this tax credit up to $300,000. Is there a targeted goal that’s meant to be accomplished by this move from $120,000 to $300,000, or is it just intended to be reviewed after the fact to see if, in fact, it actually is working? In other words, is there a hoped-for target in the first place?

[1:05 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We did some work in regard to some assessment of the angel investor community in the province through JEDI. Really, the goal of this is to encourage angel investment up to $1 million. We have heard from the community that there is a desire to see this raised.

As I answered previously and the member reflected back, we will be measuring this on the other side to see the impact.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

Peter Milobar: I assure the minister I’m not out to waste time with this upcoming question or anything like that. It actually lumps 7, 8 and 9 together. I do recognize 7, 8, 9 are not material changes. It’s just partly out of confusion, but also, it just seems like a confusing way to draft.

Clause 7, section 33(3) is amended by striking out, and then you strike out a couple of clauses, and substituting in 127.41(3) or 127.44(2).

Clause 8, section 33(3), so the same section is amended by now striking out the previously added 127.41(3) or 127.44(2) and substituting in 127.45(2) or 127.48(2).

Then clause 9, the same section 33(3), is amended by now striking out the previously added 127.45(2) or 127.48(2) and adding in a couple other clauses.

Why did we not just jump to clause 9? I don’t understand the legislative need. It could be a total…. It just seems like a lot of in-and-out movements, one clause after the other, to literally strike something out, add a subsection in and then literally remove that same subsection and add a different one and then remove that and add a different one in. It just seems like a bit of confusion as people try to read through this.

[1:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: So 7, 8, 9 together, these sections are about corporate installments for income tax. As the member knows, CRA…. We’re aligned with them in regard to income tax, and this is about that alignment.

It’s making sure that the corporate installments take into account the federal ITCs. Each of these three different clauses has a different commencement date, so we wanted to make sure that those ITCs were aligned with the commencement dates.

In terms of how that happened — the ins and outs, as the member described it — that’s a drafting convention to do it in that way.

Clauses 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

On clause 10.

Peter Milobar: I wanted to cut down the enthusiastic ayes coming from the government there, so I thought I should ask a question. We’ll wear them down one of these days.

Just for clarification’s sake…. This is my first question on clause 10, because I want to make sure I don’t skip past it.

As I was digging in…. We’ve had discussion in previous chambers around DigiBC. Is clause 10 the section that would start enabling some of the changes with the DigiBC tax credits, and if not, which clause would the minister refer me to on those?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: No, that section is referring to the motion picture section. IDMTC is in clause 26.

Peter Milobar: In terms of some of these changes to the definitions, why were…? We’ve had a film and production industry in B.C. for quite some time. What drove the need to bring in these specific definitions that weren’t adequately covered previously?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: What we’ve done here is we’ve….

First of all, let’s just sort of set the context for this. The film industry is a very important industry in British Columbia. Some estimates are that there are 65,000 people working in the film industry.

[1:15 p.m.]

It’s very high generating in terms of GDP and also benefits that communities all across British Columbia experience, so it’s a very important sector of our economy, and these are important workers.

We saw a downturn happening in that industry due to a couple of different factors. This is in response to that downturn, to ensure that we remain competitive and attract major productions into British Columbia. In response to that, in addition to raising the amount in the existing tax credit, we have added an additional tax credit for major production expenditure. You see that defined. And because it’s a new tax credit, essentially, that addition, we make those definitions that you see represented in that section.

I’ll also highlight for the member…. Another proposed change in this section is the question of the regional and distant location tax credits for animation productions. It’s also defined in here. And we’ve included a definition of a physical office.

So those definitions are present in clause 10.

Peter Milobar: Major productions. When I read through the definition, it’s that the expenditure for production is greater than $200 million. Obviously, that’s pretty self-explanatory in terms of what the government is hoping to drive.

I don’t dispute with the minister, to be clear, that the film industry is important to B.C. I’m not asking these questions because I think that the film industry should be ignored. We’re trying to quantify and understand the effectiveness of some tax decisions made by the government overall in regard to not just the film industry but all industry within British Columbia as we move through Bill 5.

In terms of the major production definition and the $200 million, what is the expectation, with this change and adding in this definition, that the tax changes being provided for under this definition are meaningful enough that it would tip the scales for a decision to be made to locate a movie shoot or a production of over a $200 million spend into British Columbia?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The work that was done to get to the place of recommending these particular numbers was over quite a lot of time, a long period of time. There was a presentation to the previous Finance Minister — not this April, the April prior. I believe that is the correct month.

I also attended that as Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation. There were a number of ministers in the room. That particular presentation was from all major industry heads, essentially. The Motion Picture Association of Canada, Wendy Noss, brought heads of studios from Netflix and Warner and National Geographic — many, many, many heads of studios. They provided us with what was quite helpful in terms of a schematic on where British Columbia and Canada were falling behind other jurisdictions, so that provided us a sort of jurisdictional map.

We’ve also done comparisons internally, looking at competitiveness with other provinces and with the United States. Essentially, the numbers that we’ve reached are those that we feel will keep us competitive and able to attract these important productions into British Columbia, supporting workers in this sector and the many small businesses and hotels and restaurants that benefit from having these productions made here.

There’s also a new line of revenue that is interesting, which is tourism that’s associated with the film industry. We see this as a huge growth area and an area that can continue to drive forward this sector.

I will mention, also, in regard to the changes in clause 8 for the regional and distant location tax credits, my particular interest in ensuring that that tax credit was in place is that I think it’s really important that these industries are able to be successful not just in the Lower Mainland but in all regions of the province.

Peter Milobar: I recognize we’re in definitions, so I don’t want to get too bogged down on more granular, I guess, especially around major productions. I’ll just ask to make sure I am, once again, reading the bill correctly so we don’t skip past a clause that I’ll save those more granular questions for.

The bulk of the major production actual tax credits being implemented, though, are in clause 16. Is that correct?

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, the actual credit is in 16, the additional credit. But there are subsequent clauses that are relevant to the credit that follow.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

Peter Milobar: In terms of this, just a question or two.

What is the cost expectation of this clause to the treasury? This is retroactive to December 31, 2024.

I won’t relitigate carbon tax and retroactivity with the minister. But I am curious what the overall calculation…. It must be a fairly accurate one, I would assume, given that we should know, roughly, what had been claimed in the year leading up to where we are right now or was anticipated to be claimed and then what that would mean, moving forward.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Clause 11 refers to Film Incentive B.C., the domestic film incentive, and that cost is $4 million.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

[1:30 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: This clause seems to set out the rules for regional location tax credits, which would change what’s commonly known as the 30-mile zone outside of Vancouver.

It appears it’s 12 percent of the B.C. labour cost that’s outside of Vancouver for animation. How did the minister land at 12 percent?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The 12.5 percent tax rate was actually introduced in 1998. This section is in regard to reintroducing it for the regional animation tax credit.

Peter Milobar: So its real intention is just to level the playing field. That’s what I’m hearing.

I was going to get into detail on the QLE times RLE over TLE, but I think we’ll just leave that calculation for those in the industry that understand what all the abbreviations are.

Same question on 11 as with 12: what is the anticipated dollar figure attached to this tax change?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Clauses 12 to 15 are in regard to the regional animation tax credit. In total, the cost is $2 million.

Peter Milobar: I take that answer as the cumulative cost of 12, 13, 14 and 15, all added together. That’s in addition to the $4 million from section 11, I’m assuming.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: That is correct.

Peter Milobar: Just in the interest of time, then, I’m assuming that the rates set out in 13, 14 and 15 are in keeping with the same, just to standardize, essentially, the rates across B.C.? It’s what the current rate is, and now this expands it out to the rest of the province as well?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes.

Clauses 12 to 15 inclusive approved.

On clause 16.

Peter Milobar: We’re back to the first part of major productions, in terms of the actual tax changes. Is this tax change intended to attract one production a year? Does it hope for two productions a year? What’s the expectation in those conversations between the ministry and the industry as to what a tax change like this would reasonably attract based on a spend of $200 million plus per production?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This is an area where the Ministry of Finance and my colleagues in government have had to be very careful. The reason for that is that we can take information from the film industry and other advocates on what their expectations and goals are — their competitive analysis and the information they want to share with us.

We cannot share with them what we’re considering and what we may or may not do. These decisions on taxation could be market-impacting decisions. Therefore, there was no such conversation about what may or may not come here, should we move forward with these tax changes. Also, it means, then, that it’s very difficult to estimate without being able to have those conversations.

For the purposes of this tax, we have designed the major production tax credit to be a very high bar. Only the most expensive products in the world would qualify. If you think about the most popular things on any of the streaming services, those are the types of productions that we’re targeting to attract to British Columbia.

For the goal of estimating the cost of this, we’ve made the assumption that we might be able to attract two of those, and that’s the assumption that we’ve made.

Peter Milobar: I’m assuming that’s recognizing that these productions can take quite some time to actually start and finish.

Just to clarify, is that two productions per year, or is that two productions under production at any given time? Or two productions in addition to what we are already seeing arrive in B.C. for production in the first place?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I think probably the best way to describe this is that at any given slice of one year, there would be one to two productions, we expect, and the slice of that year, one to two productions…. It may be, in fact, the same production, but for the fiscal lens, we’re looking at it in a 12-month period.

Peter Milobar: Is the intention to have that be an additional one to two productions or just to maintain what we currently have?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I would say that this new major production tax credit is actually to ensure that we continue to have major productions made in British Columbia, and my concern that without this, we would go to zero. So it would be to continue what we saw prior to 2001, 2002, a very strong film sector, and to ensure that we remain competitive and can attract those major productions.

Peter Milobar: I’m assuming you need to fall into one category or the other. In other words, you’re either a major production, or you’re not. You can’t be a major production and tap into other levels of tax credits to do with B.C. labour expenditures, and then this is over and above that. Is that the case?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, this is a top-up for productions that are over that threshold.

Peter Milobar: So just to be absolutely clear, then, the tax credits that are attached to the qualified B.C. labour expenditures that are in place — this is 2 percent over and above those expenditures. This is what I heard the minister say, which is understandable. So in terms of this, it sounds like it’s more of a maintain than expand.

This appeared to be the very first course of action. There were, I think, a couple of ministers, several staff that jetted down to L.A. right after cabinet was sworn in. The first big announcement was changes to the industry for tax.

Was this already in the works pre-election? That seems like a pretty fast tax announcement to be making, for a brand-new Minister of Finance to sign off on, let alone for a government that is talking about working its way back to a balanced budget with the first order of business. I can understand going down to make connections with new ministers, but it seemed to be a very fast tax announcement in terms of that.

So was this something that had been previously in the works with the previous government and got finalized post-election — which again, I get; governments continue on — or was this, essentially, done very quickly after the cabinet was sworn in?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There are a couple of things I would like to say in regard to this question.

One is my civil service associates have advised me that during the interregnum period, it’s very common for bureaucrats to work on all of the platform commitments from various parties as they make them, knowing that whoever is elected, there will be a rush to accomplish some of those commitments. So yes, there is some work that was occurring even during that interregnum period in a non-partisan, broad kind of way, I would say.

In regard to: was this something being considered, I will share with you, of course, that I was in that meeting a year ago, April, where we received information on our lack of competitiveness. Of course, we had heard from many people in the industry, even knocking on doors in my riding, who were not working and were film workers. So we do know that there were many people who were feeling the lack of films coming into British Columbia.

That, in fact, is the challenge that this legislation is designed to address. So I think those really are the components. This legislation was being considered and was included in budget through consultation and through modelling, and that’s why we’ve included it.

Peter Milobar: I wasn’t trying to give the impression that there would be anything wrong with any of that type of work being done. Like I say, I fully recognize that tax policy has to be developed over time.

In terms of the $200 million being the threshold to trigger the spend, it’s not $200 million, obviously, on B.C.-based labour. What is the expectation…? What does the modelling the government based its decision on show the percentage of that $200 million being for B.C.-based, qualified B.C. labour expenditures?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m advised that it’s usually about two-thirds of that $2 million, or around $1.2 million, that would be labour.

In regard to what is eligible, B.C. production costs include costs not only related to B.C. labour but any services rendered in B.C., in addition to any goods purchased and used in B.C. in respect of the production. The legislation also includes specified types of costs that are ineligible.

Peter Milobar: Just to be clear, then, all of those additional costs would form part of that $120 million, or is that over and above that as well?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I do want to take a moment to correct. I misspoke and said 1.2 when I was talking about $120 million. Allow me to reframe that.

So $120 million of the $200 million is likely to be labour costs. Excuse me for misspeaking. And I’ve lost my train of thought. One moment.

Thank you. Pardon me.

The way that it works, I understand, is that the costs that I listed to the member in the previous answer get you to the $200 million mark, but the actual calculation on what you receive for rebate is based on the $120 million labour spent.

Peter Milobar: That was my interpretation. That’s why, when I heard the minister’s first answer, I just wanted to clarify to make sure we were all talking about the same thing.

So $120 million worth of labour per shoot — this is hoping for one to two shoots. Even if we just say it’s only one per year, as I read this, this is a 2 percent tax break.

Can the minister then explain why on page 59 there’s only $1 million budgeted for this year? That would be about a $50 million labour spend, which would be nowhere near a $200 million major film production based on the ratios we’ve heard, not even remotely in the realm of hitting that threshold.

How could the ministry create a tax and a tax benefit, based on the answers they’ve just given, and only budget for, essentially, a third of what would be needed even for one production, let alone if we were attaining the two productions, even on a rolling average that the minister was talking about?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I think the component that’s missing in the member’s analysis is just that it’s a question of timeline. So principal photography goes back to that January 1 date, but in fact, the actual filming and when the tax credit will be claimed is about 18 months down the line. That’s why you’re not seeing it reflected in this budget.

At the time that we’re bringing this in, there are no productions at the level that would qualify. So this is going to be reflected in future years.

Peter Milobar: I’m just making sure that I’m understanding the lay of how to claim these, the ground moving forward. Again, I assure the minister, if I cover it ahead of time, I’m not going to come back to it when we get to the clause.

So the overall concept of this, because as we get into certification and being able to revoke certification and repayment…. Is the intention then for the ministry that film productions will only be claiming this when they finish production or as they are producing on a rolling basis and that’s the reason that we would need those other certifications and an ability to revoke ability to claim back?

Is it a cash flow for the production, or is it at the very end, you meet the threshold and we’ll give you a big lump sum payment back at the end?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I will just direct the member to clause 16, that it is when it’s completed. And yes, it is a lump sum payment.

Clauses 16 to 24 inclusive approved.

On clause 25.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move the amendment to clause 25 in my name on the orders of the day.

[CLAUSE 25, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

25 Section 131 (1) is amended by adding the following paragraphs:

(a) in subsection (1), by adding the following paragraphs:

(j) prescribing as an eligible apprenticeship program an apprenticeship program designed to certify or license an individual in a trade prescribed in respect of British Columbia for the purposes of the definition of “eligible apprentice” in section 127 (9) of the federal Act;

(k) for the purposes of section 120, establishing requirements for an eligible apprenticeship program as level 1 apprenticeship requirements;

(l) for the purposes of section 120, establishing requirements for an eligible apprenticeship program as level 2 apprenticeship requirements. , and

(b) by repealing subsection (2) and substituting the following:

(2) In making regulations under subsection (1) (d) to (g), (k) and (l), the Commissioner of Income Tax may do one or more of the following:

(a) establish different requirements for different

(i) eligible recognized programs,

(ii) eligible training programs, and

(iii) eligible apprenticeship programs;

(b) define classes of eligible recognized programs, eligible training programs and eligible apprenticeship programs and make different regulations for different classes of those programs;

(c) adopt a level of requirements established by SkilledTradesBC for an eligible recognized program, eligible training program or eligible apprenticeship program

(i) in whole, in part or with any changes considered appropriate, and

(ii) as it stands at a specific date, as it stands at the time of adoption or as amended from time to time.]

On the amendment.

Peter Milobar: It’s quite a lengthy amendment in terms of what got added in. I guess I would ask the minister how such a hefty chunk got missed in the original thing and what triggered the need for this size of an amendment. It’s not a slight formatting error by the looks of it. It’s a whole other section, “by repealing subsection (2) and substituting the following....” Everything, pretty much, is underlined, which means it’s all getting changed.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I will share with the member that legislative counsel highlighted, after the bill was tabled, that this change was required. The amendment is intended to provide the Commissioner of Income Tax with the necessary regulation-making powers to implement the changes to the training tax credit for apprentices and the enhanced credit for Indigenous peoples and persons with a disability, announced as part of Budget 2025.

Amendment approved.

Clause 25 as amended approved.

On clause 26.

Peter Milobar: Just a couple of questions around the DigiBC tax changes. Again, I want to make sure the minister hears this and the public hears it very clearly. These aren’t questions opposed to DigiBC. These are questions trying to….

Interjection.

Peter Milobar: Again, we’re not opposed to DigiBC. We’re not opposed to their lobbying efforts.

Would the minister like the floor?

The Chair: Remember, through the Chair, Members.

Peter Milobar: We’re not opposed, obviously, to the virtual and digital development space, and we recognize that DigiBC is the dominant lobbying voice for that industry. I’ve toured many locations myself and the great work that they do.

This is really, as with previous questions around the film industry and others, trying to understand government decision-making on some tax credits for some and not for others. It’s not about being for or against per se.

I guess the question I have is that going back and doing some of my research on this…. For the public at home, there’s myself and a researcher, and that researcher shares about five or six other critics that are doing estimates at the same times as well. I don’t have the level of staffing the minister does to do some of this research, and that’s not even meant to be…. It’s a statement of fact, and that’s the way it works regardless of who is government and who is opposition. It’s just the way it is across the country, actually.

But the current tax credit for this sector is 17½ percent. There’s been an ask and a thanking to the government for the tax breaks up to 2028. I’m just wondering: is the break, the 17½, what is in effect up until 2028, or have there already been temporary provisions provided up to the 25 percent up until 2028?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The correction I was trying to make to the member, inappropriately speaking it out instead of standing, was that this is not called the DigiBC tax credit. This is called the interactive digital media tax credit, for all interactive digital media companies in British Columbia, of which there are many.

The member’s question in regard to timing of the tax credit changing from 17.5 percent to 25 percent…. That change occurs on September 1, 2025, and as part of this legislation, we’ve also removed the sunset clause for this tax credit.

Peter Milobar: I guess that’s what I’m trying to wrap my head around. Is the current tax rate 17½ percent, and without this, it would stay at 17½ percent? Or is it at 25 percent, and it’s really a sunset clause that is being removed with this clause?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Prior to these changes, the tax credit was at 17.5 percent, which would have continued until the sunset clause date. This change changes the number from 17.5 percent to 25 percent as of September 1, 2025, and there is no sunset clause.

Peter Milobar: Thank you for that, then.

What was the impetus from going…? If the 17½ percent was what was in place and was going to be in place until 2028, what was the impetus, what was the input provided to the government that created the need to go to 25 percent and remove any sunset clause?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: So 17.5 percent is one of the lowest rates — in fact, is the lowest rate — in Canada of provinces that have an interactive digital media tax credit, in comparison with other areas that have a large video game industry. For example, in Quebec and in Ontario, the credits range between 40 and 50 percent.

It’s also been made known to us, and it’s something I’m familiar with from my own work in the industry, that a sunset clause is a limiter to investment and that not having a sunset clause facilitates decisions to invest in the province rather than having the uncertainty as to whether the incentive will continue.

Peter Milobar: I guess what I’m wondering…. There are several tax credits we’ve already discussed and more to come, and I’m trying to get the lay of the land for how best groups and industry have been making their case to government, in terms of tax credits that they’re seeking.

There are a lot of industries out there that don’t see themselves reflected in this budget or in Bill 5, and they’re curious. They’ve asked me, in my conversations with them since Bill 5 was tabled, as to: “What’s our best course of action?” So that’s really the spirit and the intent of some of these questions in terms of trying to figure this out.

Was it presentations to the Finance Committee that drove this change to 25 percent? Was it just individual conversations with people in the sector? Was it formal lobbying by government relations people? What was the discussion that led to the decision point to go from 17½ percent to 25 percent? What was that information request input into the minister and the ministry that led to these specific changes?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Industry representatives have let us know the competitive landscape that B.C. finds itself in. The current 17.5 percent is quite low when compared to other provinces: Manitoba, 35 to 40 percent; Ontario, 35 to 40; Quebec, 37.5 percent. But there are additional top-ups available if you own the IP: Nova Scotia, 30 to as high as 60 percent; Newfoundland and Labrador, 40 percent.

In regard to the work to have this change happen, it aligns with industry recommendations on how the government can support the growth of the province’s interactive digital media sector. The tax credit helps interactive digital media companies attract top talent to the province. These people bring technical skills that are in demand in other related sectors, and they very oftentimes go on to start their own high-tech companies in British Columbia.

Additionally, the tax credit supports the creation and retention of high-value jobs in B.C., generating tax revenue that far exceeds the cost of the credit. For example…. Sorry if there are a couple of different examples, but I think the member gets where I’m going with that.

Peter Milobar: Again, I don’t take issue with trying to make industry and tech competitive with the rest of Canada, let alone North America. There are finite dollars available. We’ve heard government’s want and desire to make sure that film and production are competitive, that the digital space is competitive.

As Bill 5 was being assembled and decisions were being made as to whether or not to remove the sunset clause and increase the tax credit to digital media, was there any comparison to any other industries?

I think of forestry in particular. I know when I’ve talked with representatives in there, even at the $5 million cost that this tax credit is slated for as an increase, they’ve indicated that they have $5 million programs that would have greatly enhanced their industry, and the list goes on and on.

There is a wide range of industries that would say the exact same thing back that the minister just laid out in terms of rates and tax credits and competitiveness on a wide range of provinces versus them and the rest of the country.

Were any of those comparisons looked at when decisions were being made in relation to creating the tax credit increase for digital media as opposed to other industries that have been making the same requests through the same channels for as many years, if not longer?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I would say that there are a number of different tools available in the government toolbox to support different industries and many different ways that we do that. For example, PST reduction on machinery. Specific to the forestry industry, one example would be our manufacturing jobs fund, a $185 million fund, half of which was geared specifically to forestry and has made some significant investments in many forestry companies in the province.

I know that the Forests Minister is working very closely with the forestry sector, and there’s more work to do there. It’s a deeply, deeply important sector in our province, and it, in fact, built our province. I do expect there’s more work happening there.

In regard to this particular question, our budget prepares us to carefully navigate the uncharted waters of tariffs. The lens that we were bringing in as we were making decisions for this budget was really about putting people first and protecting businesses as we build a stronger and more self-sufficient future. That lens was very affixed as we were making decisions about what we can move on quite quickly in terms of supporting sectors that are providing high-paying jobs for British Columbians, family-supporting jobs.

We know that as the threat of tariffs continues and rolls out, Ottawa will have first line and that we’ll be filling in any gaps through our contingencies. I would just add that to the discussion about decisions in this bill.

Peter Milobar: Thank you for that, but the programs listed by the minister are not new. Those are existing, yet we still have industries that are non-competitive. That’s the whole premise of why the increase to the digital space in clause 26, according to the minister, is to make them competitive.

One could argue, in the current realm, based on what the President has said over the last week, that suddenly digital and film are under threat of tariffs, but that was not in the forefront of people’s minds certainly back when this budget was being created. It was much more traditional industry that would have been at the forefront.

In fact, forestry has been under a softwood assault of duties for eight years. So it’s not a perceived threat; it’s very real. In fact, a schedule of increases that was laid out by the Biden-Harris administration is set to take effect very shortly.

I can appreciate the minister trying to push over to the tariff angle, but nothing in this Bill 5 would indicate that is the case in terms of trying to shelter and weather industries that would be much more highly exposed to tariffs up until what’s transpired in the last week, which was the first time any of that’s been mentioned. And it’s debatable, given the complexities of film production, as we’ve seen even with this bill, how a tariff would even somehow be levied. So that is an interesting answer.

Again, back to the minister on this. I’m truly not trying to belabour the digital space here on this, because they do great things. The minister is absolutely right. A lot of the technology bleeds over to industry. Some of our highest tech areas in the province are mines and forest companies and things of that nature.

[2:20 p.m.]

I totally agree with the sentiment that it’s not just about video games. It’s about a wide range of crossover and laddering of technologies to do things that maybe people hadn’t thought of in the first place, and then it is a net benefit to B.C.

I guess, just for clarification, though, this sounds like it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Everyone comes with their own history and expertise to this place in terms of various work experience and life experience, education experience that they’ve had in the past. A lot of the tax breaks we’ve previously dealt with, and this one, are much more in the realm of a space where the minister felt much more comfortable making quick decisions, having more broader knowledge in those areas than some of the others, and has decided that is the first tranche of tax breaks to come.

The $5 million difference in this tax break for the digital space…. What has been the modelling, then, done in terms of the overall expectation for growth within the industry and the net benefit to the provincial treasury by providing this $5 million tax break to the digital space?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There was a historic lens applied in terms of looking at how many jobs would be created, as well as forecasting assumptions on where the industry is. But I will mention to the member that this is an industry where we’re seeing job losses. This is really about trying to ebb that flow and ensure that B.C. retains its robust and important interactive digital media sector.

Clauses 26 to 29 inclusive approved.

On clause 30.

Peter Milobar: This appears to be a clause reducing the tax if someone is bringing a vehicle into B.C. There’s also discussion in the budget around removing the rebate to electric vehicle used car tax and making those fully taxable.

Now, I don’t see that specifically in the provisions of this. I’m just wanting to clarify. There’s this section, which is dealing with a standard vehicle or any vehicle coming in from out of province. But this does not specifically deal with the removing of the tax exemption for used electric vehicles. I don’t see that reflected in the bill.

Is that because there’s not needed to be a legislative change, or have I just missed the clause? That could be what happened, so it’s kind of a two-part question.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Correct. This is not in regard to the ZEV exemption that was repealed. This is in regard to a circumstance that…. Essentially, it provides clarification that tax is not due again on vehicles that are brought back to B.C. and re-registered by the same owner.

You could imagine a scenario where someone leaves British Columbia, lives in Ontario, moves back to B.C. They wouldn’t be required to pay this tax. Essentially, it would be a double tax. So this is a technical amendment. ICBC already doesn’t charge tax again in these scenarios. So it’s not actually a change; it’s a correction.

Peter Milobar: I’ll come back to the EVs after. Let me just make sure I understand the workings of this, because I read it a totally different way. It only applies….

I’ll use myself as an example. I own a vehicle. I move to Ontario. I take the vehicle with me. I move back to B.C. I would be exempt from that situation. But if I buy a vehicle in Ontario and bring it to B.C. with me, I would still trigger the differential of tax, though?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: That is correct.

Peter Milobar: And it’s just on the differential, not on the full value of the vehicle?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’ve been informed that it’s a situation where you would attract the tax in moving to British Columbia and attract the rebate in the province that you’ve left.

Peter Milobar: Has any modelling been done, then, on this taxation, this change, but the existing taxes as well, in relation to the new-car EV sales mandate? And I say new-car sales mandate because that’s what it is. It was made very clear when the mandate was brought in by legislation that used ICE vehicles, combustion vehicles, coming into B.C.….

There’s no prohibition on their sales, and in fact, that can happen. In other words, you can have a one- or two-year-lease vehicle return from Saskatchewan getting loaded up on rigs and brought over to B.C. for sale, and that’s fine. We can have a lot of used cars on sales lots and not a lot of new ones unless it’s an electric vehicle.

How does this tax then take effect or not take effect if those situations start to happen and we no longer have new-vehicle sales in this province, just strictly used vehicle sales that, based on this provision, would mean that the treasury would no longer see that tax coming in?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This provision just makes sure that there’s no duplication of taxes. Just so the member understands, this is sort of a legislative tidy-up. It’s a technical change in terms of the administration and the experience of the consumer. This provides no change, and it’s been administrated in this way by ICBC since 2013.

Peter Milobar: In terms of the elimination of the exemption for used EV vehicles, then, I clearly remember that coming through as a piece of legislation. I’m just wondering why it’s not… Again, I don’t see it reflected in this legislation. I was unaware that it was left to regulation, moving forward.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: That has already been repealed by regulation and has been posted and is not part of this legislation.

Clauses 30 to 32 inclusive approved.

On clause 33.

Peter Milobar: I’m just trying to get some clarification around these changes. It’s a school tax exemption for land owned or occupied by First Nations. What my understanding was: if it was land already considered in reserve, it would be exempt from things like school taxes and hospital taxes, things of that nature. Did I have an incorrect understanding of the current situation?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member is correct. In a situation where a school exists on reserve lands, it would be exempt from taxes. That, of course, is in relation to the federal government.

This clause is in relation to exempting the provincial school tax, an exemption on places where First Nations are on traditional lands that are not part of reserves and provides the tax exemption in that circumstance.

[2:35 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: Just to be clear, though, this is not about taxing schools, in particular. This is about the school tax charged on a parcel of land.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: That’s correct.

Peter Milobar: I assumed that’s what the minister said, a school on reserve land, but I just wanted to make sure we were 100 percent talking about the same thing.

Okay, with a lot of what has been going on with reconciliation over the last several years, there are ever-growing pockets of First Nations–owned and –controlled lands that are not in what would have been under the old Indian Act considered their reserve land or designated as reserve land.

It can be up to a 20-year process to put it into reserve, so I get why that becomes very problematic for Indigenous nations and very frustrating for them once they’ve acquired a chunk of Crown land or private land that they would like to add in.

What does this exemption do overall, then? What is the expectation, on a yearly basis, in terms of school taxes collected by the provincial government, in terms of those revenues? Now, I fully understand this doesn’t impact municipalities. This section, in particular, doesn’t. I know it’s just a flow-through. The municipalities collect the school tax and then transmit it back to the government. I’m aware of how that works at a high level.

What is the overall hit to school taxation? Is the expectation, then, that…? If there’s no hit, is that because there’ll be a readjustment of mill rates for the other properties with their school taxation to make up the difference?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’ll just share with the member the notes that I have on this particular clause, the reason for the change. This change is a result of collaborative engagement with First Nations, and it represents an important step forward on the path for reconciliation.

[2:40 p.m.]

The province recognizes that lands transferred through acts of reconciliation are not intended to be a financial burden to the First Nations recipients, and imposing taxes on properties that do not operate in the commercial mainstream is inconsistent with reconciliation objectives.

Before the Land Title Act and Property Law Act amendments took effect on May 21, 2024, bands, under the Indian Act, were not able to legally hold land and instead were required to hold land indirectly, with a corporation being one of the vehicles.

This regulation-making power gives the province flexibility to designate certain organizations as being excluded from or included in the definition of “government organization,” to avoid unintended consequences.

Peter Milobar: I appreciate that, but this is going into legislation, and it’s the way it will be, moving forward.

I want to be 100 percent clear. I’m not arguing against Indigenous nations finding ways to have their own economic development, growth, land development and all that. I’m not disputing that in the least. I’m really, on a cold, clinical level, trying to figure out what the provincial treasury implications of this clause are, not just in this year but moving forward, and how well it has been thought out or vetted by the government.

It shows only a $2 million impact. That’s not even in this fiscal; it’s for next fiscal, despite the fact that it takes effect on December 31, 2025.

Oh, that makes sense. Sorry, I was thinking December 31, 2024, because everything else has been retroactive, to this point. Hey, we’ve got one that’s not retroactive. How about that? There we go. At any rate, it’s $2 million in the first year.

I’m assuming, and perhaps the minister can confirm, that when this was developed, lands like the Jericho lands which are owned by MST — which would be considered a corporation, I believe, under this clause — would be subject to these provisions, and no longer would any of that development be subject to school tax being paid back to the provincial government. Is that correct?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This exemption only applies to lands that are vacant and are used for cultural and/or community purposes.

Peter Milobar: Okay, so that means no housing, no anything. I missed that section in this lengthy thing; I will openly admit that side of it. That makes much more sense, then, for why it’s at the $2 million range.

[2:45 p.m.]

In the process for First Nations to apply for this, will it just be a simple waiver that they need to sign? Will it be a yearly waiver, or how will that unfold?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This is ongoing work. My understanding is that it’s work with B.C. Assessment, and a determination will be made, on an annual basis, in a proactive way.

Peter Milobar: Just to jump back a question. I guess I’m just trying to wrap my head around…. I get what the minister says in terms of the explanation. The explanatory note on the side says it “exempts from taxation under the Act specified land and improvements, if they are land that has no present use or if they are used by First Nations exclusively for cultural or community purposes.”

The “exclusively for cultural or community purposes” is pretty straightforward. “Land and improvements,” however, gets a little trickier because, typically, on assessments, improvements refers to buildings. I think if you have a property tax exemption in a city, it’s typically at the rate of whatever it was before improvements were made. Either the facade was changed, or a floor was added to the building — anything like that. The assessed value goes up. You pay on what it currently was.

In this case, subsection 4 applies to the following: “land and improvements (i) that were disposed of, for the purposes of reconciliation, by the government or a government organization to one or more First Nations.”

That doesn’t sound like it’s vacated improvements per se; it’s still a building. Surely it’s not the expectation of the government that if they transferred, for means of reconciliation, land that had improvements on it, these would sit dormant or vacant unless they were going to be used for cultural purposes? I’m thinking if there happens to be housing on it or things of that nature — or commercial space, for that matter. It could just be how I’m interpreting, but it seems semi-contradictory or confusing.

I’m just wondering how exactly this would reasonably be interpreted by First Nations, moving forward, if they would not be having one expectation that any and all lands and use on that land would not be subject to school tax, yet the government’s interpretation is much different when it comes to the word “improvements,” which, for B.C. Assessment purposes, has a pretty specific meaning, when you get your property tax bill or your property tax assessment, for land and improvements.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: My understanding, and this is the way that it is expressed in this legislation, is really that you can think of it as two buckets, in a way. Either the land is vacant, or if the land is not, the buildings on the land would be used for cultural purposes or community, not commercial purposes, not a house that is a dwelling. Those are the two buckets: either could be vacant or could be used for cultural or community purposes.

Peter Milobar: It does say that in (4)(b): “land and improvements that are used by a First Nation referred to in subsection (3), exclusively for cultural or community purposes and not for any business, commercial or industrial purposes.”

In (5), though, it does say: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows: (a) prescribing corporations or other organizations, or classes of corporations or other organizations, for the purposes of the definition of ‘government organization’ in subsection (1); (b) prescribing societies or not-for-profit corporations for the purposes of subsection 3 (d) (i) and (e) (i) (D).”

Those two seem fairly straightforward.

Then: “(c) prescribing land and improvements, or classes of land and improvements, for the purposes of subsection (4) (c).” And 4(c) is: “land and improvements that are prescribed or are in a prescribed class of land and improvements.”

Is (5), and (5)(c) in particular, enabling by way of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to be able to designate different improvements or classes of land that would be exempt? For the purposes of subsection 4(c), (4) is: “The following, as described in subsection (3), are exempt from taxation under this act.”

So is (5) creating the ability, by way of regulation, for some of those uses that may be on land right now to change just by way of regulation, not by way of legislation, moving forward?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: These regulation-making powers give the province the flexibility to designate certain organizations as being excluded from or included in the definition of “government organization” to avoid unintended consequences. It’s really about the challenge of defining cultural or community purposes and provides us some flexibility to work with nations on that particular aspect.

Peter Milobar: Granted, it was a bit of a longer question, but I get (a) and (b). That, as I say, seems pretty straightforward, and it ties back to the definitions.

However, (c) is giving, it appears, by way of regulation power to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, “prescribing land and improvements, or classes of lands and improvements, for the purposes of subsection (4) (c),” which is to make them exempt. This appears to be worded in such a way that it would enable, by way of regulation, lands that have other uses on them to be made exempt — by way of regulation, not legislation. I’m just trying to confirm that.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: That’s correct. This gives cabinet the ability to work with designations that might not fall exactly into the description but are intended for cultural and community purposes.

Peter Milobar: Well, intentions are great, but governments come and go, and ministers come and go. I’ve always been one to try to figure out what the full scope of power is in a piece of legislation. This goes back to even when I was the Environment critic, and we had bills come forward. What one minister’s hope or one Premier’s or one cabinet’s intentions are does not necessarily, obviously, bind future…. But the language does, or the flexibility does.

Again, just to be clear, if a future cabinet wanted to…. I’m not trying to single out any one development. I’m not going to on this because it’s not really about any one development. This is provincewide, obviously.

There’s vacant land. There’s land that would currently be considered exempt from school taxes. It gets slated for development. The government decides, “Well, we’re in a housing crisis. This will help with housing. We are going to enable those types of improvements on land to qualify,” even though they’re not cultural, they’re not ceremonial, they’re not anything like that. They’re housing.

Can that be done — by way of regulation, not legislation — once (5)(c) passes, moving forward?

[3:00 p.m.]

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I think the important thing to recognize in the example that the member has raised is that it must still be held and occupied by the First Nation.

Chair, I know you’ve just joined us, but may I request a ten-minute bio break?

The Chair: Members, we will now take a ten-minute recess. It’s now 3:05. We’ll reconvene at 3:15.

The committee recessed from 3:05 p.m. to 3:17 p.m.

[Nina Krieger in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 5, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025, back to order. We are on clause 33.

Peter Milobar: When we left, I was trying to get clarification around if housing was put on lands, if future cabinets could, by way of regulation, make those lands then be eligible for the school tax exemption. The minister’s answer was that the lands will still have to be held or occupied by First Nations. That’s pretty self-evident, frankly, given that this whole act is about First Nations owning land that’s off reserve. That didn’t really answer the question around housing.

If a development on non-reserve land is created and housing is a part of that, does cabinet, by way of provisions in (5)(c), now have the regulatory authority to change the provisions of these tax changes so that those lands, those housing units could be exempt from the provincial school tax?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: No. Two components. Just reminding the member, we’re speaking about land that has been transferred to a First Nation as part of a reconciliation agreement.

To the member’s question about whether through 33(4)(c) there could be the ability to build housing that would then be exempted from the school tax, we believe the answer is no. This housing would then be occupied by people, by First Nations or by someone else, and that’s not included here. This is specific to the First Nations governance, so we do not see the possibility of what you’re describing occurring.

Peter Milobar: Again, I can appreciate what the minister is saying, but this is also enabling corporations, as the minister rightly pointed out. These are typically developments that are done, lands that are developed by First Nations, but they do have to set up a development arm to legally be allowed to do it.

As strange as that might sound to the public, it’s the weird bureaucratic federal quagmire that First Nations need to navigate through to try to bring some sort of economic stability to their own development wishes and economic growth moving forward on non-reserve land. And the reserve land is a whole other ball of wax for them to deal with.

That’s why I’m just trying to really get to the root of all of this. We’ve heard from people, and I think it was with the improvements piece that people have that concern, because as I say, when you read an assessment thing, “there’s your land” and “there are your improvements” are two totally different delineated things within a B.C. assessment. They get added together. Your mill rate gets applied to that.

So what the minister is saying is that it does not matter, moving forward. There is no ability other than by way of coming in with new amending legislation to add housing to this as an exemption for school taxation. That would have to be done — full stop — by way of an amending piece of legislation. There’s no regulatory framework within this at all to change and start to allow housing, whether it be Indigenous-occupied housing or just market housing that Indigenous companies and corporations are providing by way of, essentially, their own REITs or their own type of rental housing stock to the broader community.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: That is correct. There’s a small caveat in that as soon as it becomes occupied, then it would be outside of this legislation. So essentially, it’s not possible.

Peter Milobar: Sorry. I’m not trying to be difficult here, but the caveat could be quite meaningful. Can the minister explain what she means by “as soon as it becomes occupied”? Again, I’m asking specifically about housing. “Occupied” can have a lot of different connotations out in the public. “Occupied” for First Nations could have a totally different connotation.

What exactly is that? My understanding was the land is owned by an Indigenous corporation — i.e., a band or some other Indigenous entity that has a corporation. They’ve acquired a chunk of land that has to either be vacant or being used for cultural and community purposes. That is exempt. Obviously, a cultural centre would be occupied by that company and that corporation that’s operating it.

Again, I’m trying to drill into much more specifics around the housing side. That caveat…. I just need some clarification around it.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I use that term not in a legal sense but in terms of as opposed to vacant.

Peter Milobar: Again, there’s vacant land that is still owned that would be considered tax exempt from school tax because it’s vacant land under this change. There is land that would have a cultural centre on it, and that would be considered exempt from taxation, school taxation as well.

So both of those could be potentially owned by that same corporate entity that’s First Nations–owned. That’s where that occupied…. Technically, the vacant land is owned, so it’s occupied. It’s occupied by a corporation, even though they don’t have any physical structures on it.

I’m just trying to get 100 percent clarification that “occupied” does not mean occupied in the sense of as soon as it becomes occupied with housing, it’s also exempt. It’s that it has to stay vacant. It has to stay vacant, or it has to stay with a cultural centre on it. It isn’t subject to school taxation if it’s got an industrial park on it or operations or commercial operations.

I say that because when you go into the prescribed classes of property regulation, it’s very clear. If you just read the first start of it, it says housing and hotels and everything is class 1, which would be B.C. Assessment. I get that.

However, when you drill into that in section 1(i)(c) of it, it very clearly does not include housing. That’s why I’m just trying to really get that tight clarification here, that it has been truly exempted.

The root of it all is that it cannot, in the future, be changed by regulation. It has to be some form of amending legislation that has to come to the Legislature.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, it would be true that it would require an amending piece of legislation for what the member is describing and that there are two categories captured here. One is vacant property, vacant building, vacancy, or cultural or community use. Those are the exemptions.

Clause 33 approved.

On clause 34.

Peter Milobar: This is enabling, essentially, TransLink to increase the parking tax rate 5 percent. I looked on 59, but it doesn’t give you any breakdown. It just says asterisks. So how much revenue is this projected to bring in for TransLink?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this because the member’s party very much misrepresented what this was during second reading debate, suggesting that everyone coming down to Vancouver to have dinner would be paying more for street parking, and so on and so forth. None of which was true.

What we’re talking about here is off-street parking. This allows TransLink to increase the amount they charge in their paid parking lots. This is in response to a request from TransLink. Off-street parking does not include metered street parking, long-term vehicle storage, a resident’s primary parking spaces and parking sites purchased for 28 consecutive days or more for vehicles solely for business purposes.

Where it does apply: the TransLink off-street parking tax applies to the TransLink service area of Metro Vancouver. This includes the North Shore, Vancouver, UBC, Bowen Island, Burnaby, Richmond, Delta and a number of others.

So how much will this revenue raise, as the member has asked? The amendment increases the maximum rate that TransLink can choose to charge on off-street parking. Currently it’s 24 percent. This allows them to go as high as 29 percent through the bylaw. If TransLink raises the rate from 24 percent to 29 percent, TransLink would be able to raise approximately $20 million annually.

Just to give the member an example of what that looks like in terms of the experience of a consumer, if they’re paying off-street parking $5, the 24 percent is 92 cents and the 29 percent is 19 cents. Similarly, if they’re paying $15, the 24 percent is $2.76 and the 29 percent is 58 cents.

Peter Milobar: This tax change for off-street parking, though, does apply to hotels, does it not?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It applies to a number of different parking lots. Theoretically, that might include hotels, yes.

Peter Milobar: I’m not sure of the theoretical part. It either applies to hotels, or it doesn’t, if you’re TransLink. TransLink’s not picking and choosing which hotel they would or wouldn’t charge it. If my memory serves, every time I’ve parked in downtown Vancouver at a hotel, there’s been a TransLink charge. So one would assume it’s not theoretical. It’s being charged. It’s off-street. It would apply.

I appreciate that the minister is from Vancouver, so might not frequently need a Vancouver hotel very often, but they’re certainly not $5, and they’re not $15. Most are in the neighbourhood of $50 a night. So a 5 percent increase is about $2.50 a night more in parking tax per visitor to the area, on top of the FIFA tax extra that’s being charged to a hotel room, on top of the extra MRDT tax. But I digress.

The minister says it’s off-street parking as well, and she took issue with some of our characterizations at second reading, so I thought we should make sure that we’re very accurate where we’re going with this tax and this tax increase.

I’ll use a parkade reference, one that I used to park at frequently if I was down to Vancouver to go for dinner or shopping, because on-street parking is getting harder and harder to find in Vancouver, so most people are using off-street and parkades.

The Bay parking — not that the Bay is in existence anymore — is one that gets used quite frequently, either for events…. In fact, they advertise for events at B.C. Place Stadium for event parking or at the arena as well as, obviously, Pacific Centre.

Would those parking stalls, if someone pulled in for the day, also be subject to the 29 percent tax instead of the 24 percent tax?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, we do believe those are included.

Peter Milobar: It’s a pretty wide catchment area TransLink has in terms of service. There are a great many malls that have surface parking. I can think of several in Richmond that are right next to the SkyTrain line. They, obviously, for demand, to make sure it’s not a park-and-ride situation, have paid parking lots patrolled by private companies, for the most part. Would those all be subject to the 29 percent as well?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes. If TransLink is successful in passing its bylaw that allows this increase to occur, we believe those would be captured as well.

Peter Milobar: Was there any discussion with TransLink?

[3:40 p.m.]

It appears that if you’re a parking stall and that the revenue goes to a private business, for that parking stall to maintain, to create, to provide, to operate, there’s no problem levying a tax increase on those parking stalls. But if you’re a parking stall that’s operated and owned, essentially, by the municipality that those same off-street stalls are in, the municipalities that said, “Back off. If there’s going to be a 29 percent increase, we’re going to just put it into our own coffers and not put it towards TransLink….”

Was there any conversation with TransLink when there’s agreement to give them the ability to go from 24 to 29 percent, given that they’re cash-starved for hundreds of millions of dollars, that the provincial government would have the expectation that they would treat their own municipal parking spaces under the same tax provisions that they expect private operators to operate under with their customer base?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Just for clarification, if I could ask the member opposite: specifically, is he referring to municipal parking lots or street parking in municipalities, please?

Peter Milobar: Maybe we can get clarification, then. My assumption was that municipal off-street parking would be considered off-street and still be subject to the tax. But then there’s the finer granular point around on-street parking that has still got a hefty charge to it.

So my assumption was that those off-street parking lots, municipally run or not, are subject to the tax. I’m talking about the on-street parking revenues, which are not insignificant when you consider what certain cities charge, especially in heavily-core commercial areas, to encourage high turnover rate and cars to move along.

Again, we have TransLink that is desperate for cash. These are member municipalities. They’re asking the provincial government for hundreds of millions of dollars of taxes. Was there any discussion with the provincial government trying to make these tax increases contingent on municipalities being willing to look at their own charge structure along street parking?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: At the Ministry of Finance, we’re not aware of that having been part of the conversation. Our piece of this was the question of whether Finance would approve the ability of TransLink to go from 24 percent to 29 percent, which, of course, we did approve and is what’s reflected here.

Peter Milobar: These bills are always a little tricky, because I do recognize they touch on other ministries and their requests of the minister. But ultimately, the minister, especially with the mandate letter and the economic times they’re in, has been directed to have a pretty tight rein on all ministries and all their directions.

I asked that because we have an unknown revenue stream talked about by government that’s supposed to generate hundreds of millions of dollars for TransLink over the next few years. No one knows what that is. We asked whether or not it was road pricing. We were told, pretty emphatically, no. We asked if it was a vehicle levy. That was a much more ambiguous answer from the Premier and the Transportation Minister. Again, recognizing that’s not this minister’s portfolio.

However, ultimately, you would think that the Finance Minister would be engaged and involved in things that were going to potentially impact the treasury or take away tax room that the provincial government might otherwise have. And I say that because…. Bear with me. I’ll set the stage on this, so I’ll take a minute.

Way back in the olden days, when the Interior and everywhere outside of the TransLink service area was provided access to funding for B.C. Transit from the provincial government, the trade-off was that they would pay 40 percent of capital for their hospitals. TransLink was to be a stand-alone entity funding itself, and the trade-off was that they would be asked for zero dollars for hospital capital.

That has completely gone away. Pattullo Bridge used to be a TransLink bridge that was taken over by the government, on a whim by former Premier Horgan and assumed back into government, so the cost of replacing and everything fell away from TransLink. That seems to be forgotten that that $1.5 billion actually should still be on the books for TransLink.

But that was absorbed — all the SkyTrain investments, all of that, all the operational dollars that TransLink has asked for over the years. And it’s not a case of begrudging a fast-growing metropolitan area’s transit, but it’s a case of trying to figure out where the heck all the money is going to come from. There’s only so much room for taxation that local property tax owners can absorb.

In the case of in the Interior, when we needed to add a hospital…. I know this well. I was the mayor, and I was the hospital board chair, and we had to double our hospital taxes on property taxes.

What has happened in some TransLink areas is instead of that money being put onto property taxes, extra parks or extra things were built, which is fine. Each city gets to have their own autonomy and figure that out. But then when there’s not enough money to fund TransLink, it comes back to: could the bank of B.C.? I was going to say “Mom and Dad,” but I’ll go with bank of B.C. Then I thought that’s an old bank as well.

There’s only so much room taxpayers, property tax payers, have to absorb, so it has to be a coming together between the provincial government and the TransLink municipalities as to how that gap in funding is going to be made up. It can’t all go on property taxes. I recognize that. That ship has sailed. But it can’t always just be on the backs of the provincial government either.

Was there any discussion, given that we’re dealing with these amendments, and the funding crunch is critical? It seems like this is a very light touch, overall, compared to the systemic issues going on within TransLink. And it seems like we should have more amendments right now for the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act, a.k.a. TransLink, to move forward.

I’m hearing that there were no provisions negotiated or tried to be negotiated to see if there were any extra revenues to pick up on on-street parking, which again…. Conveniently, all the money goes to the municipalities.

[3:50 p.m.]

Were there any other tax provisions that were either advocated for by TransLink and discarded — that would have shown up in and around these headings in Bill 5 — or advocated for by the province and discounted by TransLink?

I’m not sure how the public can reconcile that the only provision in Bill 5 we have for TransLink is taking off-street parking from 24 percent to 29 percent, with the government openly talking about another revenue source that one would presume would need legislation to change because something as simple as changing a tax rate on off-street parking requires that.

We don’t sit again till October. It seems that there’s no alternative revenue stream on the horizon. Was there one that has been removed from Bill 5? Or is that just a work-in-progress, and if so, what is that revenue stream?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member opposite. I want to stay focused on the bill at hand, which really is about taxation measures. The member asked the question: were there taxation measures in relation to TransLink that were removed? The answer is no.

[3:55 p.m.]

The taxation measure related to TransLink is the one that we’ve been discussing, the room for them to increase parking from 24 percent to 29 percent.

I will also just quickly highlight that this is work that’s being led by the Minister of Transportation, and the Ministry of Finance did approve $312 million to be transferred to TransLink in order to provide stability over the next three years and ensure that they can continue to do their important work and support the transportation needs of the area that they support.

The work coming ahead, that timeline…. That $312 million provides some stability over three years, and it’s my understanding that the work to analyze and identify additional funding mechanisms and stability for TransLink will happen in that time frame. So it would be premature to presuppose what that work will lead to.

Peter Milobar: Clause 34, when it gets referenced in the budget and fiscal plan…. The minister, earlier on, when I asked to quantify how much money this is expected to bring in, had indicated they didn’t really know. The government wasn’t sure. It’s more to TransLink. It can be up to 29 percent. It’ll be whether they move it from 24 to 26 or 24 to 25. It just gives them a range.

I’m just wondering how, then, the statement in the budget book could be made by the ministry, the minister, that this tax change will have no material impact on taxpayers when they cannot actually quantify what a 5 percent increase, a 20 percent increase to a tax structure will actually have. How could the budget then reflect it as no material change to taxpayers when it can’t be quantified?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: My understanding is that the revenue amount, should they go to the full 29 percent, would be $20 million. But I’ll just remind the member that it’s not reflected in our budget in that this is a tax that is collected and delivered directly to TransLink.

Peter Milobar: No, and I can appreciate that. That’s why I was asking, because I assume that’s why it was asterisks on page 59 and not a number associated with it, because it’s more about enabling a different taxing authority to collect the tax.

But the $20 million that we’ve now heard that wasn’t provided earlier, in the ministry’s mind, is not a material number to taxpayers. So that’s an interesting take on adding $20 million to taxpayers. It may not be a provincially charged tax, but it is nonetheless a taxpayer that is going to be paying their portion of this $20 million or more.

So 24 to 29 percent. I appreciate it wasn’t this government that put in the 24 percent. I always kind of shake my head with some of these ranges that people are given, because governments seem loath to have round numbers. I’m surprised it’s not 29.9 percent. That way, everyone could say it’s not 30. We must have somebody that works in the ministry that used to work for oil and gas, because that’s how gas stations price everything too — the 0.9.

[4:00 p.m.]

Why was the decision made? Was it a direct ask from TransLink? We’ve heard from the minister that this is a range they can go up to. I’m unaware of many municipalities that go to the low end of what they’re allowed to when they’re cash-strapped.

Were they asking for 29 percent? If so, I think the public needs to know that, because that means it’s not going to be a range. They’re going to go to 29 percent and collect the full $20 million. Had they actually asked for more than 29 percent, and the government capped them at 29 percent? What were the discussions with TransLink around landing at this 29 percent that the minister is approving?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Just to point out that I agree with the member, and I think the member is right to raise that the language “denotes measures that have no material impact on taxpayers” should be amended. I agree with the member on that, and I think that it is consequential.

[4:05 p.m.]

In regard to the question of whether we experienced the ask as a range from 24 to 29 or at 29, there are two different experiences that we’ve had. It was presented to me as a range, and some of my colleagues received it as a maximum. So I’m uncomfortable saying it’s either-or.

I think that the capacity that we have in the Ministry of Finance is to set the maximum, and we’ve set that maximum at 29.

Peter Milobar: Thank you, and I appreciate that.

I do understand, again, from my local government days, how flexibility can be built into the range once it’s set. I guess the question was more: had TransLink asked for something even higher than 29 and was rebuffed by the province? Or were they seeking only 27, and the province said: “Look, we’re not going through this every year. Let’s just put it to 29, and you can step it up as you see fit”?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m not aware of those discussions. If any such discussion occurred, it would have happened within Transportation, and the Ministry of Finance did not participate in any of those discussions.

Clause 34 approved.

On clause 35.

Peter Milobar: Just a few quick questions on 35.

I guess the first one is that I’m assuming that when I read “medical practitioner” in this, in the other acts and the other definitions, that’s referring to what would commonly be thought of as a medical doctor, an MD of one designation or another within the province of B.C.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, that’s correct. We’ve also included nurse practitioners.

Peter Milobar: The minister tried jumping into my next question. Obviously, nurse practitioner is being added, but there’s an ever-growing array of levels of medical advice and diagnostics that can happen now when you look at, say, pharmacists and things of that nature. There’s an ever-expanding role out there for a great many people in the medical professions.

[4:10 p.m.]

Frankly, I think the ever-expansion is speaking to a lack of access to health care in B.C. that people are finding. That’s what we see in Bill 11 reflected right now in terms of sick day notes and things of that nature. Recognizing that there seems to be a move to try to ever-expand who can provide that access point, partly for access and partly not to bog down people’s highest and best use of their skill sets for the tasks they’re being asked to provide….

Much like you wouldn’t want a highly trained police officer to be solely directing traffic in an accident scene — you’d want to get traffic control there at some point and let the officer get on with their day — we don’t need to necessarily tie up doctors and nurse practitioners around exemptions for the speculation and vacancy tax when we’re starting to expand scope of practice for a great many medical professions.

Why at this time, with these changes being made and so many other changes being made to the speculation and vacancy tax at the same time, was only nurse practitioner decided upon and not some of those other professions that have started to actually be expanded within the medical realm as well? I’m not asking about maybe going totally outside the bounds of what the colleges and the Health Ministry are doing, but when I look at, say, a pharmacist, in particular, and things of other natures, they’ve had a pretty expanded scope of practice. Why is only nurse practitioner specifically highlighted?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s a fair question. I’ll share with the member opposite that the decision to sort of draw that line…. You have to draw the line somewhere on who’s able to give this advice on whether someone is needing to live in a particular area for medical treatment.

We’ve included the nurse practitioner and put the line there largely because nurse practitioners really have that expertise. The member hasn’t doubted that. They’re registered nurses with additional education at a master’s degree level. Nurse practitioners were introduced in B.C., in 2005, to fulfil additional roles in areas like primary care and chronic disease and health promotion. They’re very well suited to do this type of assessment.

[4:15 p.m.]

But importantly, I’ll note that throughout the years, the province has amended a number of pieces of legislation to accept medical certification from nurse practitioners, including the Employment Standards Act, the Motor Vehicle Act, the Mental Health Act and the Home Owner Grant Act. So the current amendment aligns this Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act with those other provincial statutes.

Peter Milobar: What drove the need for this change? Was it a backlog of people seeking exemptions that were not able to get them? Was it nurse practitioners asking for this added scope of practice? What was the underlying impetus?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It really is about that alignment piece that’s driving this change and taking full use of the expertise of nurse practitioners in British Columbia.

Peter Milobar: How many exemptions are granted by this way in any given year, and is there an expectation by adding more access to medical personnel that that number may increase?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We don’t have that data with us, but we’d be happy to provide it to the member as soon as we’re able to access it for him.

Clause 35 approved.

On clause 36.

Peter Milobar: This is increasing the tax rate from 2 percent to 3 percent for foreign owners. I’m just wondering. It’s booked at $12 million for this year, this fiscal; $47 million for next fiscal. How much of that is accounted for with this change versus the change in the next clause?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: One of the great pleasures of being the Minister of Finance is having people do very fast math on my behalf. Thank you to my team.

To share with the member, the folks that are going to be captured by the 3 percent — that’s 70 percent of what’s represented in that $47 million annual increase because of this tax. Those that will experience the 1 percent — that’s 30 percent.

For each of those categories: $33 million for the 3 percent and $14 million for the 1 percent.

Peter Milobar: How many homes are currently being assessed at the 2 percent tax rate, and how many are they expecting that number to be with the 3 percent?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member asked the question: how many people are paying the 2 percent currently? That number in absolutes is 2,625. These are owners. The member framed the question in terms of homes, but we categorize by owners — 2,625.

We do not have the data in terms of how many people will be paying at 3 percent. There has been research done. I know that the Minister of Housing has this data. I don’t personally have it, but I’ve heard reference to quite a lot of research that’s gone into the question of what rate would lead to what behaviour.

Of course, the goal of this tax is that people don’t pay this tax, because we would like to see these homes brought onto the market and people living in them on a long-term basis.

Peter Milobar: Well, based on that answer, though, it seems like the driver of this tax change is for revenue, not to drive more homes to be opened up for people.

If two-thirds, essentially, of the increase is going to be coming from this 1 percent increase, from 2 percent to 3 percent, is the minister saying that the Ministry of Finance is just simply a flow-through when it comes to a tax that’s going to generate $34 million a year? No questions were asked about going to 5 percent and what that would do, in modelling, saying: “Okay, but 5 percent will actually take it from a $34 million net increase to a decrease”?

I guess I’ll ask the question this way, because then I can do some backwards math. If it’s going to increase by $33 million by going from 2 percent to 3 percent, how much is the 2 percent currently generating in this year?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The first thing I would say to the member opposite is that, no, this is a tax that’s designed to address a housing challenge. This is not a revenue tax. This is a tax that is about behavioural change. It’s about addressing a very significant challenge that our province struggles with in terms of housing.

Part of the question was in regards to the folks who are paying 2 percent. What amount are they currently paying? The most recent data that I have available at our fingertips is 2023, and that number was $52.8 million or, say, $53 million.

In terms of the modelling and work that we’ve done in regards to increasing the tax, there was a regression model based on historical data that does, in fact, show that behaviour change is happening. The changes in behaviour in terms of bringing more houses, onto the market as rentals or being sold, have been factored in through those numbers.

I’ll also just mention that I have a table that reports data in the SVT annual mayors consultation and demonstrates that, except for 2022 when the housing market peaked, SVT revenue has been declining since 2019 as the tax incentivizes property owners to sell or to rent out their empty units, which, of course, is the objective of this tax, or to use them as their home.

Despite the SVT expansion to six new communities in 2023, the revenue decline continues, mainly because of the decrease in the number of foreign owners and untaxed worldwide earners who are subject to the tax and the decrease in the average value of the properties they own. So 2018 SVT revenue was $68.3 million; 2019, $85.8 million; 2020, $80.6 million; 2021, $78.4 million; 2022, $81.9 million; 2023, $75.2 million.

Peter Milobar: The problem with those numbers is that we’re going from 2 percent to 3 percent, so it’s actually a pretty straightforward calculation to figure out what the increase is. The minister has projected to add $33 million in revenue based on that 1 percent change, going from 2 percent to 3 percent. Yet we’re only collecting $53 million based on latest numbers, so 2 percent to 3 percent on a $53 million revenue source would actually get you to about $27 million more.

The number of units or the value of the units — the desire to create space with this tax — seems to be stalling if we’re now saying…. I accept that the $53 million is a year-old number, but to project $33 million, you’d have to be collecting, at a minimum, $66 million in this current year. If you’re expecting, actually, fewer units to be taxed next year to generate that $33 million, that would mean your starting point right now is even higher than $66 million.

[4:35 p.m.]

In the space of a couple years, even though the value has held at 2 percent, you’ve gone from $53 million to north of $66 million on a tax the minister says is not about generating revenue. But it very much appears to be generating revenue, over and above any housing units that flip from being charged speculation and vacancy tax to being occupied and no longer triggering that tax.

The ratios seem a little skewed, as well, with the $53 million and the $75 million — not too much off, but a little bit. That appears we’re going from two-thirds of it being offshore speculation taxpayers to 75 percent.

Anyway, I won’t get too far into that rabbit hole. Bottom line is this: it very much appears that going from 2 to 3 percent is not fundamentally changing the housing landscape in British Columbia; it’s just generating revenue for government.

The premise of speculation and vacancy tax is supposed to be to actually generate housing, not collect revenue. I accept the minister’s rationale on that because that’s what I’ve heard from government ever since it’s been introduced. But the numbers would indicate something different. The numbers with this tax change would indicate that this is strictly a way to generate revenue for government, or the government would be modelling much less than $33 million in the anticipation that housing units were going to get back into the housing market and not be subject to the speculation and vacancy tax.

Can the minister explain, then, why — based on that very high-level, very quick overview, based on the numbers that she provided that her staff would have as well — 3 percent was landed on if the true intention of this tax is to, as the minister says, not have anyone pay it?

If that’s the intention, this is the exact opposite of that, this clause. This clause is a revenue generator for government, but it is not actually achieving the stated goal of having no one pay the taxes. It’s having the same amount of people pay the tax, just a little bit more tax to government.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I have been focused in my answers on the behavioural change aspect of the SVT, but of course, there is another aspect which is how the revenue is used. It’s important to understand that any revenue from the SVT goes directly into the housing priorities initiative special account, and that funding is used to build affordable housing in regions where the SVT applies.

I’ll also share with the member that there was an independent review done in 2022 that showed that increasing the tax rate would further incentivize those paying the SVT to rent or to sell.

Peter Milobar: The problem is that’s the old chicken-and-the-egg argument. Should government be the one to build housing — and how long will that even take and at what cost, despite revenues coming in from speculation vacancy tax — versus is it not much faster and easier and cheaper to government to free up what they are deeming to be an otherwise empty home that is sitting there ready to be occupied? One is immediate; one is the “Lord knows when it happens” plan.

I say that as someone in a city with a 42-unit housing complex that was supposed to have people living in it in September of 2023 that still doesn’t have people living in it. And that just needed a renovation by B.C. Housing at a cost of about $500,000 a unit between purchase and renovation. So one could suggest maybe not the most cost-effective way to generate housing.

All that said, I guess really…. At the core of it all, what is the projection, then? I’ve tried to find speculation and vacancy tax in the budget. I’ve looked at the tax projections on page 23 to 27. I’ve looked in the back tax tables. I’m not seeing it. I’m sure it’s in here, and it’s probably on a page I’ve just totally skipped past doing scan reading over the days that I keep looking at this bane-of-my-existence book — just like the Finance Minister’s, I’m sure.

Anyway, what is the long-term projection, then, overall, for speculation and vacancy tax? Is it slated to start to decline, or is it just this ever-increasing dollar value to government?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’ll direct the member to page 138. Speculation and vacancy tax is included on table A5, material assumptions revenue.

Interjection.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s not fair. I have people helping me.

Budget estimate 2025-26, $102 million; ’26-27, $137 million; ’27-28, $137 million.

[4:45 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: Thanks for that. I’ll save the rest of those questions for estimates. I’ll just let the Chair know I have no more questions until clause 40.

Clauses 36 to 39 inclusive approved.

On clause 40.

Peter Milobar: As I read this…. This is taxation in the rural area, again very similar to what we had with the School Act as I read it, in terms of Indigenous lands that would be out of reserve and used for cultural and community usage as well as vacant land.

Can I just confirm with the government that this is around taxation for the rural areas — in other words, unincorporated areas, commonly referred to as electoral areas within regional districts — and not municipally held land within what would be defined as a municipality?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes.

Peter Milobar: My understanding of how that all works is essentially that the regional district is the tax collector for the province, and then the province returns back to the regional district the tax they need to run their services for each electoral area.

Every electoral area has a different basket of services they provide. Some have library services. Some have literally streetlights for six defined houses. Some have a wide range — fire services — and some don’t, even within the same electoral area.

Is this just removing any provincial rural property tax charge and leaving the regional district, the electoral area, whole in their taxation, or is it removing all property taxation related to that property in an electoral area?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s actually the other way around. But you know, fair. It’s late on a Thursday.

It’s the province that collects and remits to the rural district, and the exemption does flow through to these other rural district taxes.

[4:50 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: Sorry. Yeah, that is how I phrased it too. We’re on the same page, at least. Okay, so it sounds like regional districts, electoral areas, will lose taxation, lose assessments that these properties would have. A great many of these falling under this act would actually be in electoral areas, not in defined municipalities.

Is the province intending, then, to provide those regional districts, those electoral areas, specifically…? Each electoral area operates on its own budget. It’s not like it’s a cumulative budget like a municipality, where one neighbourhood chips in for a park in a different neighbourhood. These aren’t global budgets. As I reference, these are very defined service-related budgets that get very granular within a regional district.

You can have, within one electoral area, literally, a streetlight service where only the ten homes on that one rural road want to have a streetlight on, and neighbour 11 never opted in, and they don’t pay it. The cost gets calculated and managed by the regional district, and away it goes. There’s a wide range of services. Some are mandatory, like library services, which can get quite expensive. Some have administrative costs, where everyone pays into that global administrative cost. But that goes into that total cost that the regional district has.

Some of these areas would have pretty significant, potentially, utility corridors on them that generate a lot of money for that electoral area, where if that piece of land as a chunk of land may not have, say, a huge dollar value attached to it and gets acquired by a First Nation corporation, to the regional district, on a taxation level, because of the utility corridor running through it, it actually has a significant tax implication.

Has that been thought through in terms of those potential revenue drops to a regional district and, more specifically, to a very small population base electoral area that would literally cover 10,000 square kilometres and could very easily see a large portion of their revenue source drop by a chunk of fallow land being acquired by a First Nations corporation?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: In clause 40(a), we’re talking specifically about foreshore area. The nature of the amendment is that it adds new exemption from property tax for land and improvements in rural areas with a treaty-designated foreshore area.

The proposed change is a new paragraph that’s added to provide a property tax exemption for lands and improvements in rural areas with a treaty-designated foreshore area that are owned or held by the modern treaty First Nations, so specifically those eight nations or their public institutions.

The reason for this change is that the exemption brings the property tax treatment of modern treaty First Nations in line with other local governments that are typically exempt from property taxes in the areas where they exercise governance authorities.

Currently modern treaty First Nations are subject to property taxes in foreshore areas. The amendment will allow modern treaty First Nations with foreshore agreements and their public institutions to benefit from the exemption beginning in the ’26 property tax year.

Peter Milobar: Sorry. I didn’t add in the foreshore, and I appreciate that. Again, I guess we sometimes just internalize in our head our own local knowledge of areas. But it’s an agreed-upon foreshore area.

In my part of the world, in my former riding that went from Blue River all the way down to Kamloops — that’s about a third of Trans Mountain Pipeline’s run from Edmonton to Burnaby in that riding — there’s a lot of river. There’s a lot of what would be considered foreshore.

That’s a utility corridor. There are a lot of hydro lines, transmission lines that run in similar corridors. There’s no actual definition. It’s an agreed-upon foreshore area. It doesn’t say how far back from the foreshore. There are a lot of fields that go right up to those river lines. The rights-of-way for these utility corridors go right through there. That’s why I ask.

I guess I’ll frame it in this way, a two-part question. I’m assuming no consultation with UBCM, then, to make sure that regional districts and electoral areas would be properly looked after if there was a revenue drop.

Is there any contemplation, then, that if there is, the government can commit that there would be a grant-in-lieu, as there would be if it was a provincial courthouse or provincially owned lands? Where there is a revenue hit to the municipality or the regional district for that provincial-owned piece of infrastructure that would otherwise be exempt from paying tax, there’s a grant-in-lieu to offset that.

My concern is, again, not so much losing $1,000 of taxation on what would be a bit of foreshore area and a field. But just because it’s foreshore and an undefined distance from the foreshore, so it could be one contiguous piece of property that has a foreshore chunk to it, does not mean it could not have significant utility corridor taxation value to that regional district.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We’re not seeing the scenario that the member has described — the example, I think, of Blue River to Kamloops. There are no treaty First Nations in that stretch and no utility….

Well, let me back up. The foreshore is defined. It’s not undefined in this case. It’s defined as the low tidemark to the high tidemark. It would be very unusual for a utility corridor to be impacted. I won’t say it’s impossible, but it seems unlikely. So I don’t think the characterization or scenario that the member has described is one that would be impacted by this clause.

Clauses 40 to 45 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Before I close, I would just like to thank the member opposite. I found this exchange fruitful, and the member offered a number of suggestions that I personally found helpful. I just want to thank the member for the nature of the exchange on this section of this bill.

Thank you.

Also, just to thank my team for their support, as always. I’m very lucky to be a minister that works with such a strong and supportive team.

I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:04 p.m.