The House met at 1:31 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I ask you to rise as I invite Elder Eugene Louie of the ɬəʔamɛn Nation to offer a blessing.

Address by Indigenous Leaders

Eugene Louie: Thank you very much. Eugene Louie from the ɬəʔamɛn Nation. I raise my hands to all of you in honour and respect. Also at this time, belated happy Mother’s Day to all the mothers in here. All the men have to wait till next month.

Thank you for this opportunity.

I always look at things from the past, the present and the future. The past for us as a nation is a story, a long story, but that’s in the past. Now presently, we are very happy with the process that we’ve gone through and the discussion that’s going to be happening today. Appreciation for the recognition and inclusion.

Also in the past, our nation has always been recognizing the people in our environmental area, the city, the regional directors and the industry at that time, but now it’s gone. They were always at our table when we started to negotiate our treaty. Every table we had, they were there presently. So that was the past. Like I said, the present now is recognition and inclusion.

For the future, working together from a government-to-government-to-government situation is what we are happy about. Also that in our territory, the recognition and inclusion of all the environmental people that live in our section is much appreciated in terms of the regional district changing their name to qathet, “regional”; the Powell River General Hospital changing their name to qathet; the school district changing their name to qathet.

Qathet in our language is “togetherness.” The recognition of that is much appreciated from our nation.

So with that, I’m going to say in ʔayʔaǰuθəm, our language, a short prayer for you.

[ʔayʔaǰuθəm was spoken.]

[1:35 p.m.]

I also would like to express my appreciation to the nations that are living in and around this area and respecting the territory that we are on.

[ʔayʔaǰuθəm was spoken.] Thank you very much.

The Speaker: Thank you, Elder Louie

I also would like to express my appreciation to the nations that are living in and around this area and respecting the territory that we’re on.

[ʔayʔaǰuθəm was spoken.] Thank you very much.

The Speaker: Thank you, Elder Louie.

I had the privilege two years ago, along with our head Clerk, Kate Ryan-Lloyd, to visit the ɬəʔamɛn Nation. It was a beautiful area, and we want to say thank you for hosting us. It was part of our reconciliation project. We are reaching out to different nations to seek guidance and learning from them.

Thank you so much for coming.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call Motion 29.

Government Motions on Notice

Hon. Christine Boyle: I move Motion 29 standing in my name on the order paper.

[Be it resolved that, pursuant to paragraph 5 (b) of Chapter 25 of the Tla’amin Final Agreement, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia consents to the amendments to the Tla’amin Final Agreement set out in the attached Tla’amin Final Agreement Amending Agreement (No. 4).

TLA’AMIN FINAL AGREEMENT AMENDING AGREEMENT (No. 4)

AMONG:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Crown–Indigenous Relations

(“Canada”)

AND

HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

(“British Columbia”)

AND

TLA’AMIN NATION, as represented by the Hegus

(“Tla’amin Nation”)

WHEREAS:

A.On April 5, 2016, the Tla’amin Final Agreement came into effect;

B.The Tla’amin Final Agreement provides for its amendment and specifies requirements for the amendment of various of its provisions;

C.The Parties have previously agreed to amendments to the Tla’amin Final Agreement;

D.The Parties agree to propose further amendments to the Tla’amin Final Agreement set out in Schedules 1 and 2 of this Amending Agreement;

E.The Parties have determined that the processes set out in paragraphs 3 and 5 of Chapter 25 – Amendment apply to the proposed amendments set out in Schedules 1 and 2 of this Amending Agreement;

NOW THEREFORE the Parties agree as follows:

PART I – DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

1.In this Amending Agreement:

“Tla’amin Final Agreement” means the Tla’amin Final Agreement among the Tla’amin Nation, His Majesty the King in right of Canada and His Majesty the King in right of British Columbia, as it took effect on April 5, 2016 as amended.

2.A reference to a Chapter by number or name is a reference to the chapter of that number or name in the Tla’amin Final Agreement.

3.Words and expressions appearing in this Amending Agreement that are not defined in this Amending Agreement but are defined in the Tla’amin Final Agreement have the meanings ascribed to them in the Tla’amin Final Agreement.

PART II – PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

4.The proposed amendments in English to the Tla’amin Final Agreement are set out in Schedule 1.

5.The proposed amendments in French to the Tla’amin Final Agreement are set out in Schedule 2.

6.The Parties agree that, as necessary, the Tla’amin Nation or British Columbia may provide their consent to these amendments in accordance with paragraph 5 of Chapter 25 – Amendment before Schedule 2 is complete, subject to subsequent approval of Schedule 2 by the Tla’amin Nation or British Columbia, as applicable, which shall be provided in writing:

a.for the Tla’amin Nation, by the Hegus, and

b.for the Province, by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

7.Pursuant to paragraph 7 of Chapter 25 – Amendment, the proposed amendments set out in Schedules 1 and 2 will take effect on the date the last Party required to consent to the amendment provides its consent.

PART III – PROCEDURES

8.This Amending Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts. A signed counterpart may be delivered by one Party to another Party by facsimile or e-mail transmission and a facsimile or e-mail so transmitted will constitute an original document. Signed counterparts held by a Party, taken together, will constitute one and the same instrument.

9.This Amending Agreement may be executed by electronic signature, which will be considered as an original signature for all purposes and will have the same force and effect as an original signature on paper. Without limitation, “electronic signature” will include faxed versions of an original signature or electronically scanned and transmitted versions (e.g., via pdf) of an original signature.

[Schedules available for inspection at the Office of the Clerk.]]

I rise in the House today to move the fourth amending agreement to the Tla'amin final agreement. I am incredibly honoured to be here in the Legislature on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən peoples, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

Before I start, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the ɬəʔamɛn Nation on their ongoing efforts to support their strong, healthy and thriving community. And I want to thank Elder Eugene Louie, Palatewit, a ɬəʔamɛn Elder, former chief and former treaty negotiator and adviser, for starting us off in a good way.

I also want to say [ʔayʔaǰuθəm was spoken] to the members of the ɬəʔamɛn First Nation who are here in the gallery today. This means “welcome.” It also means “thank you” and “I honour you” in ʔayʔaǰuθəm, the language of the ɬəʔamɛn people.

I want to acknowledge and introduce the ɬəʔamɛn delegation that has joined us in the gallery here today: hegus John Hackett; ɬəʔamɛn executive councillors Brandon Louie, Kalem Gallegos and Dillon Johnson; as well as Stefan Virchou, director of intergovernmental relations, ɬəʔamɛn government intergovernmental relations staff Emily White and Ren Shannon.

I want to recognize all members of the ɬəʔamɛn executive council, legislators, ɬəʔamɛn Elders and Matriarchs, and ɬəʔamɛn citizens, all of whom may be observing our proceedings today and whose participation has brought us to this important moment.

The purpose of the proposed amendments to the Tla'amin final agreement include the following. The first is the inclusion of ʔayʔaǰuθəm, the language of the ɬəʔamɛn people, in the treaty. One of the reasons I am so proud to be wearing a t-shirt gifted to me by the community with ʔayʔaǰuθəm landmarks on it. The inclusion of ʔayʔaǰuθəm better reflects the taʔow, the teachings of the nation and community.

As well, a change to the title of the Tla'amin final agreement to ʔaʔǰɩnxʷegəs, which means “a good relationship with someone.” I just want to make a clear point on this: changing the name from “the final agreement” to ʔaʔǰɩnxʷegəs — “a good relationship with someone.”

The amendments also include adding a provision to the general provisions chapter to reflect a recognition and acknowledgment that the ɬəʔamɛn treaty is a living agreement and provides a foundation for evolution and an ongoing relationship among the parties.

[1:40 p.m.]

And the amendments include aligning the adoption, guardianship, and child and family services provisions with changes made to B.C.’s Adoption Act and Child, Family and Community Services Act under Bill 38, Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act passed in 2022.

These amendments are part of our commitment to working responsibly with ɬəʔamɛn Nation as a treaty partner. This work today is the result of a significant commitment by the provincial and federal governments to honour and respect our treaty relations, as well as

Services Amendment Act passed in 2022.

These amendments are part of our commitment to working responsively with ɬəʔamɛn Nation as a treaty partner. This work today is the result of a significant commitment by the provincial and federal governments to honour and respect our treaty relations, as well as reaching new treaties.

Chapter 25 of the Tla’amin final agreement allows any party to the treaty to propose amendments to the ɬəʔamɛn treaty, and the ɬəʔamɛn Nation proposed a series of amendments to the treaty. Through tripartite discussions, the parties have now agreed on the amendments that I just walked you through.

There are confirmed mandates or policy approvals in place for all three parties. The Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport’s heritage branch has confirmed that the proposed updates to names of geographic features, like mountains and rivers solely located on ɬəʔamɛn lands, in the amending agreement align with official geographic feature name changes, which came into effect April 5, 2025.

The proposed provision to acknowledge the ɬəʔamɛn treaty as a living agreement is consistent with B.C.’s direction under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It’s also in line with the Recognition and Reconciliation of Rights Policy for treaty negotiations in British Columbia.

The language now acknowledges that treaties and treaty relationships may change and evolve over time. This has been demonstrated through the province’s treaty relationship with ɬəʔamɛn, and we are so grateful for that partnership. The proposed amendments regarding adoption, guardianship and child and family services will ensure that ɬəʔamɛn has the same opportunities as other Indigenous governing bodies under federal and provincial legislation.

ɬəʔamɛn Nation has already consented to these treaty amendments. Canada has also signed the amending agreement and will be seeking consent to these treaty agreements by order in council. For the amendment to be ratified by the province, the Legislative Assembly must consent to the amending agreement.

In 2016, ɬəʔamɛn Nation, through the Tla’amin Final Agreement, became the eighth B.C. First Nation to become a self-governing modern treaty nation, the seventh nation through B.C.’s treaty negotiation process. On April 5, we celebrated the ɬəʔamɛn treaty’s ninth anniversary by hanging their nation’s flag in our Legislature’s Hall of Honour.

ɬəʔamɛn Nation demonstrates the power of modern treaties to build government-to-government relationships as we work toward common goals. It is my great honour to rise in the House today with the support of the ɬəʔamɛn Nation and move this motion to give British Columbia’s consent.

Scott McInnis: On behalf of the official opposition, I would like to welcome the ɬəʔamɛn delegation here today on this very significant moment.

I rise today to speak in support of the Tla’amin Final Agreement and the amendments therein. This is one of British Columbia’s landmark modern treaties and a testament to the strength and dignity of the ɬəʔamɛn people.

The ɬəʔamɛn treaty is more than a legal document. It is a living agreement that represents reconciliation, respect and a shared future. Most significantly, it has been given the name which in the ɬəʔamɛn language means “a good relationship with someone.” That name is powerful. It personalizes the treaty, grounding it in values of mutual trust, cooperation and forward-looking partnership.

The treaty process in British Columbia is one that is very robust. It helps to address long-standing questions of Aboriginal rights and title while offering certainty and clarity to everyone. Treaties like the Tla’amin Final Agreement mark a departure from conflict and uncertainty and, instead, chart a path toward meaningful and enduring reconciliation.

Recent amendments to the agreement bring about significant improvements, especially for children and families. The treaty now allows for greater flexibility in child and family services in giving decision-makers the ability to prioritize the best interests of the child in culturally appropriate ways. This means families can benefit from services designed with the community’s needs, traditions and values at the heart of the process. It’s an important and compassionate shift that takes children first.

[1:45 p.m.]

It’s also worth noting that the current Leader of the Official Opposition signed the Tla’amin Final Agreement on behalf of the government of British Columbia in his previous role as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. That should remind us all that reconciliation and treaty-making should transcend partisan politics. This is about building a better future for everyone in British Columbia.

We

signed the ɬəʔamɛn final agreement on behalf of the government of British Columbia in his previous role as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. That should remind us all that reconciliation and treaty-making should transcend partisan politics.

This is about building a better future for everyone in British Columbia. We should all be proud of this work. The treaty process brings certainty, healing and self-determination above all else. It acknowledges history, affirms rights and build a future based on respect.

Let us continue to support and strengthen the treaty process in B.C. as we walk a path of reconciliation together.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, ɬəʔamɛn Elder Eugene Louis, for opening this House in a good way. As a former Chief and former treaty negotiator and advisor, your presence, guidance and insights carry deep meaning for us here today. Recognition and inclusion are vital elements of moving forward in a government-to-government-to-government relationship. We very much appreciate your words.

I also want to echo the welcome extended to those in the gallery, including Hegus John Hackett, Brandon Louie, Callum Gallegos, Dylan Johnson, Emily White, Ren Shaman, Stefan Virtue, many of whom I’ve had the privilege of working with in my previous endeavours. We are grateful for your presence and honoured to welcome you here today.

The treaty amendment process we are completing today is an example of good progress. It is ɬəʔamɛn-led. All First Nations choose their own path, and I have great respect for that autonomy. The ɬəʔamɛn have chosen the path of a treaty, and they are showing us the many benefits of that path.

Today we’re also witnessing good progress, because the process to reach today has been open and transparent. ɬəʔamɛn, Canada and B.C. have worked together to negotiate the wording of this amending agreement. The province has taken time to meet with its opposition counterparts to bring everyone along.

Today’s amendments also remind us, as was mentioned earlier, that treaties are living documents. They are not papers to be signed and then stuffed in a drawer. The relationship between nations must continue to grow and adapt to the circumstances of the day. It is an important reminder as we move legislation through this House that our relationships with other governments and nations are ongoing and must always be considered and must always be advanced, because reconciliation and treaty-making is ongoing and must never be stopped in time.

We’re also adding the language of the ɬəʔamɛn people, ʔayʔaǰuθəm, to the text of the treaty. This is a sign of respect and inclusion and also improves the treaty’s accuracy. Today we’re giving the ɬəʔamɛn Treaty a new name, ʔaʔǰɩnxʷegəs. It means a good relationship with someone, something that we can all celebrate because good relationships are the key to our future.

Today’s amendments also add new language on adoption, guardianship, child and family services, which enable ɬəʔamɛn to exercise their rights in the same way as other Indigenous governing bodies.

The B.C. Green caucus celebrates all of these changes, as well as the process used to reach today’s agreement. May our two nations continue to come to the table and continue to work together for a prosperous shared future on a government-to-government-to-government basis.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: It is an absolute honour for me to stand, to acknowledge and thank the members of ɬəʔamɛn Nation for coming to the Legislature and spending time with us today. I want to join my colleagues in thanking and welcoming Elder Eugene Louis for getting us started in a really good way with your words and your guidance.

[1:50 p.m.]

A warm welcome to the Hegus John Hackett and the ɬəʔamɛn executive council members, staff and citizens here today. We are pleased to have you here in person. It is our honour that you have taken the time to be here with us. I also want to applaud the ɬəʔamɛn Nation.

And a warm welcome to the hegus, John Hackett and the ɬəʔamɛn executive council members, staff and citizens here today.

We are pleased to have you here in person. It is our honour that you have taken the time to be here with us.

I also want to applaud the ɬəʔamɛn Nation on their ongoing efforts to support a strong, healthy community.

I know that the care of children and youth in your community is paramount. They certainly are our most precious resource in this province, and they’re the most important treasure for us to take care of today and every day.

I am moved to see the ʔayʔaǰuθəm language of the ɬəʔamɛn people added to the treaty. I look forward to the impact that it will have on children and generations to come.

I congratulate the nation for implementing amendments for adoption, guardianship and child and family services into the treaty. It’s been a long time coming, and historic changes in federal and provincial legislation have made this shift possible.

I am proud that B.C. enacted legislation to recognize Indigenous peoples’ inherent right to self-government, including the right to provide child and family services. We know that the journey started long before that to address barriers and gaps that hindered the exercise of Indigenous jurisdiction. We also know that there is far more work to do.

In my role as the minister, I see what a privilege it is to advance historic agreements like this one, to work together to support First Nations children and families, and create a new approach to child and family well-being in British Columbia to ensure First Nations and communities like ɬəʔamɛn can decide what’s in the best interest for their children, keeping children and families connected to their culture, because we all have a deep love for children and youth in our families and our community.

We know this province and this country has a dark history, and the impacts and trauma of that history are still with us. We know that there are better outcomes for Indigenous children and youth when they are connected to the community and people in their culture who love them dearly and deeply. We are encouraged to see that the number of children and youth in care is coming down, but Indigenous children continue to be overrepresented in care. And that absolutely needs to change.

Indigenous youth and children belong with their parents, their grandparents, their aunties, their uncles and their communities. We are working hard every day to make this happen. We know that there is much more work to do.

In 2024, we hired the very first Indigenous child welfare director who is working with First Nations on crucial care decisions to help better ensure the safety, wellness and access to community and culture for Indigenous children. It is the first of its kind in this country and represents a significant step in our work to reform the child welfare system and reduce the overrepresentation of Indigenous children and youth in care.

We have been working with the federal government, First Nations and Indigenous organizations to support nations who wish to provide child and family services under their own laws in ways that work best for them. We have signed five trilateral coordinating agreements with First Nations, one interim bilateral coordinating agreement and seven more bilateral community agreements.

Each nation is at a different stage or different path, and we need to ensure each has an opportunity to participate fully in the process if they wish to do so. This includes working collaboratively with modern treaty Nations like ɬəʔamɛn to amend the provisions in their existing treaty so it aligns with the legislative changes that we made in 2022.

We are also actively working with our partners to advance the discussion on funding for jurisdiction. In fact, just last week, I attended a workshop in Vancouver, along with ɬəʔamɛn.

It was an honour to get to meet you, to talk to you and hear leaders who care so deeply and the concerns that you have.

[1:55 p.m.]

It is my hope that we can move forward in a meaningful way and that my ministry can continue to build on the historic work that has taken place here today. We need to continue making a positive difference to Indigenous children, families and communities. It is too important not to. We have a lot of hard work to do in my ministry, a lot of

forward in a meaningful way and that my ministry can continue to build on the historic work that has taken place here today. We need to continue making a positive difference to Indigenous children, families and communities. It is too important not to. We have a lot of hard work to do in my ministry, a lot of hard conversations to be had.

I’m committed to taking the steps to improve existing treaties with modern treaty Nations and develop measures that support your inherent right to self-determination. I thank you. It is an honour of mine, and I look forward to working more with you in the future.

John Rustad: I want to take a moment to add a few words to this motion.

First of all, I’d like to thank Eugene Louie, an Elder, for starting us off in a good way. Thank you for being here and for doing that.

I want to recognize John Hackett, hegus, as well as the whole delegation from the ɬəʔamɛn Nation. It’s nice to see them here.

I had the honour of being in ɬəʔamɛn territory back in 2016 when we signed the treaty, when we went through that whole process and the honour of seeing that move through the Legislature, as part of it, as minister. It was one of those things that I was very proud of.

I have to admit, you know, when you think about a treaty, it’s the three governments. It’s the ɬəʔamɛn government coming together, the Canadian government and the British Columbia government to come together with an agreement about how to build a future, how to come together and work together in cooperation and coordination. It’s about moving beyond the Indian Act. It’s about moving beyond section 35 of the constitution.

But most importantly, it’s about empowering the nation — for their culture, for their language, for their people — to take control of their future and how we can work as partners, as opposed to what has happened historically, which is governments looking at it as being more of an overseeing and not actually working as true partners. And that, to me, was one of the huge problems, one of the huge errors that we made in Canada for our existence.

Moving beyond that, into partnership, into what is, I believe, to be true reconciliation, is an important step. And certainly, the treaty has been a way to be able to do that with the ɬəʔamɛn Nation.

I want to just maybe make mention of a couple other little things. Like I say, I remember when I was there, there was some friction within the community when we signed the treaty. There were some people who opposed. There were some people who were supportive. But what I’ve seen from that is how the community has been able to come together, how the community has been able to grow and how it’s been able to really strengthen the ɬəʔamɛn people.

And I think that’s a great testament to the ɬəʔamɛn people in terms of their treaty, in terms of how they’ve implemented it and how they work both within their nation but also with people around them.

When I look at some of the changes, particularly the implementation of the language as part of the treaty and naming within the territories, it’s something that is easy to dismiss, or it’s easy to say: “What does this mean? Why are we doing this?” The important thing is the treaty is about, like I say, recognizing the culture and the language and supporting that and understanding, as Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, that true history within the area.

And I think this is an important step in terms of having that added. And I find myself even too often dismissive of that, not recognizing the strengths that are needed and the strengths that should be there as part of this. So I actually want to celebrate and say thank you for bringing it forward and making those changes. I think it’s an important piece of how we recognize reconciliation and how we work together in terms of building those futures.

So with that, I also want to make mention, of course, of the child services. For far too long, the federal government and the provincial government have viewed First Nations as wards of the state. It’s hard to say that, but it has been the way that government and government policies have happened for far too long, whether it’s the Sixties Scoop or whether it goes back to residential schools — the entire process that has happened over time.

[2:00 p.m.]

To empower the nation to be able to look after their own children in a culturally appropriate way, to be able to make sure that governments — the federal and provincial government — are partners in supporting but not overseeing, is the important piece that, I think, is being put into this treaty. I think it’s something, of course, that’s work that needs to be done right around the province for so many nations. It’s the only way we can get past what has happened historically and be able to move forward in terms of dealing with the children in care and making sure that services are done appropriately.

I had many conversations as a minister with nations around this province about these steps, about things that needed to be done to move beyond the provincial government, but to move beyond it in terms of supporting nations for that

in terms of dealing with the children in care and making sure that services are done appropriately.

I had many conversations as a minister with nations around this province about these steps, about things that needed to be done to move beyond the provincial government, but move beyond in terms of supporting nations for that. There were always issues around the legal side. There were always issues around responsibilities. I’m actually very glad that we’ve seen this move beyond that and that we see now, certainly as part of the treaty, that we’re now in that much better place. I think it will have a much better outcome for children, for the ɬəʔamɛn people.

Once again, I just wanted to stand and say I’m honoured to be able to support this motion coming forward for the changes to the treaty. I’m very pleased to see the ɬəʔamɛn Nation has been advancing with the work, and I look forward to seeing that work continue. This is a multi-generational effort that took a long time to get here, but will also take a long time to see the really positive changes.

I wish everything could happen immediately overnight, but I understand this is about laying a foundation and building that foundation, strengthening it, and continuing to make those proper moves forward so that the nation can stand proud in its culture, in its people, in its language, and be recognized, certainly, by all people around the province.

Once again, I’m honoured to have an opportunity to say a few words and say congratulations to the ɬəʔamɛn people.

Hon. Randene Neill: I won’t take up much time. It does my heart glad to see so much support for this motion today. And I’m so honoured to speak to the importance of this treaty agreement amendment.

As the MLA for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, I’ve had the absolute privilege to get to know Hawhɛgus in Council and work with them. And as Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, it’s been my honour and pleasure to work with my counterpart, legislator of lands and resources, Callum Galligos, and talk to him about the vision and future of the area. The description of stewarding their land for the next seven generations and beyond, the abundance and biodiversity and water security and protection that will not only benefit the ɬəʔamɛn peoples but also the entire community.

That’s what modern treaties do. They are essential for government to government to government relationships. They are based on mutual recognition and respect. This amendment will allow for this agreement to be a living agreement as everyone else has mentioned, allowing it to change and evolve as our relationship grows over time.

The inclusion of ʔaʔǰɩnxʷegəs, meaning a good relationship with someone in ʔayʔaǰuθəm, in the language that the ɬəʔamɛn people speak, is so incredibly powerful.

Part of the importance of this agreement is in the benefits. The benefits to the health, the well-being of the children and the families and the people, not only again for the ɬəʔamɛn, but for the entire qathet community. The benefits to the health and well-being of our water and the ecosystem, which, once again, benefits the ɬəʔamɛn, but also the entire community in qathet. Thank you so much for your wisdom, your determination and your generosity. Congratulations to you, and we will see you all back at home.

Á’a:líya Warbus: [Halq’eméylem was spoken.] My name is Á’a:líya Warbus, the MLA for Chilliwack–Cultus Lake. But I come from the Stó:lō Nation. My grandparents come from all up and down the coast, from xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sts’ailes, Sq'èwlets, representing almost the entire valley.

I really want to thank you for being here today and for the work that I know you’ve done to bring your community to this place. Getting people to sit together, come to an agreement, one vision, to share the territory with all of the people that have come to Turtle Island. It’s a big undertaking and that you completed it and you’re here to show everyone what a relationship built on trust, partnership, foundation of true kindness and compassion looks like.

[2:05 p.m.]

I’m honoured to be standing here as a part of the official British Columbia government

on trust, partnership, the foundation of true kindness and compassion looks like.

I’m honoured to be standing here as a part of the official British Columbia government, but in my heart, there’s always a conflict because I’m not with my people. I know that our ancestors are with us. In our language, we say tómiyeqw, “seven generations back and seven generations forward.” Our community has worked to try to establish treaty agreements, and it’s been very difficult for many reasons. As our leader has stated, the work ahead is not easy, but there’s hope.

To see you walk through those doors as a sovereign leader in British Columbia is such an honour for me today. I’m so humbled to be in the presence of a strong treaty nation like yours.

I only wanted to speak today to reflect on the importance of bringing language into these agreements, bringing language back to our people, because there are words in our languages that do not translate to English. There’s no way we can explain the sentiment that we have for our land, for the water, for the animals and the trees that we connect to that are alive to us, that continue to show us the way forward for exactly the complicated issues that we have in the province.

That’s why I continue to stand as an elected leader in British Columbia and hope to carry the work that’s been passed down with humility and remembering that all of the generations that came before, all of our Elders, the suffering that they endured for us to be here, we can never pay that back, but we can do our best. The language, for us, means everything so that we don’t lose that connection to our past.

I only wanted to congratulate you and just express how honoured I am to be here today from the official opposition but also from my nation who hopes to do something like this and to find our way through reconciliation. It’s messy. There are a lot of conversations that need to be had. There are a lot of voices that need to be heard. The most important thing is that we bring everybody to the table in a respectful way and we try to honour as much as we possibly can.

It makes my heart happy. It makes me feel good. I know that everybody in this House is committed to finding a way forward for all of our people so that British Columbia can prosper once again. [Halq’eméylem was spoken.]

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation will close the debate.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I want to thank all of the members present for their cooperation and for the words of support from all three parties. I want to particularly thank the MLA for Chilliwack–Cultus Lake and the House Leader of the official opposition for not only powerful words but for bringing in the language of the Stó:lō Nation as well.

I too think that the shift in language of this treaty and the opportunity to bring a nation’s language into this space is groundbreaking. I’m so grateful to get to do that work together and to have the opportunity to vote on these amendments, which include so powerfully integrating ʔayʔaǰuθəm into this treaty agreement.

[2:10 p.m.]

This is a living agreement, and as others have remarked on, I am struck by the reminder of the new title which is “a good relationship,” ʔaʔǰɩnxʷegəs.

Now, I don’t know if I’m allowed to do this, but we do a lot of heckling, so I’m going to just do it anyway. I’m going to ask folks to join me in practicing saying that new title of the new

remarked on. I am struck by the reminder of the new title, which is a good relationship, ʔaʔǰɩnxʷegəs. Now, I don’t know if I’m allowed to do this, but we do a lot of heckling, so I’m going to just do it anyway.

I’m going to ask folks to join me in practising saying that new title of the new treaty, a good relationship.

Some Hon. Members: ʔaʔǰɩnxʷegəs.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Pretty good. Pretty good. As a former camp counsellor, I appreciate you all participating so willingly in that ʔaʔǰɩnxʷegəs, a good relationship, which is what got us to this point.

I want to acknowledge the huge amount of work that brings us here and the work that we have to do still ahead together in good relationship.

With that, thank you. I move the motion.

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Thank you to all speakers. Members, the question is the adoption of the motion.

Motion approved.

[Applause.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading debate on Bill 15. In the Douglas Fir room, Section A. I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. After that, Ministry of Attorney General estimates and committee stage to be called on Bill 13 in the tiny House, Section C, the Birch Room.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Infrastructure Projects Act

Lorne Doerkson: Thank you everybody. Welcome and good afternoon. We are going to contemplate Bill 15 debate this afternoon. We’ll call on the minister to introduce the bill.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I move that the bill be read a second time now.

I’m pleased to rise in the House today as Minister of Infrastructure to speak to this piece of legislation. New and expanded schools, hospitals and other health care facilities are critical for growing communities. That’s why our government has been working to implement the single largest and most ambitious capital infrastructure plan in B.C. history.

For more than 80,000 students, more than 226 new, expanded and seismically upgraded schools have been built or are underway. Additionally, more than three dozen major hospital and health care projects, and over 10,700 student housing beds, are complete or underway in communities across the province, and there is more to do.

Despite our efforts, however, an exploding population in recent years has meant that even a record-breaking financial investment isn’t enough to ensure new infrastructure is keeping up with the growing needs of British Columbians. We need to find ways to do this faster, better, more economically. That is why my new Ministry of Infrastructure was created and why we have tabled Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act.

The new Ministry of Infrastructure was formed last year to support B.C.’s growing communities by providing major capital project planning services, procurement and delivery for schools, hospitals and health care facilities, post-secondary facilities and other important public buildings.

[2:15 p.m.]

By consolidating the capital functions that were previously spread across ministries, the new ministry can officially lead work in communities on behalf of the province and ensure that government planning and resources are well coordinated. This will allow the ministry to identify and implement opportunities to reduce costs for

consolidating the capital functions that were previously spread across ministries, the new ministry can officially lead work in communities on behalf of the province and ensure that government planning and resources are well coordinated.

This will allow the ministry to identify and implement opportunities to reduce costs for taxpayers, to take advantage of economies of scale by procuring in a bundled way — for instance, through modular expansions for schools or long-term care buildings — and to create project efficiencies, such as the standardization of infrastructure.

The new ministry will also be empowered to deliver projects for health authorities, school districts and post-secondary institutions on a project-by-project basis when it makes sense to do so. This will enable the ministry to provide additional capacity to deliver major capital projects for partners who may not have deep experience in capital projects themselves or who don’t regularly employ large capital teams.

Projects too often face unnecessary delays caused by existing approval processes and lengthy timelines for permitting requirements. Delays can mean missed opportunities and higher costs for much-needed infrastructure projects. Therefore, the ministry is also mandated to expedite the approval of projects in order to ensure faster delivery of designated infrastructure investments. This is critical at a time when government is working to deliver the largest capital investment in the province’s history amidst global economic uncertainty.

During this legislative session, the opposition parties have spoken to the need for more schools, hospitals, clean energy projects and other critical infrastructure across our province, which this bill will help to deliver. This bill will support the ministry’s work in two ways.

The act’s first purpose is to provide statutory authority for the Ministry of Infrastructure to conduct activities related to planning and prioritization, procurement and the acquisition, development and administration of surplus lands, as well as to consolidate the duties, powers and functions that relate to capital planning and infrastructure from the Ministries of Health, Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, and the Ministries of Education and Child Care. It will consolidate those duties, powers and functions into the Ministry of Infrastructure.

This act brings over those powers from the various schools, universities, colleges and health statutes. It will allow the new ministry to deliver projects on a case-by-case basis on behalf of health authorities, school districts and post-secondary institutions when it makes sense to do so. This would allow the Ministry of Infrastructure to do a coordinated procurement for multiple projects at the same time to achieve cost savings per project.

For instance, as I noted before, the ministry could bundle procurement for project components for multiple health authorities’ projects together, or procure multiple modular classrooms for multiple school districts at one time. As I noted earlier, it would also allow the Ministry of Infrastructure to build a school for a school district in situations where a school district might be very small or inexperienced with building a school on their own. As it stands, without Bill 15, the school district must fully lead their own project.

The second purpose of the legislation is to provide the province with tools to streamline and expedite decisions, so that projects that provide critical benefits to British Columbians can be built more efficiently and cost-effectively.

Specifically, the act will do this by enabling the Lieutenant Governor in Council to designate two categories of infrastructure projects. Category 1 projects are Ministry of Infrastructure projects and other ministries’ projects that are provincially funded. Category 2 projects are projects that have been designated as provincially significant and could include projects delivered by entities outside of government, such as Crown corporations, local governments, First Nations, the federal government or private proponents.

To provide greater clarity, category 1 projects could also include projects delivered by the Ministry of Transportation and Transit. However, immediately following royal assent, it is anticipated that Ministry of Infrastructure projects will be designated as category 1 projects as a priority.

[2:20 p.m.]

Category 2 projects need to create significant economic, social or environmental benefits for people in our province. They must have First Nations support and must also significantly contribute to the priorities of the province, such as public infrastructure, critical mineral supply, food or water security, human health and safety, energy security, recovery from post-disaster events, trade diversification, access to new markets, supply chain security, replacing U.S. imports, housing

critical mineral supply, food or water security, human health and safety, energy security, recovery from post-disaster events, trade diversification, access to new markets, supply chain security, replacing U.S. imports, housing or reaching British Columbia’s climate goals.

The criteria for provincially significant projects will expressly exclude pipeline projects, LNG facilities, low-barrier housing and overdose prevention sites. Projects that are designated as provincially significant would not get access to all the streamlining tools of this act automatically. It would depend on the circumstances on a case-by-case basis.

Ultimately, however, it is important to note that none of the tools in this act allow for such a project to skip over environmental standards or provincial obligations to First Nations. The tools, instead, allow for decisions to be made more quickly, whether that decision be a yes or a no.

All category 1 and 2 projects will be required to uphold B.C.’s high environmental standards and our government’s commitment to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Again, this bill does not change that.

Several powers will be available under the act to get shovels in the ground faster for designated projects. Some of the powers expedite provincial permitting, while some streamline local approvals. Upon designation, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may select the power or powers that are authorized to be used to expedite that specific category 2 designated project. Any combination of these powers may be authorized by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and must be authorized by regulation in order to be implemented.

While we continue to work to speed up permitting across government, this act will enable the province to expedite these processes and environmental assessments on projects that bring significant benefits to B.C. Under this act, the Ministry of Infrastructure may be authorized to collaborate with natural resource permitting ministries, such as Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, Energy and Climate Solutions, and Mining and Critical Minerals, in order to identify, track and prioritize provincial permitting to expedite designated projects.

For example, we had a school in recent years where a provincial permit was required very late in its development process because the school district’s team had not realized until quite late that what they thought was a ditch in the corner of the property met the statutory definition of a stream under provincial law. This resulted in the entire school being delayed for two years while they waited for their permit to be processed. With Bill 15, this permit and under this circumstance would be brought forward for immediate review. The project would still have to meet all of the environmental standards of the permit, but that permit would be seen by reviewers much more quickly.

Additionally, this act will enable the Lieutenant Governor in Council to authorize the use of qualified professional certifications in place of select lower-risk provincial permits in order to expedite the approval of a designated project. I would note that complex and high-risk permits will remain with statutory decision-makers. To enable a framework that will allow for qualified professional certifications to be used, the act provides regulation-making powers to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

This process would not be appropriate for all decisions, but it could be appropriate for some. Keeping in mind that a major project has many decisions and permits that it must achieve success on to move forward, a qualified professional certification process is not a one-and-done sort of situation for project approvals. Again, major decisions would still be left with the statutory decision-maker within government.

This framework, the qualified professional certifications framework, will be developed in consultation with interest holders and key partners, such as First Nations regulatory bodies, interested private sector proponents, natural resource permitting ministries, and the office of the superintendent of professional governance. This framework will ensure that quality standards and safety mechanisms are in place to ensure professional integrity and environmental protections remain a priority.

[2:25 p.m.]

To illustrate how this tool might work, I’ll provide a hypothetical example. Let’s say that a provincially significant private sector project receives permission to access the qualified professional reliance route on some provincial decisions. Per the set-out process, the proponent accesses two professional engineers independent of each other who have been

I’ll provide a hypothetical example. Let’s say that a provincially significant private sector project receives permission to access the qualified professional reliance route on some provincial decisions. Per the set out process, the proponent accesses two professional engineers, independent of each other, who have been pre-qualified by government as being trustworthy and experienced enough to provide a professional certification for a certain decision.

The project goes through the rigour of the provincial standard. However, for a specified decision or specified permit, the two professional engineers would independently conduct works and activities to provide their assessment and recommendation around certification to the B.C. government public service, as to whether the criteria has been met for the particular decision.

I look forward to working with my counterparts within government and with a broad cross-section of interest holders and partners on this framework that will go a long way in creating efficiencies in permitting, in collaboration and partnership with trusted licensed professionals.

There are two tools available in the act that relate to environmental assessments. Firstly, the act will provide the Ministry of Infrastructure with the power to order the approval of low-risk duplicative or redundant provincial permits to be issued under other provincial natural-resourcing permitting statutes.

This power will be developed in consultation with First Nations and can only be exercised where three conditions have been met. One, the designated project is also a reviewable project under the Environmental Assessment Act. Two, the environmental assessment for the designated project is complete, and an environmental assessment certificate has been issued. Three, only where the minister has been authorized to do so by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

With this power, we can ensure that projects continue to undergo robust environmental reviews and consultation with First Nations as part of the review and approval process. But by foregoing duplicative requirements for other lower-risk provincial permits, we can expedite approvals and get projects moving more quickly.

Bill 15 would allow government to recognize that because the environmental assessment process is already so rigorous, the need to go through more minor provincial permits following the achievement of an environmental assessment certificate can be redundant in many cases.

Here is an example. Let’s say that a mine has successfully completed an environmental assessment and received their environmental assessment certificate. The five-year process that it took to achieve the certificate included a rigorous assessment of the impact of the mine on the trees in the area and the impact to biodiversity that removal of those trees would result in.

Under the current process, the mine would then have to subsequently apply to the Ministry of Forests for a separate tree-cutting permit for the trees that have already been assessed. Bill 15 would allow for that tree-cutting permit to be automatically issued following the environmental assessment certificate, due to the impacts of the removal of those trees having already been assessed by a more rigorous process through the environmental assessment office.

Our government has been working hard to speed up projects while making sure that we continue to defend our clean air and water and consult with First Nations. We are committed to continuing this critically important work.

We also recognize that the existing environmental assessment process does not provide the flexibility and efficiency that is needed for some projects. Therefore, the legislation adds a new part to the Environmental Assessment Act to enable the environmental assessment office to work with interest holders to develop an expedited environmental assessment process that is an alternative to the one currently provided for under the act.

Projects designated for this expedited process will continue to undergo robust environmental reviews and support our goals to build a sustainable future for everyone. The environmental assessment office will develop this framework in consultation with its partners and interest holders, notably First Nations. I will note that, once developed, this expedited process will only be available to projects that are designated under this legislation and where authorized by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Here is an example of how this might work. Let’s say that a project comes forward that is a collaboration between First Nations and the private sector. It has broad support to proceed, but does have potential impacts on the environment that need to be assessed. They appeal to the B.C. government for designation as a provincially significant project, on the basis of its economic impact on communities and contributions to a critical mineral that is needed to replace U.S. imports.

[2:30 p.m.]

The environmental assessment office does a preliminary review of the project and speaks with all partners and stakeholders involved. The environmental assessment office then determines that based on its broad support and low to moderate levels of complexity, it is a good candidate for a streamlined process that takes two years instead of five years or more

environmental assessment office does a preliminary review of the project and speaks with all partners and stakeholders involved. The environmental assessment office then determines that based on its broad support and low to moderate levels of complexity, it is a good candidate for a streamlined process that takes two years instead of five years or more, and the project receives permission to access the streamlined process.

An expedited environmental assessment process.... Oh, pardon me. So that’s an example of how that process might be used.

I will say that I have heard some reference or describe this expedited environmental assessment process as bypassing the environmental assessment process altogether. This is incorrect. Projects using this tool would still have to go through an environmental assessment process. This tool is about putting projects through the same rigour of an environmental assessment process, but in ways that allow it to be done more quickly when conditions are right.

And I want to be clear. Consultation with First Nations is and will continue to be critical and required. We remain committed to our section 35 constitutional obligations, as well as our obligations under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

This legislation will also address certain types of approvals that happen at the local government level. I have heard from many local governments who tell me that the processes they are obliged to follow are sometimes unable to facilitate speedy permitting on projects that are critically important to their communities. Since the tabling of Bill 15, I have also heard from local government leaders who are excited about the opportunities to collaboratively work with the province on solving issues that can ensnare important infrastructure projects.

Bill 15 provides two tools to expedite designated projects with respect to local permits and approvals. First, it sets out a framework for an agreement-seeking process between project proponents, including the province, and local approval authorities to collaborate and come to an agreement on addressing constraints that impede the construction or intended operations of a designated project.

Where an agreement can be reached, the legislation provides for the agreed-upon replacement measure to take the place of the identified constraint. This legislation provides for facilitators to be appointed to assist the parties, if required, to help reach an agreement, and for monitors to be appointed to ensure that the designated project is undertaken and completed in an appropriate manner.

As well, it provides for the province to step in to develop replacement measures to replace a constraint where agreement cannot be reached between a project proponent and a local government approval authority. This latter provision is to be used only as a last resort, as the goal in all of these projects is collaboration.

We are stronger together, and we want to be able to support local governments in achieving our shared goals, which is what British Columbians also expect us to do.

I would note two things about these provisions. Under the act, local authorities are defined to include a local government, the University Endowment Lands or the Islands Trust, and the framework in this legislation is modelled after the process laid out in the Significant Projects Streamlining Act and is not an entirely new power.

I note that the Significant Projects Streamlining Act was enacted in 2003. It preceded the enactment of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and therefore does not reflect the requirements for the province to align its laws with the United Nations declaration under section 3.

Further, with recent population growth and economic uncertainty, our province needs the ability to build schools faster, and with an aging population, we need the ability to meet the health care needs of our communities. The existing Significant Projects Streamlining Act was not designed with those needs in mind.

Additionally, that act does not account for projects where the Ministry of Infrastructure is a project proponent, which this legislation does. This tool has thus been modernized and brought into the Infrastructure Projects Act, and the Significant Projects Streamlining Act will be repealed as part of this bill. We are working closely with the Declaration Act secretariat and the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and will be undergoing deeper consultation with First Nations for policy and regulation development.

Here is an example of how the municipal authorizations tool might be used. Let’s say that a town is devastated by wildfire or another natural disaster and that they want to rebuild quickly in a way that ensures that their communities are more resilient than before.

[2:35 p.m.]

They identify that their usual planning, development and permitting processes were not set up to support a speedy post-disaster recovery scenario and are too bureaucratic and inflexible for the challenges that they’re facing.

This town asks the province for help on this, and the provincial government and local government work together to come up with a plan that allows for

development and permitting processes were not set up to support a speedy post-disaster recovery scenario and are too bureaucratic and inflexible for the challenges that they’re facing.

This town asked the province for help on this, and the provincial government and local government worked together to come up with a plan that allows for multiple processes and steps to be done all at once across the entire disaster zone, instead of doing it step by step, which could take many years.

The second tool in this legislation is a tool for local governments to take advantage of if they so choose. The legislation empowers local governments to expedite and streamline their own permitting and approval processes by providing for a mechanism for them to request provincially legislated requirements to be waived or modified for a designated project. Under this legislation, a local government could, by way of resolution, request that planning requirements be waived or modified, such as requirements for development approval for a designated project to be in alignment with the official community plan in order to move forward.

This tool could eliminate issues that we’ve encountered in the past. In one instance, for example, a student housing project was delayed by a year or more because of the requirement for a local government to update their official community plan first. Everyone in this case, including the municipality, wanted construction to begin, but rigid provincial requirements dictated that the official community plan needed to be updated before development permits could be issued, and therefore before building permits could be issued and construction could begin. Under this legislation, the municipality would be able to request that the province waive or modify these provincial requirements.

In keeping with our intent throughout this legislation to preserve health and safety and environmental protections, certain requirements that impact those areas are carved out of this power to exempt or modify. Examples of such requirements are those that are critical to health and safety, the natural environment or protection from hazardous conditions. Such requirements might be building inspections, occupancy permits, requirements related to sewer or stormwater management and engineering permits.

Bill 15 signals government’s new approach to infrastructure development. Through the consolidation of capital functions across the critical school, health and post-secondary sectors, the new Ministry of Infrastructure will be able to prioritize and plan projects from an overarching perspective to enable critically important infrastructure projects, such as schools and hospitals, to be built more quickly and cost-effectively for people in our communities.

The legislation will also empower local governments to expedite and streamline their own permitting and approval processes by removing provincially legislated requirements that are sometimes the cause of local government approval delays. It establishes a framework for alternative permit authorizations through an agreement-seeking approach with local governments to help get shovels in the ground faster for provincial and other designated projects. To support the implementation of this framework, the Ministry of Infrastructure will begin consulting with local governments this year.

Finally, with this legislation, we will build upon work already underway across government to improve efficiencies and further support government to get out of its own way with respect to provincial permitting and project approvals, without reducing environmental standards or affecting our obligations to First Nations. The latter, in particular, is assured by both section 20 in Bill 15 itself and by the Interpretation Act, which requires that all provincial laws, including Bill 15, be interpreted in a way that upholds Aboriginal and treaty rights as recognized in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and are consistent with B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

Pragmatically speaking, Bill 15 is about moving projects forward more quickly, which is not possible without First Nations support. Everything about Bill 15 is about accelerating infrastructure, and that can only be done hand in hand with First Nations.

British Columbians expect their government to deliver the critical infrastructure projects their growing communities need. At its core, Bill 15 is about doing just that, not by reducing standards but by overcoming duplicative processes and redundancies that sometimes ensnare critical projects. Members of the opposition have regularly referred to the need to build projects more quickly, and this bill is an important step towards that.

[2:40 p.m.]

I would hope, then, that they put their vote to where their mouth is and join me in support of Bill 15, B.C.’s Infrastructure Projects Act.

With that, I look forward to hearing from my colleagues in this continued debate today on second reading of this bill.

15, B.C.’s Infrastructure Projects Act.

With that, hon. Speaker, I look forward to hearing from my colleagues in this continued debate today on second reading of this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Minister of Infrastructure, for opening debate on Bill 15.

Now recognizing the member for Kamloops Centre.

Peter Milobar: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I will be our designated speaker on this bill.

There’s a lot of ground to cover, actually, with Bill 15. With the government changing, as is their prerogative, the order of bill debate today, I was fortunate enough, I guess, to be wrapping up my Bill 14 comments just before lunch, and here I find myself immediately after lunch addressing Bill 15. I say that because the two…. I referenced this in my Bill 14 comments, and I think the minister even slightly touched on it in her comments — that we can’t look at these bills in isolation. There’s a reason the government made Bill 7, Bill 14 and Bill 15 confidence votes, because they’re very far-reaching, and they’re very all-encompassing, and frankly, they’re all blatant power grabs by the Premier’s office under the guise of a tariff threat.

I’ll dive into some of what the minister said throughout my comments. We’re talking about bringing on stream a critical mineral mine with expedited permitting, expedited environmental assessment process under Bill 15 that will require several overrides by cabinet.

What we heard in the minister’s speech was lots of references to may or might or possibly. What the minister fails to highlight in her comments — and understandable; any government minister would stay away from this area — is the amount of regulatory power that Bill 15 would put in the hands of cabinet through orders in council, and that’s, fundamentally, at its core, the problem with Bill 15.

I’ll touch on one area to start, and I’ll likely loop back to it. When we hear about the words used on the Environmental Assessment Act and the changes…. I want to read into the record a government press release and see how similar the language is from what we heard today for this government press release.

“The British Columbia government has introduced legislation to modernize the environmental assessment of major resource projects. This is designed to provide a clear and timely path for the approval of responsible resource projects, pursue reconciliation with B.C.’s First Nations, Indigenous peoples, increase public engagement and transparency, and deliver strong environmental protections.

“British Columbia was one of the first provinces in Canada to introduce environmental assessment legislation in 1995 and is making a comprehensive regulatory framework stronger.

“‘By revitalizing our environmental assessment process, we’re striking a better balance for our province, where good projects that respect B.C.’s environment, Indigenous peoples and the public will be approved more quickly,’ said George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. ‘Our province was built upon the wealth of natural resources at our disposal. This legislation reaffirms the continued importance of these resources to British Columbians and enhances public trust by engaging people and communities early to ensure our resources are being used sustainably. Growing a strong economy and protecting the environment we all cherish go hand in hand. That’s the legacy we want our kids and grandkids to inherit.’

“Revitalizing the environmental assessment process in B.C. is a shared priority between the government and the B.C. Green Party caucus, and it’s part of the confidence and supply agreement.

“‘Revitalizing the environmental assessment process is a key shared commitment because we both recognize the need to strengthen public trust in government decision-making,’ said Sonia Furstenau, MLA for Cowichan Valley. ‘It is vital to modernize the EA process so that important considerations like climate change, cumulative impacts and new scientific standards are properly incorporated. I look forward to discussing the legislation further so we can ensure that the wealth of our natural resources and the well-being of our ecological systems can be enjoyed by British Columbians for generations to come.’

[2:45 p.m.]

“In introducing the Environmental Assessment Act, Heyman said Indigenous participation in environmental assessments will also be greatly enhanced. If passed, the legislation will result in an EA process delivering timely evidence-based decisions where the public can more actively participate. The legislation reflects government’s commitment to reconciliation and the implementation of the United Nations declaration

Indigenous participation in environmental assessments will also be greatly enhanced. If passed, the legislation will result in an EA process delivering timely, evidence-based decisions where the public can more actively participate.

“The legislation reflects government’s commitment to reconciliation and the implementation of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. ‘Having Indigenous collaboration from the beginning means more certain and efficient processes where good projects can move forward quickly, providing benefits to Indigenous peoples while respecting their rights, values and culture,’ said Heyman. ‘We want to reduce the potential for these types of legal challenges we’ve too frequently seen in B.C. These have impacted our province’s economic development, eroded public trust, alienated Indigenous communities and left project proponents trying to navigate through a costly, time-consuming process.’

“The legislation will also provide increased clarity and certainty to project proponents through an early engagement phase that will identify the focus areas for the project assessment prior to proceeding through an environmental assessment. Enhanced public engagement, including additional comment periods and earlier collaboration between the environmental assessment office and local communities, coupled with funding to support public participation. The ability to more fully assess positive and adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural and health effects, including greenhouse gas emissions and require their consideration in decisions.

“Strengthened compliance and enforcement for approved projects, along with audits, to make sure conditions, including EA certificates are mitigating identified adverse effects as intended. Government has been engaging extensively on a revitalized EA process for over one year, consulting with Indigenous peoples, industry, communities, environmental organizations and the public.

“This included establishing an EA advisory committee that included a cross-section of members from industry, academia, non-governmental organizations, Indigenous peoples and local governments. The committee met for over 75 hours and produced a report recommending changes to the current EA process and legislative framework. Direct engagement with a variety of key stakeholders, including industry and business associations, environmental associations, local governments and EA practitioners. Extensive engagements with Indigenous people through bilateral meetings and regional workshops. And a public comment period on a discussion paper outlining the proposed changes, which received over 2,500 public comments and 60 formal submissions from Indigenous peoples, industry and stakeholders.”

That was November 5, 2018. The language sounds very similar to the government’s new stated objective in Bill 15. Except in 2018, they insisted they knew how to get things moving while still protecting the framework around environmental assessments and respecting Indigenous comments.

In fact, the people that came out supporting this — Grand Chief Stewart Phillip at the time; Grand Chief Edward John, First Nations Summit political executive, Regional Chief Terry Teegee, B.C. Assembly of First Nations, President and CEO of the mining association; Bryan Cox; Gavin Smith, staff counsel to West Coast Environmental Law Association — all came out in favour.

What do people say about Bill 15? Well let’s see. Jody Wilson-Raybould predicted more lawsuits. George Heyman said in 2018 it would result in less lawsuits. UBCIC, Stewart Phillip’s organization — he’s still there — are adamantly opposed.

The minister talks about municipalities and her discussions with some wanting this. It’s interesting, because back in 2018, they actually consulted with municipalities. This year UBCM, which typically doesn’t actually take very strong stances, firm positions on legislation — they’re not a fan of Bill 15. Stand on Earth — they’re not a fan of Bill 15. And the list goes on and on and on.

That’s the problem. With this government, it’s rinse and repeat. Except with Bill 15, they finally have essentially acknowledged they don’t know what they’re doing. They don’t know how to move projects forward in a timely fashion while still respecting all those other values that former Minister Heyman talked about. So their solution is just to give cabinet unlimited overriding powers on a wide range of areas.

[2:50 p.m.]

Now, about a week later, ten days later, George Heyman wrote an op-ed. “When the use of B.C.’s natural resources intersects with the protection of our natural environment, British Columbians expect their government to make decisions that are transparent, responsible and, above all

ten days later, George Heyman wrote an op-ed:

“When the use of B.C.'s natural resources intersects with the protection of our natural environment, British Columbians expect their government to make decisions that are transparent, responsible and, above all, in the public interest. We've recently introduced new measures we believe will restore the public's trust in a way that government manages our natural resources.

“Our new Environmental Assessment Act will bring about a strong and transparent environmental assessment process based on science. The decisions we make about the resource development affect the air, land and water we value. We have a responsibility to our children and grandchildren to pass along a healthy environment, and that's why concerns such as sustainability, climate impacts, community health and safety and effects on future generations will all be addressed in future assessment decisions.

“The general public and Indigenous communities will be able to participate meaningfully and companies will be able to get good projects reviewed and ready more quickly. Local and Indigenous communities as well as the project proponents will be engaged much earlier in the new process. This is to everyone's benefit.

“The time for the public and Indigenous peoples to flag questions or concerns about a project is at the beginning, not well down the road after companies have already developed project designs. This way, companies can incorporate feedback into project designs early, eliminating the need for costly design changes or expensive litigation later on.

“The new process will provide more public comment periods as well as funding to support public participation. There will be independent reviews on the evidence and science put forward by proponents, and Indigenous knowledge and values will be incorporated. Overall there will be shorter timeframes to get projects assessed and decisions made.

“Where our project requires both provincial and federal approval, we will work with the federal government to reduce redundancies while retaining independent final decision-making authority.

“The collaborative partnership with Indigenous groups will advance reconciliation through a consent-based process that must be considered and addressed by ministers when we make decisions. This is so Indigenous people can share in the economic prosperity of a robust sustainable resource sector while their rights, values and culture are respected.

“Another important way we are increasing public confidence in resource management is by improving the way we regulate the qualified professionals who make decisions in the natural resource section.”

Let me repeat that:

“Another important way we're increasing public confidence in resource management is by improving the way we regulate the qualified professionals who make decisions in the natural resource sector.”

I'll come back to that in a second.

“New legislation we've introduced will improve the professional reliance model by aligning and consolidating oversight of regulated professions integral to the model. This includes agrologists, technologists, technicians, engineers, geoscientists, biologists and foresters. Our aim is to ensure that roles, responsibilities and expectations of qualified professionals are clear. This will improve public trust in the professional reliance model and provide industry the certainty it requires to continue to generate jobs in a healthy economy.

“The legislation we have introduced for both the environmental assessment process and regulating qualified professionals, it is designed to get responsible, sustainable projects approved in B.C. more quickly and efficiently so communities can prosper, Indigenous peoples can prosper and people can have good jobs all while ensuring environmental responsibility.”

That was November 15, 2018. Mr. Heyman and myself did not always see eye to eye on everything, I think it is fair to say, but I was his critic back then. I was his critic from 2017 until the election in 2020. I remember very clearly the debates we had around the Environmental Assessment Act changes, professional reliance model changes.

Now you hear the government talking Bill 15 and they seem to have zero issues with the professionals that are going to be providing reports. Back in 2018, they needed to blow the whole thing up because they didn't trust the reports that were coming forward. You know, it's interesting because, again, in 2018 the language from the government was all about how this is going to speed everything up.

Here we are seven years later. Very little has actually been approved in that time frame, very little, and the government says they need Bill 15 to correct the problem that they created back in 2018. But they won't actually say that. They won't say that about 15, they won't say that about Bill 14, and they won't say that about Bill 7.

[2:55 p.m.]

Make no mistake about it, I do not think it's coincidental that as part 4 of Bill 7 got repealed, Bills 14 and 15 magically appeared. The government would not need Bill 14 and 15 if Bill 7

say that about Bill 7. And make no mistake about it. I do not think it’s coincidental that as part 4 of Bill 7 got repealed, Bills 14 and 15 magically appeared. The government would not need Bill 14 and 15 if Bill 7 had stayed intact. They would have had their all-encompassing power, their overreach, their ability to make whatever rules they wanted at the cabinet table through the Premier’s office.

It was not just in 2018 that the government was repeatedly talking about how they’ve sped things up and how they’d fix things. And they could say: “Well, this Premier wasn’t the Premier then. That was then; this is now.” So let’s look at what this Premier promised about permitting timelines while he was the Premier.

April 14, 2023. The Premier in a story by the Prince George Citizen, because he was up talking to COFI and others:

“‘We’re going to retain our high standards, but we’re going to reform our permitting program to make sure that it’s timely and predictable for people and that it works. In the meantime, we’re bringing on 40 additional staff to work through the backlog within the permitting system.’

“The Premier admitted that Friday to a crowd of 600 delegates at the B.C. Council of Forest Industries convention in Prince George, acknowledging that lengthy delays to approve mines, forestry developments and housing projects are far too prevalent, and he vowed to fix a broken system.

“He said: ‘I know the state of permitting in the province is unacceptable. It’s too slow, too complicated and many governments have grappled with it and failed to address it. It needs to be addressed. I saw it first as Housing Minister, working with people in the housing sector who wanted to build and had to deal with five ministries and, in some cases, multiple years before they could put a shovel in the ground. Bureaucratic backlogs and delays are unacceptable.’

“He also admitted some of the delays are out of the province’s hands, with federal and municipal and First Nations jurisdictions adding to the complexity of permitting.

“‘It’s an issue I’ve raised with the federal government, and there’s enthusiasm on their side to get permitting times down, too, and find other ways to work together.’”

He goes on to a few other….

“‘It’s a vital message that I’ve heard certainly from the sector is predictability. They need to know where the trees are coming from and that the basic for the forest industry…. So our goal as a government is to deliver that. We’ve had lots of challenges. We’ve had wildfires. We’ve had the end of beetle-killed wood and court decisions that have resulted in injunctions around issuing permits.’”

You have Jody Wilson-Raybould — who, obviously, knows the subject area much better than I do, especially given her history with the federal government — saying that this is going to lead to more lawsuits.

Back in 2023, we had the Premier already saying: “We know that the era of litigation and fighting First Nations as a predominant response is over and that big changes are necessary. We have to address the legal rights and interests.” You had the Premier acknowledging in 2023 that was still a big problem. You had former Minister Heyman in 2018 saying they’d solved that problem.

We’ve had other pieces of legislation come forward and proposed changes that they tried and then walked away from in the Land Act before the election. This government said that would solve the legal issues as well.

The reality is, Bill 15 is the government’s ham-fisted way to take the full reins and the full control over processes of picking winners and losers of projects that they deem tolerable to them or not. One only has to look at what projects, what classification of projects are exempted to see that they’ve already started to draw the lines in as to what they feel is morally acceptable for them as a government to support or not.

When they exclude pipelines and LNG…. When the LNG project, when Site C and when Kinder Morgan were responsible for 80 percent of our GDP growth over the last four to five years, to just flat out, up front exclude them…. At least they’re being honest with everyone about their thoughts around that. But it’s not like they didn’t just put up a bit of a fake fight on those things and still proceed with them.

[3:00 p.m.]

If we’re truly trying to rebuff what is happening, and get highest and best yield of our products to international markets…. It doesn’t mean everything should be rubber-stamped — absolutely not. But this is a government, at a time when you have a new Prime Minister talking about energy corridors, when you have other provinces talking about trying to get their resources to tidewater

products to international markets. It doesn’t mean everything should be rubber-stamped — absolutely not.

This is a government, at a time when you have a new Prime Minister talking about energy corridors, when you have other provinces talking about trying to get their resources to tidewater, saying they’re not willing to entertain expediating anything like that, unless it’s dredging of Burrard Inlet. The minister that’s flip-flopped back and forth on Kinder Morgan is okay dredging Burrard Inlet so we can have even bigger tankers with the logic that that means fewer ships.

Again, how is the public, based on that track record of decision-making coming out of this government’s members…? You know, this government loves to try to heap back — back when our leader was in government, back when he did this. He was in cabinet in the second half of when he was part of a government. I’m surprised they don’t say when I was in government. I was there for 18 days, so I guess that qualifies me as well, you know.

You would think that the ministers that fling that out know that ministers…. You know, they bring their best case forward on their files, but ultimately, Premiers’ offices hold a lot of power on decision-making and direction. This government would be no different than the previous NDP government, which would be no different than the previous B.C. Liberal government. When they try to hang everything on one minister at a table that a previous government did, it’s a little bit rich.

When I say, you know, the Energy Minister had these positions, we’re not talking about his positions that he inherited from some other Energy Minister. These were his own personal decisions he was making and positions he was taking, and they never want to actually answer for that in this House. They never want to answer for their own track record of ever-changing priorities or ways that they view, especially, resource development.

You know, yesterday when we talked about a flawed piece of private members’ legislation moving forward despite the Attorney General’s advice, the Premier was kind of chuckling away. I hollered over to him: “Yes, because what could go wrong with this government expediating things?”

I would point out that, as best as I understand it, you know, the Mount Polley tailings design was actually approved by the NDP government when they were in office. They might not want to talk about that. But if we want to keep going back to the sins of previous governments and different decision-making, that’s the confidence they want us to enshrine on them now. It’s their track record and saying: “Just trust us. We know how to expediate things. We know how to do it without proper oversight.”

I’m going to touch on it, and I’ll come back again. Thankfully, I’ve been allotted some time by our House Leader, thankfully, on this.

You know, another area the minister talked about was that this will help us build schools. Well, a couple of things — the treasury is broke, so first off, you actually need money to be able to build schools. If every highway and hospital project you were doing wasn’t consistently over budget, you could actually be building those schools at the same time right now.

I say that every time in my area, in Kamloops. Every time a local area highway around the Trans-Canada went $75 million or $100 million over budget — and it was actually getting scaled back at the same time, less project for more money — I would point out that, you know, that extra $100 million or $120 million would build two more schools in Kamloops. We should actually be building and expanding a highway while having two other construction sites providing schools for the same amount of money out of our taxpayers’ pockets.

It’s interesting, eight years in, that this government has finally decided that they’re overspending on every project and what they need is the ability…. They need all-encompassing power in Bill 15 to be able to go out and tender two or three schools at the same time. That absolutely makes no sense.

[3:05 p.m.]

If you want to build two or three schools at the same time and bundle them to try to get best value from a contractor, just go ahead and do it. You just make the bid. You ask people to bid on three schools so they can leapfrog their crews from site to site. They can take their form people from site to site. They can take their framing people from site to site, their HVAC contractors from site to site, and they can roll them.

You can already do that. You don’t need Bill 15 to actually do that. You actually need a government that knows how to deliver infrastructure, which this government doesn’t know to do. Now, I say that because the minister, you know, they announced

from site to site, and they can roll them.

You can already do that. You don’t need Bill 15 to actually do that. You actually need a government that knows how to deliver infrastructure, which this government doesn’t know to do.

Now, I say that because the minister…. You know, they announced, in the budget, plans around modular schools and other things, and I got asked by several manufacturing companies…. There are quite a few in and around Kamloops that do camp-type modular housing, but they’ve branched out into other types of modular industrial-type construction, commercial industrial construction. They’re big employers in Kamloops and area.

And so the prefabricated school classroom additions…. They asked me what the process would be to tap into these hundreds of millions of dollars the government had identified in the budget. I said I didn’t know but I’d find out. I would send a letter off.

Now, in fairness to the Minister of Infrastructure, I didn’t cc the Minister of Infrastructure. I was running out of ministries that I could think might be connected to a school capital project, because this is brand new in terms of how this government is now structuring certain projects and which ministry it goes through.

Typically, you would ask the Education Minister about a school construction project. That’s pretty standard. You’d ask the Health Minister about his hospital. This government wants to change that — add a different layer of ministerial bureaucracy to speed things up. Seems like strange logic to me, but let’s see how it’s going so far, shall we?

On March 26, I wrote the Education Minister. I cc’d the Minister of Finance, who I’m the critic of, thinking it might fall into her area, since it was a budget program, and the Minister of Citizens’ Services, who deals with a lot of procurement. I wasn’t sure if it might fall into them.

I’ll just read the whole letter. It’s very short. It says:

“As MLA for Kamloops Centre, I’m writing to seek detailed information about the bidding process regarding prefabricated school classroom additions. Given the current economic challenges facing local manufacturers, I am seeking clarity on several key aspects of the procurement process. Specifically, I would appreciate guidance on the following points:

“(1) bidding process: what are the precise steps for manufacturers to submit bids for these classroom addition projects?

“(2) bid publication: will these projects be listed on B.C. Bid and, if so, will they be posted by individual school districts or through the provincial government?

“(3) manufacturer eligibility: are there any specific requirements regarding local manufacturing? Specifically, will the bidding be restricted to B.C. or Canadian manufacturers, due to current economic considerations and tariff threats?

“(4) project timeline: what is the anticipated timeline for project postings and potential contract awards?

“The local manufacturing sector is experiencing significant economic pressure, and an expediated response would be greatly appreciated. These details will help local prefabricated structure manufacturers prepare and position themselves for potential opportunities.

“Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I look forward to your comprehensive response. Sincerely” — myself.

Not a big, politically charged…. No big gotcha questions in there, I don’t think. Pretty straightforward — only four. Pretty well laid out. Pretty easy to understand what direction I was going for. That was on March 26, to the Education Minister.

We decided to follow up on May 8, having not heard anything back at all, and we got a very quick response back, finally, saying: “Actually, you’ve got to go talk to Infrastructure.” And to Infrastructure’s credit, on May 9, they said: “Let us get back to you. Thank you for your query. We’ll reply back.”

I don’t necessarily…. I’m not taking issue with the Ministry of Infrastructure, because they can’t respond to something they didn’t even know existed. Three different ministries, though, that were contacted, that ought to have known where to direct that query back on March 26, sat silent until we decided to follow up on May 8.

I directly talk about tariffs. I directly talk about Buy B.C., Buy Canadian in this — all the language the government wraps themselves in, this whole time.

[3:10 p.m.]

But they need Bill 15 to act with urgency. They need Bill 15 to actually get their act together, ministry to ministry, and say” Oops. The MLA erred on which ministry that went to. We should just fire that query over to the appropriate minister.”

Again, Infrastructure can only do with what they were provided the information on. They responded very quickly once they finally got the notice. It does make one wonder

the MLA erred on which ministry that went to. We should just fire that query over to the appropriate minister.

Again, Infrastructure can only do with what they were provided the information on. They responded very quickly once they finally got the notice. It does make one wonder, had that just been forwarded on at the end of March, when I first sent the first inquiry to Infrastructure, if we might have actually had a proper answer by now. Instead, we’re delayed almost a month and a half.

It’s not me that delayed. I followed up because I had those same companies asking me if I’d heard anything. It’s a month and a half later and they’re starting to wonder if they have to start laying people off or not, if this will be a viable source for them to try to hang on, keep a skeleton crew going for scarce work that’s out there.

But no certainty from this government. No, they need Bill 15, which wasn’t even on the docket — it wasn’t even being talked about at the end of March — to fast-track modular schools, instead of answering very basic questions about that exact program. Yet it shows up in the speaking notes of the minister to defend why they need Bill 15. This is the problem. This is why I say it’s great they made it a confidence vote, because I have no confidence in them.

Their track record would say that we should not have confidence in this government, not when it comes to health care, not when it comes to crime and safety, not when it comes to the finances of the province and not when it comes to the environmental assessment process or fast-tracking projects. Their track record would say, based on what I’ve read into the record already of their own government press releases since 2018 and their own Premier’s comments while he was the Premier, they simply haven’t been able to deliver.

They’re pointing fingers back at previous governments except they seem to forget they are the previous two governments. In 2018, when the environmental assessment process was dramatically changed and the provincial professional reliance model was dramatically changed, they were the government. Then we had an election in 2020. Then they were the government. Now we’ve had an election in 2024. They went from supermajority to a clinging-to-one-seat advantage, but they are still the government. We recognize that. But they’re blaming others for why things are taking so long. They certainly aren’t taking any responsibility for their lack of actions over the last eight years.

It doesn’t make any sense that they then turn around and under the guise of what’s happening with the United States say that that is the number one driving reason that they need these types of powerful tools to override municipalities, to override Indigenous leadership, to override the environmental groups. We have business groups out there now, contractor groups. I mean, the Premier is getting quite a backdrop of people that aren’t very thrilled, not just with Bill 15. You’ve got the unions now mad about the way contract negotiations are going. I’m starting to lose track of where he might even have any allies left out in the real world.

Instead of actually acknowledging, instead of bringing forward legislation that could address things without creating this level of fear and anxiety, the government just makes it a confidence vote. Now, what the government fails to comprehend or understand is the reason there’s this much anxiety out there isn’t because of the great speaking notes that the minister brought forward. Anyone listening to that would think, “Well, that sounds pretty reasonable,” except for how it plays out in the real world, to real applicants, to real projects, to municipalities, to Indigenous communities, to the environmental groups.

[3:15 p.m.]

What they have watched from this government is a complete failure in all those areas. So when the government says, “Just trust us; it won’t be so bad,” with a slight asterisk that says, “But if we want to, we can still override just about everything else we just talked about in glowing terms,” people get a

complete failure in all those areas. So when the government says, “just trust us; it won’t be so bad,” with a slight asterisk that says, “but if we want to, we can still override just about everything else we just talked about in glowing terms,” people get a little suspicious.

When they bring forward a piece of legislation they previously hadn’t even talked about needing…. I mean, this is a piece of legislation, Bill 15, that is supposed to help create the Ministry of Infrastructure. The budget was on March 4. The cabinet was announced — when was that? — in February. Or before that. Sorry; it was November. I can’t even remember when the cabinet was announced.

The minister was announced like six, seven months ago. The first order of business wasn’t to bring forward a piece of legislation to actually create that ministry? It waits until the last week and a bit of sitting before it comes forward to create a ministry that’s supposedly supposed to be there to fast-track infrastructure projects in this province? Were we so jammed up in this Legislature up until now on critical work that the government couldn’t have brought that piece forward? But, no, they needed to bring it forward and attach it to a piece of legislation that creates massive power overreach for the Premier’s office.

I say the Premier’s office, because if anyone at home thinks that any minister in this government would stand up against the Premier’s directive of their ministry or for a project the Premier wants, they’re kidding themselves.

I mean, we stood in this place. It will be very interesting to see when the votes actually happen. I do wonder how much political capital the Premier is burning internally in his caucus. You have a caucus that campaigned on safe supply that has now walked away from safe supply. You have a caucus that campaigned on a wide range of issues, carbon tax, that they’ve now walked away from; how great CleanBC was, and they’ve now walked away saying that their emission profile is nowhere near going to be met.

EV mandates will be next, because there’s no way they’re going to meet the 2026 target, which means they’re going to have to change it, and you’re going to have a caucus full of people that campaigned on the exact opposite. Involuntary care, the list goes on and on and on. And now you have a government…. We had the Minister of Environment bring forward the motion to the House that we all supported.

But respecting what we’re hearing within Indigenous communities and working with Indigenous communities, well, it’ll be interesting to see how this government and their members vote on the bill. UBCIC Grand Chief Stewart Phillip says: “Bill 15 raises concerns about projects being fast-tracked under the guise of responding to Trump’s tariffs and watering down the EA process. Additionally, UBCIC is concerned the province is not upholding its own interim process on alignment of laws with UNDRIP or UNDRIP itself.”

As I say, Jody Wilson-Raybould saying: “My prediction, more lawsuits from proponents of First Nations, more uncertainty and poorer economic and environmental outcomes.” So I will be curious to see what the Indigenous leadership within the NDP caucus does, hearing Indigenous leadership outside of this chamber about Bill 15.

I know if Bill 15 was reversed, if this was a B.C. Conservative bill, the NDP would be asking those exact same questions about members on our side of House, the exact same. In fact, I hazard to guess if Bill 15 had been brought forward by the B.C. Conservatives, and Bill 14 and Bill 7, I find it highly unlikely that the NDP members would be voting in favour of it. I’d be very curious what those members, those Indigenous members within the NDP caucus, would say about the UBCIC comments if those were related to a B.C. Conservative Bill 15.

[3:20 p.m.]

I think they’d be in lockstep with those comments. We get mocked by the NDP sometimes because we have open votes on this side of the House. I do wonder how much pressure internally is being put

I think they’d be in lockstep with those comments. You know, we get mocked by the NDP sometimes because we have open votes on this side of the House. I do wonder how much pressure internally is being put on three members to not listen and support Indigenous leadership from outside of this chamber. And I feel bad for that.

Motions were brought into this place in good faith to be discussed and debated. A standing vote was had, and everyone voted unanimously in favour. Then a week or two later, Bill 15 drops a complete and utter 180 degrees to the premise of that motion.

But I’m going to love to hear how the NDP tells me: “But don’t worry just because the Premier is flexing on this and demanding everyone toe the line and vote.” They’ll be more judicious as they pick losers and winners of projects moving forward. That it won’t matter what government relations firm you hire to help you navigate whether you’re deemed to be a provincial project of interest or not. That it won’t matter the Premier’s personal opinion on a project or a government relations firm. Somehow we’re supposed to actually believe that. Based on the track record, I’d say that’s a pretty far stretch.

Bill 15 enables the government to acquire and gift government land to private proponents. It’s incredible to me when you read through. You know the minister will take issue with how we’re characterizing some of these clauses. And that’s what committee stage is for; she can try to correct us if we’re wrong. The interesting thing at committee stage is what tends to come out.

First off, we’re going to be jammed for time, so closure has already been invoked. It’s eight o’clock next Wednesday is the vote. Secondly, it’s interesting when we interpret how the clauses are written, the minister will always — and not just this minister, all government ministers — jump to: “That’s not accurate. That’s not right. That’s not….”

Well, welcome to what happens to the private sector when they’re reading a piece of legislation and trying to interpret it. That’s why committee stage of any bill is so critically important. Because when the inevitable lawsuits get engaged — that the government has already been warned about — courts will actually look at the government’s intention based on the minister’s answers clause by clause. That’s what they do.

Unfortunately, this government did their usual trick of bringing legislation of consequence in at the very end. I mean, you think of the first few pieces of legislation we had. We had the hard-hitting “How to appoint a Conflict of Interest Commissioner and extend that process” piece of legislation.

We had another two or three clause piece of legislation. It was so consequential I can’t even remember what the issue was.

We had the ever-present, every single year parks GIS mapping update, where they take five or six parks in the province and they update based on new, current and better mapping.

That’s what this chamber spent the first month, month and a half of a three-month session dealing with. Not Bill 15. Not Bill 14. Not Bill 7. The government couldn’t even have the decency to present Bill 14 and 15, at least on March 13, when they brought in Bill 7. At least we would’ve saw the full package of the power grab that was happening with this government.

[3:25 p.m.]

Which is why we firmly believe the only reason they need Bill 15 is because part 4 of Bill 7 got withdrawn by the government, because the same groups raised the same concerns about that. So the government blinked on it, and now the Premier is doubling down. There will be no amendments. There will be no changes. There will not be pushing of Bill 15 into the fall sitting so it could be properly understood, properly vetted, properly looked at by the legal community.

I mean, in 2018

No changes, they will not be pushing Bill 15 into the fall sitting so it can be properly understood, properly vetted, properly looked at by the legal community.

I mean, in 2018, the committee met 75 hours to produce a report recommending changes in the Environmental Assessment Act. They engaged with a variety of key stakeholders including industry, business associations, environmental organizations and local governments. Extensive engagement with First Nations communities. Public comment period. Over 2,500 public comments and 60 formal submissions. Those same groups actually supported those EA changes.

So when the government says that if you’re opposed to Bill 15, you must be opposed to moving things forward quickly or getting things done in the province…. No. No, we’re not. The Indigenous groups aren’t. UBCM isn’t. The environmental groups aren’t. What we’re saying is that it needs to be a proper process. What it needs is the government, instead of spending the last six or seven months since the election trying to pretend they’ve made these great changes to the environmental system and permitting process and everything’s been accelerated….

The minister just tweeted out a list of accomplishments, of permits and timelines, last week. If that’s accurate, why do we need Bill 15? If things are actually moving, finally, if things are actually moving forward, why do we need Bill 15 — to build schools quickly? Are you kidding me? You need all-powerful control and overrides at the cabinet level, at the Premier’s office level — let’s call it for what it is — to build schools quickly, to build a hospital quickly. Yes, it’s because municipalities are famous for holding up hospital projects. That’s a surefire way to get yourself re-elected in a municipal election.

The delays in Kamloops on the cancer centre certainly haven’t been municipal. They’ve been provincial. Now we’re going to get an improperly rammed-through cancer centre on our hands because the government refuses to listen. But somehow that’s the municipal fault.

Oh, that’s right. The government said: “Oh, but if we built it properly, we would need a height variance, a three foot height variance.” Yes, because we all know municipalities are going to say no to a three-foot height variance in a city that doesn’t protect view lines to build a proper cancer centre. Yeah, I’m sure that’s what’s going to happen. So let’s just build it improperly and have an improperly functioning cancer centre for 50 years.

This is the government that wants the power to just build and move forward a project that they deem to be okay when, even though current ones they have…. When they’re pointed out their flaws, their design flaws, the government refuses to build it properly. The response we get back from them, in, say, the cancer centre in Kamloops’s case is: “If you delay any further it will just be cancelled.”

Well, the interesting thing is that those delays have been the government’s delays. It was Premier Horgan in October of 2020 that promised the doors would be open in October of 2024. Architectural drawings still haven’t finished yet, but somehow, it’s local leadership if they raise concerns that are now delaying this project or the local MLAs that are being obstructionists and delaying the project as if we’re the ones sitting in the architectural offices drawing up the blueprints.

They haven’t even broken ground. It was promised by this government. Cancer care was promised to be open in October of 2024, and they haven’t even broken ground. This government is trying to blame local governance and height variances, potential height variances, as the issue.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

I should explain to the public that the back side of this property is a hillside that goes up and up and up before you get to the first house. That’s what they’re worried about getting a height variance for, of three feet, to build it properly.

[3:30 p.m.]

But Bill 15 is necessary or this government won’t be able to build things quickly. Not one delay has been this government’s fault. Pattullo Bridge, two years behind schedule

to build it properly. But Bill 15…. That’s necessary, or this government won’t be able to build things quickly.

Not one delay has been this government’s fault. The Pattullo Bridge, two years behind schedule — not their fault. In fact, when they first finally announced and admitted it was behind schedule, they tried clinging to that it wasn’t over budget. Apparently it was the only magical construction site in B.C. that had full construction and is two years behind schedule with people fully employed at it, and somehow not one extra dollar of what was budgeted was being expended.

A couple months later they finally came clean and said: “Oh yeah, it’s a few hundred million over budget.” Hospitals on the Island — over $1 billion over budget, double the cost of what they first said it was going to be. Hospital in Surrey — way over budget. SkyTrain in Surrey — way over budget, by billions of dollars. And when they get asked about this, they say they need Bill 15 to somehow do other projects quicker and more efficiently with better value. They can’t manage the ones they’ve got.

The Transportation Minister goes on about $15 billion of infrastructure in this budget. Their current projects are $15 billion over budget. And $15 billion — what would that do for schools, if they’d just managed all those other projects properly? And we’re supposed to believe that Bill 15 is the linchpin, that this has been the missing piece all along. For eight years they’ve sat idly by and defended project after project being delayed and over budget, and the missing piece, the secret to it all was Bill 15. With Bill 15, they can wave a wand, and everything will just work fast.

No consultation. “We’ll consult after the fact.” How many times have we heard the government say that about legislation in here? Just about every time. “We’ll consult afterwards. We’ll talk to UBCM afterwards. It’ll be fine.”

Well, what’s the point? Bill 15 would enable this government to have so much power over municipalities that, once it’s law, it doesn’t matter what the municipalities think about it. The whole reason you consult with municipalities is beforehand…. If it was really that good and benign of legislation to these groups, they’re all pretty smart people.

Is the minister honestly trying to say that it’s fine? They want to say that we’re over-politicizing as an opposition or that we’re being creative with our interpretation of clauses or whatever word you want to use. I get it. That’s politics. That’s this chamber. It’s easy to dismiss us.

Are they saying that all the smart people at UBCM are completely wrong? UBCM typically does not push back very hard against government, not this publicly. They might do it in private boardrooms and private conversations. They certainly don’t do it on a piece of legislation like this.

Is the UBCIC totally misinterpreting? Is Jody Wilson-Raybould completely misinterpreting, the former head of the government of Canada for legal issues? Does she not understand how to read a provincial bill properly and interpret its consequences?

Well, according to this government, that’s just all overblown, and that’s a problem. That’s a problem when there’s a repeated ask to just trust, but then the trust keeps getting broken, and rules keep getting changed, and there’s an ever-shifting sense of how things will play out.

Madam Chair, you were here when I was talking on Bill 14 about how these are interrelated. They are interrelated.

[3:35 p.m.]

You have Bill 15, where the government can start unilaterally picking and choosing which projects get accelerated. And the government will try to say, “Well, it doesn’t guarantee they move forward,” as if there’s not investment decisions and cost pressures and a significant cost for every month, every year that a project languishes in a holding pattern.

accelerated. The government will try to say, “Well, it doesn’t guarantee they move forward,” as if there are not investment decisions and cost pressures and a significant cost for every month, every year that a project languishes in a holding pattern with this government. They seem to not want to either acknowledge that…. The scary part is that they don’t understand that. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that they just don’t want to acknowledge it.

There’s a very real cost to someone else not being on the fast track for almost what appears to be the identical project except for what government relations firm they’re using or which riding they may be in. That does not inspire investment confidence in British Columbia. It creates investment chaos in British Columbia.

Banana republics have more defined processes. It’s not legal, especially in the Canadian context. It doesn’t make it right, but you tend to know how big of a briefcase of money you need to get your permit moving. You don’t need shifting legislative sands with two or three competing pieces of legislation that create a whole other patchwork of regulation and potential cabinet overrides or not. They just need to know what the rules are.

I used to say this when I had a hotel and a pub. I could literally do that anywhere in the world. There are hotels and bars everywhere in the world. You just need to go there and know what the rules are to operate in. Then you can figure out if there’s a business case for your business. I chose to stay in Kamloops where I grew up, I chose to raise my family there, and I chose to keep operating the business there because I reasonably knew what the rules of the game were and I reasonably felt I could provide for my family.

Mining, forestry, any type of industry is the same. They operate around the world. What they need to know is what the rules of the game in that jurisdiction are and that there’s some certainty around the rules. Then they can make the decision if they’re willing and able to afford to operate in that regulatory regime that is there.

This doesn’t mean our regulatory regime has to be lockstep with everyone else. It just means it has to be consistent. Our tax structure has to be competitive. Our overall business climate has to be competitive with those other jurisdictions. The regulatory regime just needs to be consistent to understand what that pathway is and what the actual timeline is.

The government’s response to failing to properly implement or deliver what they promised from 2018 till today, with all of their reforms on the environmental act, with their reforms to the professional reliance act, with the Premier acknowledging in 2023 that they still had work to do…. Fine, that was a different regime. He was merely the Housing Minister and the Attorney General. We’ll give him a pass.

I mean, he tries to take runs at our leader for being at the cabinet table for decisions made on things that were nowhere near our leader’s former portfolio. The best one is when they say he was a former Forest Minister. Yeah, for those same 18 days that I was in government. Apparently, he should have solved forestry in those 18 days. He should have solved softwood lumber in those 18 days back in 2017.

That’s what this government likes to do. Yet the Premier that was the Attorney General —from 2017 till 2022, was it? — had no sway, no voice at the cabinet table. Who knew that the Attorney General had so little power of influence at a cabinet meeting. Apparently, the gentleman who became Premier, who had enough political heft to strong-arm his way through a leadership race, didn’t have that same type of sway in the cabinet room, only in a leadership race. That’s what we’re trying to be led to believe by this government and this Premier.

[3:40 p.m.]

That’s the problem here. They have failed miserably to advance things in a way that all those groups that signed on and validated thought was going to happen. Now they wonder why those same groups are saying, “You know, we’ve been down this

That’s the problem here. They have failed miserably to advance things in a way that all those groups that signed on and validated thought was going to happen. And now they wonder why those same groups are saying: “We’ve been down this road before. We don’t believe it’s actually going to happen. You told us you had the answers and you were going to expedite based on our concerns and our input back in 2018. That hasn’t happened. The Premier said he was going to address it yet again in 2023. That hasn’t happened. And yeah, we’re a little concerned that your final solution is to keep making an end run on absolute power in the Premier’s office.”

Part 4 of Bill 7 would have provided absolute power in the Premier’s office. That got withdrawn; Bill 15 got introduced. Bill 15 does the exact same thing, just in a more defined area of oversight. But make no mistake about it. This is a bill about the Premier getting to pick winners and losers when it comes to resources. And the message keeps changing, which is how you know the Premier got it wrong.

Now the Premier has alluded to how only Indigenous-owned projects, or that have equity stake, will be the ones fast-tracked. But we’re not really sure, because he flings this stuff out at press conferences. The minister didn’t touch on that in her opening comments. Normally, the opening comments by a minister would provide a lot more detail into things like that, if that’s actually what was going to happen.

Apparently, there’s already a disconnect between the Premier and how he’s going to interpret Bill 15 and the minister and how she’s presenting Bill 15. If that doesn’t give you cause for concern as well, I don’t know what does. The Premier’s vague statements also create a whole lot of other questions, even within Indigenous communities.

Does that mean a proponent, an Indigenous nation in and around a mine who perhaps doesn’t have the wherewithal to raise the equity to be an equity partner or doesn’t want to assume the risk of being an equity partner would just prefer to get a royalty payment off of the mine?

Does that mine no longer qualify because of the ownership structure? We’re now tying the winner and loser of a project not to the project, not to whether the project should advance, because we need that critical mineral. It’s going to be at the Premier’s discretion as to who the ownership group is. But ownership groups come and go, so is this just a new, fancy way to make sure we have an ownership group in place to get you expedited through the permitting and then the sale happens to the next ownership group?

These projects aren’t owned in perpetuity by one company. Shareholders come and go. Majority shareholders come and go.

Sorry, does the minister need to...?

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the Minister of Education and Child Care.

Hon. Lisa Beare: Thank you very much, Speaker. I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Lisa Beare: Joining us in the gallery today, we have Lord Byng Secondary School and their teacher Scott McKeen.

On behalf of the Premier and all of us here in the House right now, we welcome you. Thank you for joining us.

Debate Continued

Peter Milobar: I was talking about how a project…. Especially in the mining world, companies come and go. Companies come in. Junior companies start getting the process moving. They feel they’ve created enough value in the project that a bigger company comes in. Permits start to get issued. The cost of construction and to get access to the higher-quality ore body start to change that profile, and they need to go out, and they need to find other investors. That’s just standard business.

[3:45 p.m.]

There’s nothing shady about it. It’s not nefarious. It’s literally how you take a mine from somebody claiming an area to getting it all the way to a full-production mine. How does that have any certainty in this process? How does it have any certainty at all in this process

it’s not nefarious. It’s just, it’s literally how you take a mine from somebody claiming an area to getting it all the way to a full-production mine. How does that have any certainty in this process? How does it have any certainty at all in this process?

These processes are supposed to be independent of the Premier’s office, not at the whim of the Premier’s office. What happens if a municipality or a First Nation is at odds with the Premier’s office on a different topic completely? Will this be used as leverage to make sure that there’s grudging adherence, glowing press releases about a government project or program that’s completely unrelated to the project they want to get fast-tracked?

It sounds ridiculous, I know, but the legislation actually enables those scenarios to start to happen. That is the problem of the eroding of the process.

So when ICBA chimes in…. And they say: “The irony is impossible to ignore. The NDP has had to create an entire new ministry and pass legislation just to cut the red tape they created in the first place. Yes, permitting delays and red tape are slowing down schools and hospitals, but they’re also slowing down homes, roads, energy, bridges and every other type of construction. This should have been an across-the-board fix, not a narrowly focused government workaround.”

That’s from Chris Gardner, the ICBA president. He also said: “Simpler is better. The answer is to eliminate unnecessary delays for all projects, not just the ones favoured by government. Government procurement is broken. Every major project in B.C. is behind schedule, often by years, and over budget, often by hundreds of millions of dollars. We need real, across-the-government reform that empowers B.C.’s builders, gets more projects to yes faster and restores investor confidence in this province.”

You only get that if you have a clear set of rules and guidelines for these applicants to follow, and it can’t have them circuiting through the Premier’s office. It’s the equivalent of when we raise issues in this House about health care, or people not having a doctor, and the minister will stand up and…. Ironically enough, it’s the current Energy Minister, who’s dealing with Bill 14, that would say this repeatedly in this House: “Well, you should just bring that concern to me. We’ll talk after the House rises.” He was good; he would follow up with you. I give him that.

Our health care system has really gotten to the point that it requires somebody needing a doctor to phone their local MLA to stand up in the chamber at the Legislature, to talk to the Minister of Health directly in person, to have him then finally follow up to try to find that one person when we have almost a million people without a family doctor. That’s the government view of efficiency with the NDP. All MLAs are more than happy to try to help people find that family doctor, but I don’t think that sounds like a reasonable way — one case by one case by one case — to deal with the bigger, broader issue.

Instead of dealing with that bigger, broader issue, we just have to keep standing up here, in the 20 weeks we might sit in a year, and bring them one issue at a time, and all those other people don’t get their issue addressed. That’s the same problem with this. The individual shouldn’t have to go through a Health Minister to find a doctor. A mine or a large project should not have to go through the Premier’s office to get a permit.

It simply makes no sense. It opens up for abuse. It opens up for the appearance of abuse, and the appearance is more deadly than actual. Look at what happened around a sundeck in this province. We’re a far cry from that with this bill. We’re talking about mines that could be worth billions of dollars of economic good to the province.

[3:50 p.m.]

There are 18 critical mineral mines right now languishing, waiting for permits. Those mines, over the life of their mines, the average of about 24-year lifespan of a mine, would add $1 trillion — with a t: trillion— to the province. This government has known that for eight years.

Those mines over the life of their mines, the average of about a 24-year lifespan of a mine, would add $1 trillion — with a “t” — to the province. This government has known that for eight years. Those projects have not meaningfully advanced.

Now this government is saying: “Just trust us. All the processes will still be the same. Bill 15 is just really about speeding things up, not about signing orders to waive things, not about looking the other way and any of that.” Well then, what do you need Bill 15 for?

On the one hand, they say: “Don’t worry. Nothing’s really going to change.” On the other hand, they say: “We need Bill 15 to make everything change and speed it up.

Without Bill 15, they don’t know how to package two schools in the same city together — to ask one contractor to bid or a series of contractors to bid on the contract to build two schools at once, instead of one. They need Bill 15 to make that happen. I’m totally unclear why that is needed. Schools that they say are held up by municipalities. Most municipalities already have pre-identified school sites.

Here’s the other thing in my riding. We have a government that says they want to accelerate schools because it’s municipalities with delays. So I talked about the cancer centre and the complete cluster that is in Kamloops.

Let’s look at another problem we have. We need another school site in Aberdeen. Could have had that school site for a few million dollars. A developer, under immense pressure to release that school site for housing, kept holding it for the school board so that they could acquire it for a future school site at a reasonable price. It took this government almost two years, and the price went up 50 percent — over two years of begging and pleading by the school board to acquire the site.

There is no school approved for the site. There is no money assigned to the site. They haven’t even approved the concept. It was just to acquire the land to make sure housing didn’t go on there, in a critical part of our city. It is hilly in that area, so there are very few actual appropriate building sites for a school. And now the government has the nerve to stand here and say that without Bill 15, we can’t move schools forward quickly.

We had a school in my riding that burned down to the ground at the beginning of the school year — elementary school. It took five instructional years for this government to rebuild, essentially, an insurance claim, five instructional years for an elementary school to be built on the same site as the elementary school. I believe the good folks in — is it Port Coquitlam? — that had a devastating school fire at the beginning of a school year, in 2024, I believe it was, are going to be facing the same thing.

We had another school…. Oh yeah, it’s approved. Three budgets — it took three budgets after the government first said they’d approved that school for the money to actually be in the budget. And that’s it for schools in the Kamloops school district. That’s this government’s view of efficiency and speed. And they blame others.

Not one of those sites was delayed because of the municipality or the school district. All of it was delayed by this government and their lack of action. Yet we are being led to believe that you need Bill 15 to override all oversight to somehow make these projects move faster. And you know, when they say “so we can build schools faster,” if the government really wants to just wield a firm hand on this….

[3:55 p.m.]

Last I checked, there’s a pretty big backlog of school districts desperate for new schools. Here’s a thought. Just tell the municipality or the school district: “If you’re not ready, come back to us in two years. We’re going to move to the site next door, the town next door, the city next door, because they’ve got something on their capital list that could be funded instead.”

But, no. Let’s use that as the

tell the municipality or the school district if you’re not ready, come back to us in two years, we’re going to move to the site next door, the town next door, the city next door. Because they got something on their capital list that could be funded instead.

But no, let’s use that as the excuse to bring in Bill 15. Frankly it’s somewhat objectionable that the government has tried to wrap themselves in schools and hospitals with Bill 15. Because they’re essentially saying to people to just accept that all large projects are going to be at the sole discretion of the Premier’s office or else your schools and hospitals won’t get built let alone in a timely fashion. I guess in a way they’re already wielding that iron glove, they’re just doing it province-wide, and finally they’re doing it in the open.

But again they’re amalgamating so many different concepts in Bill 15 to try to justify the overreach when it comes to the overrides and the picking of projects winners and losers. And that’s what ICBA was talking about. We agree. But we also agree, like the ICBA, that environmental assessments aren’t a bad thing. They just need to be done efficiently, effectively, quickly and professionally.

This government said in 2018 they’d solve that riddle. They’re not even willing to admit they got it wrong with Bill 15. Maybe one of them will stand up and say: “You know what? We have totally failed for the last seven years as government since we brought in the changes to the Environmental Assessment Act, so we need Bill 15.” George Heyman didn’t know what he was talking about. Sonia Fursteneau didn’t know what she was talking about.

We bought a bill of goods from them, and we thought we had something good in the works. But they didn’t know what they were doing. They had no idea. We need Bill 15. Bill 15 is the only way to do this. It’d be refreshing. It’d be honest. It’d be refreshing if their members would stand up and say: “You know what? UBCIC has no idea what they’re talking about. We’re going to vote for this despite the First Nations leadership across this province saying that they have massive concerns about it because we know better than the First Nations leadership as government.” Love to hear someone on that government side say that.

Environmental groups. Apparently they don’t know what they’re talking about. Their concerns are unfounded.

Or UBCM. What do a bunch of locally elected mayors and councillors that are heading into an election year know? They’re obviously trying to be obstructionists. They obviously don’t want hospitals and schools in their riding. That’s why they’re against Bill 15. Certainly none of them would want to see hospitals and schools built in their riding over the next year. What a horrible way to get yourself re-elected as a locally elected official. What a horrible way for a school trustee to get re-elected to see schools built. Of course that’s why they’re opposed to this bill. They don’t want to see that activity in there.

You know the minister has tried to characterize this as this is how we’re going to fast-track these projects in these cities. Like these are projects these cities fight against. It’s interesting, you know, that she left out the housing piece. The more at-risk housing is left out of this bill because they know that would be very contentious. But they try to wrap it around as if, you know, the delays that local government have been all around hospitals and schools. Those well-known areas of civic infrastructure that municipalities just hate to have.

You know, the other problem and the reason that municipalities are a little concerned is because if the government goes ahead and forces things that they deem to be of provincial significance through on them without corresponding infrastructure money for them…. When I say infrastructure, I mean it in the municipal sense. I was a mayor for nine years. I mean it in the sense of pipes and pavement and yes playgrounds, quality of life for your residents.

[4:00 p.m.]

If they start forcing through under Bill 15 developments and actions that are going to impact those core services municipalities provide, but municipalities have no way to pay for the impact…. We’ve already seen that happened, and that pushback happened on Bill 44 with housing when this government refused to listen to municipalities

if they start forcing through, under Bill 15, developments and actions that are going to impact those core services municipalities provide, but municipalities have no way to pay for the impact….

We’ve already seen that happen and that push-back happen on Bill 44 with housing, when this government refused to listen to municipalities. Those same concerns are still out there on Bill 44 and haven’t been addressed by this government, a government, I would point out, that has no infrastructure money in this year’s budget or next year’s budget or next year’s budget for municipalities to tap into, of any consequence.

They hang their hat on a one-time billion dollars that was distributed per capita. That’s the only infrastructure en masse that this government has done in eight years. There used to be about a billion dollars a year to tap into as a municipality, and that was oversubscribed. That was year after year after year. This government has done it once in eight years.

Now municipalities are worried because, again, it’s not just about looking at one piece of legislation in isolation, as much as the government wants people to do that. It’s about looking at Bill 44, if you’re a municipality, and saying: “We already have concerns about that impact on us.” Now you read Bill 15 and you say: “Okay, here’s the other shoe that’s going to drop. It’s bad enough what they’ve done on Bill 44 to try to force us down certain avenues of development. It’ll be even worse when you layer in Bill 15 and how they can just snap their fingers and override us and force dramatic cost pressures on a city.”

It’s just simply not the best way to move forward. In 2018, they consulted with municipalities when they made major changes to the Environmental Assessment Act. In 2025, they didn’t, and you’re seeing the result. In 2018, municipalities were on board; 2025, they’re steadfastly opposed. In 2018, First Nations leadership was fully on board with the changes; 2025, they’re not. And the list goes on and on and on.

When I think of other projects that have been delayed by the province, around this province, and when I think of what Bill 15 enables…. You know, I was thinking about this the other day when it came on the news. I thought: “Ah, well there’s an interesting piece with Bill 15.” You know, already it’s dredge, baby, dredge when it’s the Burrard Inlet. I’m just waiting for the Energy minister to have a “Log It, Mine It, Pave It” t-shirt on one of these days. Log it, mine it, pave it: that seems to be the new mentality coming out of the government side.

We’re going to dredge the Burrard Inlet to load up bigger tankers on a project he was adamantly opposed to, and now we have Bill 15. Part of the guise of the Massey Tunnel replacement is that we need the tunnel so bigger ships can get in. So under the guise of needing to unlock our ports…. Again, this side actually supports all this type of development. We just wish the government would be a little more upfront about their true intentions here.

We’ve said all along that we didn’t think a tunnel replacement would actually pass an environmental assessment, and it hasn’t yet. Hasn’t passed one. Let’s see. Last I checked there are a few salmon that go past the Massey, go over top of that tunnel in the water. Just one or two. Bit of a sturgeon estuary as well. All sorts of other impacts with wetlands and things of that nature.

Under Bill 15, I think you could argue that the Massey Tunnel would be of provincial significance given its critical need to transportation links for trade. Sounds like this government doesn’t really care what people have to think about the environmental assessment of the Massey Tunnel replacement. But let’s track what the government says versus their actions, especially when it relates to Indigenous commentary.

[4:05 p.m.]

Now, I referenced salmon because we all know how important salmon are to Indigenous communities and culture in our province. But the salmon don’t just stop when they get to Chilliwack. Just outside of my riding is Adams River, largest salmon run

I reference salmon because we all know how important salmon are to Indigenous communities and culture in our province. But the salmon don’t just stop when they get to Chilliwack. Just outside of my riding is Adams River, the largest salmon run in the world — at least it used to be.

Where does the government think those salmon start? Where do they think they actually come by? Why might an environmental assessment process on the Massey Tunnel replacement be so critically important?

Are you going to actually take, at the same value, Indigenous concerns that might be raised from Adams River all the way down? The Skeetchestn that have a fisheries on Kamloops Lake. When the fish are coming through, the cultural impact that it could have, the impact it could have on steelhead — which we’re down to a couple dozen in the Thompson River now. That’s a whole other story of hearing that the province is trying to walk away from dealing with the steelhead and turn that over to the feds.

But at what point does this government not want to walk the walk, when they talk about actually talking to impacted Indigenous communities and getting their perspective on things like environmental assessment impacts? It’s their words. It’s their way of trying to frame the issue. It’s this government’s way of always trying to wag the finger to this side of the House on issues like this. And then they just walk away from their commitments when it’s convenient for them and try to pretend that Stewart Phillip doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to Bill 15. Must make for interesting dinner conversation, that’s all I know.

But I’m quite serious about that, and I’ve said that from day one when the government pulled the plug on the bridge as the replacement for the tunnel. The bridge that would have been much less impactful to the river. The bridge that had passed an environmental assessment, was ready to go, actually was waiting for the contract to be signed, was projected originally to be $3.5 billion, actually had a contract in hand for the government to sign at $2.9 billion.

But only this government could act this way. Because it was the previous government’s project, they scrubbed it. So now we’re going to be looking in the five-plus billion dollar range. Because why build a project for less money, when you could build it for more and delay it? That seems to be the NDP mantra. And now we need Bill 15 to somehow expediate things and somehow make things cheaper for us.

But I go back to the salmon. I sincerely would love, one of these years, to actually get a straight-up answer from somebody in government. Is there a distance requirement that they want to get comment on the impact that the Massey Tunnel replacement might have on the salmon? Is it only bands up to Chilliwack? Is it only nations up to there?

Do the Interior nations not count when it comes to salmon? Does the Adams Lake, the Skwlāx, the Tk'emlúps, the Neskonlith, Whispering Pines, Skeetchestn, Lytton, Lillooet…. I know I’m going to miss a few. I already probably have missed a couple. Those are just the ones that are literally right on the banks of the Thompson River. Do their opinions not count when it comes to salmon?

Is it only coastline First Nations that this government wants to hear about when it comes to impacts to salmon? It would be nice to get a clear answer from this government on that. I think the local First Nations leadership in my part of the world would love that answer as well — a very clear answer.

[4:10 p.m.]

Bill 15 doesn’t help provide that answer. Bill 15 is the exact opposite. Bill 15 says, quite literally: “We know we need to get going on the Massey Tunnel replacement. We’re desperate to replace three lane rush hour capacity with a permanent three lane rush hour capacity.” Talk about building for the future. That’s a whole other ball of wax with that.

But Pattullo was the same way. An 80-year-old, four-lane bridge replaced with a four-lane bridge because, you know, that’s how you build for growth if you’re the NDP. And then you turn around, you bring in Bill 15, and you tell us: “Well, we need Bill 15 because that’s how we’re going to start building things properly in this province. That’s how we’re going to build things that aren’t delayed. That’s how we’re going to build things that aren’t

But Pattullo was the same way — 80-year-old bridge, 4-lane bridge replaced with a 4-lane bridge. That’s how you build for growth if you’re the NDP. Then you turn around, and you bring in Bill 15, and you tell us: “Well, we need Bill 15 because that’s how we’re going to start building things properly in this province. That’s how we’re going to build things that aren’t delayed. That’s how we’re going to build things that aren’t over budget.”

The funny thing is that the government always says projects have been delayed, and they blame municipalities. The interesting thing is, when you actually go back and start looking at the timelines of these projects, they’re always delayed after they’ve been approved and after they already have their building permits. I don’t see how a municipality, after things have already got moving, is the one delaying a project. It’s the government.

As I say, five instructional years to replace a burnt-out elementary school in Kamloops. I mean, you think about that. Those kids that were in grade 2 when that fire happened never went to that school again. Kids that were in kindergarten didn’t go back to that school until they were what? Grade 5, 4?

And the government has the audacity to stand here and say: “If we don’t have all-encompassing power of decision-making vetted through the Premier’s office with Bill 15, we can’t build schools quickly, because municipalities are delaying a school being built.” At what point does the government stop scapegoating municipalities and others for their lack of deliverable?

It was the government’s own press releases. It was the government’s own legislation. In fact, the Environmental Assessment Act has been amended many times since 2018, and not once have we heard the government take ownership of the fact that they’re failing. Their legislation failed.

Their actions have failed. Their actions have created a bureaucratic mess. Their actions have not resulted in a meaningful moving forward of significant projects, including government infrastructure projects. Their actions, and lack thereof, have failed to attract the capital needed to keep our economy rolling, because if it was working, we wouldn’t need Bill 15. If it was working, our economy would be working in such a way that we didn’t have an $11 billion structural deficit right now at a time when the government is collecting record tax revenue. They’ve never collected so much money.

You know when you’re supposed to run a record deficit? When you actually have an economy that’s struggling and tax revenues have dried up and you don’t want to make cuts to health care. That’s when record deficits are supposed to happen, and then you go out and build a few extra things to keep some construction sites going. That’s what governments typically do.

This government has taken it to a whole new level — record tax revenue coming in, record deficit on the negative side of the equation, all operational, which very clearly demonstrates they actually don’t know how to operate things. After eight years of project delays and cost overruns and projects that haven’t even started, their new answer is to bring in Bill 15 and run roughshod over everybody.

So what could go wrong? What could go wrong with fast-tracking projects? Well, again, it’s not so much about the fast-tracking of a project that we take issue with. We absolutely agree projects should be fast-tracked.

I would hope that burnt-out schools would be fast-tracked to be replaced, but they’re not. I do hope the government has learned some lessons in the case of Kamloops and Parkcrest Elementary and it doesn’t take five instructional years for the Port Coquitlam school to be rebuilt.

[4:15 p.m.]

But I believe we’re already on instructional year number 2, quickly coming to a close, that that school’s been out of operation. So I think they’re going to be close to that five years of instructional time before that school gets rebuilt.

I’ve heard the mayor come out firmly wanting the school rebuilt, so I can’t believe that it’s mayor and council that is the delay to rebuild that school. But the government

years of instructional time before that school gets rebuilt. I’ve heard the mayor come out firmly wanting the school rebuilt, so I can’t believe that it’s mayor and council that is the delay to rebuild that school.

But the government’s answer is Bill 15. What could go wrong when things can just run straight through the Premier’s office and the cabinet table in the prioritization of projects? What could go wrong with a cabinet that has almost no rural representation in it, because this government failed to win very many, if any, rural seats? What could go wrong when the decision-makers don’t understand the complexities and the lifestyle and the interconnectivity of those rural and remote communities, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, that are advocating for projects to be their lifeline? What could possibly go wrong with a cabinet that to this point has demonstrated very little ability to break logjams in the exact areas that Bill 15 purports to be moving them, yet they’ve been told about these issues for eight years? What could possibly go wrong in that scenario?

Again, the easiest litmus test on something as significant as a piece of legislation as Bill 15, well, there are a couple of touch points. Why is it so all-encompassing? If a minister was named as a minister back in November or whatever the date was that the cabinet got sworn in, why did it take till now for the enabling legislation to create that ministry? A ministry that’s supposed to be actually making sure projects are moving quickly has waited over six months to get its paperwork in to itself.

That could have come as a stand-alone piece of legislation. That could have come in beginning of March, actually mid-February, when we first sat in the throne speech. We didn’t have to debate the throne speech for two weeks straight. We could have actually debated creating a ministry that had already been announced, with a minister already there and a staff.

But, no, it had to wait till the very end of the legislative session to get created and lumped in with a bill that enables cabinet and the Premier’s office to pick and choose which public assets will be built when and where and how fast. And if anything gets in the way, they’ll override it. That had to get lumped in with private sector investment projects that will get treated the same way.

Don’t worry. There are all these provisions in place as safeguards, except for if the Premier’s office feels things aren’t moving fast enough or a friend of a friend really wants a project moving quickly, then cabinet reserves the right to change the rules. They can ladder that in on projects in Bill 14. Somehow, this is going to create an investment climate that the investment community cheers and says: “Great. They finally have fixed the problem. Now we just have got to figure out if we are one of the chosen ones.”

I said it on Bill 14, and I think it bears repeating on Bill 15. Again, I’m purposely not using names of firms, and I’m not using names of people, because I think they are all good people. They have jobs to do, and I’m not trying to say there’s anything nefarious going on.

But the nature of the beast of politics in B.C., the reality is that we have a lot of government relations companies. They’ve got people that have been there for a while. They’ve got former MLAs from both sides of the aisle. Some are family members of people in government or in opposition.

[4:20 p.m.]

It creates a bad look, and I don’t know how the government doesn’t see that, that without clear safeguards and guidelines, other than vague, if we deem it in the provincial

It creates a bad look. I don’t know how the government doesn’t see that. Without clear safeguards and guidelines, other than vague: “If we deem it in the provincial interest….”

Well, by “we,” it’s like the royal we. It was like when I was a kid. My dad would look out, and it had snowed. He’d say: “We should go shovel the driveway.” Well, the we was him watching from the windows, and the we was me shoveling. That was “we should go shovel.” In this case, the royal we is if the Premier deems it’s in the provincial interest. That’s how vague this wording is.

So when you read “we” or “government” read “Premier” and “Premier’s office”. That’s the problem. Then there’ll be howls of: “Oh, how dare you. How dare you even insinuate if a project moved forward, and we see which companies were….” It puts companies, actually, in a very bad spot, too. There’s a lot of reputational risk for them. It’s kind of a no-win all the way around when you actually look at it.

Then the opposition will rightfully point out questions around why one project did, and one project didn’t. We’ll look for differences. That’s our job. The way the government will look at us and howl back about how outrageous it is. If it happens to be the Transportation Minister that stands up in question period, he’ll say: “That’s why you’re over there, and that’s why we’re over here.” It’s how he’ll end it. But it’s a serious issue, and it’s not addressed in Bill 15.

Those will be serious concerns we bring forward. It’ll get loud in here in question period. It will get raucous. But does that actually serve the public interest well on an issue like that, when we’re trying to actually figure out legitimately how one project got advanced and one didn’t?

It’s like when we ask access-to-treatment questions. We’re not asking out of curiosity. We’re asking because we have family members struggling to get care for their loved ones. We’re asking on their behalf, because they don’t have the ability to stand here.

When we ask those questions about Bill 15 and why one major project got advanced and a different one didn’t get advanced in the near future, it’ll be because we have other projects coming to us and saying that this makes no sense. They’re going to insist theirs had less of an impact than the one that got moved through. They’re going to insist that theirs actually had more economic benefit than the one that got moved through and on and on and on.

The government’s response will be: “I can’t believe you raised that. How dare you? That’s offensive.” Okay, so show us the proof. Show us your work. Show us how you actually evaluated this. You know what the answer back will be? “That’s cabinet confidentiality. We can’t touch on that. Those documents, no, no, no. Cabinet decision-making. We can’t possibly tell you how we arrived at that.”

It might work for the first project, but it certainly is not going to instill confidence on projects 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to try to come forward in this province. It’s like my earlier comment about the banana republic. It’s what it turns into. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment, thousands of jobs, billions of dollars over the life of a project and royalties and taxes being paid through employment and other areas at risk because the government will hide behind cabinet confidentiality on how the Premier deemed one project was worthy to advance quickly and the other wasn’t.

[4:25 p.m.]

If the government was serious about fast-tracking projects over the last eight years, they ought to have used all the tools in the toolbox they armed themselves with, partly while they were trying to stop projects, ironically enough, at the same time.

was serious about fast-tracking projects. Over the last eight years, they ought to have used all the tools in the toolbox they armed themselves with — partly while they were trying to stop projects, ironically enough, at the same time — and actually fixed the system.

We warned government for years that the three big projects would be coming to an end at the same time, partly because of government delays on Site C and forced government delays on TMX. It created a situation where, instead of them having staggered stops, they all wound up ending at the same time. Eighty percent of GDP growth year over year over year for five years was based on those three projects. That whole time we kept asking government: “What’s next? What major project is in the portal to move forward?” And there was none.

We’re supposed to believe that Bill 15 is a response to a tariff war that, depending on the day, seems to be dwindling. I’ve got news for the government: in the last couple of weeks, Dad’s come home and is sitting at the head of the dinner table now. We have a Prime Minister in place. It’s an international trade agreement. The federal government, regardless of how you voted, is in charge of that.

The Premiers across this country that were trying to fill a bit of an information vacuum and void, and doing a very good job of promoting themselves…. Their role has been diminished dramatically. Yet Bill 15…. The excuse is to weather tariffs.

To hear what the minister said, projects are still going to have to go through all of these full processes; just things will be sped up. Well, even at a good time frame, an environmental assessment would still be a couple of years. Then a critical mineral mine would need to decide, based on its permitting, if it could even afford to operate, because that’s what happens.

They get a permit, and all sorts of conditions get layered on, and then they have to look at those conditions, and they have to decide if they can actually make those conditions work — if the economics of the ore body that they’re going after and the pricing and the futures market actually lines up with what they can do or not. That takes some time.

Then they have to go out and actually get the investment. Then they have to prep the site. Then they have to get going. Then they have to acquire all the equipment. Big mining equipment typically takes a couple of years in advance to order.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t be trying to rush things forward. But let’s be very, very clear. The President will have changed long before anything is generating any substantive push-back against that.

And let’s remember, it might help the overall economy in a tariff war — absolutely — but you’re not going to be taking people that might be impacted in the film industry en masse and saying: “Let’s make you a critical mineral miner today.” Or: “Let’s get you built up in doing complex concrete construction for a hospital project because you’ve just lost your job because of the tariff war in production services.”

I don’t want people out there to think that this is the magic elixir. It might shield the overall provincial economy, but it’s not going to shield a world of hurt that could be coming, and hopefully not, to a great many people and that will be reliant on negotiations between the Prime Minister and the President, not the Premier talking to someone in a red state or a blue state cutting a side deal.

It’s good he talks to those governors. It’s good that he has a relationship with them. He absolutely should be having that. But let’s be crystal-clear on that. That’s about trying to set a bit of a narrative to get some push-back with the President, who may or may not listen to those governors. It’s not actually cutting the deal.

[4:30 p.m.]

When we dealt with Bill 7, the Attorney General acknowledged that these are international trade agreements, dealt with at national government to national government. Not Bill 15 and Bill 14 and Bill 7 versus the President of the United States.

these are international trade agreements with a national government to national government, not Bill 15 and Bill 14 and Bill 7 versus the President of the United States. We just have to be clear about that.

We absolutely need to be shielding our economy. We absolutely need to be diversifying our exports. We should’ve been doing that over the last eight years. They’ve been stagnant, our diversification.

Bill 15 is not the silver bullet to solve all things. Bill 15 is not needed to build hospitals in British Columbia. Bill 15 is not needed to build schools in British Columbia. Bill 15 is needed if you want to run roughshod over municipalities. If you want to run roughshod over the direction of First Nations leadership in this province, if you want to run roughshod over the environmental groups, if you want to run roughshod over private sector development projects that are raising concerns because they don’t know what the rules are going to be, then absolutely you need Bill 15.

If you’re a Premier’s office that wants that kind of power, of course you need Bill 15. But you don’t need Bill 15 to build things properly and on time and on budget. What you need is a government that actually knows how to do that.

I would love to hear the logic as to how the Pattullo Bridge is two years behind schedule because of New Westminster or Surrey, when it started when the government said it would start construction.

I would love to know how the city of Surrey delayed the Surrey hospital being built and caused it to go $2 billion over budget or whatever the cost overrun is or how TransLink has caused SkyTrain out in Langley and Surrey to go so far over budget and how Bill 15 will magically solve all those problems — not that the government wants to talk about the community benefits agreements that have added 23 percent to every project or that the government wants to talk about their project labour agreements that have added 20 percent to every contract. No, no.

Once again, let’s not talk about our own actions as a government and the impact that those decisions have had on the very thing they’re now purporting to want to fix. The things they’re saying they want to fix are the things that they created and made a mess of. They could at least be forthright with the public about that.

If they truly think that this bill does not impact Indigenous communities the way the Indigenous communities are saying it does, let their Indigenous members have a free vote on this bill after calling it a confidence vote. Let’s see what the Premier would do with that.

Will the Premier strong-arm, like he did in the leadership race, to get his way? Or will he allow Indigenous members and Indigenous allies in his caucus to have a free vote on Bill 15, to express what they think about Bill 15 and how it impacts the Indigenous communities around this province?

I think we all know what that answer is, and that’s shameful. That’s shameful when it’s a government that repeatedly will stand up and try to lecture this side about issues to do with Indigenous nations and then force a whipped vote on their own members on the same topic areas and same issues, discounting what First Nations leadership is saying across this province about Bill 15. That is shameful in the highest degree.

[4:35 p.m.]

It was the government that chose to make this a confidence vote. It’s the government that chose to not consult with Indigenous communities ahead of time. It’s going to be the Premier that is choosing to cling to power by forcing Indigenous members and Indigenous allies in his caucus to do his bidding on this vote regardless of what they actually feel on something as core to them as Indigenous rights. That, to me, is as reprehensible as it gets for a government’s actions on a bill that they say, “Trust me. Pass it. We won’t overreach with our

on something as core to them as Indigenous rights. That, to me, is as reprehensible as it gets for a government’s actions — on a bill that they say, “Trust me. Pass it. We won’t overreach with our regulation. We won’t overreach with its implementation.” That’s the backdrop everyone is supposed to trust — this government and this cabinet.

So I truly do hope the government makes it a free vote. Let’s just see how solid the Premier’s support in his caucus actually is. He seems to think this is going to pass. He seems to think there’s nothing wrong with this legislation. He can’t understand why the B.C. Conservatives would be opposed to it or why the Green Party has issues and concerns and would be opposed to it.

Well, surely he’s able to explain it to his own caucus. Surely they trust him. He’s asking the public to give him unlimited power in Bills 15 and 14 and 7, because he says: “Just trust me.” Well, surely he can trust that his caucus believes in him enough to just vote, and it’s a true, free vote.

It’s time for the Premier to put his money where his mouth is. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable request. If he’s confident that he has the backing of his caucus, he wins 47-46. It’s the Premier that decided to make it a confidence vote. He decided to put his premiership on the line with this. He’s insisting he knows best on how to move projects forward — just trust him and leave everything to regulation after the fact.

The time for that type of talk is over. Next Wednesday at eight o’clock, when the vote happens…. It’s already been scripted by the government, as they brought closure in. We know exactly when this debate will end. We’ll go into committee stage. We’ll ask questions. There will be a lot of evasion by government. But on Wednesday at eight o’clock, this bill will come forward. I believe it’s Wednesday at eight o’clock; it’s next Wednesday sometime. This bill will come forward for the final vote.

The Minister of Environment brought forward a very heartfelt motion to deal with Indigenous issues in this chamber, as a minister, not as a private member, which is a bit rarer to happen. They had other Indigenous members stand up and speak. We did as well. We had people stand up and speak. The government thought they had some great plan to show us not supportive of Indigenous perspectives. We had a standing vote. We all voted in favour of it.

Well, here we are a couple weeks later and we’re standing up, and we’re saying we actually agree with and support the position of the UBCIC. Some pretty tight family connections between the NDP and the UBCIC leadership.

Is the Premier going to allow free votes? I would suggest by the looks on the faces of the various members that no, the Premier is not. It’s interesting, though. They have no problem trying to admonish and lecture us about how we should be working with and dealing with Indigenous leadership, moving forward.

Let the Indigenous leadership in your own caucus have their own voice. Maybe they agree with you. Maybe they disagree with all the other Indigenous leadership’s interpretation of Bill 15. Maybe they don’t agree with Jody Wilson-Raybould’s interpretation of Bill 15. Maybe they fully support the Premier on this.

We could find out Wednesday at eight o’clock if you just let them vote. They could prove me wrong. The Premier would be right. That’s fine. The vote would show it.

[4:40 p.m.]

The key is that the Premier would have to actually allow them to have that vote, actually allow them to have their own voice in this place, actually be allowed to speak for their own people in this place, not just the wishes of the Premier.

Again, this has all been manufactured by the Premier. This is a response to his complete overreach of Bill 7 and withdrawal and retreat

for their own people in this place, not just the wishes of the Premier. Again, this has all been manufactured by the Premier.

This is a response to his complete overreach of Bill 7 and withdrawal and retreat. He had to re-encapsulate it with 14 and 15. And now in the face of strong opposition, he is going to force his members, who may actually align not just with the Indigenous voices but with the environmental voices too.

What about the environmental wing and the environmental caucus within the NDP caucus? What do they think about this? Let them have a free vote.

At any rate, I thank you for the time. I look forward to hearing what our other members have to say on this bill, and I sure look forward to the free vote the Premier is going to enable the NDP to have next Wednesday night at eight o’clock.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: It is truly an honour to rise in this House today to express my full support for Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act, a forward-looking and necessary piece of legislation that reflects this government’s commitment to delivering the infrastructure that British Columbians expect and deserve.

This act is about more than permits and approvals. It’s about people. It’s about people of the province of British Columbia. It’s about ensuring our schools, hospitals and critical infrastructure are built in a timely, efficient and coordinated manner. It’s about helping communities, growing sustainably while advancing reconciliation, upholding the high environmental standards that British Columbians are proud of.

I rise today not only as a member of this government but as the Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals of B.C., because this legislation will also benefit the mining sector that is increasingly vital to our economic future and to the global clean energy transition.

Let me just say these are the times that warrant the need for such legislation, as Donald Trump continues to threaten Canadians with economic war, throwing out more than a century of friendship that made both our countries prosperous. Our government has responded well, and we have strengthened partnership with other jurisdictions and reached out to even more markets.

We are in a time of transformation. The time is always ripe to build infrastructure but not more urgent than when our population is growing very fast. In Surrey alone, we welcome more than 1,600 people every month. Therefore, we need, of course, more schools. We need more health care infrastructure. We need more roads, more bridges and more public transit as a result of that.

Our communities are evolving, global supply chains are shifting, and the demand for clean technology and the minerals that power them is accelerating. The Infrastructure Projects Act gives the newly created Ministry of Infrastructure the tools to coordinate, prioritize, accelerate infrastructure projects that matter to people.

[4:45 p.m.]

It also provides a clear path for certain provincially significant projects, including those led by Crown corporations, First Nations, local governments and private proponents, to move forward more efficiently without compromising on reconciliation or our environmental standards.

The mining sector in British Columbia is not only a key economic driver. It is a pillar of our clean

and private proponents to move forward more efficiently without compromising on reconciliation or our environmental standards.

The mining sector in British Columbia is not only a key economic driver; it is a pillar of our clean energy future. From copper to silica, molybdenum to rare earth elements, critical minerals are essential to everything from batteries and electric vehicles to solar panels and semiconductors. British Columbia is rich in these resources, and we are a global leader in a sustainable and responsible mining sector.

But even well-designated projects, projects with community benefits and First Nations support, sometimes face delay. The Infrastructure Projects Act will help modernize these systems. It creates a framework to expedite permitting for designated priority projects, including those in the critical mineral sector. It enables qualified professionals to play a greater role in lower-risk permits. It establishes an expedited environmental assessment process, one that upholds B.C.’s environmental protections while reducing duplication and delay. It also affirms our obligation under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

Let me be very clear. This act does not weaken environmental safeguards or reduce the Crown’s duty to consult. What it does is bring clarity and coordination so that Indigenous communities, proponents and regulators can work together, work together more efficiently, more effectively and get good projects moving sooner, moving faster.

We have already seen what is possible when we take this kind of collaborative, outcome-focused approach. I will give you a few examples. Take the Osisko Cariboo Gold project in Quesnel, approved in just 13 months. That single project will bring 634 jobs to the people of British Columbia during construction and contribute over $1 billion in investment to our province. The permitting process for this project was completed in just 13 months, following a rigorous technical review conducted by a qualified team of technical experts in collaboration with First Nations. And we did that.

Another example would be the Artemis Gold Blackwater project, approved within 18 months. It will create 825 direct full-time jobs per year during the construction and expansion phases of mine development and 450 full-time jobs per year during its 22 years operating life. This mine is expected to contribute $13.2 billion to the provincial economy during its lifetime, including $2.3 billion in provincial revenue.

These are major projects creating real opportunities in rural and northern communities, projects that reflect the kind of economic development British Columbians want to see: clean, responsible, inclusive and future focused. This legislation will help us deliver more of that.

Over the past five years, we have reduced the average review timelines for major project permits by more than one-third, by 35 percent.

[4:50 p.m.]

We also have established a critical minerals office to support the advancement of projects across the value chain, ensuring they are well-positioned to advance more efficiently through regulatory processes.

We recently implemented the mineral claims consultation framework to meet our constitutional obligations and ensure the province consults and accommodates impacts to First Nations rights and title

through regulatory processes. We recently implemented the mineral claims consultation framework to meet our constitutional obligations and ensure the province consults and accommodates impacts to First Nations rights and title before registering claims.

We are working on modernizing the Mineral Tenure Act in consultation with rights and title holders. This is a top priority, and we are committed to expanding First Nations partnership, shared decision-making and reconciliation through B.C.’s critical mineral strategy.

This legislation is also about enabling smart infrastructure planning across government. The Ministry of Infrastructure will now be able to support partners like school districts, health authorities and Indigenous governments in delivering major projects, major capital projects, especially where local capacity may be limited.

Whether it’s grouping school projects in a single procurement process or helping coordinate permits across ministries, this act will ensure that infrastructure is delivered not only faster but more efficiently and cost-effectively. When it comes to communities, particularly in times of climate-related disasters or post-catastrophic recovery, this act provides the tools to act quickly and support rebuilding efforts without compromising standards or due process.

The Infrastructure Projects Act is not a shortcut, as the member from the other side has been saying. It’s not a shortcut. It is not about bypassing consultation or public input. It’s about building better together.

British Columbians expect us to deliver the infrastructure they need where they live and work. They expect us to support sustainable development, reconciliation and economic opportunity at the same time. And they expect us to lead with both urgency and care. This legislation does just that. It helps us meet the moment. It helps us get good projects off the ground. It helps us build the future British Columbians deserve.

This is about giving people in every region of B.C. the opportunity to build, work and thrive. Whether it’s a new school, a new hospital or a new mine, British Columbians deserve to see progress, not delays.

For my ministry, this act means strong coordination, more efficient permitting and the ability to move responsible mining projects forward faster. It supports our efforts to attract investment, create jobs and secure B.C.’s place as a global leader in critical minerals. This is a major step in helping us realize the full potential of B.C.’s mining sector for people, for communities and for the clean economy of the future.

I commend the Minister of Infrastructure and her team for their leadership, and I am proud to lend my voice and support to this important legislation on behalf of the mining and critical mineral sector and all those who believe in building a stronger B.C.

Misty Van Popta: I’m going to open this debate with giving credit where credit is due. I believe that the creation of the Infrastructure Ministry was the right thing to do to deliver projects more effectively.

[4:55 p.m.]

Many people here know that my background is as a qualified project management professional, so I can see, or try to see, where they’re going with Bill 15. Successful project management is a methodology that encompasses

many people here know that my background is as a qualified project management professional, and so I can see, or try to see, where they’re going with Bill 15.

Successful project management is a methodology that encompasses many things: assessment, management, procurement, estimating, scheduling, stakeholders and lots of communication, etc. The very nature of moving all infrastructure projects into one ministry screams efficiency. Before, the Health Ministry, Education Ministry, Transportation Ministry delivered their own projects, resulting in many process duplications, inefficiencies and labour shortages. I wish to acknowledge the government in making this ministry change and alignment of principles into one singular ministry. That said, it’s for this very reason that I must speak against support for Bill 15.

Last week, the Minister of Infrastructure posted about the positive progress made in the permitting of current projects. And from what she posted, those gains seemed pretty good for the seven short months that this ministry has been in place. It is already apparent that project delivery success is made through process and procedure improvements, exactly what appears to have occurred naturally since the new ministry was formed. That is proof alone that an absolute power grab — that is, Bill 15 — is not required to gain good results. Results are through improvements to regulations and processes that have been previously in place and to get to the root of the issues.

Bill 15 is top-down. I do not doubt that the challenges experienced in project delivery over the past eight years are not things that could not be undone without an authoritarian bill. Information gained through project postmortems, consultations with contractors and internal ministry collaboration would easily identify project and process risk points, and could internally be resolved.

If we truly want to obtain successful project delivery, then we need to take tried-and-true methodology to do so. This bill is not process, it’s power. And that word “power” is used over 16 times in this bill.

I’m going to take a few minutes to go through this bill, mainly part by part. I’m going to leave some parts out, just for the sake of time here. So that we identify what are taxpayer risk points made in the name of project expediency…. We are going to start at part 1, definitions. Most look pretty benign. Industry lingo. We’ve got approval authority, constraints, infrastructure project measure, proponent — all pretty standard terminology. And then we get down to category 1 projects, category 2 projects. But then there’s no definition. It just refers to further in the act.

So what is the definition of a definition?

According to Webster’s dictionary, a definition is (a) a statement of the meaning of a word or a word group or a sign or symbol, (b) a statement expressing the essential nature of something or (c) a product of defining.

[5:00 p.m.]

If we go to section 4, as it is called out in the act, even less definition is there. Let me read it to you. “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the minister, make regulations to (a) designate the following as a category 1 project: (i) an infrastructure project; (ii) a class of infrastructure projects.” If I’m reading that, the definition of category 1 and category 2, an infrastructure project that is designated under

So, if I’m reading that, the definition of category 1 and category 2, “an infrastructure project that is designated” under section 4(1), and the definition is “an infrastructure project.” It’s circular. There’s no actual definition of what a category 1 project or category 2 project is. I think category 2 is defined: “Designate a provincially significant infrastructure project as a category 2 project.” So what’s a provincially significant infrastructure project? It’s not in definitions, it’s not outlined in the act, so what are we supposed to conclude?

Another definition, though, that is missing, which is critical in project delivery, is a definition of “owner.” In my realm, the term “owner” refers to the driver of a project, the person who funds a project and requires the project. You know who the owner of infrastructure is, projects are, in this province? The owner of projects is the taxpayer. It is the lack of acknowledgement of that stakeholder that is why this bill is so far off the mark.

So if we go to part 2, minister’s powers, I think the title alone is the start of where the issues are with this section. Minister’s powers. Wow. Let that sink in. Why not minister’s role? Minister’s mandate? Minister’s jurisdiction? But no, the word chosen was “power.” I might say that that word is subliminal, but the very nature that this bill is a confidence vote shouts it in your face. They want power to do what they want, when they want, how they want.

Let’s go to section 2, minister’s general powers. There’s some okay stuff in here. I’m not going to attack it all. We see language like “make recommendations, plan, manage, establish.” But then buried in there, we get some other questionable items like “dispose of land, acquire land on behalf of a prescribed person or entity.” So I didn’t see that in the definitions of what is a prescribed person or entity.

Why on a prescribed person’s behalf? I mean, I could possibly understand an entity, maybe a group that’s not able to hold the costs of a land purchase, but a person? Again, we’re missing the definition of who or what is a prescribed person or entity.

But the first one here is subsection (i), and it says: “Exercise any other prescribed power.” There’s that word again: “Prescribed.” Prescribed by whom? The minister? The minister prescribes her own power? Come on.

Section 3, minister’s powers for category 1 projects. There are four clauses in this section, and every one has the word “power” in it. “The power to develop, construct or alter a category 1 project.” So the minister is the be-all and end-all to any provincial infrastructure project. Full stop. Whoever holds the position of minister runs the show. Power to all procurement, anything: equipment, fixtures, property. It is absolutely necessary for procurement processes to be in place for projects. Procurement is one of the most important pieces to a project delivery. This clause allows for lobbying to infiltrate fair and open bidding.

But the worst clause is (b): “The power to act as a general contractor or project manager.” The province has not delivered a project on time or on budget, based on the original scope. Now they want to be general contractor in charge of managing everything from procuring trades and managing the schedules and overriding consultants, without any resume to substantiate their ability to perform as a general contractor.

[5:05 p.m.]

Would you hire a general contractor to build something for you without having ever had a success story? That’s what this clause does.

In private project delivery, a private project owner would and could act in all capacities of general contractor

Would you hire a general contractor to build something for you without having ever had a success story? That’s what this clause does.

In private project delivery, a private project owner would and could act in all capacities of general contractor and project manager. It’s their prerogative. It’s their money. But in the case of provincial infrastructure, do you know who the owner is? We established that under definitions. It’s the driver of the project and the purse of the project. It is the taxpayer. It is not the minister. Yet this bill is structured that the minister is acting as both the general contractor and the manager and is now also the owner.

What an insult to taxpayers. You’ve removed the link and the oversight of the recipients of the projects, the key stakeholders, from any scrutiny or questioning or oversight. That’s not only scary. It’s wrong. What about conflicts of interest acting in both capacities?

To highlight the last clause in that section, again we have the catch-all phrase of “any prescribed power.” So the power holder can create any new powers required.

Part 3 is “Designation of Infrastructure Projects.” Section 4 is “Designation of infrastructure projects.” Let’s be objective. Let me read it out to you and see if you feel confident knowing exactly what is designated as an infrastructure project. Again, it’s “(i) an infrastructure project,” and “(ii) a class of infrastructure projects.”

Then we have an even more ambiguous designation for category 2 projects: “Designate a provincially significant infrastructure project as a category 2 project.” It’s literally undefined and circular. So then it becomes the question of, when it comes to category 2 projects, can they be hijacked by the minister, or is the designation of the minister, or can the.... What if a private entity…. Category 2 projects can be private entity projects. They can be municipal projects. They are anything that is not government. So what if a private entity doesn’t want ministry interference?

Then the other question is: can the minister drop a project once designated a category 2 project after it was previously designated? There’s so much ambiguous nature around what a category 2 project is and how far down the minister can go with what they can do with a category 2 project.

Part 4 is “Streamlining Designated Projects.” Division 1 is “Streamlining Permitting.” Right away, I’m going to call out why this section is even needed. The minister’s own X post boasts about how almost all infrastructure projects are almost caught up in their permitting. So why do we need Bill 15? You’re already doing good.

Section 6 is “Qualified professional certifications.” This section replaces traditional permitting, which would have had internalized in the process, and leaves it in the hands of outside qualified professionals. For a government so hell-bent on absolute control of all projects, when it comes to permitting, they gave up control to qualified professionals.

Again, this bill has left the definition out of this bill. Who is it? What type of designation…? Who gets to usurp the permits? What kind of designation do they have? Is there a baseline qualification? There are so many types of qualifications out there.

Section 7 is “Prioritization of provincial permits.” This section outlines that the minister can reorder and prioritize anything in the pipeline, whether a provincial project or a private project. If the reasoning for jurisdiction and control over who gets permitted first was to clear critical project backlogs, then why isn’t there a sunset clause?

Why does this minister forever get to be in control of what gets priority and what doesn’t? This creates potential delays to projects rightfully in line, while opening up concerns for lobbying efforts getting priority over others.

[5:10 p.m.]

This section can also force unknown regulations to establishing permitting prioritizations to outside regulators. Now the government can overreach into regulators and dictate their work. This is wrong.

Section 8 is “Reviewable projects under the Environmental Assessment Act.” Subsection 2 says that the minister may order

force unknown regulations, to establishing permitting prioritizations to outside regulators. Now the government can overreach into regulators and dictate their work. This is wrong.

Section 8, reviewable projects under the Environmental Assessment Act, subsection (2) says that the minister may “order a person, board, tribunal or agency” issue approval. What if it goes against the advice of the agency or the consultant? Why, again, is this government overreaching into the entity workings and allowing themselves the ability to mandate approvals?

One area to highlight in this area is the issuance of approval under another enactment to be considered “final and binding” and “not subject to review or appeal.” How is that fair? How is that proper? How does that not raise the concerns of environmental proponents? We cannot question why environmental groups are concerned. It literally says that there is no way for them to appeal. Everything is final and binding.

Another item to highlight in this section is who certifies the certifiers? This government is outsourcing compliance to consultants it selects. That’s not oversight; that’s political convenience. This bill gives ministers the power to choose winners and losers in the approval process. This bill removes the public’s right to challenge approvals, even those with serious environmental impacts.

Division 2, varying requirements in provincial legislation, we’ll jump to section 9, request for varying requirements in provincial legislation. We move into government overreach again, on municipal affairs with this clause. Municipalities have already invested millions of dollars and hours and hours of time updating all zoning requirements mandated by bills 44 to 47, and now this bill gives the government, again, jurisdiction to bypass zoning and public input process in the name of fast-tracking and prioritization.

This is all for projects that are either provincial infrastructure or category 2 projects. What if a community is dead set against something in their neighbourhood, and this government has deemed it a category 2 project? There was recently, a couple of days ago, I can’t remember which mayor it was, but he came out recently and essentially said: “You know, why even have mayors and councils if the province continues to override local governments?”

Section 9, exemption from local planning laws. This overrules island land trust, the Local Government Act, the Vancouver Charter. One item to highlight is cabinet may exempt, modify or override requirements, including zoning and development permits. This bill doesn’t build trust with municipalities. It further erodes it.

Question 13, designated project completion. Project completion is difficult at the best of circumstances. It doesn’t matter what project. It doesn’t matter how well it goes. If there are any kind of residual items outstanding, especially something that’s outside of your control, you’re waiting for paperwork from a consultant. Or in a local case that I know of, you’ve got limitations due to the salmon spawning in an area, and so things have to linger open until other areas that you can’t control are resolved.

But this clause forces a proponent to ensure that the project is completed. When it comes to private projects that the province has hijacked, this clause says that the project cannot be used or changed, to be what it was originally designated as. How is that right for a category 2 project? It’s private. If a private entity chooses to change the purpose or scope of their project, they should be allowed to. It’s their project, and it’s their money.

But the irony is that the rules are different for any project that the minister is a proponent of. If the government wants to change a project to be something other than what was laid out, this section allows them to. Rules for thee, but not for me.

[5:15 p.m.]

Monitoring performance, section 15. Again, this section excludes projects that are in the charge of the minister, but in the realm of private category 2 projects, the minister is the one to monitor it. The minister can

rules for thee but not for me.

Monitoring performance, section 15. Again, this section excludes projects that are in the charge of the minister, but in the realm of private category 2 projects, the minister is the one to monitor it. The minister can inspect it. This is a private project. That is like Mom and Dad looking over the shoulder of somebody else’s child. It’s not your business. This section also allows the minister to appoint their own monitors. No third-party scrutiny.

We are forced to look at this bill as it’s written — full stop. We cannot take verbal intent or press releases or media decks as the full reasons behind this bill. We need to look beyond what we have seen on social media and see what’s really hiding in the words written in the bill — words like “power” repeated throughout the bill.

The problem with lack of infrastructure projects in this province is not the delivery; it’s the funding. If we are not funding projects, we are not fast-tracking projects. Langley and Nanaimo aren’t getting our hospital fast-tracked. Why? Because it isn’t funded.

We want projects built faster. We want streamlining. What we got was a centralized, antidemocratic framework disguised as modernization. I can’t remember who said it, but it was classified that Bill 15 is Bill 7 in a hardhat. Bill 15 creates winners and losers, favourites based on lobby efforts. It overrides the authority of local governments, which our taxpayers elected. This bill erodes trust — trust that our government is acting in our best interest, trust that is lost through overreaching power.

Project efficiency is found through improved processes and procedures, determining where we went wrong, learning from our mistakes and changing things. Bill 15 is a sledgehammer to that very thinking. It says that regardless of why things are not being built, cabinet is going to pick up a project out of the mess, ram it through and keep repeating the cycle of dysfunction.

My question is: is it still dysfunctional? With a brand-new ministry created, it suggests to me that project delivery processes would have been paramount in the structure of the department. They’re already seeing results, apparently. So why? Why Bill 15 now? Does this government hold so little faith in the new ministry that we need to put in place authoritarian measures in case things go off the rail?

When a government has had no success in its past to back up its résumé, to give the confidence to the taxpayer that now they deserve sweeping powers to control everything, it should be obvious why there is overwhelming outcry. Forcing closure and forcing rushed scrutiny forces those of us on this side to make the assumptions of what’s buried in this bill.

If I’ve got something wrong here, this government needs to outline exactly where in the bill it says otherwise. We only have the words in this document to understand the intent, and all I can see is that the intent is power without oversight. We must reject Bill 15, not just because of what it does but because of the precedent it sets. Streamlining does not mean steamrolling.

Again, we’re not against infrastructure — definitely not. We’re just against the over-sweeping power of what this bill says. The people of Langley–Walnut Grove did not elect me to hand an unchecked power to a single ministry. They elected me to speak up. I support infrastructure. I definitely support efficiency. But we don’t need to support authoritarian shortcuts. The rule of law should not be optional. Public trust should not be sacrificed on the altar of political convenience. I’ll be voting no for Bill 15.

[5:20 p.m.]

I had some interesting quotes that have come out over the last week or so from different groups that have been highlighting some of the issues with Bill 15, so it can’t just be pegged that because we’re opposition, we’re speaking against Bill 15.

We’ve got the ICBA. The ICBA has got probably the largest membership of not only general contractors

been highlighting some of the issues with Bill 15, so it can’t just be pegged that, you know, because we’re opposition, we’re speaking against Bill 15.

You know, we’ve got the ICBA. The ICBA has got probably the largest membership of not only general contractors but construction companies. When a group like that has not been consulted, it should make you ask why.

To quote Chris Gardner: “The irony is impossible to ignore. The NDP had to create an entire new ministry and bypass legislation just to cut the red tape that created it in the first place. This should have been across-the-board fixed, not a narrowly focused government workaround.”

Rob Shaw, in the Business in Vancouver: “A permit taking too long for a politically sensitive project? A minister can intervene and designate someone to approve it or even make the approval automatic. Instead of going through normal environmental reviews, cabinet can deem any project provincially significant and unlock vast powers.”

To quote the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs: “Bill 15 raises concerns about projects being fast-tracked under the guise of responding to Trump’s tariffs.”

We’re not the only ones with serious questions about Bill 15. I would hope that during the committee stage, there will be an opportunity for revisions to make all of us more comfortable with what the intent is here because, again, what we have are just the words that are in the bill. Sixteen times the bill refers to the word power.

An infrastructure bill should not be a vote of confidence. It shouldn’t be. And I need to…. We all feel that if we’re asking for confidence on an infrastructure bill, there’s got to be something more to it.

I will not be supporting Bill 15, and I encourage others to follow suit.

Hon. David Eby: I’m so inspired by the amazing history of this province. You know, whenever it was needed, British Columbians stepped up when it mattered most. The work that was done in this province to build this amazing place we call home was generations in the making. It involved hard work. It involved the dams to power our homes. It involved carving highways out of the mountains, treacherous terrain. During war, British Columbians produced almost half of the cargo ships that supplied the Allies.

This history of building, of meeting the moment, doesn’t have to be a tale that our grandparents talk about. This can be the story of British Columbia today, and it needs to be. British Columbia right now is going to be the economic engine of the new Canada that we all know we need — a Canada that stands on our own two feet, a Canada that is more independent of the United States, a Canada where people get those high-quality front-line services that they need and depend on.

It is time to build again, and we don’t have a moment to waste. There are direct threats to our economy from our powerful neighbour, explicit decisions being made out of the White House to attack strategic and core industries in our province and in our country.

We don’t have a choice. We have to strengthen our economy. We have to support our people in this province. We can’t live on infrastructure that was built by our grandparents. We can’t wait for jobs to be created in this province. The moment is now.

[5:25 p.m.]

Right now our government is executing the largest infrastructure build in the history of the province of British Columbia. At the same time, despite the threats from the President, we have private sector companies coming forward with proposals for projects worth billions of dollars, creating thousands of jobs in every corner of this amazing place we call home.

Now, we cannot allow slow permitting processes

We have private sector companies coming forward with proposals for projects worth billions of dollars, creating thousands of jobs in every corner of this amazing place we call home.

Now, we cannot allow slow permitting processes and bureaucratic processes to delay what we know has to happen. That will cost us at a time we can least afford it.

An example of the kinds of challenges and opportunities that this bill presents in terms of being able to address and respond in a crisis…. It’s probably one of the reasons why the mayor of Grand Forks is supporting this bill. Grand Forks, devastated by flooding, had to rebuild from the ground up, had to install extensive preventative infrastructure to prevent a future flood from happening. Even just in the clean-up and rebuild process, Grand Forks had to apply for 40 separate permits to get things rolling.

For communities to respond following an emergency, for communities to build infrastructure to prevent devastation from emergencies like flooding or wildfire, this bill allows us to work with them to ensure they can get it done quickly, efficiently and effectively. The infrastructure act includes tools to accelerate priority projects, both public sector and private sector. It’s important to know that this bill doesn’t come in a vacuum. It comes against the backdrop of government systematically working through a permitting system to reduce the times to approvals for all projects.

For example, we started with housing, where we’ve reduced approval times for major new developments by 30 percent. We have a single window for developers now so that they know where their permits are in the process, and there are more efficiencies coming. We’ve reduced Heritage Conservation Act permit times dramatically.

We’ve increased the speed of approvals of new mines. It used to take five years to approve a new mine. The most recent mine was approved at 24 months, and we still see room for improvement yet, in terms of the mining sector. The backdrop of working on permit approvals generally is taking place, but there are crucial projects for communities and for our provincial economy that can’t wait.

For example, when your kids need to go to school, they need a school that meets the demands of the population, that’s seismically safe, that has enough space for all the students, you really don’t want to hear that your school is going to be held up for six months because the community where it’s going to be located has to update their official community plan in order for the school to go ahead.

Or that there was a ditch that was identified on the site that requires an extensive process under the Water Sustainability Act. These are issues that we can address through the red-tape reduction that we’re doing in terms of our permitting process. And we are addressing those issues, but at the same time, we’re building. We’re flying this plane while we’re fixing it. So while we do this work, we have to ensure that we’re able to deliver these critical pieces.

It means your kids will be in modern classrooms. It means that students will be in affordable student housing at post-secondary campuses across the province. It means people will be attending new, built hospitals or upgraded hospitals, critical infrastructure for health care. It means communities will be prepared for natural disasters.

Now, I know, given the history of this province, why there is anxiety from some corners about an abandoning of commitments around reconciliation, around the environment. But that is not where we’re going with this — in fact, just the opposite. We know that the work that we have to do is crucial to ensure the protection of our environment, to address the challenge of climate change, and that it is crucial to ensure that we are working towards reconciliation in partnership with First Nations.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

You cannot fast-track a project in Canada unless you have the support of First Nations. Rights and title claims, section 35 rights in our province, our commitments under DRIPA mean that those commitments need to be met. This isn’t about abandoning reconciliation.

[5:30 p.m.]

This is about delivering on the commitments to work in partnership with First Nations and ensure that we’re responding to the challenge of our time, which is climate change, through delivering clean, affordable energy in every corner of this province with projects that deliver the cleanest metals, minerals, and resources that the world needs.

We will not leave First Nations on the sidelines. We will not leave any corner of this province out of the share in the prosperity of this amazing place that we call home, that we can deliver on by moving faster as a province.

As just an example of our commitment around this. The Minister of Energy, in his call for power, has ensured that we’re working in partnership with First Nations. Eight of the nine projects that

of this province, out of the share in the prosperity of this amazing place that we call home, that we can deliver on by moving faster as a province.

As just an example of our commitment around this, the Minister of Energy in his call for power has ensured that we’re working in partnership with First Nations. Eight of the nine projects that we’re advancing are majority First Nation–owned. They’ll power 500,000 homes and deliver prosperity to nations for generations. It’s just an example of the kind of work that we’re doing together.

Now, we’re living through a time of great uncertainty and change for British Columbians, for Canadians. Despite that, there is really nowhere in the world that I would rather be, to face down this global uncertainty, than right here in British Columbia, Canada. We have everything we need right here to be successful.

Our ports face out to two-thirds of the world’s population. The resources we have here are unmatched globally. And you can name, really, almost any resource, from our food, metals and minerals, timber…. It can go on. And the people here, the amazing people of British Columbia, that are resilient, that are talented, that are trained, that are brilliant and entrepreneurial, are ready to deliver. That is why we will be the economic engine of the Canada that we’re building together.

British Columbians don’t retreat from challenges. We rise up to meet them. This bill will ensure that we have the tools to meet the moment and to deliver what British Columbians expect: good schools, good hospitals, good roads delivered quickly; strong economic projects that let us stand on our own two feet and deliver prosperity to every corner of this province and play our part in Confederation, supporting provinces and territories across Canada.

We’re going to seize the moment, and we’re going to get the job done.

Interjection.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the Minister of Forests. I appreciate that introduction.

I’m going to jump around a little bit here in the points I’d like to make around Bill 15. I appreciate the Premier coming in and giving his perspective on behalf of the government on this bill, but here’s what other people have to say about it.

“Bill 15 is not about streamlining. It is about centralizing power” — I’m quoting right now — “in the Premier’s office. Premier Eby is acting like he has the overwhelming majority he inherited. The W̱JOȽEȽP First Nation reminds Mr. Eby that he currently only has a one-seat majority…”

Deputy Speaker: Member, I just ask you not to say the Premier’s name or any other name, please.

*Scott McInnis: Oh, excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I’m terribly sorry.

“…and he, as a leader, was barely able to get his team across the line in the provincial election last fall. This bill sidelines constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights and title and the Crown’s duty to consult with First Nations.” That’s Chief Don Tom, who is vice-president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

So we’re at a loggerhead here. We have the Premier saying that it’s no problem, we’re going to fulfil our constitutional right to consult with First Nations and work in partnership with First Nations, something we all want. But Chief Tom, and others who I will read here, don’t buy it.

“I think this is a dangerous piece of legislation, and steps need to be taken to stop it.” That’s Mr. Brodie, the Mayor of Richmond.

“If you want to run the District of Sparwood, just tell me, and don’t have a mayor and council.” Mr. Wilks, the Mayor of the District of Sparwood.

[5:35 p.m.]

“Over the past couple of years, we have seen the province changing the priorities in how they approach legislation. And in some cases, ideas that are developed at a political level have been rushed into law without appropriate and meaningful

over the past couple of years, we’ve seen the province changing the priorities and how they approach legislation. In some cases, ideas that are developed at a political level have been rushed into law without appropriate and meaningful consultation with stakeholders.” That’s Trish Mandewo, the Union of B.C. Municipalities president.

“Bill 15, in its current form, grants the NDP cabinet sweeping powers to bypass environmental assessment, municipal authorities and the jurisdiction of First Nations under the guise of fast-tracking major infrastructure projects.” That’s the interim leader of the B.C. Green Party.

“Overreaching. Enables the province to bypass permitting processes that expedite environmental assessment for any project they deem a priority.” Mr. Terry Teegee, Regional Chief of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations.

I have several more here, but there is one I’m going to highlight. I brought it up in the House yesterday because it’s local to me. I am honoured to call Kimberley my home, which is on the traditional territory of the Ktunaxa people, a very resilient people and folks that…. It takes a lot to ruffle their feathers, to be honest with you. “ʔaq̓am chief and council are deeply disappointed and alarmed by the announcement of British Columbia’s recently introduced Bill 14 and 15 and demand the immediate withdrawal of these bills.”

These are leaders in the province, important leaders in the province, if you ask me.

There’s more, but I’m going to get into some of the points I want to make here. I appreciate the Premier saying what he had to say, but these leaders of significance have voiced their concerns, and the Premier says: “Well, we’re going ahead anyways.”

I’m rising today to speak to Bill 15. This legislation is misguided. It’s presented as a cure for bureaucratic delay, a way to fast-track schools, hospitals and other infrastructure projects throughout British Columbia. But beneath this optimistic title and lofty promises, Bill 15 is a deeply troubling power grab. Too much control is centralized in the hands of cabinet at the expense of Indigenous rights, as we see by the concerns raised, environmental safeguards, as we see by several public concerns raised, and the voices of local communities, as seen in several concerns raised.

It is our duty as the official opposition to shine a light on these flaws and stand up for the democratic processes and values that this NDP government seems all too willing to trample.

Mr. Speaker, every paragraph of the address I’m going to give begins with your title as a reminder that these words are meant in this chamber for the public record. The concerns I will outline are shared not only by the opposition caucus but by a broad array of British Columbians, including First Nation leaders, environmental advocates, municipal representatives and ordinary citizens. They see what we see: a government that is claiming speed and efficiency as cover for sidelining accountability and oversight.

Mr. Speaker, what are we doing? We’ve been down this road with Bill 7 and the concerns raised about the potential power overreaches. Bill 15 may be touted as a measure to cut the red tape, but in truth, it cuts at the very fabric of transparent, accountable governance.

[5:40 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition fully supports building critical infrastructure in a timely manner. We all recognize the need for new schools. We have growing communities, especially in the one I represent, Columbia River–Revelstoke. We need modern hospitals, clinics, roads, bridges, housing. That’s not up for debate here. We share the frustration of delays, but we do not support ripping up the safeguards that ensure those projects are done right and fairly.

one I represent, Columbia River–Revelstoke. We need modern hospitals, clinics, roads, bridges, housing. That’s not up for debate here. We share the frustration of delays, but we do not support ripping up the safeguards that ensure those projects are done right and fairly. We do not accept that the ends justify the means, especially when the means undermine democratic principles and, of course, Indigenous rights.

Bill 15 is written not as a streamlining of processes. It is a steamrolling of processes, and it sets a very dangerous precedent. Let’s begin with the overreaching issue. Executive power in Bill 15 undermines our democratic oversight. That’s why we’re here. This bill grants the cabinet and various ministers unilateral authority to designate virtually any infrastructure project as provincially significant.

Now, why this is concerning to me in Columbia River–Revelstoke is because I have several critical infrastructure projects that are really important to the people I represent — specifically, two wastewater treatment plants in growing communities, resort municipalities, that need upgrading.

The first one is in Kimberley — delayed to the cost of millions of dollars, the original treatment plant being built in 1967. The treatment plant sits on the pristine St. Mary River, home to westslope cutthroat and bull trout spawning grounds. Just a handful of kilometres downriver is the ʔaq̓am Band. This is an environmental disaster waiting to happen.

But the Premier wouldn’t know this. I’d love to know, since he’s been the Premier, how many hours he’s spent in Columbia River–Revelstoke. I don’t know what I would have to do, as this legislation says, to include very important wastewater treatment plants in my riding, eastern British Columbia, as provincially significant.

Do I have to call the Premier and ask him? Do I have to invite him to my birthday party? I don’t know. But I know he doesn’t understand how significant this is for places like Revelstoke and Kimberley, because he never goes there.

This is a growing concern in the riding I represent. There’s a disconnect between Victoria and eastern British Columbia. This is real. The government may call this efficiency, but it does not sound like efficiency to the people of British Columbia. It sounds like autocracy dressed up as expediency.

The powers in Bill 15 are extraordinarily broad. The bill empowers the Minister of Infrastructure or other ministers responsible to fast-track designated projects as expeditiously as possible. It allows orders in council to effectively sweep aside regulations that would normally apply, all behind closed doors.

There’s no clear definition of what qualifies as provincially significant — pretty serious concern for rural British Columbia. Since the Premier doesn’t visit these ridings very often, I can’t put the calculus together as to how he would see any of these projects as provincially significant.

[5:45 p.m.]

Cabinet is asking us to trust them. I’ve been really fortunate to build some good working relationships with members opposite, and I appreciate those relationships. But I’m not about to hand them a blank cheque of authority now, and they’ll fill in the details somehow later.

With all due respect, most members on the opposite side couldn’t even point out my communities on a map.

not about to hand them a blank check of authority now, and they’ll fill in the details somehow later.

And with all due respect, most members on the opposite side couldn’t even point out my communities on a map. This is not how democracy is supposed to work. Laws should be made in the Legislature, not written in the back rooms after the fact.

We’ve heard the rationale from the government. I do appreciate the Minister of Forests having visited my community recently. It would be nice if his colleagues would join him. The Premier and his ministers point to uncertainty caused by foreign events, blaming the potential of U.S. tariffs imposed by the President as justification for these powers. They argue that in turbulent times, government needs the ability to act fast, to cut through what they label as the red tape.

But British Columbians are not fooled by this, as we’ve seen in just a small number of the quotes which are public from various leaders throughout the province. They want us to believe them that this is an American problem somehow. We should never sacrifice accountability and due process because it’s convenient. We need to accelerate infrastructure projects without abandoning transparency and the rule of law.

This is not the first time we have seen an attempt at such overreach. Again, I know this is a debate about Bill 15, but it was just a few short weeks ago. We had the very same conversation about Bill 7. And up until this afternoon, some of the same themes in Bill 14. The backlash for these bills has been swift and has come from all corners of this province: unions, business leaders, Indigenous associations and leadership, the public at large. But the government is going ahead anyways by forcing closure on the debate.

We had hoped that the government learned a lesson from that debacle on Bill 7. Yet here we are again, Bill 15, another attempt. It’s slightly more subtle, however, but still a clear attempt to concentrate power in cabinet and sideline normal legislative processes. What this government calls red tape, we often call safeguards, safeguards that protect our environment.

I live in the most beautiful riding in the province. I’m sorry to say that.

Interjection.

Scott McInnis: Hey, I know you’ve been there recently. The Forest Minister has been there. He’s not arguing.

Everybody in my riding cares about the environment. So to somehow skirt normal environmental assessment processes is of major concern. We need to ensure local voices are heard and prevent costly mistakes in these processes.

Bypassing some of these necessary safeguards might save a bit of time in the short term. I’m not going to disagree with that. But there’s a real threat it could cost us dearly in the long term. It risks public trust and invites legal challenges, uncertainty, conflict and division — things we don’t need any more of in this province. Even some in the business community who do desire faster project approvals have raised questions and concerns about this kind of unchecked authority.

[5:50 p.m.]

One of the most disturbing aspects of this bill is, and I know the Premier is addressing this, but, as we’ve seen with just a handful of my quotes, the disregard for meaningful

One of the most disturbing aspects of this bill is — and I know the Premier is addressing this, but as we’ve seen with just a handful of my quotes — the disregard for meaningful consultation with Indigenous people. This government boasts about its commitment to reconciliation, but it’s noticeably absent in this bill.

The First Nations Leadership Council, which represents the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Summit, has condemned Bill 15 in no uncertain terms. That’s got to be worth something in this chamber. They point out that the province conducted no meaningful consultation with First Nations in drafting this bill. You’d think that the leadership council would be the first phone call the Premier or the Attorney General would make when drafting this legislation, but it appears that neither of them picked up the phone.

Now, I can understand this government wouldn’t intentionally sidestep or infringe on Indigenous rights and title. But so far, they’re not off to a good start in the consultation process with First Nations and Indigenous people in this province.

First Nation leaders call this a betrayal of the process that true reconciliation demands. Government-to-government relationships are supposed to be upheld in this process. These leaders have worked years toward a respectful partnership, only to find themselves shut out when a major piece of legislation is put forward. Indigenous voices are warning that Bill 15 threatens constitutionally protected rights. This isn’t the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke or the official opposition expressing these concerns.

By fast-tracking these projects and overriding normal reviews, the government — maybe not intentionally; I want to give them credit for that — could easily violate the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate First Nations on decisions that impact their lands and waters. The bill as drafted has no explicit requirement that I’ve seen to meet the standard of free, prior and informed consent. In fact, it seems to omit any such safeguards.

It also weakens the application of the Environmental Assessment Act, a law that is often one of the only processes where Indigenous nations can have a say or require studies on projects in their territories. As we can see by the quotes I read — not a story — Indigenous leaders see this as a return to the bad old days when government pushed through projects without regard for Indigenous rights and title, often devastating consequences for those communities.

[5:55 p.m.]

Some First Nations have not minced words about the motive behind Bill 15. They’ve called it a “power grab.” They point out that the Premier is behaving as if he had an overwhelming mandate, as I expressed earlier, to force this through when in fact he certainly does not. In the statement by Chief Tom, he noted that the current NDP government holds, again, a razor-thin

Premier is behaving as if he had an overwhelming mandate, as I expressed earlier, to force this through, when in fact he certainly does not.

In the statement by Chief Tom, he noted that the current NDP government holds, again, a razor-thin majority government here. British Columbians did not give this government a blank cheque to override anybody’s rights or local voices in this chamber. That’s certainly what they’re trying to do with Bill 15.

Another critical casualty of Bill 15 is our province’s environmental protection regime and the broader public oversight of major projects. This act would arm cabinet with the authority and the ability to skirt environmental assessments and various permits under the guise of efficiency, at their sole discretion.

It sets up alternative expedited assessment processes that can be approved by a simple order in council. Well, I can tell you that type of process certainly won’t cut it in Columbia River–Revelstoke. It even contemplates automatically deeming some permits approved if they are deemed low risk, once a project is given an overarching approval. Low risk — I’d love to see the rubric for that.

In plain language, the government is giving itself tools to cut corners on environmental scrutiny. I didn’t have all day to read the various quotes that I had gathered, but there are several environmental advocacy groups that are staunchly against Bill 15.

British Columbia’s Environmental Assessment Act was created to ensure that before a major project goes ahead, we carefully study its impacts on land, water, air, wildlife and communities. It ensures the public can provide input, Indigenous knowledge is considered and that we don’t blindly barrel into a project that could cause irreparable harm. Bill 15 threatens these safeguards by concentrating power in cabinet to wave aside the normal assessments. It opens the door to long-term environmental damage potentially.

Once again, this isn’t the official opposition saying this. There are countless media releases, public quotes saying just this. We fortunately have the ability to bring it on the record here in this chamber on their behalf.

By normalizing the override of a local process, Bill 15 shifts us toward a highly centralized model where distant bureaucrats decide what’s best for communities they may know nothing about. That’s too bad because I think a lot of these projects that the government is earmarking are in rural and remote communities. I know my colleagues in the opposition who represent those rural and remote communities most certainly don’t see a lot of ministers spending a lot of time there.

[6:00 p.m.]

I want to touch briefly, in my time remaining, on the issue of regional equity and priorities. One critique raised by my colleague specifically, from Prince George–Mackenzie, says that Bill 15 would worsen the neglect of certain regions in favour of others. The cabinet in Victoria might designate projects in the populous Lower Mainland as a priority, while overlooking critical needs in the North or the Interior. In fact, this legislation, as promoted by the government, seems

of others. The cabinet in Victoria might designate projects in the populous Lower Mainland as a priority while overlooking critical needs in the North or the Interior.

In fact, this legislation, as promoted by the government, seems to have a very politicized vision of infrastructure. We’ve heard that the government does not intend to fast-track certain types of projects; for example, LNG or pipeline projects were excluded from the fast-tracking regime. Are they not critical infrastructure? I think if you ask folks in northern B.C., they would beg to differ with you. Natural gas development and pipelines are, indeed, critical to the regional economy and to our entire province’s prosperity.

As my colleague from Peace River South noted, there’s give or take a trillion dollars worth of proven natural gas reserves in this province, $1 trillion. But we can’t seem to get out of our own way to build the infrastructure necessary to extract and export the natural gas, which would most certainly pay for the critical social services we all want and deserve in this province.

Instead, we’re going to build a few windmills here and there, expect that’ll meet the growing electricity demand this province has. Again, I’m going to be asking: where are we getting these windmills from, because it’s probably not in British Columbia?

On behalf of my constituents in Columbia River–Revelstoke, I’m staunchly opposed to Bill 15, and I will most certainly not be supporting it.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Thanks to my colleague across the way for his speech. I thoroughly enjoyed it. The irony I just want to start off with…. The member is a good guy. I enjoyed the time that we’ve had an opportunity to be able to engage outside of this House. I know that, in speaking to the mayor, he’s certainly learning lots as a new MLA and doing his best in this place and in his community to stand up for his community. I appreciate that and the conversations we have. But there is a lot of irony with what he said.

He is part of a party. Maybe providing these remarks on Bill 15 after hearing the member across the way, he may choose to consider leaving the Conservative Party, and in particular, the record of the Leader of the Opposition. He is now painted with the same brush as the Leader of the Opposition, with a party that campaigned on ripping up UNDRIP. He spent his speech talking about the importance of reconciliation and engaging with Indigenous peoples.

The irony of talking about fighting climate change: in particular, environmental standards when he ran to be a part of a party with a leader, and now reports up to a leader, who doesn’t believe in climate change or, at least, sometimes changes his tune and says: “Yeah, climate change exists, but it’s not an existential threat.” So I appreciated his comments but a lot of irony there, but that’s okay. That’s why we get a chance to be able to stand up in this House and say what’s on our mind on behalf of our constituents. And it’s a real privilege for me to be able to stand in this House and speak on behalf of the hardworking people of Langford-Highlands, who I believe overwhelmingly support Bill 15 and the work that we are doing on this side of the House.

The Government House Leader and I were chatting about the similarities between our two ridings, being suburban communities, so he and I often share a lot of the same feelings. I guess the people of Langford and PoCo are similar: hard-working people, blue-collar workers that, in many cases, are building the infrastructure that we’re talking about.

[6:05 p.m.]

So it’s a real privilege for me to be able to stand in this House and talk about my support for Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act. I want to thank the minister for her leadership in not only taking on this complex file but assembling a new ministry at the same time as bringing forward this legislation.

I will talk a bit about what this legislation means to the people of Langford Highlands

for Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act. I want to thank the minister for her leadership in not only taking on this complex file but assembling a new ministry at the same time of bringing forward this legislation.

I’ll talk a bit about what this legislation means to the people of Langford-Highlands, and in particular, my connection to infrastructure. I want to take us back a number of years. In 2011, I was a high school student at Belmont Secondary school. My high school in downtown Langford, where now there’s a strip mall and a Thrifty’s — a lot has happened on that site.

My high school was falling apart. It was crowded; 2,000 students for a school that was probably built for 1,000. When the floors ripped up, instead of fixing them, they would literally go and put duct tape on the floor. Asbestos warnings everywhere. You couldn’t use the water fountains because they literally had a big sign that said: “Asbestos warnings.”

My connection to politics started with my predecessor John Horgan. But my real connection to community politics and grassroots politics actually started in high school. I don’t know if I ever told this story in my maiden speech, but when I went to that school, we were doing a project on persuasive writing, and I decided my persuasive essay would be writing a letter to the Minister of Education, convincing them to replace that aging, decrepit high school with two new high schools.

Little did I know that a petition, a school-wide walkout, would somehow land me in this place. But that connection to me and my school was critical, because schools in so many ways are really the centre points of communities.

Why I mention this, in particular, in relation to Bill 15 and the Infrastructure Projects Act, this is about building community. This is about building the infrastructure British Columbians deserve and rely on each and every day. My community, like so many communities across British Columbia, faced many challenges in the mid- to late 2000s.

In 2011, the Minister of Education at the time, George Abbott, many in the House will know — someone who I have the honour of working with in his role as a treaty commissioner and as someone who’s helping support me in my review of B.C. timber sales — was a minister. I remember coming up in this House, sitting somewhere up there, being introduced by John and seeing the presentation of my petition.

It was hard to get money out of the B.C. Liberals for infrastructure projects. They cut. I remember when I became a school trustee, the first budget that I had, we were cutting $4 million from our operating budget, and we were getting zero in capital budgets at that time, which was very difficult for my school district because we were growing rapidly.

We have been, the Sooke school district has been, and I believe — don’t quote me on this, because it’s been a couple of years since I left the school district — we have been the fastest-growing school district per capita in the province. I don’t know if any of my friends from Surrey are in the Leg., but the Surrey school district often is lauded as the fastest-growing school district. But per capita, Sooke beats them by a lot.

While we were taking dollars away from the classroom to fund portables, which made it very challenging for me as a relatively new school trustee to be a part of those decisions, it was very stressful times. Things changed in 2017, when a new government came, a new horizon came.

But my experiences with infrastructure really connect back to that grassroots level in schools. I experienced a government that cut, a government that wanted to close schools. In fact, my elementary school was closed by Christy Clark and the B.C. Liberal government. It actually led my family to move to Langford.

I experienced something different in 2017 when you had a Premier, John Horgan, and now led by our current Premier, who have been bringing in substantive investments in our province.

This is important to talk about because these investments mean an awful lot to communities. I’ve been to many communities. The member opposite talks about ministers not visiting rural communities. A number of my colleagues have visited communities represented by the members across the way.

[6:10 p.m.]

I’ve spent more time in their communities than I’ve spent in my own community these last few months, because I know how important it is for me as a new minister to put the work in on the ground, boots on the ground, meeting with local mayors and council, meeting with First Nations leaders, meeting with workers, meeting with community leaders, putting that work in to ensure that I can understand the concerns, I can listen and learn, so I can come back here to this beautiful Legislature, to Victoria, and start taking action on the issues that matter to people.

I enjoyed spending time in Kimberley. I got a chance to participate in a prescribed

meeting with workers, meeting with community leaders, putting that work in to ensure that I can understand the concerns. I can listen and learn so I can come back here to this beautiful Legislature, to Victoria, and start taking action on the issues that matter to people.

I enjoyed spending time in Kimberley. I got a chance to participate in a prescribed fire. Who would have thought that a kid from Langford would be given a drip torch and get a chance to be able to see the hard-working men and women of the B.C. Wildfire Service, the incredible work that the chief of the Kimberley Fire Department is doing?

I also got a chance to be able to meet with the mayor. I meet with many mayors and talk about infrastructure. I’ve been to communities where mayors have been represented by Liberals, Uniteds, Conservatives — it’s been some time since a New Democrat has been elected from those communities — that have said: “Even though we don’t have an NDP MLA, man, have you guys delivered for us.”

You just have to look at the mayor of Terrace and the new hospital that’s going in. You just have to talk about the investments that we’ve made in so many communities. Williams Lake is an example. So many communities where we have delivered. And it doesn’t matter if we don’t represent those communities, because all British Columbians, every aspect of this land base matters to us.

Since we formed government in 2017, we have delivered record numbers of new infrastructure projects to really strengthen the core of British Columbia, to help build British Columbia. We have started or completed work on more than 30 hospital projects.

And 80,000 student seats built or underway in my school district. That means the largest expansion of public education in the school district’s history. That’s two new high schools. That’s a new middle school, Centre Mountain Lellum. That’s several elementary schools. That’s land purchases. That’s building for the future.

I went from representing a school district that had one of the highest thresholds of portables to classroom seats, to actual buildings being built. We are actually building SĆIȺNEW̱ SṮEȽIṮḴEȽ, a brand new 500-seat elementary school right now, built with B.C. mass timber, that is set to open this September.

The Infrastructure Projects Act helps projects like that get ahead. It helps projects like that proceed in a more efficient way. I’m going to touch on more of that.

So 10,700 student housing beds underway across the province, in major urban centres but also rural communities as well. Those are important beds for students who are going to be helping to build our province, going to be helping to ensure that we are providing them the opportunity to be leaders in our province.

And 92,000 homes, 2,500 transportation projects, millions spent to build new playgrounds. I could go on and on about the infrastructure projects that I’ve seen in my travels as Minister of Forests but also that I’ve seen in my constituency of Langford-Highlands. Again, the largest expansion of public education in the Sooke school district’s history.

The largest expansion of public transportation that we’ve seen in the West Shore’s history: a rapid bus, significant upgrades all across this constituency. I think of the work that my predecessor did on the road out to Sooke, nearly a $100 million project there.

Countless examples. I think of the new West Shore post-secondary campus that’s going to have a new name soon, that is the first of its kind. It’s going to have spots for over 1,000 students in downtown Langford. Royal Roads, UVic, Camosun College, the Justice Institute and the Sooke school district — five institutions in one building, first of its kind in Canada.

Those are the types of infrastructure projects that we want to streamline, we want to get built faster. There’s nothing that frustrates people more than seeing governments stand at podiums, make announcements and then don’t see shovels in the ground. This legislation gets shovels in the ground in projects right across British Columbia. It’s so important.

We can talk about what the member talked about or what the member from Kamloops Centre went on for almost two hours on. That was concerns with Indigenous consultations, concerns with the environment. I’m sorry. I can’t take them seriously on those issues. I can’t take the Conservative Party of B.C. seriously on those issues.

[6:15 p.m.]

It’s this government, it’s the people on this side of the House that brought in the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. You actually had the member across the way prior to me, I think, essentially, say: “If LNG was included in here, if pipeline projects were included in here, maybe we’ll support it. I’m not sure.”

But this is about public infrastructure. This is about getting major projects approved. And we have to ask ourselves: why is this so important now? We’ve been

I think, essentially, say: “If LNG was included in here, if pipeline projects were included in here, maybe we’ll support it. I’m not sure.”

This is about public infrastructure. This is about getting major projects approved. And we have to ask ourselves: why is this so important now? We’ve been making a lot of efforts in getting infrastructure projects approved all across the province, but what’s changed? In January, Donald Trump got elected President of the United States. And when he became….

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Well, the member across the way can laugh, but that’s true. Donald Trump became President of the United States. And on day 1, he threatened our sovereignty. He said that he wanted to make Canada the 51st state.

We have to get building. We need people in our communities right across British Columbia, not just in Langford-Highlands but in Columbia River–Revelstoke, in Richmond, in Langley, in Chilliwack, in PoCo — you name it. We need them building. We need construction workers working.

I was with the Building Trades last week. They support this legislation. In fact, they’ve written a letter to the Leader of the Opposition, encouraging him and his colleagues to support this legislation. This is the important work that we have to do. It’s the important work that we’re doing on this side of the House.

Donald Trump is spending time saying a lot of stuff in the media, a lot of stuff. I don’t know where he is today, but every so often he will continue to insult Canada. He will continue to refer to us as the 51st state. I’m sure glad that he’s not showing to Prime Minister Carney the same level of disrespect he showed Prime Minister Trudeau. That’s progress. But he insulted our country, and we have to take advantage of the opportunity we have to build — to build in a more efficient way, to build faster.

That means all of us working together. We’ve got projects in all of our communities. When we get elected here, we get elected with a colour. But we all have the same things. We all want schools. We all want hospitals. We all want public transportation infrastructure. I give the Minister of Transportation a hard time all the time about the need for more transportation infrastructure. But we all do that, because we all live in our communities, and we all want to see the best for our communities, so why not approve…?

Why not pass legislation like Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act, that does that very thing — that is, takes projects from concept on paper and gets them across the finish line. That’s exactly what we are trying to do with this legislation. It’s about streamlining. It is about being more efficient.

I’ve had the opportunity in my time as the chair of the Sooke School District to manage as part of a team, to be on the governance side managing hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of capital projects. I learned a lot through that process, and it’s really helped set me up for success in other projects that I’m going to have in my life.

There are incredible school district partners, incredible local government partners — you name it — that are doing this work every single day, helping to build British Columbia. I think of the work that’s going on just north of me at the Cowichan Hospital. My colleague the MLA for Cowichan Valley and her constituents are going to get a benefit from it. I think the region is going to get a chance to benefit from it, not just the jobs of building that hospital but also the services that are going to come.

We have an infrastructure deficit here in British Columbia, and that is because when those guys sat on this side of the House, they didn’t build British Columbia. They cut every single day. They cut. So here is an opportunity for us to build. Here is an opportunity for us to put people to work, to provide good-paying jobs to people in every corner of our province, and we’re going to take every opportunity to do that through this legislation.

That’s why it is such an important piece of legislation that the Premier took the leadership to speak to it as well. He acknowledged the work that has happened all across British Columbia over decades of building infrastructure that matters to people. Schools, hospitals, wind projects — you name it: those are projects that matter to people because they put people to work, and get them what they need.

It gets them the opportunity to ensure that their kids are going to quality education facilities, world-class facilities. It ensures that they are going to hospitals that are not falling apart but are brand new. They are not going into hospitals that are old trailers. They are going to modern infrastructure.

[6:20 p.m.]

They are driving on public transportation that is built by British Columbians. I could go on and on about the infrastructure that we’ve built, on this side of the House, and we want to do more. In fact, we have announced, through Budget 2025, which aligns with Bill 15, the

They are driving on public transportation that is built by British Columbians. I could go on and on about the infrastructure that we’ve built on this side of the House, and we want to do more.

In fact, we have announced through Budget 2025, which aligns with Bill 15, the largest expansion of investment in infrastructure in British Columbia’s history: $60 billion over three years. That is incredible, but also terrifying, because we have to train the people, and we have to take these projects and those dollar figures, stop talking about them from concept and get shovels in the ground.

But that doesn’t mean that we don’t meaningfully engage with Indigenous peoples. It doesn’t mean that we don’t engage on the ground on environmental concerns. I was at a project in View Royal. I had an opportunity, with the member from Nanaimo-Lantzville, to be able to help open up a really major infrastructure project, not necessarily in my community — literally down the road from my community — but that helped support this region, the capital regional district, in particular the West Shore, where I come from.

That was a new handyDART facility. There was a lot of controversy over this handyDART facility, specifically from community members. Here was an opportunity where you had a project that was being talked about in the Ministry of Transportation for some time, and B.C. Transit for some time, and it was this government that helped get it done. It was this government that helped fund it.

But it was the people on the ground. It was the representatives from the Ministry of Transportation and Transit. It was the individuals from B.C. Transit, the planners. It was the community residents that came together, talked about the challenges and were able to build a nearly $100 million building to help expand handyDART facilities for seniors, for people with disabilities, provide that much-needed support and take a project that was off on the sidelines, a project that was struggling to get by, and get community support.

That doesn’t stop with Bill 15. Community input is so important. We all have public in-boxes. People provide us their perspectives every single day. We may agree with it. We may disagree with it. But it’s our job to listen. That doesn’t stop with Bill 15. It didn’t stop with Bill 14. This is about Donald Trump threatening our sovereignty and us taking an opportunity to build the infrastructure our province needs and our country needs as well.

I was reading the Globe and Mail this morning. I don’t tend to read the Globe and Mail every single day. I tend to read the Times Colonist, because that’s my local paper. But it was flagged for me that there was an editorial by the Globe and Mail. The title was: “B.C.’s Blueprint for a Fast Track for Big Projects.” I’m just going to quote one line. “British Columbia has found a way forward, offering a blueprint that should be embraced by Ottawa.” I encourage all of my colleagues to pull out their phones and Google “B.C.’s Blueprint for a Fast Track for Big Projects.” That was from the Globe and Mail editorial board.

They are seeing what we are doing here in British Columbia. We are leading the way. We’re leading the way on infrastructure. We’re leading the way with my colleague on mining, ensuring that we can become a mining superpower, not just in Canada but the world.

But we’re not going to stop there. Here is an opportunity for us to take it to the next level. We have an opportunity to help build British Columbia and ensure that we are providing people the services they need, the infrastructure they need.

I saw that firsthand in my time as a school trustee, when you had a government that cut, a government that wouldn’t provide support, a government that wouldn’t help move projects forward. Here we have a government that is putting money on the table. Here we have a government that is making record investments, billions of dollars of investments. Here we have a government that is asking for the support of the Legislative Assembly to take it one step further.

That is to get projects in the ground to employ good, working British Columbians who want to help build schools, who want to help build hospitals, who want to help build playgrounds, all types of infrastructure that benefit their communities. This is what Bill 15 does.

[6:25 p.m.]

We have seen the opposition during their debate on Bill 14, and we have seen it so far in Bill 15, attack our Premier and attack the work that he has been doing. The Premier of the province of British Columbia has been a leader, a leader not just here in British Columbia but a leader in Canada. When I go home to Langford-Highlands, and I go to my local

far in Bill 15 attack our Premier and attack the work that he has been doing. The Premier of the province of British Columbia has been a leader, a leader not just here in British Columbia but a leader in Canada.

When I go home to Langford-Highlands and I go to my local coffee shop, the number of people that come up to me and say: “The Premier is incredible. The Premier is leading the way….” I have people telling me in Langford-Highlands that they’ve got cousins, aunts and uncles, moms and dads in other provinces saying: “Gosh, I wish your Premier was our Premier. I wish British Columbia’s Premier was our Premier.” These are people in Ontario, Quebec and other places. We are lucky to have his leadership.

The reason I raise that in particular is that the former MLA for Langford-Highlands was the Premier. He set a really high bar, and I always wondered if anyone could meet that bar. The Premier is working his butt off every day to meet that bar, and I’m hearing it on the ground. He is putting the work in. He is getting projects approved, like a new university in Langford, like new schools, like health care infrastructure, and it’s just the start.

We have an opportunity in the times that we live in to take real action. I talked about this in my remarks on Bill 14. We have an opposition that doesn’t have a vision. We have an opposition that is taking every opportunity to say no to everything. This is a real change from what I thought may have been Conservative ideals and values. I thought Conservatives wanted to build. I thought Conservatives wanted to build infrastructure. I thought Conservatives wanted to put people to work. Clearly, that’s changed.

That’s okay, because we’re on this side and they’re not. On this side of the House, we are going to take every opportunity in our time in government to build the infrastructure, to put people to work, to ensure that we can have quality schools, that we can have hospital infrastructure, that we can have public transportation on high-quality infrastructure. That is the work that we are doing on this side of the House because that is the work that British Columbians have sent us to do.

That is important work, and that is important work that all of us hold a piece to, whether we sit on this side of the House or sit on that side of the House. We all get emails, we all get letters, we all get the occasional person stopping by our community office providing their perspective. I hear about it all the time in my constituency office. I welcome it from the people of Langford-Highlands — different perspectives.

Through this legislation, through the leadership of the Minister of Infrastructure, through the leadership of our Premier, we are going to pass this legislation. We are going to get projects built faster. That is what we are trying to do with this legislation.

I would welcome the Conservatives and I would welcome my friends from the Green Party to join us. Do they want to be the party of getting projects built, or will they continue to show us in this House, continue to show British Columbians, that Conservatives and other members have simply become the parties and the MLAs that deliver nothing, the parties and the MLAs that are not willing to put the work in to build the infrastructure our province needs and clearly have become, in this case of the opposition, the party of no?

We are going to take every opportunity on this side of the House to build B.C. That’s why we’ve been sent here. That’s why we’re going to continue this important work. I’m so proud to be able to provide my support for Bill 15.

Lawrence Mok: Today I rise to speak against Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act. Under the guise of speeding up critical infrastructure development, this bill actually represents quite a troubling centralization of power in the hands of the government.

This NDP government has framed the bill as a pragmatic solution to permitting delays, but I have many concerns regarding overriding local governance, weakening environmental oversight and reducing transparency in project approvals. We should all be able to agree that transparency in project approval processes is a very important part of the process, which should be prioritized.

[6:30 p.m.]

At its core, Bill 15 will enable the government to fast-track what it considers designated infrastructure projects by overriding and compressing dozens of laws, policies and bylaws which were designed originally to ensure that the process does its due diligence.

what it considers designated infrastructure projects by overriding and compressing dozens of laws, policies and bylaws which were designed originally to ensure that the process does its due diligence, to ensure that public participation and engagement with stakeholders is respected.

But this bill now uses vague and sweeping definitions of terms, such as “constraints,” which will give cabinet the unprecedented authority to bypass any statutory requirements except for Indigenous consultation. It is very concerning that statutory requirements will be allowed to be overridden by unilateral ministerial order, a great example of opaque executive decision-making.

Deputy Speaker: Members, could we have the conversations outside? We’ve recognized the member for Maple Ridge East. I’d like to hear his comments today.

Go ahead, Member.

Lawrence Mok: The centralization of such vast powers raises immediate red flags, and I’m sure it would raise the same red flags for this government if it was us, on the other side of the aisle, enforcing this type of power centralization. While they may argue that this is bold leadership and is necessary to finish infrastructure projects, Bill 15 is more than just speeding up permitting. It effectively sidesteps the necessary checks and balances that exist precisely to prevent the misuse of government power.

Equally concerning is this bill’s impact on local democracy. Municipalities and regional planning bodies, which are closest to the communities affected by major developments, may see their procedural safeguards overridden by cabinet with minimal consultation. This isn’t collaborative by any means. It creates a top-down approach that only sidelines local voices and flattens public accountability.

Bill 15 is not simply a tool that breaks permitting logjams. Instead, it allows for unchecked authority that frequently we cannot accept. It gives cabinet the authority to concentrate decision-making power into their small circle, sidelining regulators, local authorities and the affected communities. We must ask ourselves: at what cost does efficiency come? In a province that values transparency and accountability, Bill 15 is definitely a step in the wrong direction.

We have heard the government perspective. They are trying to sell the idea of expediting permitting, framing this bill as a non-partisan issue and claiming that by cutting red tape, they can streamline the delivery of these projects. However, in the context of the fact that this NDP government has had eight years to cut red tape, this justification is simply not enough to allow this type of power grab to go unchecked. Why has it taken eight years for this government to finally decide that the solution to their inefficiency is to override provisions to break through project delays?

It makes me wonder whether they have run out of options and their last idea is to just override regulations. It’s simple and concerning. In fact, every major NDP-led project is already over budget and behind schedule, so this bill will only be giving the same group more power to override rules and fewer rules to follow over law.

This type of power centralization reminds me of another bill. In fact, Bill 15 looks very similar to Bill 7 and is just as concerning, especially since this version doesn’t even come with a sunset clause. This is essentially Bill 7 packaged as an infrastructure bill.

[6:35 p.m.]

But the thing is this: Bill 15 is not about building infrastructure. In fact, it is about building unchecked power. So now cabinet will be able to rewrite zoning bylaws, override regulations and even sideline local municipal

but the thing is this: Bill 15 is not about building infrastructure. In fact, it is about building unchecked power. Now cabinet will be able to rewrite zoning bylaws, override regulations and even sideline local municipal councils, without public consultation or any public meetings. Any rational British Columbian will look at that and take issue with it. Practically this can play out in many ways, including the minister acquiring land, gifting it to private entities, acting as the builder on said project and also picking out the consultants who ultimately approve the projects.

Before I dive deeper into more specifics, implications and issues, I want to start with three areas of concern that demonstrate precisely why there is an overreach of power in this bill.

Firstly, this bill allows for basically any statutory requirement, except for the clauses on Indigenous engagement, to be rewritten by orders in council. There’s no objective threshold or standard. As long as the minister considers the negotiations to be stalled, they can go ahead.

On top of that, there’s no test on whether this judgment is reasonable nor any third-party review of the decision after the fact. There isn’t even an expiry, which means these replacement orders can continue to survive even if a project loses its designated status later on.

Secondly, the minister has the authority to act as developer, as general contractor or even as project manager. This means that the minister who sets the policy, issues designations and overrides permits now also has the authority to execute construction itself. This blurs fiduciary lines, raises concerns regarding the fairness of procurement processes and also threatens cost overrun accountability.

Lastly, with interministry land transfers, a single minister can redirect land that another portfolio, such as Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, was safeguarding, as long as the other minister consents. But with cabinet solidarity, that consent is pretty much guaranteed.

Together these provisions represent a troubling concentration of unchecked power in the hands of a single minister. The ability to rewrite statutory requirements through orders in council without objective standards, oversight or expiry allows for the indefinite suspension of established regulations based solely on the minister’s judgment. This alone undermines transparency and democratic accountability.

Finally, the provision for interministry land transfers further consolidates power with cabinet solidarity, effectively ensuring consent. One minister can have unchecked power over any land transfer.

Together these changes dismantle essential checks and balances, sideline independent oversight and prioritize political expedience over public interest and responsible governance.

Now I want to move on to talk about some of the more general and overarching concerns. First, there are some overbreadth and vagueness terms used in this bill. Key terms such as approval authority, measure, provincial permit and qualified professional remain undefined until cabinet releases regulations. This lack of clarity creates legal uncertainty for municipalities, for Indigenous nations and the general public.

[6:40 p.m.]

The bill’s vague language invites broad interpretation and the potential for powers to expand well beyond their original intent without public consultation or legislative oversight. This undermines confidence in the law, making it difficult to anticipate how and when it will be applied. Without clear definitions, stakeholders are left navigating an unpredictable legal landscape

legislative oversight. This undermines confidence in the law, making it difficult to anticipate how and when it will be applied. Without clear definitions, stakeholders are left navigating an unpredictable legal landscape, increasing risk and diminishing trust in procedural fairness.

Second, the bill centralizes nearly all significant decision-making power in cabinet, allowing ministers to define key terms like “category,” “designated,” “specified” and “proponent” without legislative input or independent review. This unchecked discretion effectively sidelines the legislative processes and the accountability we as opposition provide, eliminating essential checks and balances.

By removing procedural thresholds and consolidating definitional authority, the bill permits political actors to shift entire regulatory frameworks behind closed doors. This type of centralization not only erodes democratic accountability but also increases the potential for arbitrary or politically motivated decisions. It prioritizes experience over transparency, reducing the public’s ability to challenge or even understand how major decisions are made.

Third, I see the conflict-of-interest potential in this bill. The bill grants cabinet the power to name private entities as approval authorities or qualified professionals, blurring the line between regulators and regulated parties.

This opens the door widely for proponents to work under a regulatory framework shaped by friendly or aligned parties, raising serious conflict-of-interest concerns. With no clear safeguards to ensure independence or impartiality, these designations could compromise the integrity of project assessments. The risk is that regulatory oversight becomes a formality conducted by actors with a vested interest in project approval rather than public interest. This undermines trust and weakens the legitimacy of the approval process.

Fourth, the bill also gives cabinet the authority to define specified authorities in a way that includes local councils, regional boards and trust committees, and allows new bodies to be added at will. This means that cabinet can override local planning tools, such as official community plans, development permit areas and regional growth strategies.

By centralizing this power, the legislation strips municipalities and regions of their ability to shape land use in accordance with local priorities and democratic processes. It risks sidelining the nuanced community-specific considerations that local governments are best positioned to address, replacing them with one-size-fits-all provincial directives.

Fifth, the bill somehow allows regulatory or environmental safeguards to be bypassed whenever they may impede a designated project. This permissive threshold is dangerously low, requiring no concrete evidence or justification, only a speculative risk of delay or complication.

Such vague criteria render important constraints effectively optional, undermining the purpose of protections and public consultation. The absence of an evidence-based standard allows broad ministerial discretion in removing rules that might otherwise serve as critical checks. In practice, this creates a fast-track mechanism for development that sacrifices due diligence and accountability in favour of speed and political convenience.

[6:45 p.m.]

Even just looking at the definitions outlined in part 1 of this bill, we see how it is written in favour of rapid ministerial intervention due to broad and vague…. These meanings are in the statute. But the flexibility afforded by these definitions

at the definitions outlined in part 1 of this bill, we see how it is written in favour of rapid ministerial intervention due to broad and vague…. These meanings are in the statute.

While the flexibility afforded by these definitions may shave time off of project timelines, it does so in a way which opens the door to political favouritism, a weakening of professional and municipal oversight and a blurred boundary between regulator and developer. Speed must still be balanced with accountability, and this bill lacks strong statutory limits and clearer legislative criteria.

The title of this bill essentially gives the minister a sweeping and largely unfettered mandate to be able to acquire land, spend public money and even become the builder for the projects that cabinet designates. This is an example of textbook power centralization, especially since there are no guardrails, no mandatory public reporting or any competitive procurement rules to follow. It allows for the erosion of municipal decision-making.

Moving on to part 3 of the bill, which addresses orders in council. With an order in council, permits can be overridden, local planning exemptions can be bestowed at will and environmental reviews can be expedited on any project without any scrutiny at all. The combination of vague eligibility criteria, broad class-based applicability and selective waiver style exemptions creates the perception of politicized project selection. This undermines regulatory certainty for proponents not seen as favoured and places unchecked non-reviewable authority in the hands of cabinet.

To address these concerns, the legislation should include clear statutory destination criteria along with mandatory requirements for public consultation and publication. These safeguards are essential to ensure transparency, fairness and accountability in how projects are identified and approved.

Part 4 of this bill is a guide on how normal checks can be bypassed. This section allows cabinet to swap statutory reviews for consultant sign-offs, detect hard stock permit timelines, rewrite zoning and, worst of all, issue unilateral orders to declare a project as legally compliant. Again, I don’t doubt that this could improve speed, but there is far too much unparalleled power that’s now concentrated in political hands. The lines between legitimate streamlining and deregulation are now blurred. Safety and accountability measures, including public notice, independent monitors, objective tests and even sunset clauses are simply not to be found.

Part 5 carries forward Bill 15’s fast track approach into the health, education and post-secondary sectors by giving cabinet broad authority to expedite property transfers with minimal oversight. While this could speed up the delivery of urgently needed hospitals or classrooms, it also undermines the fiduciary independence of sector boards, obscures the true financial impact of land transfers and creates opportunities for politically motivated allocation of public assets. These significant decisions can proceed with little transparency, limited public input and no meaningful legislative scrutiny, raising serious concerns about accountability and long-term stewardship of publicly-owned land.

[6:50 p.m.]

Part 6 of this bill serves as the core of executive discretion, removing standard offence provisions and granting cabinet broad powers to make and delegate regulations. It enables critical compliance elements such as qualified professionals

of this bill serves as the core of executive discretion, removing standard offence provisions and granting cabinet broad powers to make and delegate regulations. It enables critical compliance elements such as qualified professional certifications, permitting timelines and environmental assessment assumptions to be created or altered without transparency or public input.

With no mandatory penalties, no required consultation and the automation and the automatic adoption of external standards, this framework creates a highly flexible infrastructure regime. However, that flexibility comes at a cost. It exposes the system to politicization, legal ambiguity and potential enforcement gaps, weakening both accountability and the rule of law in project oversight.

Finally, part 7 solidifies Bill 15’s authority over nearly a dozen sector-specific laws, replacing the more limited 2003 streamlining legislations with a significantly broader and open-ended framework. It also introduces an accelerated environmental assessment track under environmental law.

Taken together, these changes diminish local decision power, weaken governance structures across sectors like health, education, environment and municipal planning and erode important procedural protections. All of this is implemented through regulation without any built-in sunset clause or mandatory review process and changing long-term impacts with minimal democratic oversight or accountability.

Next, I want to talk about what others are saying about this bill. Now, let’s ask ourselves this question. Obviously as opposition, we cannot and will not support this blatant overreach of power. But when outsider sources, including top stakeholders and the media, also question the feasibility and application of this bill, raising multiple concerns, you would think that that would raise enough alarm bells.

The media is calling this bill “a hard hat” and unlocking of a vast slate of powers to push forward any project that they deem of provincial significance. The Union of B.C. Chiefs has also raised concerns about how projects can be fast-tracked under the guise of responding to tariffs. But the watering down of the EA process causes concerns with the upholding of this government’s promise to align laws with UNDRIP — which stands for United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous People.

The Independent Contractors of B.C. calls this bill ironic. They discuss how the NDP has created a new ministry just to pass legislation to cut the red tape they put there themselves in the first place. In addition, they mention that permitting delays and red tape are slowing down nearly every type of construction, whether it be homes, roads, energy or bridges.

But rather than an across-the-board fix, this government has decided to implement a focused workaround. The answer, they explain, is to eliminate unnecessary delays for all projects, not just those favoured by government, and we need real reform to also restore investor confidence in the province.

[6:55 p.m.]

UBCM has also raised concerns, especially on the piece about local governments. They question whether local decisions by the minister to overrule local government processes will result in direct financial impacts on the local government. One important point to note is that UBCM is concerned with the fact that, as proven in the past, a fast-track approach that skips over key consultation is more likely to lead to unintended consequences, which mirrors our main concern directly.

To conclude, Bill

in the past, a fast-track approach that skips over key consultation is more likely to lead to unintended consequences, which mirrors our main concern directly.

To conclude, Bill 15 establishes a far-reaching, centralized framework that allows the province to designate projects and then streamline, override or replace nearly all provincial and local approvals that could delay them. Supporters may view it as a necessary response to B.C.’s persistent permitting delays. Critics will argue it represents a sweeping consolidation of power that sidelines local governments, weakens environmental oversight and marginalizes independent regulatory bodies in the name of efficiency.

Ultimately, the bill’s real impact will hinge on how responsibly or aggressively cabinet chooses to exercise its new designation and override powers once enacted. With so many stakeholders taking issue with this bill, as well as us, as opposition, pointing out all the issues this bill creates with accountability, transparency and fairness, it is surprising that this government is still pushing through with Bill 15 as it stands.

Bill 15 undermines open government, weakens local democratic control and introduces political uncertainty into the project approval process, conditions that ultimately deter business investment in British Columbia. For all these reasons, I therefore will not and cannot support Bill 15.

Lynne Block: Today I stand before you to speak about Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act.

On the surface, the government claims this bill gives the new Ministry of Infrastructure the legal tools it needs to cut red tape and streamline the delivery of major public projects such as schools, hospitals and transit infrastructure. It sounds good. It really does. After all, government has a lot of catching up to do after eight years of putting band-aids on much of the infrastructure needs around the province.

The government has not kept up with the needs in this province, whether it be schools, bridges, hospitals, care homes or transit. Every year, they fell further and further behind to where we are now: desperation on the part of the government.

So let’s make a brand new ministry, the infrastructure projects, and let’s make it look like we are finally taking action, but let’s not let anyone know that there is no money and that we have to borrow more, and let’s not tell anyone as to where we shall begin or how much money all the projects will need or even what projects we intend to do.

And because some people do not fully understand the ramifications of this bill, they truly believe that all the much-needed infrastructure in this province, all of it in their community, will be built — the bridges, the schools, the hospitals. How will they feel when they realize they’ve been misled?

[7:00 p.m.]

The NDP position it as a non-partisan administrative necessity following the creation of a new ministry, arguing that stronger authority for the ministry, such as acting as general contractor or overriding delays allows for better coordination and accountability when large projects encounter issues. The government promotes the idea that consolidating projects like school builds or modular classroom purchases into fewer, larger contracts

Acting as general contractor or overriding delays allows for better coordination and accountability when large projects encounter issues.

The government promotes the idea that consolidating projects like school builds or modular classroom purchases into fewer, larger contracts will create efficiencies and lower costs, suggests the bill is part of a broader effort to speed up permitting for provincial infrastructure and frames streamlining or override provisions, such as section 18, as necessary tools to break through project delays. They even point to sections like 9(1), 9(2) as being beneficial to municipalities by clarifying responsibilities, reducing duplication and easing approvals for some local projects.

However, let us be clear. Despite the government’s narrative, Bill 15 is not truly about building infrastructure; it is about building unchecked power. It is described by some as a cabinet coup disguised as a construction plan and a cabinet power grab. It has been explicitly called Bill 7 on steroids and simply Bill 7 in a hard hat. This is because this legislation is seen as the NDP attempting to resurrect the authoritarian powers proposed in Bill 7, but with a crucial difference. Bill 15 has no sunset clause.

Was the government hoping that no one would notice, that giving the title of Infrastructure Projects Act would give it some credibility, some substance that belies the fact that not one piece of infrastructure is outlined nor the costs of any so-called planned projects? We are asked to trust them. We are asked to trust them, and how has that worked out so far?

This bill gives the Premier and his inner circle sweeping powers to override laws, local governments and the public without oversight. The minister is granted ultimate authority over anything deemed infrastructure, which can include roads, SkyTrains and hospital construction.

Ultimately, responsibility doesn’t lie with the people or democratic processes. Let’s examine those deeply undemocratic aspects of this legislation as highlighted by concerned voices. Cabinet can rewrite zoning bylaws, override regulators and sideline local councils, municipal councils, all without a single public meeting. Forget official community plans. Local planning, community priorities, and even Islands Trust rules can be erased overnight by regulation.

Ministers can intervene to address delays for designated projects by overriding the municipality and all those pesky elected local officials. The Union of B.C. Municipalities has noted that the process leading to this legislation was rushed and lacked meaningful consultation with UBCM or member local governments. They warned that a fast-tracked approach that skips consultation is more likely to lead to unintended consequences.

UBCM also raises critical questions. If a minister overrules a local government process resulting in a direct financial impact, will a local government be made whole by the province? Furthermore, if the province intervenes in local government regulatory decision-making, the legislation is not clear whether the province will take on the liability of their intervention and subsequent decisions.

This bill represents a troubling trend of legislation that concentrates power. There is a severe lack of oversight, transparency and accountability. There is no objective threshold for ministerial intervention. The minister only has to consider negotiations stalled. There is no test of reasonableness and no third-party review for the minister’s actions. Not acceptable. The minister can act as developer, general contractor or project manager.

This means the same minister who sets policy, issues designations and overrides permits now executes construction. This blurs fiduciary lines, raises serious procurement fairness concerns, and threatens cost-overrun accountability, not to mention conflict-of-interest possibilities.

[7:05 p.m.]

This bill allows interministry land transfers, where a single minister can redirect land that another portfolio, such as Environment or Indigenous Relations, was safeguarding. Consent from the other minister is technically required, but cabinet solidarity virtually guarantees

allows interministry land transfers where a single minister can redirect land that another portfolio, such as Environment or Indigenous Relations, was safeguarding. Consent from the other minister is technically required, but cabinet solidarity virtually guarantees consent.

The minister can acquire land, gift it to private entities, act as the builder and even pick the consultants who are approving it. If a permit takes too long for a politically sensitive project, a minister can intervene, designate someone to approve it or even make the approval automatic. Cabinet can unilaterally move a politically sensitive project to the front of the line. Virtually any statutory requirement, with the potential exception of Indigenous engagement clauses, can be rewritten by order in council. The replacement order survives even if the project later loses its designated status.

This legislation is totally contradictory to the principles inculcated in the honourable and varied and storied parliamentary practices of this venerable place. Bill 15 hands sweeping, unprecedented powers to the NDP cabinet. It would let a minister unilaterally declare almost any project “provincially significant” and then bulldoze it through, no matter what local communities or this House might have to say.

This is so controversial that we are seeing the province unite from all regions and sectors. Stakeholders that are unlikely allies have come together to oppose this bill. Think about that. It really tells the story of how many people are upset with the cavalier ways in which this government, with a slim majority, has been governing our great province. It demonstrates exactly why the powers this bill requests should not be granted by this House.

This House is entrusted with the responsibility of governing with checks and balances that are there for sound, tried and true reasons. We have to respect people’s wishes, and that is why we have to reject this undemocratic bill and the excuses behind this power grab legislation. Our zoning laws, community plans, environmental reviews, all those pesky checks and balances that protect the public — tossed aside with a stroke of this NDP or one of his minister’s pens.

What are various organizations and individuals saying about these critical flaws in this bill? Chris Gardner, president and CEO of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, highlights the irony: “The NDP has had to create an entire new ministry and pass legislation just to cut the red tape they created in the first place.” How ironic. He argues that this bill is a narrowly focused government workaround, instead of an “across-the-board fix,” for red tape that affects all types of construction, including homes, roads, energy and bridges.

Gardner states: “Simpler is better. The answer is to eliminate unnecessary delays for all projects, not just the ones favoured by the government.” He also points out that government procurement is broken, with major projects consistently behind schedule and over budget, yet this bill gives the same group even more power and fewer rules.

The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs raises significant concerns about projects being fast-tracked under the guise of responding to tariffs and, critically, watering down the environmental assessment process. They are concerned that the province is not upholding its own interim process on alignment of laws with UNDRIP or UNDRIP itself.

Jody Wilson-Raybould has predicted that this bill will lead to “more lawsuits from proponents and First Nations, more uncertainty and poorer economic and environmental outcomes.”

This NDP government has lost the confidence not only of business and local government but even of environmental voices who once supported them.

[7:10 p.m.]

Stand.earth has called on the government to immediately change course on Bill 15 and other fast-tracking legislation, describing the developments in the Legislative Assembly as deeply concerning, calling it a power grab that undercuts democratic debate.

Tegan Hansen, senior forest campaigner, views this move as a dangerous willingness to override commitments under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and B.C. residents’ rights to engage with projects that will impact their community. She unequivocally

grab that undercuts democratic debate.

Tegan Hansen, senior forest campaigner, views this move as a dangerous willingness to override commitments under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and B.C. residents’ rights to engage with projects that will impact their community. She unequivocally states: “This is fundamentally undemocratic. Steamrolling human rights and environmental assessments is never acceptable.”

Sven Biggs, Canadian oil and gas program director, argues that while building new clean energy is important, it “cannot come at the expense of our province’s commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples or environmental regulations.” He suggests the Premier and cabinet should be fast-tracking a new, stronger climate plan rather than “engaging in power grabs and political games.”

Sunil Singal, climate campaigner, contends that the province is moving forward in bad faith to sidestep important checks and balances built in to ensure meaningful consultation with local communities and First Nations. He argues that ramming through bills like Bill 15 creates more economic and environmental uncertainty.

The Wilderness Committee is equally critical. One of the campaigners states that Premier Eby has “lost the plot on who he works for.”

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’ll ask you not to say members’ names, please, in this House.

Lynne Block: Thank you. My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

States that the Premier has “lost the plot on who he works for — the people who can barely afford rent right now, not the billionaires looking to exploit B.C.’s ecosystems.” She finds it incomprehensible why a so-called progressive government would remove our rights to defend the environment and the economy from corporate interests.

They compare policies like Bill 15 to hardly any better than what Trump is rolling out down south. She argues the government has forgotten commitments already made to Indigenous rights, endangered species, ecosystems and climate action, stating that “if those priorities conflict with destructive megaprojects, it’s not up to Eby and his cabinet to unilaterally decide. That’s exactly what environmental assessments and consultations are for.”

Even the B.C. Green MLAs have also criticized the bill. The MLA for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky states that Bill 15, in its current form, “grants the NDP government sweeping powers to bypass environmental assessment, municipal authorities and the jurisdiction of First Nations under the guise of fast-tracking major infrastructure projects.” And the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands notes that this is part of a “troubling trend of legislation from this government that concentrates power and reduces oversight.”

While Indigenous engagement is theoretically protected, critics argue that compressed timelines and cut corners within the streamlines process make consent impossible in practice. The concerns raised by UBCIC and Stand.earth about not upholding UNDRIP commitments underscore this potential failure.

The stated goal of cutting red tape and streamlining infrastructure projects is a smokescreen for an unprecedented concentration of power in the hands of the minister and cabinet. This bill bypasses democratic processes, removes essential oversight and transparency, undermines local governments, and threatens to override environmental protections and meaningful consultation with Indigenous people. It grants fast powers without the necessary checks and balances, relies on subjective ministerial discretion rather than objective criteria and consolidates roles that should be separate.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities warns of the unintended consequences when local decision-making is overridden by Victoria. This NDP Premier and his inner circle want to rule by order in council, sidestepping the democratic process at every turn.

We’ve seen this before in history, haven’t we? It’s a thirst for power. We are a democracy, and I believe this government is forgetting this.

As we are all here, we should be able to agree universally. British Columbians have a right to transparent, accountable government. Instead, this bill offers government by decree. The NDP is essentially asking us to sign over a blank cheque of authority, trusting that they’ll only use it for good projects. Trust them. We’ve got ballooning budgets, botched project after project, and true costs…. We have no idea sometimes from what we get from the public. Absolutely not.

[7:15 p.m.]

The way the NDP is pushing Bill 15 forward reeks of arrogance about our democratic norms. They dropped this sweeping bill on May 1 and want it law by the end of the month. We barely have started the work of this House after the October, 2024 election

the way the NDP is pushing Bill 15 forward reeks of arrogance about our democratic norms.

They dropped this sweeping bill on May 1 and want it law by the end of the month. We barely have started the work of this House after the October 2024 election, and now this NDP Premier threatens the will of the electorate by trying to rush in unprecedented powers for his and his NDP party’s own ends, ignoring that he has had no public referendum or mandate to suggest that this is what the vast majority of British Columbians want or would sanction.

It’s undemocratic to the core, very undemocratic. No meaningful consultation with municipalities took place. The Union of B.C. Municipalities notes the process was rushed. It warns that Bill 15 provides cabinet with the extraordinary powers to override regulations at the local level.

Debate in this House getting cut short suggests a level of desperation on the part of the NDP administration. So what do the NDP Premier and cabinet do? They clamp down on debate, call it fast-tracking, and hope people are too distracted to notice that their rights are being trampled. This is fundamentally undemocratic.

The Premier knows full well that British Columbians are out there struggling to navigate an economy which the NDP has helped bungle with overspending, mismanagement and disastrous economic stewardship for the past eight years. It is a very sad reality that people may not have time to see the red flags to their futures and our democracy that this NDP legislation represents.

We must ask: why is this NDP government so desperate to grab these powers now? The answer, sadly, is as cynical as it gets. They are trying to distract from their failed economic record and reckless spending by blaming foreign actors and concocting external threats.

No foreign government forced the NDP to tie our infrastructure in knots with endless new rules and red tape in the past. No outside actor compelled them to spend beyond all reason. Those were choices this Premier and his government made. Now they’re using the consequences of their own failures as an excuse to seize more control.

It’s not just the official opposition or a few advocacy groups sounding the alarm. The opposition to Bill 15 spans the entire spectrum of stakeholders in this province. When the Green Party, the ICBA, the UBCM and the official opposition are all saying the same thing, that this bill is dangerous and undemocratic, then perhaps it’s time this NDP Premier stops pretending otherwise. I’m urging every MLA in the House who respects democracy to reject this bill, to defend the rights of your constituents and to defend our province.

I just wanted to note a few things. In West Vancouver, we have now a brand-new West Van Place for Sport for track and field. It was a collaboration between the West Van district and the West Van school district. We had transparency, we had oversight on it, and we had accountability.

Key, because I am delighted to say that with those, a person was hired to come in every day and watch carefully exactly what was happening. That is why that West Van Place for Sport was built on time, on budget, extremely well and will last for a lifetime. So that’s what happens when you have accountability, transparency and oversight.

We have some projects in the education system coming in. We have $4.6 billion over the next three years for building, renovating and seismically upgrading schools. Some of the projects are prefabricated schools in 16 school districts, $392 million; Smith secondary school, Langley, $203 million for construction; Olympic Village elementary, Vancouver, $151 million for construction, adding 630 new seats. What I also want to add is Hazel Trembath is finally being rebuilt after their costly fire.

[7:20 p.m.]

However, these are all in early planning or early development stages, except for a few of them, but they’re basically beginning. My fear is that these budgets, because we won’t have oversight if this bill goes through, because we don’t have transparency if this bill goes through, or if we don’t have accountability if this bill goes through, this will balloon all out of order.

but they’re basically beginning. My fear is that these budgets — because we won’t have oversight if this bill goes through, because we don’t have transparency if this bill goes through or if we don’t have accountability if this bill goes through — will balloon all out of order.

For example, post-secondary education. We have Vancouver Community College, $315 million; Royal Roads University, $108 million; Okanagan College, $57 million; Simon Fraser University, $34 million. If we do not have accountability, transparency and overrides on this, I fear that those budgets will be absolutely ballooning.

One of the members across the aisle, earlier in their speech, was talking, took us down memory lane with infrastructure issues when they were a school trustee and there were budget cuts. This was quite a few years ago, because he’s a little bit older now.

What was interesting was he felt that that was terrible then. But I say that was then, and this is now. The taking action…. We still…. After eight years of them being in power, so many school budgets have had to be drastically cut and programmed because of this government’s budgeting.

I won’t go there. However, I do want to point out a couple of things that have had so-called oversight, transparency and accountability and are not doing very, very well. For example, major health care projects, cost escalations. Richmond Hospital redevelopment: original estimate, $860 million; current estimate, $1.96 billion. And it hasn’t even started construction yet. Cowichan District Hospital: original estimate, $350 million; current estimate, $1.4 billion; status — under construction. Second Surrey Hospital: original estimate, 2022, $1.72 billion; current estimate, more than $2.88 billion. We’re still in the planning and early development stages.

Transportation infrastructure projects. Broadway subway: original budget, $2.83 billion; original completion date, 2025; revised completion date, late 2027; status — under construction, delays due to labour disputes and tunnel-boring challenges. Not because of the tariffs — just noting that.

What would happen if we have this bill going through, no oversights in the future, no transparency and no accountability? I dread to think of the billions that will be wasted then.

Now, going back to the education system, what the member across the aisle was talking about…. The education system has not been properly funded over the years. It should have been kept up with the increase in students, increase in infrastructure needed. So now they are intending to do a few infrastructure projects. But will they be enough?

Every single school district in this province needs more money, and some of that money needs to go to infrastructure. They should have kept pace year after year. They had the ability. So, yes, that’s with oversight, transparency and accountability. And this bill does not include those facets for future projects in infrastructure.

I challenge the NDP to scrap this bill, to listen to the people in B.C., to listen to the environmentalists, to listen to the First Nations. If the government truly wants to get, as the member said across the aisle, shovels in the ground and take it to the next level, if they really truly want to build the infrastructure in our province that is truly badly needed, they would work with all groups and organizations and the critics on this side of the aisle, because that’s our job — we are critics; that’s our job — and bring in a new bill for the Leg. which is not a power grab, which does have transparency, which does have accountability and which does have oversight and is not a disregard of democratic processes.

[7:25 p.m.]

I challenge the government to scrap this flawed bill and bring in one that is transparent, accountable and has the much-needed oversight, because this bill is not real reform. It is a government workaround for problems they helped create. It prioritizes government-favoured projects over addressing system-wide delays.

As the opposition, it is our role to be critical of the government and

this bill is not real reform. It is a government workaround for problems they helped create. It prioritizes government-favoured projects over addressing systemwide delays.

As the opposition, it is our role to be critical of the government and to hold the government to account. That is exactly what we are doing here in this debate. For these reasons, Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act, must be opposed. It is a threat to democratic governance, environmental protection and the rights of communities and Indigenous nations.

We must demand a transparent, consultative approach to improving project delivery, one that strengthens, rather than dismantles, the processes designed to protect the public interest and the environment.

I thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker, and for the members’ in the House.

Tony Luck: It’s a real pleasure to be standing in the House today to speak to Bill 15. I just want to remind everybody before I start…. And I really appreciate the words of my colleagues here today. They’ve laid out some really good groundwork for me to build on and talk about.

Before I’d like to begin, I’d just like to remind everybody about a quote we’re all very, very familiar with. No surprises here, but it was from Lord Acton, who once wrote: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It’s a very simple truth, and one that has echoed in different forms across democracies for centuries, because whenever we give too much power to a few people, without checks and balances, without transparency, we invite not progress but overreach. We invite not reform but control.

This is why I rise today in strong and unambiguous opposition to Bill 15, the so-called Infrastructure Projects Act. Despite its title, despite the government’s attempt to dress this up as a technical administrative bill, Bill 15 is not about shovels in the ground, as we’ve heard from many of my colleagues here. It is not about speeding up hospital construction or school repairs. Bill 15 is about something much more serious: the centralization of political power, the bypass of democratic safeguards and the quiet replacement of public scrutiny with ministerial discretion.

These are kind of scary words, in my lexicon. I’m not too fond of some of these words here that we’re hearing in this bill.

Why would we trust this government’s infrastructure agenda when their track record shows exactly what their failings are over the last, dare I say, 30 years? And I’ll draw some attention to that shortly here.

As a bit of a student of history, I like going back and analyzing and looking at history, and I’d like to do that for a few minutes. I want to go back over history. I want to anchor the rest of my speech in this bit of historical connotation here. We must remember too…. I’m going to go back 30 years. It is with the NDP government, a previous government. It was 30 years ago, but I don’t believe the ideology has changed at all when it comes to administering massive projects like what they’re talking about — infrastructure things and that kind of thing.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

I just want to recall and bring to memory a number of projects the NDP has struggled with over the years. I don’t want to say “failed,” because some of it got done. Some of it didn’t. Some of it did fail. But let me just go over quickly and give you a bit of a history lesson to anchor the rest of my comments on.

We all remember the fast ferry debacle back in the 1994-2000 era. Intended costs, $210 million. Final costs, $460 million. Late delivery, flawed design, unfit for service, and sold for $19 million.

B.C. Hydro power line to Vancouver Island, mid-1990s. Over budget, extensive delays, criticized for poor planning and lack of needed assessments.

So 2017 to present, former Premier and current Premier. Site C dam — we’ve talked about this before — first opposed by this government, the NDP government. First opposed to that, and they ran, I think, a campaign saying, “No, we will shut it down,” and everything. But of course, once they get to and start looking at the books, it’s a little difficult to do.

[7:30 p.m.]

Estimated cost of that was $6.6 billion, a final cost around $16 billion.

Then as I go through each of these examples, there’s some familiar language in each of the projects as we go through there. Familiar language. Auditor General flagged oversight and risk management gaps. Ah, the

estimated cost of that was $6.6 billion, a final cost around $16 billion.

As I go through each of these examples, there’s some familiar language with each of the projects as we go through there. Familiar language — Auditor General flagged oversight and risk management gaps.

Ah, the Massey Tunnel replacement delays — NDP cancelled a ready-to-go ten-lane bridge in 2017, which would have been built and completed about three years ago. The people would not be sitting in traffic to this day if that bridge had been built back then. Once again, I think ideology got in the way of better judgment on that project.

ICBC rate freeze and financial losses — rate suppression policy led to $1.3 billion in 2019. Internal reforms lack transparency. Policy reversal followed public backlash.

Broadband expansion mismanagement connecting British Columbia. Delays and inconsistencies delivering in rural areas despite federal and provincial funding on those. Auditor General flagged lack of performance monitoring.

Oh, let’s go to B.C. Housing scandals. In 2022-2023, forensic audit revealed conflict of interest, poor financial oversight and inadequate governance linked to senior management NDP-appointed boards.

Pandemic PPE and ventilator procurement issues, 2020, very recently. Millions spent on untested and unusable PPE and ventilators. Lack of transparency in vendor selection and procurement.

Are you starting to see a theme here that kind of worries us on this side of the House? When this bill here is going to get unfettered access for the ministers or this government to be able to do basically what they want, there’s a track record that we’re really concerned about.

B.C. legislative security scandal, 2018-2020. Mishandling of corruption and spending irregularities. NDP slow to act. Initial attempts to block independent investigation.

My colleague here just mentioned the Cowichan District Hospital. Originally projected at $867 million, the cost has increased to $1.5 billion, almost double. Cariboo Memorial Hospital, Surrey hospital — the list goes on and on and on.

This list is an indictment about a government past, present and most unfortunately maybe future, unless we can stop this bill, get it thrown out of the Legislature and just ripped up. It has shown it cannot run a lemonade stand. We heard that many times that this government is incapable of running a lemonade stand. History has shown that.

This is not legislation for people. It’s legislation for a cabinet, a cabinet of control. It grants the Premier and his chosen ministers the ability to do what would, under normal rules, require hearings, debate, consultation and community consent. Did you see when I gave you that history lesson how a lot of that was missing in all of those projects? Not the odd one, but all of them. It will allow them to do this permanently by regulation with little to no oversight from this House or the public.

As far as I know, we still live in a democracy. This House is important in the way British Columbia acts and works and proceeds. Parliamentary oversight is so important in the way projects and that are done in the province of British Columbia.

It is, in every meaningful sense, a reboot of Bill 7 — a piece of legislation so shocking in its implication that even this government had to pause and rethink. But instead of truly retreating, they have come back with a harder to spot version of Bill 7.

I think a lot of us are out talking to our constituents in our ridings and everything. There was a lot of anger about Bill 7. I’m thinking, as we get out meeting with our constituents again, there’s going to be a lot of anger about Bill 15 too. Do yourselves a favour. Let’s rip up that bill today.

Bill 15 is Bill 7, as some people said. I think journalist Rob Shaw said it’s Bill 7 in a hardhat. It cloaks itself in language of efficiency and streamlining. But, at its core, this bill empowers a single minister to act as project manager, land acquirer, contractor, regulator and compliance officer, all while eliminating the checks and constraints that protect communities, ecosystems and taxpayers from the abuse of power. It builds nothing except a closed loop of exclusive control.

[7:35 p.m.]

Now, let me be very clear. I support infrastructure. This side of the House supports infrastructure. We support getting rid of red tape. We support making things more efficient. It only makes sense. From a group that’s more business-oriented and understands business, this is an important way we build the province, both privately and

let me be very clear. I support infrastructure. This side of the House supports infrastructure. We support getting rid of red tape. We support making things more efficient. It only makes sense. From a group that’s more business-oriented and understands business, this is an important way we build the province, both privately and publicly, as we move forward.

I support building hospitals and schools and transit systems as well. These meet the needs of today and tomorrow. But I do not support government or edicts by decree. That is not democracy, and democracy right now is failing if this bill is passed and moves forward. Because when you remove transparency, when you sideline input, when you bypass municipalities, override environmental reviews, and turn ministers into judges of their own projects, you aren’t streamlining, you’re steamrolling.

I think I’ve mentioned a number of times an analogy around the fox auditing the henhouse. Now the fox not only audits the henhouse, it’s going to build the henhouse, it’s going to make sure that everything’s in the henhouse. This doesn’t make sense as we move forward. A government should not be allowed to be the fox in the henhouse.

Let’s be honest about what this government is really doing. They’re not just trying to fix slow permitting. Heaven forbid. We’ve heard it a number of times how they’ve caused most of the slow permitting. Look, if you want to improve some permitting, let’s go to the forestry sector. We don’t need to change the rules or the laws. We just enact what we’ve got here and get some permits out in the rural area so we can get some trees cut. That doesn’t take a change of Legislature. We can get that done today.

What are they talking about that things are moving too slow? It’s their own rules within their own cabinets that are doing this. That needs to change. Instead, they brought forward a bill that allows a cabinet to declare any project designated with no clear criteria. Designated, designated. No criteria for what they’ve designated, replace the role of regulatory bodies with government-approved consultants, no oversight. No. We can’t even get a terms of reference from the Minister of Health. It doesn’t make sense.

But they want to do this with…. We’re going to, on this side of the House, hope that everything goes okay. Force regulations to prioritize politically sensitive projects, overrule or ignore local development planning and zoning. Well that’s kind of already happened with Bill 44, and some of the other bills that we’ve seen: Bill 44, Bill 36 and that. They’re already overruling local municipalities, professional groups and that. This is just an extension of that.

They even want to do more. They want to bypass environmental reviews and make those bypasses permanent. You know, I just think if this side of the House had suggested that a couple of months ago, that side of the House would probably be pulling their hair out. They’d probably light their hair on fire. You can’t be getting rid of environmental rules and regulation and issue ministerial orders that rewrite the rules without returning to the House.

This isn’t a construction blueprint. It’s a constitutional back door. It’s a power grab, and it’s not just us saying it. Industry groups, legal analysts, Indigenous leaders, former allies of the government, even journalists who usually offer the NDP the benefit of doubt are all sounding the alarm on this bill.

Before I go clause by clause into what this bill does, before I detail how it erodes trust, concentrates authority and overrides community control, I want to remind every member of this chamber of something, that we are all elected not just to build things, we are elected to build things the right way: transparently, accountably and with the consent of all those that we govern. Because if we lose that, if we lose those principles in the name of expediency, we won’t just lose the trust of the people, we will lose the right to call ourselves a democratic legislature.

Let’s now take a deep look into what this bill actually does, and how clause by clause it centralizes power and eliminates democratic safeguards. Because Bill 15 doesn’t just suggest a new approach to infrastructure, it replaces the system of planning, approval, oversight and public participation that British Columbians rightly expect from this government. On October 19, 2024, we were all elected to represent our constituents and represent what was best for this province in a democratic process.

Let’s begin with clause 2, the minister’s general powers. Under this section, the Minister of Infrastructure is granted broad authority to establish policies, plan and manage infrastructure projects and acquire land on behalf of the government or other entities. The power includes the ability to dispose of public land or, as the legislation puts it, make land available to any prescribed person or entity.

[7:40 p.m.]

Hmm. That’s an interesting concept with no oversight. I’d love to be a minister and give away land with no oversight. Wouldn’t any of you?

includes the ability to dispose of public land or, as the legislation puts it, make land available to any prescribed person or entity. Hmm. That’s an interesting concept: with no oversight. I’d love to be a minister and give away land with no oversight. Wouldn’t any of you?

This just isn’t making sense. Under this, no requirement for public consultation, no requirement for legislative debate, no transparency on who benefits or who loses. This means that a single minister could seize Crown land and hand it over to a politically-favoured developer. Don’t say it won’t happen. Where are the rules that say it won’t happen? Where’s the oversight?

The public would have no mechanism to stop it. That’s not how public assets should be managed. This government should know that better than any government. That’s not democracy. That’s a land-transfer regime under ministerial decree.

Then we get to clause 3 which allows the minister to not only manage projects but to serve as the general contractor of project managers. Now if you recall earlier in my statement, I said — it’s kind of, you know, I’m going on a stretch here — I think this government isn’t able to manage a lemonade stand. But here the ministers are going to manage major infrastructure projects in the province. How many of them on that side of the House have project management degrees? How many of them have been in the private sector and had to actually build something?

Let me repeat that. The same minister who designates a project, who defines its scope, who selects the professionals involved, now also has the power to build it themselves or oversee those who do. Imagine a city councillor rezoning property, issuing the building permit, then turning around and awarding themselves the construction contract. That’s the kind of conflict of interest this bill enshrines in law.

I remember when I was a realtor, I did not do anything. I would recuse myself from any council meetings or anything. But I was accused at the time of being one of those rich developers. I was not a rich developer, believe me. But even the sniff of people thinking that you’re a rich developer doing things got hackles on the neck of many of my voters in the town of Merritt.

So I can’t imagine what’s going to happen when this bill passes and this kind of legislation. I can’t imagine the kind of language we’re going to hear when we’re out on the hustings in a couple of weeks talking to our constituents about this bill.

Now let’s move to clause 4 which allows cabinet, on the recommendation of a minister, to designate any infrastructure project or class of projects as category 1 or 2. And what qualifies a project for designation? Whatever the government says. There are no objective criteria, of course. Why would there be? We’ll just make some decisions. We’ll flip a coin. We’ll roll some dice and decide.

This bill doesn’t require a test of urgency. It doesn’t require cost-benefit analysis. It doesn’t require a finding of public need. It simply requires a minister to make a recommendation and for all of cabinet to huddle in their room and agree to the recommendation. Once that designation is in place, all the override powers begin.

That brings us to clause 6, what may be the most quietly dangerous section in the entire bill. Here, the government introduces the concept of qualified professional certifications. These certifications issued by individuals selected by the government can replace permits that would normally be issued under environmental or planning laws. Hey, let’s just take this one and move it into this one.

No oversight, no transparency, but let me be blunt: this is a recipe for regulatory capture. Who certifies the certifiers? What standards apply? What accountability exists if those professionals make mistakes or, worse, act in bad faith? This bill doesn’t say anything or bring that to the attention of anybody. It simply says that this government’s approved, qualified professional signs off on something. That signature becomes legally binding, as if the relevant agency had issued the permit itself. That is not streamlining. That is outsourcing public accountability to hired consultants.

[7:45 p.m.]

Next we come to clause 7 which allows the minister to order regulatory agencies — that are supposed to operate at arm’s length from political direction — to prioritize designated projects. If that prioritization isn’t fast enough, the minister can recommend cabinet take prescribed actions — a political phrase for overriding orders or demanding or telling somebody to do something.

In practice, this means if a politically sensitive project is stuck in red tape, the minister can force it to the front of the line, regardless of what professional planners or regulators think is safe or responsible. Is that the kind of project we want moving forward in British Columbia?

In practice, this means if a politically sensitive project is stuck in red tape, the minister can force it to the front of the line, regardless of what professional planners or regulators think is safe or responsible. Is that the kind of project we want moving forward in British Columbia?

Clause 8 then takes this one step further. Under this section, if a designated project also qualifies as a reviewable project under the Environmental Assessment Act, the minister can simply order the issuance of the required approvals. Let me quote directly from the bill here: “The issuance of an approval under another enactment is final and binding and not subject to review or appeal.”

Final, binding, not subject to appeal. That’s like arresting somebody and saying: “Done. Once you’re convicted, you have no appeal rights. We’ve taken all appeal rights for somebody that might be convicted of a crime.” This is the same kind of idea here. This strips away the ability of communities, environmental groups or even Indigenous nations to challenge approvals they believe are flawed, rushed or unlawful.

Then we reach Clause 9, which gives the cabinet the power to exempt designated projects from three provincial statutes. Why don’t we just get rid of all the statutes? Wouldn’t that make it easy for everybody? That includes the Islands Trust Act, which protects environmentally sensitive coastal communities; the Local Government Act, which governs how towns and cities plan for growth; and the Vancouver Charter, which grants the city of Vancouver its local authority.

Bill 15 allows these laws, developed through decades of debate and democratic process, to be waived by regulation. Cabinet could override a community plan, erase zoning protections or bypass local consultation with no vote in this chamber. This is the chamber of last resort. This is the chamber that protects British Columbia for this kind of legislation — flawed legislation.

Clauses 2 to 12. This bill grants a minister the power to seize and transfer public land. It allows them to act as both regulator and builder. It lets cabinet designate projects with no public criteria. It replaces regulators with consultants. Are there any criteria around what consultants, when those consultants will be hired, friends of the family, whatever it is? We’re not sure because, as we understand, there are no rules within the legislation.

It can force regulators to comply with political timelines, remove the right to appeal environmental approvals, and allows whole sections of planning law to be suspended. This is not reform. This is not modernization. This is centralized rule by regulations, by override, by executive power. And if this House allows it, we will have rewritten the relationship between government and citizens in this province, between provinces and municipalities, between projects and process, all in the name of streamlining.

So far we’ve seen how Bill 15 concentrates power, how it allows ministers to acquire land, designate projects, override regulators and silence local planning. But it doesn’t stop there. Clauses 13 through 20 reveal the fullest extent of what this bill is trying to do and how deeply it seeks to entrench that power permanently, well beyond the life of any individual project, because his isn’t just about speeding up approvals. It’s about remaking the rules and making sure those rule changes stick.

Let’s begin with clause 14. Under this clause, once a designated project has replacement measures, meaning laws or regulations that have been overridden, then any person involved in the project is exempt from penalties for not complying with the original rules.

Is that kind of like a “get out of jail free” card? I used to play them in Monopoly. Right? You’d have that “get out of jail free” card. This is what this is sounding like. This is Monopoly. This is unbelievable. Are we talking about a game here? That’s what it seems to be here.

Let me quote directly from the bill again: “No person is liable to any fine, penalty or offence for failing, during that period, to comply with the replacement constraints.” Unbelievable. Think about that. Your “get out of jail free” card.

I want one of those. Can I get one of those out of the Legislature? That would be fantastic. That way I can speed when I drive home this weekend. That would be great. Sorry — “get out of jail free” card.

If a bylaw is overridden and environmental standards are replaced and someone breaks those original rules, they are immune from consequences, not just excused. Not just given discretion; legally untouchable.

[7:50 p.m.]

Legally untouchable — this is legal immunity for non-compliance, so long as the minister gives it a new name.

Laws are only as strong as the enforcement behind them. If the government can simply say those rules no longer apply and shield itself and its allies from penalties, what’s the

legally untouchable. This is legal immunity for non-compliance so long as the minister gives it a new name.

Laws are only as strong as the enforcement behind them. If the government can simply say those rules no longer apply and shield itself and its allies from penalties, what’s left of our regulatory system? I think I said earlier: let’s just throw all the statues out. Why have any rules?

That brings us to clause 15, which addresses project monitoring. At first glance, this looks like an oversight. This minister may appoint someone to monitor how a designated project is proceeding. That sounds reasonable, right? Well, let’s look a little deeper but read closely. Who chooses the monitor, the minister? Who defines their terms of reference, the minister? Who does the monitor report to, the minister? And who is exempt from monitoring altogether? The ministers themselves. The buck stops here, I guess. That’s how it looks like. The buck stops here with the minister.

That’s right. If the minister is the one managing the project, there is no requirement for monitoring, no third party, no report, just political self-regulation. That is not accountability; that is theatre.

Now we come to clause 19, one of the most concerning powers in this entire bill. It allows ministers, if they determine that an agreement cannot be reached with a regulatory or local government, to unilaterally replace legal constraints on a project. They simply draft replacement measures. They’ll make up a bill. They’ll make up some legislation and make them legally binding. No vote in this House, no municipal veto, no legal appeal. That get-out-of-jail card. I love it.

Once those replacement measures are in place, they do not expire. That’s the other sad part about it, is they do not expire in perpetuity. My get-out-of-jail card is in perpetuity. Let me quote again. “Whether or not the infrastructure project loses its designation… compliance with the replacement measures is considered to be compliance with the constraints they replace.” In plain English, even if the project is no longer considered special or urgent, the new rules still apply.

This is not just streamlining one project; this is rewriting the law for every project that follows. And who must treat these replacement measures as if they were law? Local governments, provincial regulations, environmental bodies, land use planners — all of them must pretend that the original rules never existed, as long as the minister says so. That is not how a democratic system of government is supposed to work.

Let’s say the minister wants to override a local floodplain projection bylaw. Under clause 19, they can do so unilaterally, even if the project changes or is cancelled in the future. That’s permanent, executive-led deregulation. This is why legal experts and good governance advocates are raising red flags everywhere, because when the government has the ability to make ad hoc legal changes that outlive the urgency that they were created for, we are no longer operating under precedent and rule of law. That means all previous laws don’t matter, because we’ll just override them. We’ll just override them.

That’s just cold comfort for some of the things we’ve listened to here, because what good is a formal explanation if the times of permitting structure are being cut out at the knees? When projects are fast-tracked and public input is eliminated, where is the room for meaningful Indigenous consultation? The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs put it clearly in their recent statement. Bill 15 raises concerns about projects being fast-tracked under the guise of responding to Trump’s tariffs and watering down the environmental assessments.

This is not just a concern for municipalities. It’s a concern for Indigenous nations, for environmental groups, for local business peoples, for homeowners, for anyone who believes the rules should apply equally and transparently, not by ministerial discretion.

Let me repeat the key takeaways from this section of the bill. Once an override is issued, it can persist permanently. Once a law is replaced, the replacement becomes untouchable. Once a minister decides compliance has been achieved, no appeal is possible.

This is not a modern permitting framework. It’s a regime of permanent exemptions built not to streamline good projects but to protect bad ones from democratic resistance.

I’m just running out of time here, so I’ll just kind of wrap up here quickly.

[7:55 p.m.]

Veteran journalist Rob Shaw didn’t mince words when he wrote in Business in Vancouver, and I believe I quoted this earlier, but he said: “Bill 15 is just Bill 7 in a hard hat.” I think as we’ve gone through and have examined this, we can see that that’s happening. He says: “A permit taking too long for a politically sensitive construction project? No problem. The minister can intervene and designate someone to approve it.”

Shaw didn’t mince words when he wrote in Business in Vancouver…. I believe I quoted this earlier, but he said: “Bill 15 is just Bill 17 in a hardhat.” I think as we’ve gone through and have examined this, we can see that that’s happening.

He says: “A permit taking too long for a politically sensitive construction project? No problem. A minister can intervene and designate someone to approve it or even make the approval automatic. A local government holding things up? No problem. Ministers can override the municipality and all those pesky elected officials.”

We’re pesky elected officials on this side of the House, because we’re demanding democracy back in this House. We’re demanding that this bill be scrapped because this is an anti-democratic bill. We’re the pesky politicians on this side of the House. Can you believe that?

Just in conclusion here, I just want to make one small comparison. I think we’ve got the Premier all wrong. Maybe we are misreading the Premier. Maybe the Premier has an admiration for Donald Trump. Why do I say that? Because Donald Trump, the day after he was elected, came in — sweeping powers — and changed so many darn things.

I’m beginning to wonder, as I read this paper, and I thought about it as I put it together. I’m going: “You know what? I think we’re missing the Premier. I think he likes Donald Trump.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Tony Luck: He likes the power that Donald Trump is exacting.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today.

Ward Stamer: I appreciate the time to be able to speak to this bill. I find it actually quite difficult and disturbing that we’re actually having this conversation in this House today, when the amount of time that we’ve spent not only debating Bill 7…. We’ve been debating Bill 13. We’ve been going clause by clause through those bills and finding just a huge number of mistakes, some that were not very well planned, some of them not very well-thought-out.

But quite frankly, looking at Bill 15…. I know my colleagues have mentioned it in detail many times, so I’m not going to go over it to the same extent they have, but I honestly can’t believe that I’m actually standing up here tonight having this discussion.

When you look through this bill and you start reading all the powers that this government wants to take place and have, I ask myself: why are we even here? Seriously, why are we here, when you look at 154 years’ worth of Confederation, building the foundations in this province, and then having something like this that says: “Just trust us”?

I had a similar conversation the other day with Bill 14. Same idea inasmuch as that we really, really need renewable electricity. And that’s the premise of getting rid of any environmental assessments, any opportunities to have meaningful engagements with First Nations, with public consultation, experts, people that have legal responsibilities and rights to the areas that are going to be in question with those projects. And then we get this.

Quite honestly, I’ve never seen anything like it. I don’t know why this isn’t being distributed through every social media, every main street media that we have in this province, because when Bill 7 came along, and section 4, that gave this government overriding powers on just about everything that occurs in this province under the guise of possibly an economic meltdown because of a perception from a U.S. president that he was going to be implementing these terrible tariffs…. And we have no idea what the impact is, what the costs are, how many jobs we’re going to lose, not being able to put food on our table, which is another issue we can talk about relating to this bill.

[8:00 p.m.]

But honestly, I’ve never seen anything quite like it. Everywhere we look in here, there’s a gotcha. Everywhere we look in here, there’s powers to the Lieutenant Governor to either go along with what the government wants to do in changes to regulations or laws, or allows the minister themself to do the same thing.

Now, we could spend hours, I’m sure, talking about this.

to the Lieutenant Governor to either go along with what the government wants to do in changes to regulations or laws or allows the minister herself, himself, to do the same thing.

Now, we could spend hours, I’m sure, talking about this. I heard speeches from the other side talking about that we’re the party of no. Well, quite frankly, there is no way anybody should be supporting this, even members on that side. Not only does it give unregulated power to the minister for all these projects that are perceived to be necessary and be done yesterday; the reality is that it’s the Premier’s office and the cabinet that will actually be calling the shots.

It won’t be some of the members from the rural areas. It won’t be some of the members from downtown Surrey. It won’t be some of the members on the Island. It’s going to be the cabinet that’s going to be making these decisions, even when we talk about the land.

In the section on land, if I may…. I know land is a pretty important discussion for all of us. I think it says…. Just allow me, if you may…. I’m trying to put this together. It talked about that the minister can acquire land, gift it to private entities, act as a builder and pick the consultants to approve it. It also says that they can buy land, lease land or take control otherwise. What exactly does “otherwise” mean? What is otherwise?

Does that mean that we don’t really have to follow the laws anymore? That if there’s an opportunity where there could be a law broken, previously, from previous governments, previous sessions of the parliament, that they can just rewrite the laws? We haven’t heard anything from the other side, particularly even from the minister, to say that what I’m saying isn’t true. Their argument may be, “Well, we’re not really planning on doing that,” or: “You’re getting ahead of yourself. This isn’t really what we’re talking about.” Well, that’s exactly what we’re talking about. This is exactly what we’re talking about.

When we talk about we’re the party of no, we are actually a party of yes. Yes, we believe in British Columbia. Yes, we believe in doing things properly. Yes, we believe that there should be streamlining. We had an assurance from this side, from the government, about all the things that they were going to be able to improve upon as soon as we sat in the House. Of course, they didn’t want to have to sit in the House until February, but that’s beside the point.

As soon as we got in the House, we were going to streamline and cut all the red tape, get rid of all the unnecessary bureaucracy that they’ve created over the last eight years, and we were going to get things done. Well, what exactly have they done in that period of time? They’ll argue that we’ve tried to slow down legislation. They’re going to argue that we didn’t give them enough time to put a proper bill together without having these superpowers. But I would argue we’ve had more than enough time. They’ve had more than enough time, and this is what we get: a Bill 7 version on Bill 15 with superseding powers.

Now, I know we’ve talked about all the groups that are, so far, against it. We’ve had leaders of First Nations. We’ve had the legal groups. We’ve had business. We’ve had the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, UBCM. We have towns and we have cities that have spent an incredible amount of time trying to make sure that they have that even balance in their cities and in their towns and in their villages.

I was a mayor, so I take great pride in being able to say that in Barriere, the town that I was part of, we don’t have any real long-term debt. We were able to manage that. We were able to manage within our means. One of the reasons why we did — not because it was the right thing to do, but it was also part of the charter — is that we have to balance our books. When I hear from the other side, particularly from the Finance Minister, that they’re working on balancing a budget — when? Quite frankly, I can’t see it in this century.

[8:05 p.m.]

Nowhere in this Bill 15 does it talk about any cost overruns or any expedited costs that were going to be in relationship to this. We are told that because of streamlining and cutting red tape, it’s going to be cheaper. Well, we haven’t seen that at all. Not one bit.

If we want to talk

or any expedited costs that were going to be in relationship to this. We are told that because of streamlining and cutting red tape, it’s going to be cheaper. Well, we haven’t seen that at all — not one bit.

If we want to talk about the money side of things, this government is looking at approximately a $14 billion dollar deficit this year. Now, the reason I’m bringing this up is because it’s a direct correlation to what has been promised in Bill 15 with all the schools, all the roads, all the hospitals that are going to miraculously be built if they have this piece of paper. That way, they don’t have to worry about any laws, any opposition. They can just go ahead and build it.

Well, I have copies of our budget. This just came out on March 31. That’s not even two months ago. I don’t see any large-scale builds in that budget. So if this is so forward-thinking, and this is what’s necessary in building this province to where it should be, I don’t see anything in Bill 15 that directly relates back to costs.

Now, excuse me if I’m worried about costs or anyone on this side is worried about costs. But let me ask you a question. If you’re going to go out and buy a car today, isn’t that the first thing you’re going to want to know? How much does it cost? How much do I have to put down as a down payment? Can to make a trade-in? What’s the interest rate? How am I going to pay it back?

This is no different than when we talk about infrastructure. We ask our municipalities to do an asset management plan. We try to come up with a cohesive, build-it proper plan for our communities. In most cases, our communities do a pretty good job. Nowhere does it talk about a plan. This isn’t a plan. This is just an opportunity, an excuse, to just say that we’re going to have a blank cheque, and trust us. Trust us that we’re going to get it done. Trust us that everything we do properly at the beginning will work its way through.

Well, we’ve already seen in the last couple of days in Sicamous where a contractor is now in a situation with a First Nations band because there seems to be a discrepancy in the contract that was laid to build that new replacement bridge in Sicamous. So again, I’m sure that that contract was done on faith. But obviously, there are some challenges to that contract.

Who’s to say that the minister, with this in her hand, writes out a new contract, and we’re not going to have the same problems with it? What’s going to happen if there is a problem? I’m looking through this bill, and I’m looking at some of the language when it comes to…. Part of it talks to project performance, and then it talks about the expedited completion of designated projects. It says that the minister may require every approval authority having jurisdiction in respect of the constraint to take up reasonable actions to ensure….

It looks like I have an opportunity to sit down. Do I get an opportunity to reserve my time? Just sit down?

Deputy Speaker: Member, did you want to continue?

Ward Stamer: No. I’m fine with it. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Okay. I’m not seeing any further speakers. Okay, we’ll move second reading of the vote. Division is called.

[8:10 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, the question before the House is second reading of Bill 15, intituled Infrastructure Projects Act.

I also remind all the members online to make sure your audio, video is on.

Motion approved on the following division: YEAS — 46, NAYS — 44. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I move that the bill be committed to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on Bill 14. In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates for the Ministry of the Attorney General, and in the Birch Room, continued committee stage debate on Bill 13.

[8:25 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects
(Streamlined Permitting) Act, 2025
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: I’ll call the House back to order. We’re continuing second reading debate on Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

Teresa Wat: It is again my honour to continue my comments on Bill 14, the so-called Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

Well, this morning I was talking about what I thought about this bill. I want to make it once again very clear that I rise in firm and unwavering opposition to this legislation not because I am against the development of renewable energy in B.C. but because I’m against the centralization of power, the erosion of democratic oversight and the blatant hypocrisy that this bill represents.

Let’s not kid ourselves. Bill 14 is not a conversation based on principle. It is a political calculation. This is not about the environment. It’s about control. Why now? Why this Bill? The answer is simple. This government is out of ideas.

Their legislative agenda is among the thinnest in memory — only 15 bills in this session. That’s not a vision for the future. That’s a mission of intellectual bankruptcy. When a government runs out of ideas, it inevitably reaches for more power. That’s what Bill 14 is — a desperate attempt to centralise authority in the Premier’s office, bypassing the Legislature, bypassing local governments and bypassing the public.

This bill gives the Premier and cabinet sweeping power to override existing regulations, ignore local land use plans and unilaterally impose decisions on communities. It strips away consultation, suspends hearings and neutralizes due process. It reduces the role of our 93 democratically elected members of the House to little more than spectators in decisions that affect the livelihoods of thousands.

I must ask the members opposite: is this what you were elected to do? Were you sent here by your constituents to rubber-stamp power grabs from the Premier’s office? Were you sent here to be bystanders to the erosion of local autonomy and environmental protection? Are you pushing back on the Premier’s office at all?

[8:30 p.m.]

History will remember you as the government that pushed through the most anti-democratic legislation in our lifetime. Shame on you if you do. That’s what the bill demands of you — to surrender your responsibility, to silence the voices of our communities and to consolidate power in the hands

shame on you if you do, because that’s what the bill demands of you: to surrender your responsibility, to silence the voices of our communities, and to consolidate power in the hands of a few senior bureaucrats and political insiders. That’s not democracy. That’s not representation. Not leadership. That’s something entirely different.

I stand here today not as an opponent of renewable energy, but as a defender of democratic principle, due process and good governance. If this government truly believes in renewable energy, then bring forward legislation that expands capacity while respecting local voices. If this NDP government believes in progress, then pursue development with transparency, not through political trickery. If this NDP government believes in democracy, then let’s preserve, not erode, the role of the Legislature because once you centralize this kind of power it’s very hard to take it back. If we as the elected officials don’t stand against this now we may one day find ourselves unable to stand at all.

This bill, if passed, will hit all British Columbia first and hardest. Once again, this NDP government governs as if British Columbia ends at the boundaries of Vancouver and Victoria. But let me make it very clear, it does not. It includes Vanderhoof, Quesnel, Lillooet and Kitimat. It includes Smithers, Fort Nelson and Princeton. It includes thousands of communities where people live, work and raise families and where the natural resource economy is not just an economic driver but a way of life.

Bill 14 gives unelected bureaucrats the power to suspend or cancel long-standing licences and permits without explanation, hearing or opportunity for appeal. These aren’t theoretical authorizations. These are hunting and guiding licences. These are tenures that support ecotourism and conservation. These are permits that provide livelihoods for Indigenous outfitters, family-owned wilderness companies and local businesses that have operated responsibly for generations.

Imagine being a second or third generation guide-outfitter whose family has spent decades navigating the wilderness, building a business rooted in conservation, cultural heritage and responsible stewardship, only to have it undone by a single bureaucratic decision, with no hearing, no evidence, no appeal and no compensation. This government often claims it’s pro-worker, yet here it is, bringing in legislation that allows it to destroy a livelihood with a stroke of a pen, without due process, without procedural failures, without recourse. What’s pro-worker about that?

I find it particularly ironic that this legislation is championed by a Premier who once served as executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. In 2011, he spoke passionately about the importance of due process and the dangers of unchecked state power. But now, as Premier, he brings forth a bill that will allow governments to cancel legally issued licences and permits without hearings, without compensation and without any transparent framework for appeal. What would the civil liberties champion in 2011 say about the Premier who now seeks to dismantle civil protections and democratic oversight in the name of expediency? The disconnect is staggering, and British Columbians are noticing.

[8:35 p.m.]

I represent the riding of Richmond-Bridgeport in Richmond. The ALR covers

the name of expediency. The disconnect is staggering, and British Columbians are noticing.

I represent the riding of Richmond-Bridgeport in Richmond. The ALR covers nearly 5,000 hectares, roughly 39 percent of Richmond’s total land base. This land is not just green space. It is active farmland. It is a foundation of our local food system. It is a legacy passed on by generations of farmers who have committed to cultivating the land so British Columbians can feed themselves with dignity and independence.

But under Bill 14, ALR protections are undermined. This legislation grants cabinet and the Energy Regulator the power to override existing land use plans and fast-track projects on ALR land without following the established consultation and environmental review processes. The very safeguards that were created to protect farmlands from sprawl and encroachment are now being brushed aside under the banner of streamlining.

Let’s be clear. That’s not streamlining; that is steamrolling. This bill makes it possible for renewable projects, however well-meaning, to pave our prime agricultural land, interrupt irrigation systems, disrupt local farming operations and divide parcels that were never meant to be fragmented. The result? A slow and steady erosion of the food-producing capacity we claim to protect.

British Columbians do not want to choose between clean energy and food security, and they shouldn’t have to. A responsible government would pursue both. A reckless one would sacrifice one for the illusion of the other. This bill, sadly, chooses the latter.

Worse still is the complete lack of protection for environmental standards in this legislation. Bill 14 provides government and regulators with the ability to selectively apply or completely disregard regulations under the Environmental Management Act, the Heritage Conservation Act and even the Safety Standards Act. That means regulators can approve a level 3 energy project, regardless of scale or location, without requiring a full environmental assessment, without applying critical safety protocols and without meaningful oversight from local governments or Indigenous communities.

This is not a minor procedural issue. It is a catastrophic retreat from the hard-won principle of environmental protection in our province. Even Richmond mayor Malcolm Brodie told me last Saturday that he has serious reservations on the content of the legislation and the lack of consultation.

Let’s consider what this means in practical terms. It means a project could be fast-tracked without a proper spill contingency plan. It means culturally significant heritage sites, including Indigenous or even Chinese pioneer burial grounds and archaeological zones, could be bulldozed under the streamlined permitting process.

Environmental assessments and safety standards are not bureaucratic red tape. They are essential safeguards that protect lives, land and livelihoods. They ensure that development is responsible, not reckless; that it is sustainable, not extractive; that it supports long-term prosperity, not short-term political gain. By giving cabinet and the Energy Regulator the power to waive the standards at their discretion, this bill creates the perfect conditions for regulatory chaos, legal challenges and public distrust.

[8:40 p.m.]

That distrust is well earned, because this government has already proven that it will centralize power and hide decision-making when it suits their political interests. Just ask the Canadian Association of Journalists, which awarded the B.C. NDP government the outstanding achievement in government secrecy. That award was in 2022. That’s not a

decision-making when it suits their political interests. Just ask the Canadian Association of Journalists, who awarded the B.C. NDP government the outstanding achievement in government secrecy. That award was in 2022. That’s not a partisan accusation. It’s a documented fact.

Now this government wants to consolidate even more control over environmental permitting projects, seating and safety standards, all without any guarantee of public reporting or legislative oversight. That’s not how responsible government works. We must not allow government to conflate climate urgency with autocracy. We can build reliable infrastructure without bulldozing the democratic institutions that give legitimacy to those projects. We can move quickly without abandoning caution. And we can lead on climate without losing sight of the people and principles we were elected to serve.

Bill 14 is not a clean energy bill. It is a government control bill. If we allow it to pass in its current form, we are not only compromising environmental standards and rural economies; we are compromising the integrity of this very House. As if the democratic erosion, environmental negligence and threats to rural livelihoods were not enough, Bill 14 also opens the door to something even more dangerous: political favouritism, regulatory inconsistency and potential corruption.

Let us be clear. The sweeping discretionary powers granted under this legislation are not accompanied by clear criteria, enforceable standards or mechanisms to guarantee fairness. That is a recipe for political gamesmanship. Under Bill 14, the energy regulator and cabinet can subject projects of equal size and scope to vastly different rules, one facing extensive permitting hurdles, the other gliding through a fast-track process.

There’s no requirement for consistency, no requirement to explain deviations and no requirement to ensure that similar proposals are treated similarly. That means well-connected developers with the right lobbyists, especially those with close ties to the governing party, could find their application quietly advanced, while others are buried in red tape. Is this streamlining? No, this is institutionalized favouritism.

We’ve seen it before, and we are seeing the warning signs once again. Lobbying transparency in this province is already lacking. The same insiders who once claimed to be for the people now make their living behind closed doors as consultants, as lawyers, as lobbyists, whispering into the ears of cabinet. Now, with Bill 14, they have more influence than ever with fewer checks, less transparency and no public oversight.

British Columbians do not want to live in a province where their elected representatives hand over power to unelected lobbyists and bureaucrats, where rules are arbitrarily applied and clear access to decision-makers is reserved for the politically well connected. With Bill 14, the opportunities for corruption increase dramatically because the accountability mechanisms are being stripped away.

It’s not just about public perception; it’s about tangible harm. Imagine being an entrepreneur, maybe in the clean tech sector, maybe in rural B.C., with a viable energy project. You do everything by the book.

[8:45 p.m.]

You meet the requirements. You follow the timelines. You invest your capital. You hire local workers. And then you watch as a politically favoured competitor leapfrogs over you, approved in half the time, exempted from fees and granted regulatory waivers.

you follow the timelines, you invest your capital, you hire local workers, and then you watch as a politically favoured competitor leapfrogs over you, approved in half the time, exempted from fees and granted regulatory waivers you were never even told about. This is not innovation. This is not fairness. This is not what this province was built on.

If this government truly believes in renewable energy and a green economy, then it must believe in the foundational principles that make long-term investment and innovation possible: fairness, clarity and consistency. But this bill undermines all three.

Let me also emphasize something that has been largely ignored in government statements about this bill: the total absence of meaningful consultation with Indigenous communities. Many of the lands potentially affected by these so-called streamlined projects lie within or adjacent to territories where First Nations have legal or cultural interests. Yet nothing in Bill 14 guarantees that Indigenous nations will have a meaningful say before a permit is approved, a licence suspended or a project pushed forward. This is not reconciliation. This is paternalism disguised as progress.

This government claims to respect Indigenous rights. It claims to honour the principle of UNDRIP. But Bill 14 makes a mockery of those claims. It empowers regulators to unilaterally override local concerns, including those tied to sacred sites and traditional-use areas without binding consultation or consent. This is not just morally wrong; it is legally reckless. It sets this government and future project proponents up for costly legal challenges, delays and public backlash. It undermines the very certainty this bill purports to establish.

The solution to red tape is not to abolish accountability. The solution to slow permitting is not to bulldoze over safeguards. The path forward on renewable energy must be responsible, equitable and democratically legitimate. Bill 14 fails all free tax. It is not a framework for smart strategic development. It is a blunt instrument for centralized control, and the people of British Columbia deserve better.

The choice before us today is not whether to support clean energy. The choice is whether we are willing to sacrifice democratic accountability, local input and legal fairness on the altar of centralization. I urge every member of this House, especially those across the aisle, to think long and hard about what Bill 14 represents. Strip away your talking points. Set aside the partisan script. Look at what this legislation empowers the government to do. If you believe in public consultation, vote against it. If you believe in rural economic stability, vote against it. If you believe in transparency and fairness, vote against it.

Let’s not be the Legislature that looked the other way while democratic laws were dismantled. Let’s be the Legislature that has the courage to say: “We can do better.” There’s a reason why immigrants such as myself have decided to call British Columbia our home. We must do better, and British Columbians deserve no less.

Noting the hour, I ask for adjournment of the debate.

Teresa Wat moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[8:50 p.m.]

George Anderson: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development and reports progress on the Ministry of the Attorney General and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

George Anderson: Madam Speaker, Committee of Supply, Section A, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development and reports progress on the Ministry of Attorney General and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Nina Krieger: Hon. Speaker, Section C reports Bill 13 complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act, 2025

Deputy Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Okay. Bill 13 has been read a third time and has been passed. All right.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move that we do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: We’re adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30. It’s Wednesday. That’s right, 1:30. See you then.

The House adjourned at 8:51 p.m.