Contents

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: George Anderson.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Normally, one has the opportunity to introduce folks from their own riding, but today I get the opportunity to introduce some very special people from my hometown.

Thank you to my colleagues for allowing me this honour.

I’d like to welcome the members of Nanaimo’s professional and business club, called Probus, and two very special guests: my mother, Rhonda Bailey, who’s the past president; and also a dear family friend Allan Winks, who’s the current tour chair.

Probus is a non-profit fellowship organization founded in 1998, and it has grown into a vibrant community of 262 members. Probus is dedicated to supporting active social lifestyles for retirees while fostering meaningful connections in the community. I can speak firsthand that, in fact, that is exactly what it does.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Probus to the Legislature.

I hope you enjoy your tour.

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s EV Drive and Ride Day with the B.C. New Car Dealers Association today on the front lawn. I invite everyone during the lunch-hour, as they get some relief from the important debates we are having in the Legislature, to join the New Car Dealers Association of B.C. on the front lawn.

I want to express a warm welcome to the directors of the New Car Dealers Association of B.C.

Of course, Blair Qualey, the president and CEO of the New Car Dealers Association, still trying to convince me about a new car.

Ann Marie Clark, the chair of Steve Marshall Ford/Family Ford.

Kai Hensler of Jack Carter Northstar Kootenay.

Jared Williams of the Weissach Group in Vancouver.

Dave Bare of Harris Kia.

Deryl Griffith of Signature Mazda Richmond.

Luke McClellan of Wheaton Buick GMC Ltd./Mercedes-Benz in Kamloops.

April Gaskell of GM Financial.

The New Car Dealers have played a critical role in promoting and supporting electric vehicles in B.C. Thanks to their partnership with the government, nearly 200,000 electric vehicles are now on B.C. roads today.

Please join me in congratulating the New Car Dealers Association for their continued leadership.

Let’s make them all feel welcome in the House.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It’s a great day here in the Legislature. I’m so excited to welcome some inspiring Canadian artists who you may have seen. I hope you did.

I know you know them, hon. Speaker, but for those who haven’t known them yet, surely you got a chance to see them at the Junos, performing this past March.

We’re joined today by Gminxr, Jazzy B, Chani Nattan, Inderpal Moga and their incredible teams. They’re here today. We’re celebrating their incredible successes, joining us here on the government side of the House.

You’re going to know them. You should know them. Taking folk music, bhangra, turning it into something that is sweeping the globe…. It’s a Punjabi wave, and it’s a Canadian wave taking over the globe with this incredible music.

If you’ve been to a great wedding, a great birthday party, an incredible retirement — if you haven’t, you should — where this music is played…. I’ve tried my best to turn in the lightbulbs and to do my moves, but I’ve got some work that I’ve got to do. They will quickly school you and teach you a lot.

So please welcome to our House incredible Canadian artists.

Korky Neufeld: Lots of important news this week. King Charles III visited Prince Charles Elementary in Abbotsford yesterday, and today King Charles III will open up the 45th parliament in Ottawa.

But more important than that, today is my wife’s birthday. A wise man once told me a smart husband never forgets his wife’s birthday but always forgets which one it is, so I would like the House to please help me wish my wife a happy 39th birthday.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I want to join my friend the Minister of Tourism to welcome these amazing individuals. I don’t want to pick on one or two of them, but I’m going to pick on one or two of them. One is Jazzy B.

For all of us within the South Asian community that grew up celebrating our music and culture…. We in this building talk a lot about people who broke through the glass ceiling, people who paved a pathway for many of us to be able to do what we do and succeed in our society, overcoming huge obstacles and barriers.

Jazzy B is that person.

I’ve never had the honour of meeting Jazzy B, but I hope to meet him today. He has broken the glass ceiling and given opportunities to many artists, whether he knows it or not, and I want to recognize him.

The other one I want to recognize is Chani Nattan. Yes, he’s a famous musician now, but I know him from a time when he was a young man, wanting to do a good thing in his community. He was organizing toy drives with his friends to ensure that kids around the holiday season had toys. Not only is he an amazing artist, but he’s an amazing human being. He and Inderpal and Gminxr are doing amazing things to give young people hope in our communities and show them that there are multiple paths to be successful.

On behalf of my colleagues, I just want to raise my hands to them and hope everyone can please welcome them today.

Harman Bhangu: I have the engine that makes me tick here today, my family: my wife, Courtney, my daughter, Audriana, and my son, Bal, who happens to be a huge fan of you, Hon. Speaker.

I want to thank you for having him in. He got a picture and sent it to my mom. She’s really happy. He actually probably likes the fact that you get to yell at me. Thank you very much for the hospitality.

Please make them feel very welcome.

Jessie Sunner: I have two introductions today.

I am so lucky to be joined in the gallery today by my father-in-law, Darshan, and my mother-in-law, Jackie. Today they have brought my niece Ava Grace, who is joining us in the House for the first time. Her sister was here a few months earlier, but today she’ll be getting to tour the parliament, the Legislature, and get to eat lunch with us later, so I’m looking forward to that.

I’d also like to jump on the bandwagon a bit and welcome the team that’s here today that was mentioned already and also mention the 5X team. Jazzy B, Chani Nattan, Gminxr, Inderpal Moga also are involved with the 5X team. I spoke about them yesterday. They’re an amazing organization that’s really bringing Punjabi music to the forefront.

I want to welcome the executive director, Harpo Mander, into the House as well, and also give a shout-out to Chani Nattan and Jazzy B, again, who are constituents of mine. Jazzy B, at least, was, and maybe has moved now. I just want to welcome them into the House. I look forward to seeing them later and really sharing the power of Punjabi music and bhangra music with the world on an international stage.

Bruce Banman: I just have to say to the Minister of Housing that I actually have met Jazzy B. Jazzy B is an Abbotsford homeboy. Long before he was in Surrey, he was from Abbotsford. Then he went to London, and I have had the distinct pleasure of not only meeting him but performing on stage with him when I was the mayor.

He is as gracious and as humble as you can imagine, in spite of all his fame. He is the real deal, and it is an honour to have him from Abbotsford.

I look forward to getting on stage and singing with you once again, Jazzy B. Thank you very much.

Amna Shah: I’m so pleased to welcome two very special guests from Together We Can recovery society. In the gallery today, we’ve got Steven Hall, who’s the public relations manager, and Amar Randhawa, who’s a caseworker and also an alumni engagement coordinator.

Stephen and Amar are the unsung heroes when it comes to helping people with their recovery journey. The amount of effort that they put in, with their wealth of knowledge and their boundless compassion, is making waves across our community.

I want to thank them so much for the work that they do, and I hope that the House will join me in making them feel very welcome.

[10:15 a.m.]

Heather Maahs: It is my pleasure to welcome Mount Cheam School high school students to the House today. We have Caroline Van Saane, Joanne De Rover — these are their escorts and teacher — Jordan Guliker, Marcus Neels, Owen Pannekoek and Steffan Neels.

Please make them welcome.

Sunita Dhir: I rise today to welcome Vancouver school board trustee and board chair Victoria Jung, as well as Bobby MacDonald, manager of community engagement and government relations at Union Gospel Mission in Vancouver. I deeply appreciate the meaningful work they’re doing.

I just noticed that my good friend Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Dhot and Amit Sipani are sitting in the gallery. I welcome them to the House.

I am not going to sit down without welcoming my favourite Punjabi artist, Jazzy B. He has put Punjabi music on the charts literally.

Thank you so much.

I request that everybody make all my guests feel welcome here today.

Steve Kooner: I’d like to welcome the artists up there. I come from a singing family myself, and Jazzy B did sing part of my dad’s song about 30 years ago. I really appreciated that.

I want to just welcome Jazzy B and also Sabbi Kooner; Inderpal Moga; Chani Nattan, who I know from the community; Harpo Mander; and also a few friends up there, Ike Sekhon, Nav Johal Hall and Bhupinder Hundal, who I went to SFU with. I think that’s about it.

Hon. Lisa Beare: I have a couple of amazing guests here. Actually, we all have a couple of amazing guests here. The chair of the Vancouver School Board, Victoria Jung, accompanied by Bobby MacDonald, manager of community engagement and government relations out of the Vancouver school board. I get the opportunity to spend the lunch hour with them today.

But really, I also wanted to share my heartfelt thanks to the Vancouver school board and their entire team for the work they’ve done this month in what has been an incredibly challenging month for the school community. Thank you so much to the board.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Misty Van Popta: I stand today to make a little boast about a school in my riding. This past week I attended their local PAC AGM, where I learned some exciting information.

James Kennedy Elementary has participated in the Heart and Stroke Jump Rope for Heart campaign since 2012. In that time, they have raised a total of $144,000, but this year they topped it all, raising a whopping $19,000, making them the highest fundraising school in all of Canada — not just B.C., in all of Canada. What an accomplishment.

Will the House help congratulate James Kennedy Elementary.

Dana Lajeunesse: Today it’s my pleasure to welcome a very good friend of mine and former executive director of the Sooke Fine Arts Society, Terrie Moore, and her partner, Steve Shortt. Terrie follows in the footsteps of her parents, Vern and Martha Moore, who were incredible volunteers in Sooke. Terrie has followed in their footsteps and created the Sooke Fine Arts Show. Actually, she didn’t create it, but she turned it into what it is today, with her amazing volunteer corps that she led.

This year the fine arts show will be celebrating its 39th anniversary. It’s the longest-running juried art show on Vancouver Island. I would encourage everyone to look it up and come and see it. There’s something there for everyone.

Welcome, Terrie and Steve.

Linda Hepner: It was not my intention to stand, but when I see Jazzy B in the gallery with all the wonderful musicians, I am reminded of the time when he moved to Surrey. He often performed in Surrey, and I had the great pleasure of his company over dinner with the then councillor Tom Gill and myself.

[10:20 a.m.]

So welcome one more time in the gallery to all of the wonderful musicians here today.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: It’s clear that we’re all starstruck here today by the incredible talent that’s here. I’m not going to talk about the times when I had Jazzy B on my iPod. The pride of Victoria, Gminxr, is in the House as well.

I’ve got three sets of introductions.

We’ve got some forestry students from UBC. I met them at the truck loggers convention a few months back, and they’ve been great individuals, providing me advice and guidance as I’ve taken on this role. We’ve got Hailey Schmidt, Shaojie Huang and Rosalia Jaffray. I’m looking forward to meeting with them later today.

From Langford-Highlands, I’ve got Capt. Shafiqur Rahman, a volunteer extraordinaire during the campaign. I don’t know if Shafiq has made it into the House yet. There he is.

Always good to see you, my friend. Looking forward to seeing you later today.

I’ve also got the Ministry of Forests communications team in the House here, led by veteran referee for the Western Lacrosse Association — I didn’t know that till this Friday, when I was at the Shamrocks game — Andy Watson, who’s the communications director. We’ve got Rachel Munro, Erin Hughes, Tyler Fleming, Flamur Gruda and Stephen Binder.

The House, please join me in making them all feel very welcome.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Late breaking from my ministry, we have six of our incredible public servants — Jacqueline Midgett, Cindy Shang, Daniel Hitchen, Cassie Rimek, Jessica Beswick and Chelsea Wood — here in the House.

They appreciate when I’m brief, so I’ll be brief and say: welcome to your House.

Steve Kooner: I forgot two or three names, so I’m just going to shout out to Vardaan Sekhon, Nav Johal, and Amrit Pal Dhot.

Please welcome them. Thank you.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Lots of introductions today. I did want to especially recognize another individual. We were talking about people who broke the glass ceiling, people who have paved the way.

We’ve got Bhupinder Hundal here, who’s the news director from Global News. Those of us that have had interactions with him know him from when he was at CBC. He also did a lot of work with OMNI News, on the OMNI News Punjabi show, and led that work. But other things you might not know are that he also is a Queen’s Diamond Jubilee winner. He also was instrumental in the Punjabi Hockey Night in Canada that we see on TV, which fills us with lots of pride.

I understand he’s here today to make sure that Richard Zussman and Keith Baldrey actually work when they’re in this building. My friends in the building will know that today he was carrying two cameras, running down the hall. That’s how much he was working today, because he knew his news director was in the House.

Please join me in welcoming Bhupinder Hundal to the House today.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Yes, all Surrey here. All turban guys here.

Especially thank you, Mr. Dhot and Nav Johal and Jazzy B paaji, our big singer. I listen to his songs during my quality time.

[Punjabi was spoken.]

Especially thank you, Chani Nattan pappa di.

Thank you to everybody.

Thank you, all Surrey.

Paul Choi: I’ll be really quick. I just want to say that we have delegates from Indo-Pacific Foundation Canada that are joining us today, led by Bhhaskar S De.

If I can get the whole House to give them a warm welcome.

The Speaker: Anybody else who wants to welcome Jazzy B?

Jazzy B, we all love you. Thank you for coming, and your team.

Teresa Wat: I hope that Bhupinder Hundal remembers me. I remember I recruited you as a young researcher after you graduated from BCIT, right? He joined me when I was the news director of Channel M, the first-ever multicultural TV news program in B.C. It started the Punjabi news, Cantonese news and Mandarin news. He was a young researcher.

I’m so glad to see you rise all the way up to the top. Welcome here.

[10:25 a.m.]

Members’ Statements

Role of MLAs

Peter Milobar: Some people sing their two-minute statements. I will not be singing a Jazzy B song here today.

The Speaker: Thank you. We can ask Jazzy B to sing for you.

Peter Milobar: As I reflect on this latest session we’ve had and the record number of new MLAs here, it made me think back to the privilege it is for all 93 of us to be in this place and what really brought us here, be it years of advocacy before we got here and talking in our communities and with people so that people felt they knew who we were and what they were sending on behalf of themselves to represent their part of the province, be it advocates for the business community, be it strong-held views in the union movements, strong-held views in social justice, strong-held views on the environment or strong-held views and allyship with First Nations around our province.

We’ve all been sent here. Before we were here, we were probably like everyone else in this province. We would sit around in groups like the other five-million-plus people, talk about events of the day, talk about how things could be done differently or better or what I would do if I was there, what actions I would take, what I would stand for if I was ever in the Legislature and a legislator.

We talk about privilege a lot in this place, and it is a privilege for us to serve. The big privilege that we all actually have is that unlike those coffee groups out there that discuss these issues or send us here based on those issues — like I say, around business, unions, social justice, environment or First Nations issues — our true privilege is that we get to actually take our words and turn them into a tangible vote in this place based on those backgrounds that we all come from.

As we reflect on that as legislators, I think it’s appropriate, given the record number of new people here, that we never lose sight of what actually sent us here in the first place and the expectations of people that we are representing from our home communities.

Sexual Violence Prevention Month

Jennifer Blatherwick: I rise today to recognize that May is Sexual Assault Prevention Month in Canada. I will pause for a moment if anyone who is listening would like to step away.

Speaking of this topic can feel dark and heavy and serious. Along with the incident, survivors can carry guilt, shame, ongoing trauma and pain. Right now it can seem like the whole world is reinforcing that dark cloud.

If you are a survivor who is listening, you did nothing wrong. You did not cause this by what you were wearing, by how you laughed, by where you walked, by how many drinks you had or by being who you are. It is not your fault. And you are not alone.

Every day many people are there to help break down the silence and stigma around sexual assault and light the path to safety and healing. Every survivor’s journey looks different, and the act of reaching out for support is a step forward. If the grief is sharp-edged still, it may seem impossible to carry. Reach out, and people will be there.

We thank the dedicated community organizations, advocacy groups, sexual assault centres, victim services and transition houses who are there to support you with expertise and compassion. You can call or text VictimLinkBC’s 24-hour crisis and information line at 1-800-563-0808 to connect with those vital services in your community in over 150 languages.

The sun will shine again. There is laughter and love. You are here, and that is worth all of the joy in the world.

We will celebrate your existence and fight for your safety.

[10:30 a.m.]

Big Brothers Big Sisters of Langley

Jody Toor: I rise today with a full heart after attending the annual general meeting and volunteer and supporter appreciation night hosted by Big Brothers Big Sisters of Langley. It was truly a moving evening, one filled with stories of kindness, resilience and the incredible power of human connection.

I had the privilege of hearing directly from the mentors, big brothers and big sisters, who pour their hearts into this work. These are everyday heroes who show up, week after week, for young people who need someone in their corner. They offer more than just time. They offer belief, encouragement and the kind of steady support that can change a young person’s life forever.

This year alone their programs have reached over 400 children and youth in my community of Langley-Willowbrook, creating more than 300 new mentoring relationships. Behind each number is a child who feels seen, valued and uplifted.

From after-school hangouts to shared laughter at a concert or a soccer game, these moments may seem small, but they are a building block of hope, confidence and a brighter future. It was incredibly heartwarming to see the genuine joy and love in the room that evening.

To the staff who work tirelessly behind the scenes, to the mentors who give so selflessly and to the supporters who make it all possible, thank you. Your compassion is helping our young people see their own strength and potential.

Big Brothers Big Sisters of Langley is not just building matches. They’re building a community where every child has a chance to thrive.

That is something truly worth celebrating.

Iqra Robotics Team

Amna Shah: Earlier this month a group of six remarkable students from Iqra School, which is in my riding, represented Canada on the international stage at the FIRST LEGO League world challenge, a robotics tournament held in Korinthos, Greece.

The Iqra robotics team includes Bayan Ramadan, Faiha Raza, Maryam Khan, Shedli Khsi, Tahsin Ahmad and Zubair Raihan. These students joined others from over 50 countries in a global competition of science, technology and imagination.

Out of more than 175,000 teams worldwide, Iqra robotics was the only Canadian team to make it to the world stage, and they did so in their first year of competition. They placed in the top eight in the Alliances Cup, standing shoulder to shoulder with the brightest young minds from across the globe.

What is their innovation, you ask? It’s a robot, a robot inspired by NASA’s Mars rover, transformed into an underwater submersible, equipped with Raspberry Pi and AI-powered cameras to discover and identify marine life.

At an age where most are still learning the basics, these students are pushing the boundaries of what’s possible. Among them was Shedli, a grade 4 student, the youngest competitor in the entire world’s league. Imagine that. A child from our community standing on a global stage, showing the world what Canadian youth can do.

Behind them stood a team of dedicated coaches — Ramzi, Aya, Zainab, Shameer, Zina and Sana — and a school and a community who believed in them every step of the way.

This is more than just a robotics success. It is a story of vision, teamwork and the boundless potential of our youth. The Iqra robotics team is a symbol of what our next generation is capable of when we encourage and fully support their dreams.

Boothroyd Heritage House

Linda Hepner: Tucked away in a quiet residential area of West Cloverdale, part of my Surrey–Serpentine River riding, is the Boothroyd heritage house. Built in 1873 and restored in 2007, the house is now home to a cozy coffee shop. It also serves as my meeting place for constituents, as I await the Legislature’s process of finalizing office space for a new riding.

Boothroyd is the oldest building in the Surrey centre area, the city’s first true town centre, and is a valuable link for Surrey’s first development.

When pioneer settler George Boothroyd built his family home here, the Boothroyds were only the second family to settle in this area of Surrey. In fact, Boothroyd’s home predates road construction in Surrey, and the house is valued as a reminder of building methods for construction early in the community’s development.

[10:35 a.m.]

The original portion of the house was built of logs, and finishing lumber for the house was milled in nearby communities and floated along the Fraser River and the Nicomekl River, before then being hauled to the building site.

The house today remains a testament to the difficulty of construction in this once remote area and the absolute determination of its early settlers. The history of the house is one of a kind, and it lends itself to the one-of-a-kind coffee house that is now a favourite among the locals.

Come by and enjoy the perfect marriage of yesterday and today.

Indo-Pacific Foundation
of Canada Multicultural Events

Paul Choi: I rise today to recognize the extraordinary work of the Indo-Pacific Foundation of Canada, led by founder and CEO Bhhaskar De, and to celebrate the spirit of multiculturalism blossoming right here in B.C.

On April 12, 2025, the foundation hosted Harmony of Cultures, a groundbreaking gathering that welcomed more than 1,000 neighbours from the Chinese, South Asian, Korean, and Filipino communities. Months of grassroots planning turned four cultural pavilions into living classrooms. We saw Chinese line dancers, Filipino performers, Punjabi bhangra and heartbeat of Korean drummers sharing a single stage.

Youth and Elders cooked, volunteered and celebrated side by side. This was far more than a festival. It was cultural diversity in action, proof that when we move beyond coexistence to co-creation, we strengthen the very fabric of our province.

Building on that success, the foundation is now preparing for the Parade of Nations at Swangard Stadium on June 27, 2026. Ten Indo-Pacific countries — China, India, Korea, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and Japan — will fill our stadium with floats, traditional bands and street dance showcases.

Burnaby’s own diversity makes it a perfect home for this flagship celebration, one that can grow year after year and position B.C. as a global leader in cultural harmony.

I invite all British Columbians to mark June 27 next year on their calendars, to join us at Swangard Stadium for a celebration where every culture is seen, heard and celebrated.

Let us commit to supporting the movement so that the harmony we witnessed in April becomes the soundtrack of our province’s future.

Oral Questions

Economic Conditions and
Government Policies

John Rustad: Private sector investment is down. Youth unemployment is up. Corporate tax revenue is down.

Will this government admit that their economic agenda has been a total failure?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s without question that we have been through economic challenges, and this has been the case globally. That is all the reason it’s so important that we continue to be deeply focused on economic growth, and that is the focus of this government. You’ve seen us identify projects that we can accelerate and pull through.

This is a time when it’s about building our province stronger, facing the threats that we’re seeing globally, and I welcome the opposition to join us in this important work.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

John Rustad: Look, business confidence is down. Food bank usage is up. Hope for the future in B.C. is down, with close to half of the youth wanting to leave British Columbia.

And quite frankly, after eight years of dismal failure, the Premier’s response is: “Trust us.” But even First Nation leaders see through the Premier and are calling him, and I quote, “a snake oil salesman.”

The Speaker: Member, we should not be using words even if used by the other party inside the House, because it’s still unparliamentary language.

John Rustad: I take your direction. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[10:40 a.m.]

Given, quite frankly, this dismal record and its eight years that have built up the challenges that we face today, why would anybody trust this Premier with additional powers from this Legislature?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Our province has been through tough times, without question, and we, every step of the way, have stood up for British Columbians.

We stood up for British Columbians through the pandemic and took care of them better than any other province. We stood up for British Columbians on the aftermath of that. When we saw inflation, when we saw supply chain challenges, all of that, we continued to stand up for British Columbians.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We know the other side would take different choices. We will continue to fight for British Columbians. This moment in time, our Premier is showing…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Shhh, Members.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: …incredible leadership and showing us how British Columbia can become the absolute economic engine for Canada. That is the leadership that we are seeing from our Premier right now to the Prime Minister, our Premier right now to the tables he sits at.

We are opening doors for businesses. We are opening doors for investments all the time, while we’re standing up for British Columbians.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: And we will continue to lead.

The Speaker: Members, you will remember our parents always taught us not to disrupt others when somebody else is speaking.

Government Policies on
Energy and Pipeline Projects

Gavin Dew: Leadership, choices, opening doors. Prime Minister Carney and his new Liberal government have said that Canada’s economic strength is underpinned by Canadian energy and that Canada has tremendous opportunity to be the world’s leading energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy.

But the Premier seems to have a different position on oil pipelines depending on who he’s talking to. At the Western Premiers Conference, he agreed that “western Premiers are committed to developing economic corridors to facilitate the free flow of trade, including access to tidewater.” But right after the meeting, he was quoted as saying: “No, we’re opposed to pipelines.”

So which is it? Does the Premier support pipelines to tidewater or not?

Hon. Adrian Dix: In their questions today, the opposition is asking questions about economic growth and economic development in B.C.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, let’s not be too cheeky about this.

It’s a serious question, Members. Let’s hear the minister’s answer.

Hon. Adrian Dix: In February, the Premier identified 18 priority projects for B.C. The opposition is against at least 11 of them. In British Columbia, we have been promoting, focused on, issues of community support, of community benefits, of worker benefits, of climate change and of First Nations benefits. LNG projects.

The member was a Liberal activist, I think, for a decade before he converted. And he’ll know how successful his party was in campaigning on LNG. They were very successful in campaigning on LNG. They didn’t deliver any LNG projects. A big zero.

Our approach is different. We have focused on the interests of British Columbia and delivered so far, under construction, three LNG projects worth a capex of $42 billion. We are currently working with the province of Alberta together to focus on our joint priorities of an intertie between B.C. and Alberta.

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member talks about projects that don’t yet exist. We will take action on projects that don’t exist when they exist.

[10:45 a.m.]

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Gavin Dew: I’m glad that the minister brought up projects that exist. I also would note that he completely evaded the question. How can British Columbians expect to get a straight answer or any leadership from this government when the NDP caucus is so clearly divided and at war with their own base?

The Premier and the Energy Minister have said they fully support dredging Burrard Inlet for oil tankers. That is a real project. But when I asked the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation whether she supported it in estimates, she would not say if she agrees.

At least six NDP cabinet ministers built their political careers on opposing pipelines. Will any of those MLAs now stand up and confirm their support for dredging Burrard Inlet for oil tankers, or will they all hide behind cabinet solidarity and hope the media doesn’t ask them?

Will the Attorney General stand up? Will the Minister of Infrastructure stand up? Will the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation stand up? Will the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness stand up? Will the Minister of State for Local Government and Rural Communities stand up?

Or will the Minister of Energy stand up again and give another non-answer?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The position of the government is clear on this matter. We had a debate in estimates. I appreciate…. And we’ll move on to the question of divided caucuses in a moment.

Clearly and straightforwardly, the Premier and I have said on this federal proposal to dredge Burrard Inlet that we built this pipeline. We built it for, as the member will know, $34 billion. This country built it. The revenues from the pipeline pay for about 50 percent of the cost of the pipeline — 50 percent — which is unlike any other pipeline in the world. So it’s truly our pipeline, paid for in large measure by taxpayers everywhere in the country.

It’s our position that it’s built, and that it should be used fully. That’s why we have been supportive, consistent with federal environmental law and Fisheries and Oceans regulation and everything else. We’ve been supportive of the project because we think people should get full value for it.

I used to be sitting in this House just down the way. Last week the opposition called for a general election. We know why they want a general election. It’s the worst-kept secret in Victoria that Conservative caucus meetings are like scenes out of Rollerball.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. Adrian Dix: We understand why they want a general election, because it gives them an opportunity not to be together for 28 days. All I can say is: can’t you all just get along?

Oil and Gas Industry Royalties

Jeremy Valeriote: Nice to be on topic for a change.

Our discussions about securing new energy sources for the energy transition have included a focus on free market competition and a level playing field, but for decades, B.C. taxpayers have been subsidizing the oil and gas industry in B.C.

In 2022, the province announced a transition to a new oil and gas royalty system, with the goal of collecting 50 percent of profits after production costs. We know the new royalty transition period has been extended by another two years.

My question is to the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. Following this delay in the new framework, can the minister confirm if the intention is still to secure 50 percent of profits from oil and gas producers so that British Columbians are assured to receive a fair share of profits from these publicly owned energy resources?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s consistently the position of the government to maximize the return to the people of British Columbia, as is the position of other provinces. It’s one of the reasons why we’re working closely with the province of Alberta on joint initiatives to ensure that we act together in this country on energy initiatives to the maximum degree possible to maximize the return.

[10:50 a.m.]

That’s not the only step.

We are proceeding with our royalty changes, working closely with the community, with First Nations people and with industry.

We’re proceeding with our advancement of the HLER program.

We’re proceeding to maximize the return to communities, and we’re proceeding to address issues of climate change.

I am proud. I want to acknowledge the role of the oil and gas industry in the reduction of methane emissions, which makes our LNG the lowest-emission LNG in the world. We do it because we are electrifying LNG projects such as Cedar in Kitimat.

We are also taking actions to reduce emissions — a 42 percent reduction since 2015, and we’re going for 75 percent by 2030.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

B.C. Hydro Changes to
Self-Generation Program

Jeremy Valeriote: When it comes to the future of our energy security, we can’t miss this opportunity to empower individuals and communities to take part in the calls for power and gain energy independence.

Net-metering programs allow individuals to generate their own renewable electricity and sell it back to the grid in exchange for credits. But B.C. Hydro is currently proposing changes to this program that drastically undervalue small-scale renewable energy and lock in inequity for decades to come. Proposed changes from B.C. Hydro for fixed-rate billing instead of net metering would remove any benefit to individuals and communities, ultimately weakening B.C.’s energy security.

The question, again to the Minister of Energy: can the minister ensure that net metering remains viable in this province, and will he provide the necessary long-term policy protection that small-scale energy projects need to survive?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think this is an extraordinary period of opportunity in renewable energy in B.C., both for First Nations…. The member will know that in the recent call for power, we have ten projects, nine of which are 51 percent owned by First Nations, and one of which is 49 percent owned. That means returns from energy projects that help the climate and energize B.C., that return to communities.

Equally, the member is criticizing B.C. Hydro programs that have been established in recent years that give opportunities to homeowners to participate as well. We see a full energy program as doing all of these things. It’s having opportunity to fuel B.C.’s economy.

That’s why we’re proposing, for example, a second call for power. That’s why we’re proposing a call for expression of interest on firm power. That’s why we’re proposing a call for expression of interest on issues of conservation which focus on affordability for people in the community.

We believe in clean energy in this House. We believe in clean energy in this province. We see it as fuelling the economy in B.C., in communities, with programs that support homeowners and fuel communities with projects that create jobs and build our province. I’m very proud of our record, and we’re going to continue to do that.

Government Management of
Infrastructure Projects

Harman Bhangu: First, it was the dump truck operators who weren’t getting paid on the Highway 1 project. Now Mainland Sand and Gravel, one of the largest aggregate suppliers in the Lower Mainland, is owed $1.74 million on a ministry job.

This isn’t a minor delay. This is a ministry job that’s behind on payments to a key supplier in B.C.’s construction sector. If companies like Mainland start refusing to supply materials for ministry projects because they can’t trust they’ll get paid, what happens to our infrastructure timelines then?

My question to the minister: how does this government expect to deliver major infrastructure projects on time, on budget, when even its most critical suppliers are left waiting for millions of dollars?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I want to assure the member of two things.

One, suppliers do get paid. They always get paid. The province pays its bills.

Second, in terms of building infrastructure projects, the record of this government is unparalleled when it comes to investing in our communities right across the province.

Interjections.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Oh my god. He says not a single….

[10:55 a.m.]

The $5.9 billion SkyTrain project, Surrey to Langley, 16 kilometres of track, eight stations. It’s going to make it easier to get from Langley city to Surrey centre, in 22 minutes, to Vancouver in under an hour. That’s investment.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Langley-Abbotsford.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Later this year a brand-new, four-lane Pattullo Bridge, almost twice the size of the existing one, is going to make it easier for vehicle traffic between Surrey and New Westminster, spurring economic growth.

I can tell you, we are going to make investments like that right across this province, building communities, building the economy, training the next generation of provinces, because we have faith in this community.

They vote against these things every single time. And guess what. That’s why we’re here and they’re over there.

Economic Diversification and
Asia Trade Offices

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to my honoured colleagues, who I genuinely and honestly appreciate spending time with.

My question is with respect to economic diversification. Exports from British Columbia to Asian markets are down significantly, which coincides with the closure of our 13 freestanding Asian trade offices. This government’s dismal economic record requires the Premier to go on a damage control junket to Asia this week.

Does the Premier really think that a junket makes up for the damage done by closing these independent trade offices?

Hon. Diana Gibson: I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to once again correct the misinformation about our trade offices. It is inaccurate.

We have kept and opened even new trade offices in Mexico, Taiwan and Vietnam and, in fact, have seen exports up in multiple markets. We have over 50 Trade and Invest officers in over 14 different markets that are working every day to increase our trade opportunities for B.C. businesses and, in fact, have Trade and Invest officers bringing investors to Web Summit Vancouver this week. We continue to see really important opportunities for B.C. businesses in markets around the world.

The reason we are going on the Asia mission is because opportunities with Japan, Malaysia and Korea are up, and those businesses are really interested in attending that trade mission and joining us to increase our trade with Japan, which is one of our largest trade partners.

Government Support
for Forest Industry

Sheldon Clare: British Columbia forest companies have been investing in the last eight years. The only problem is that they’ve been investing most of that money into the United States markets. This government has done nothing to attract and retain significant forestry investment in British Columbia.

Now, we can understand the need to protect the film industry. However, forest workers want to know why their industry did not get similar or the same support in this year’s budget.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: What an opportunity to be able to stand in the House and talk about our forest sector here in British Columbia, which has grown our economy and grown British Columbia for the last 100 years and will be for the next 100 years, and to be able to share with the members opposite that last week we had some really good news.

Gorman Brothers is investing $120 million to purchase the Weyerhaeuser operation in Princeton. I don’t know about you, but that delivers good news for forest sector workers in Princeton and the Okanagan.

I have been dying, dying to get a question in this House on forestry, because it provides me an opportunity to respond directly to the Leader of the Opposition. I sent him a letter last month asking him to clarify comments made by his MLA for North Island. His MLA referred to First Nations buying tenure as being greedy — absolutely reprehensible. I sent him a letter.

He can duck, he can dodge, but will the MLA for North Island have the courage to stand up in this House and ask me a question on forestry after she, in her own community…

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: …referred to her own nations as being greedy for buying tenure and supporting our forest service?

[11:00 a.m.]

Youth Employment

Kiel Giddens: When this government took office in 2017, the youth unemployment rate was 7 percent. Today, after eight years of economic mismanagement, it’s doubled — 14 percent. That’s 60,000 people looking for work and finding nothing. They’re losing hope, and they’re packing their bags to Alberta.

How long will this Premier ignore an entire generation struggling to find opportunity, and when will he deliver a real economic plan for young people in this province?

Hon. Diana Gibson: First, I want to say I know how hard it is for youth to get that first job, that first opportunity, and we do have programs for youth wanting to access the job market. But it’s also important to recognize youth unemployment is up everywhere, and B.C. has been leading the country around employment.

We bucked the trend in the last jobs announcements for the past few months, including in manufacturing, which was down across the country but still up in B.C. It’s because our government’s been at the table with our youth in manufacturing jobs program, with our manufacturing jobs fund, leveraging investments 7 to 1 in our manufacturing jobs fund to bring investment and jobs here to B.C.

We’ve been bucking some of the trends in national jobs. We still continue to be below the national average in unemployment, but there’s a lot more to do, for us to continue to be at the table, to see those jobs and investment dollars here in B.C. so that we can keep our employment and our young people working.

Status of Joffre Lakes
Provincial Park

Scott McInnis: Joffre Lakes isn’t just a provincial park. It’s a major tourism draw that supports small businesses and communities like Pemberton and Whistler.

According to the B.C. Parks website, it is supposed to be open “year-round.” This is most certainly not the case. This government is allowing a public park to be closed to the public for nearly one-third of the year.

Can this government communicate to businesses and the public today how long Joffre Lakes Park will be closed, moving forward?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for this question.

I think it’s really important that we have very clear direction and answers, particularly when it comes to our B.C. parks. So many people absolutely love getting out into B.C. parks, and we are working hard to make sure that we have the best experience available for those people that are hiking and walking and taking part.

We are working hand in hand on conservation and reconciliation. We are working with Joffre Lakes B.C. Parks staff. There’s one trail in and one trail out. When the park was established, we needed to make sure that we had visitor safety as one of the biggest things. There’s a very narrow road that goes to Joffre Lake. Previously we saw up to 2,000 visitors a day, parking on the side of the highway and making it a safety risk for others.

We’re working directly with B.C. Parks. We’re working directly with our First Nations partners and ensuring that it’s the best experience.

Illicit Drug Use in Public Spaces
and Impact on Businesses

Heather Maahs: Des Soumang runs Alpine Refrigeration in Chilliwack, surrounded by shelters, supportive housing and an overdose prevention site.

Every day he and his neighbouring businesses — Simpson Auto, Camp River Woodworking, Pete and Son Plumbing and the Bottle Depot — clean up needles, garbage and human excrement. Clients are afraid to get out of their cars. No one feels safe.

When will this government stop enabling open drug use and trafficking and start supporting the small businesses that drive our economy?

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: First off, I have to correct the member. Nobody is encouraging open drug trafficking. The member has false information here. I think the member should retract that comment.

I’m not sure where the opposition is. I’m not sure where the B.C. Conservatives are. Sometimes I hear from them that we need more housing for vulnerable people. Then in the next question period, we hear from them about how we shouldn’t have it. Sometimes we hear we need more resources; sometimes they say it’s too many resources in one area. They can’t get their story right.

There are vulnerable people from the community that need support. I know they used to have an MLA that was a champion for not only the community but making sure that all voices were heard. Perhaps that’s not there now. Perhaps this member cares very little on how vulnerable people are treated and where they go.

We’re going to continue to support community. We’re going to continue to work with local government. We’re going to continue to work to ensure that all people have the….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members, enough.

Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I hear from this House how many people are members who believe in faith, but when it comes to the most vulnerable people, I don’t hear that. I don’t hear that back in the questions.

We’re going to continue to support vulnerable people in every community in this province. We’re going to continue to make historic investments because we know these people deserve a roof over their heads.

Government Performance

Peter Milobar: Well, back in the day when someone would roll into town and try to sell people a bill of goods on a product or an item and it was totally way over inflated, there was a certain expression used for that person. Apparently, it’s unparliamentary. I won’t use it in this chamber. But it seems to be very fitting for this government today, because that’s exactly what we’ve been hearing.

We’re pointing out that business confidence is down. The government tries to pretend it’s not. Food bank usage is at record highs. The government tries to pretend it’s not. Hope for the future, by all polling, is down in B.C. All youth groups are saying that.

Youth unemployment is at record levels. It’s not our problem because it’s down in other places too. Well, youth in British Columbia want it addressed in British Columbia. They’re not worried about other jurisdictions.

Corporate tax revenues are down, but not to hear from this government, even though it’s in their own budget document. They’ll try to dodge and deny that.

And then only this government could stand up and praise and crow about what they are building in infrastructure when every single project that was listed by the minister is behind schedule and over budget. That’s the crowning glory for this government — behind schedule, over budget.

The economic agenda is completely broken. It’s a complete failure. This government has lost the plot line completely.

Interjection.

Peter Milobar: Yes. You know what? We would love to have an election. You know why we would love to have an election? Because then they could be on this side of the House, and we’d be on that side of the House.

When will the Premier put his money where his mouth is, stop being a flyby head salesperson blown into town and just call the election already instead of having all these games around Bill 15 and 14?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members. Now the question has been asked. I really urge all members to be quiet now and listen to the answer.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Well, I’m going to start off by saying this: hon. Member, in your dreams.

Four years from now, when we do go to the polls, we’ll be going to a poll as a government that has been focused on what matters to British Columbians. What matters to British Columbians….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Ensuring that young people get the training that they need, which is why we invest in the infrastructure projects that we do. To ensure….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Member for Abbotsford South, come to order.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: If you ask the young pile driver that’s been busy pounding piles on the Steveston interchange, the apprenticeship that’s getting them a skill that’s going to give them a career for the rest of their lives, it’s going really well.

[11:10 a.m.]

When you’re talking about the young ironworker apprentice that’s working on the Pattullo Bridge, that’s learning the skills that’s going to give a career for a lifetime, they’re doing really well.

When you’re talking about the electrician that’s building the new hospital in Vancouver, the hospital in Fort St. James, the hospital in Terrace, the hospitals right across this province, they’re doing really well.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I’ll tell you something else. When the Leader of the Opposition sat on this side of the House, they stripped apprenticeship training. They didn’t care about youth. They cut funding for adult education so that people couldn’t get the skills that they need.

We will go to an election on an agenda that’s focused on investment and the people of this province, which will ensure that we will, on this side of the House, and they will continue to dream from that side of the House.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Heather Maahs: I rise on a point of order. It is entirely out of order for the Minister of Housing to suggest that I, as the MLA of Chilliwack North, do not care about my constituents. I ask that he retract.

The Speaker: Thank you, Member.

During the debate, those questions were made. So we will continue to review our policies and instruct all members to be careful when they use their words in questioning and also in answering.

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: I have the honour of tabling the three following reports.

Chief Electoral Officer, the report, 43rd Provincial General Election, October 19, 2024 Volume 1, Administration.

Two, Human Rights Commissioner’s report, Where We Stand: Recommendations Monitoring Report, 2017–2024.

Third one, Office of the Merit Commissioner, 2024-2025 annual report.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate for the estimates of the Minister of Finance.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the committee stage on Bill 15.

And in the tiny House, Birch Room, I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 14.

[11:15 a.m.]

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:17 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance
(continued)

The Chair: I will call the committee to order, the Committee of Supply estimates continuing for the Ministry of Finance.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $426,950,000 (continued).

Peter Milobar: I am hoping to get some clarity before lunch, and hopefully it does not take that long.

Yesterday when I was asking the minister about the $300 million in savings, I asked very clearly. If the $300 million is not found, would the deficit grow to $11.2 billion? The minister said no, because it has already been booked in this year’s budget. I then asked whether or not that meant that if it was found, the deficit would drop to $10.6 billion. She said no, the deficit would stay at $10.9 billion because it has already been booked.

The minister seems to think that she didn’t say that, so I’m quoting now. The minister’s one answer: “We’re discussing the estimates from the budget, Budget ’25. It includes $300 million of what we expect to be the initial results of an efficiency review. We are not able to share with the member decisions made on the efficiency review because they haven’t been made yet.”

She also said: “We’re talking about the budget, Budget ’25, and it’s reflected in the budget as $300 million of savings. We expect to reach the $300 million mark.”

The minister in another answer: “Not at all. The $300 million is the initial savings that we have booked for the work that we are doing right now and will lead to that number or more. That work is going on right now.”

She says: “I think the member is struggling with what a budget is. A budget is a plan. It is a future-facing document, not a past-facing document. This plan very clearly includes $300 million in savings that is found throughout the items that we have already identified to the member. This is a plan. That is the work that is happening now. That is what a budget is. It’s a plan for the year, not a past-facing document. It’s a future-facing document.” Fair enough.

[11:20 a.m.]

She then goes on and says that the expenditure management controls for the member include: STOB 50, salary; STOB 57, travel; STOBs 60-61, professional services; STOB 65, office and business expenses; STOB 66, informational advertising; STOB 68, statutory advertising and publications; STOB 73, amortization; STOB 75, tenant improvement; STOB 77, transfer grants; and STOB 80, transfer, shared cost arrangements. Those are the STOBs that are identified in the expenditure management.

Can the minister explain to me how $300 million can be booked, can be accounted for in a budget, which means, to use round numbers, if they were planning on spending $101 million in one area, say STOB 50, they have now decided to spend $100 million on STOB 50, and that gets them $1 million of the $300 million in savings that they were looking for?

How is it possible in the financial realm to pass a budget predicated on having already found $300 million in savings and not be able to point to which STOBs have actually seen a reduction of what was originally planned before the budget went to print?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: To the member opposite, if I wasn’t clear on this yesterday, I apologize. I’m going to do my best to be very clear in this response.

We have financial controls that have been set in place, and these allow us to book the $300 million. The commitment is made, and it must be achieved. It’s been booked in our budget. It’s not unusual to have savings identified in a budget. It’s been done before.

The important page I want to turn the member to, and we discussed it a little bit yesterday, is page 20 of the budget. There are two things, and I think some of the confusion is that they’re getting a little bit blended: expenditure management and program reviews.

“Budget 2025 includes initial expenditure management goals, targets, across budget, totalling $1.5 billion across the fiscal plan period to be achieved through the management of administration and discretionary spending while still protecting critical front-line services people rely on. Expenditure management will continue through the ’25-26 fiscal year and beyond.”

Part 2. “The Ministry of Finance will also be working with ministries to review all existing government programs and initiatives to optimize resources by ensuring that programs remain relevant, efficient and sustainable, grow the economy and keep costs low for British Columbians.”

That’s work that is underway.

Peter Milobar: Well, here’s the problem with that. I’m glad the minister referenced page 20, because I was going to anyway.

About a half hour before the minister referenced page 20 yesterday — so only a question or two before, at this rate, frankly — the minister said that we’re discussing the estimates from Budget ’25. It includes $300 million of what we expect to be in the initial results of the efficiency review.

[11:30 a.m.]

The efficiency review is part 2 of what the minister just read on page 20. Part 1 is where the $300 million, the $600 million and the $600 million expenditure management is actually talked about.

The minister has been jumping back and forth between the efficiency review and the expenditure management, and using the same $300 million. She will not say that they’re trying to target $300 million on the efficiency review, and when she answers questions about the $300 million, she interchanges efficiency review and expenditure management.

I’m reading the transcript, and I would encourage the staff to pull the transcript from 5:05. The answer was at 5:35, if they think I’m incorrect. In fact, the answer was verbatim, what’s written on page 20. The minister just read page 20. But at 5:05, the minister made it very clear that the $300 million is actually part of the expenditure review.

She also said that the $300 million has been booked. Booked means accounted for — not aspirational, not hope to find. When I asked very clearly if it’s not found, would the deficit go up, the minister said no, which means it has to have been removed. You cannot have people with STOB 50 on salaries in different ministries thinking they have a certain amount of money to work with when they don’t, if you need that $300 million.

I fail to understand why this is getting so difficult for the government, if they have already removed $300 million in spending on a $10.9 billion net deficit, to say how much each of the STOBs that the minister has referenced had money removed to calculate up to the $300 million and then, moving forward, for the $600 million next year and the following year. There’s no other way you can book it. Otherwise, it’s just a hope. And if it’s just a hope, we should be seeing an $11.2 billion deficit with a statement saying: “We hope to get it to $10.9 by finding $300 million of efficiencies.”

That’s not what the government has said, so which is it? Has the $300 million already been accounted for in the $10.9 billion deficit, and if so, where have the targeted spending cuts happened? If not, why are we dealing with a document that has a totally inaccurate deficit number? The government doesn’t get to have it both ways. No wonder this budget has already been getting bandied about as fudge-it budget 2.0.

It’s not about snapshots in time and moments in time and backward-looking and forward-looking. This is about trying to get the government to answer how they actually came up with the numbers in their own document.

The language, as witnessed by page 20 in this book…. The same book talks about two different phases of savings. One, which would be understandable, is the efficiency review which is ongoing, with an undefined set of targets and an undefined set of savings. That’s on page 20. That’s understandable why it wouldn’t be part of the $10.9 billion.

But the language on the other portion of it is very clear. The expenditure management targets a total of $1.5 billion — $300 million, $600 million and $600 million — to be achieved through management of administrative and discretionary spending while still protecting front-line services people rely on. And the minister has confirmed it is not part of the $10.9 billion deficit currently. It has already been accounted for. It’s been booked.

Why can the public, why can the opposition not get a full accounting for how that $300 million was accounted for?

[11:35 a.m. - 11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The nomenclature has been confusing, so let me be really clear. The efficiency review is the broader category. Within it, there are two tools in play. One is the expenditure management, and two is the program review. So when we’re speaking about the efficiency review, it’s the larger piece.

The expenditure management, which the member is asking about now, is booked at $300 million, $600 million and $600 million over the fiscal plan. Those numbers are a forecast based on the tools that we are using, which are the spending controls put in place. That’s how we know we can achieve it — through the spending controls that we have put in place. They’ve been in place since February. It’s across ministries. Page 22 will show you that.

This is a conservative, prudent number that we are very confident of. And because those spending controls are in place, it is less than 0.5 percent of ministry budgets and less than 0.3 percent of the overall budget.

Peter Milobar: So here’s the problem. It’s been billed as….

And yes, on page 22, you have expenditure management.

The government has expenditure management right before the final line of expenses, of $300 million, $600 million and $600 million. But that means nothing if the government hasn’t identified how they’re going to achieve that. It’s just aspirational. It’s a booked number that is irrelevant.

[11:45 a.m.]

The minister has been asked where the savings are going to be found. Is it all in salaries? Is it…? Where?

She’s come up with the list of STOBs, which is a laundry list of government expenditures, but won’t say if the Office of the Premier has been asked to step back from going up by $1 million to actually reducing $1 million of the $300 million. She won’t say whether or not Agriculture and Food has been asked, even though it’s gone from $229 million down to $143 million, to have further cuts, be it within any of those STOBs that make up the Ministry of Agriculture. Children and Family Development — are they being asked within their STOBs?

The only answer we get back from government is that it’s across government. No certainty, no clarity, no understanding. Why it’s important is that if the government is this unwilling to talk about the $1.5 billion they’re supposed to find over the next three years total and that’s already been built into all of the deficits, how is the public supposed to reasonably take at face value the minister saying they’re on a path to balanced budget — that it’ll be hard work, but we’re going to get there?

In addition to the expenditure management that we can’t actually talk about or identify or point to any actual savings, period, other than we’ve just put a number in the budget book to say we’re doing it…. We’re going to go over and above that. How much are we going to go over and above that? We don’t know because the government doesn’t know. They haven’t actually set a target. But we’re on a path to balanced budget.

That’s what the efficiency review is going to do. It’s going to not cut services, because the government seems to be loath to use the word “cut.” It’s not going to cut services, but we’re going to get to a balanced budget. We just don’t know how. We don’t know when. We don’t know what the target is to do it. We can’t tell you if we’re going to exceed the $300 million or not, because that hard work is still underway, even though ministers have had five months now to look at their budgets, moving forward. Two years into this new fiscal, and we get told: “Well, wait till September 15.”

I guess, before we break for lunch here…. My third question in the whole time frame between question period and lunch. Given all of that, and given that everything is being pushed to this first-quarter fiscal update — and I know how first-quarter fiscal updates typically get presented — will the minister confirm that at a minimum, it will be in keeping with others?

We heard yesterday about caving property sales, caving property sales values compared to what the budget has projected. The minister, rightfully, can’t make that calculation today, but I would expect that those projections of revenues will all be adjusted in that first-quarter update based on what we’re seeing unfold in real estate, in property transfer tax, in other sales taxes, in carbon tax and all of those other areas.

Will all of those adjustments be made on the projection, looking forward, for the remainder of the year, in that first-quarter update this year?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes.

Peter Milobar: If all of those projections will have been made, and one would assume that the ministers responsible for their various portfolios and finding their expenditure management targets of $300 million will have a full accounting or game plan…. Or will that be laid out in the first-quarter update as well?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes. I think it’s fair to reflect that the Q1 update will reflect progress on this work.

Peter Milobar: Sorry, I’m confused. Progress is not a full accounting for. We’re talking about $300 million. We’re talking about, by the minister’s own acknowledgement, 0.3 percent of the provincial budget. Ministers ought to have been told when the mandate letters came out that this was coming, five months ago. They’ve now had two months under this fiscal to deal with it, actually three months since the budget has been brought out to deal with it, and another month to get their plan in place beforehand, before the first quarter gets closed off and the report starts to get generated.

Is the Minister of Finance honestly saying that the urgency that the government is actually putting at this expenditure management to find $300 million, 0.3 percent of expenditures in the provincial budget, cannot be accomplished in the better part of six months from the time that they would have started to direct ministers to find it, and that it will still be a work in progress by the time we see the first-quarter update on September 15 of this year?

[11:55 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: To correct the member’s timeline, we are two months into the fiscal year. The expenditure controls will see initial results from then reflected in Q1, as I’ve said. Q1, of course, updates both revenue and expenses and will encompass the work that the ministries have been doing. We look forward to reporting on this progress. We feel very confident of these numbers.

With that, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:58 a.m.

The House resumed at 11:58 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Finance and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

George Anderson: Section A reports progress on Bill 15 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Section C reports progress on Bill 14 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Kelly Greene moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:19 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 15 — Infrastructure Projects Act
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 15, Infrastructure Projects Act, to order. We are on clause 4.

On clause 4 (continued).

Gavin Dew: Before we broke yesterday, we were discussing matters around formal and informal processes for designation. I flagged concerns about well-connected NDP insiders having access to the Premier’s office and doing advance soundings before major projects seeking designation entered the process.

[11:20 a.m.]

The minister was on quite a jeremiad about the cleanliness and purity of her government and about how they would never be influenced by well-connected former cabinet ministers or NDP insiders lobbying for projects to be designated.

I did just want to check. Will the minister commit to publishing all in-person and virtual meetings logged under the Lobbyists Transparency Act in relation to designations or other powers under this bill before cabinet votes on a designation?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Certainly, government and all ministers, all public servants, are expected to abide by the rules of the Lobbyists Transparency Act. We would expect all lobbyists that interact with government to also abide by the Lobbyists Transparency Act, including all of the disclosures that are required in that act.

Further, all minister calendars, deputy minister calendars and the calendars of associate and assistant deputy ministers are proactively disclosed on a monthly basis publicly.

[11:25 a.m.]

Gavin Dew: Obviously, this bill is not yet in force, but the government has designated 18 priority projects, which obviously establish precedent or establish expectations around how government will pick winners and losers.

Could the minister just let us know whether she or the Premier or any other member of cabinet met with lobbyists representing any of those projects before they were designated as priority projects by the government?

The Chair: Member, I just hope that you might be able to help me understand how that’s relevant to clause 4.

Gavin Dew: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We canvassed this matter quite extensively during yesterday’s discussion, and the issue that I flagged is that we have laid out by the bill a formal process for establishing the designation of projects. I raised the concern that any rational commercial actor that was going to go through not only the cost of seeking designation but also the risks associated with disclosures necessary for designation would, in all likelihood, in the real world, sound out the government in advance, likely on a government relations basis, in order to establish whether their project was likely to be supported by the government.

We had extensive discussion around the possibilities that created for picking winners and losers by the government, and I flagged the concern that has been written about in media about well-connected NDP insiders doing very well off of providing access to government in order to take soundings around those major projects, because with the new, very arbitrary, sweeping powers being granted to government, it would be reasonable to assume that the minister will likely be the most lobbied minister in government if this bill passes because she and her ministry will have a tremendous amount of power to determine the fate of projects.

I think it’s very important for us to understand the thinking that has gone into the bill, the process that has gone into the designation of these 18 projects and, frankly, to canvass the minister’s understanding of how the government relations world is likely to interact with her powers under the bill. Hence the question.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. I watched your question yesterday, so I certainly appreciate your comments. Perhaps you might just word your question differently, because I’m just not seeing how this is connected to clause 4. Thank you.

Gavin Dew: Thank you.

Well, I assume it would be reasonable to believe that the 18 projects this government has been talking about for some months will be designated projects. Is that a fair assumption?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I have not had any conversations with any private sector project proponents about their projects in relation to any designation under Bill 15.

Gavin Dew: I wanted to understand what was happening in terms of those conversations, so I took the liberty of taking a look at the lobbyist registry. The Premier has had 55 active lobbyist hits around infrastructure in the last 12 months, so I’d really like to understand. If the Minister of Infrastructure is being shielded from or cut out from conversations the Premier is having with project proponents, who might very well wish to be designated, it really gives me some concern.

If the Minister of Infrastructure isn’t the real decision-maker but it’s actually happening through the Premier’s office and the Minister of Infrastructure is unaware of the meetings that the Premier is having with project proponents, potentially facilitated by well-connected NDP insiders, that makes me really very concerned.

Could the minister just tell us a little bit more about the process that is being used or will be used to shield the designation process from top-down, Premier’s office–driven lobbying?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’m glad that the member was able to retrieve information about where registered lobbyists were having conversations throughout government. I think it points to the importance of the Lobbyists Transparency Act, which is work that our government did in order to ensure that B.C. had the most stringent and transparent lobbying regime in the country. The reason why the member has that information is because the transparency act is working.

Aside from that, all of the other comments the member is making are highly speculative, so I won’t address them. I will clarify, also, that section 4, the very first few words of the section, notes that the decision-maker is the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Gavin Dew: I note that infrastructure lobbying is up 11.3 percent from 212 to 236 registrations from the day before the writ dropped to today. So, certainly, there has been a significant increase in lobbying. It appears that somehow the Minister of Infrastructure is not being lobbied by any of these infrastructure-related government relations professionals who are seeking to influence government around decisions that could include designation for the purposes of this bill.

I know that the minister is a principled individual, who firmly believes she’s doing the right thing in the situation, but I do believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant. And it’s very important that we have cleanliness around these very significant, very sweeping, very arbitrary powers. There is nothing that a project proponent could want more than an assurance from the Premier’s office or an assurance from the minister that they are, in fact, looked upon favourably.

[11:35 a.m.]

As I speculated upon in the previous conversation yesterday, it would be reasonable for them to assume that procuring the services of a well-connected NDP insider as a lobbyist might be one way to elicit that information. Whether that elicits a decision or not, eliciting information as to whether they are likely to be favoured with designated project status has a tremendous commercial value to a project proponent. That is something that I’m sure they would pay a government relations professional for handsomely.

I would just, again, like to ask the minister to clarify what kind of proactive shield against conflict has been put in place to make sure that we’re not seeing that kind of activity. What was put in place with regard to the 18 projects that this government very proudly talks about designating as priorities? What will be put in place in order to make absolutely sure the public can have confidence that NDP insiders aren’t stacking the deck in regards to what projects get designated?

The Chair: Member, I watched this debate yesterday. I’ve given you a bit of latitude today. This is beginning to get quite repetitive, so I would ask that you move on to another line of questioning, or reframe your question altogether, that isn’t on this exact same question, which the minister has given a response to.

I know you may not like the response, but the purpose is to go through, to be able to have discussion on, the clauses that relate to this bill.

Gavin Dew: Respectfully, I believe that understanding the formal and informal processes behind designation is crucially important to any member of the public having confidence in this bill. So let me be very specific.

The former president of the NDP has 11 lobbying clients according to the lobbyists registry. The former executive director of the NDP has nine lobbying clients, I can see a former MLA in my notes who has 31 lobbying clients, and I see another former cabinet minister with 16 lobbying clients according to the registry. The former chief fundraiser for the NDP has 29 lobbyist registries right now.

Can the minister just confirm that none of those five NDP insiders are lobbying for any client who is on the list of 18 or any client who is pursuing designation in the future if this bill is passed? Again, the public ought to be able to have transparency to understand how these decisions are really being made — not the fantasy land purity of Gantt charts but the real “how the sausage is made.”

This is being speculated upon in media. It is an area of significant concern. It is an area of competitive fairness. We are talking about a bill that enables projects to skip to the front of the line. Skipping to the front of the line, saving months or years, has millions and millions of dollars in value.

Here we have five NDP insiders who are lobbyists, who have access to the Premier’s office, access to cabinet, and I’m just curious to understand whether any of them are representing clients who have been or will be prioritized, because the public absolutely deserves to have that information and will demand scrutiny around how these designations are made.

I know that the minister wants to believe that this is a project management issue and wants to believe that this is all being done on the up and up. But the reality is, again, that there are well-connected, well-heeled, well-paid NDP insiders making their living off of providing access to government, information to government and an understanding of how government might make decisions.

Please, can the minister outline exactly how appropriate shields are being put up around this designation process, to make absolutely sure the public can have confidence that it is a rigorous due diligence process and not a pay-to-play process?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I agree that the line of questioning is getting quite repetitive. I believe I have provided all of the responses that I can offer, but in the interest of responding in good faith, I will assemble them once more for the member.

All members of the executive council must adhere to the conflict-of-interest act and all provisions within that; the Lobbyists Transparency Act and all of its provisions; the capital asset management framework, which does include sections on ethics, on procurement, on reporting and auditing.

We are subject to investigations by the Auditor General according to their office. We have proactive disclosure of all calendars under the Freedom of Information Act and are subject to all the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

The decision-maker on designation of projects is the Lieutenant Governor in Council. And I can confirm, once more, that I have not had any conversations with any private sector proponents about their projects in relation to designations under Bill 15, nor has my deputy minister, nor have any of our ADMs that we are aware of.

With that, Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 11:20 a.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 14, Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, to order. We are on clause 7.

On clause 7 (continued).

Hon. Adrian Dix: We ended the debate yesterday evening with a question from the member, and I’m endeavouring to get back to the member with the specific responses. Then we’ll have some more examples, some paper responses. I’m sorry. I’m a bit delayed on that, but I’ll just go through it very briefly so that the member can start.

Section 7(2)(a) relates to section 26 of the ERAA. This provision relates to expanded responsibility provisions that were developed specifically to address the complex working interest arrangements that are typical in the oil and gas industry. These are not oil and gas projects, and that’s the reason.

Section 7(2)(b) is section 32. It’s the expiration of permits and authorizations. This provision is related to the administration of ERAA permits. ERAA permits are not required for level 2 projects, and that’s why it doesn’t apply.

Section 7(2)(c) relates to section 34(2) and 39(1) of the ERAA. These provisions allow subsurface rights holders entry onto the surface of the land through the surface rights board. The surface rights board can grant entry orders on private land to ensure an oil and gas holder can access the subsurface resource.

Level 2 streamlined project proponents will need to reach an agreement with any private land owners whose land they need to access. The surface rights board will not be able to order entry. That’s, again, a provision that’s very specific to the oil and gas industry, and that’s why it’s not in place here.

Section 7(2)(d) is around section 38(1)(b) of the ERAA. This provision requires proponents to maintain records related to emergency planning. The section is disapplied because BCER is not regulating the construction and operation of the facility itself under level 2 streamlining. The section does not exempt the North Coast transmission line project or other prescribed level 2 projects from any other requirement to prepare and maintain emergency programs under other acts or policies.

Section 2(e) relates to section 40(e) of the ERAA. This provision relates to the ongoing obligation after a permit has been cancelled, expired or declared spent. Under a level 2 project, BCER is not responsible for regulating the infrastructure itself. BCER will only issue authorizations under other natural resource statutes. There will be no prescribed requirements.

BCER has other order-making powers for the purposes of restoration and public safety. Obligations under the various natural resource statutes, of course, will continue, and they’re in place.

And 2(f) is division 2.1, expanded responsibility. This provision relates to expanded responsibility provisions that were developed specifically for the oil and gas industry to allow people other than the permit holder to be held responsible for obligations under the act.

Under ERAA today, the expanded responsibility provisions only apply to oil and gas activities, not hydrogen. So it was dealt with in the bill we dealt with three years ago. They were designed specifically to address the complex working interest arrangements that are typical in the oil and gas industry and really reflect the 25 years of work that’s been done with that industry.

Subsection 2(g) is of part 3.1, dormant sites. These dormant site provisions require permit holders to shut down sites — e.g., wells no longer in use. These provisions were, again, specifically designed to address large portfolios of dormant wells. Under a level 2 project, BCER does not regulate the operation of the infrastructure itself, and that’s why that doesn’t apply. We see that pattern throughout.

On part 4, orphan sites, the orphan site provision allows the regulator to restore designated orphan sites under a level 2 project. Again, BCER does not regulate the operation of the infrastructure itself.

Sections 49(1)(a), (4)(d) and (e), which is section 7(2)(f) — these provisions relate to BCER making orders to halt operations or change the way a facility is operating. Under a level 2 project, BCER does not regulate the operation of the infrastructure itself. The powers will be available for level 3 streamlined projects, such as wind or solar facilities, where BCER is regulating the project similarly to an oil and gas facility. So you’ll see that in level 3, a different provision.

[11:25 a.m.]

Section 7(2)(j) is just section 51 of the ERAA. These powers for BCER to restrict access to highways, roads and other areas were developed to address potential hazard conditions around pipelines and oil and gas facilities regulated by BCER. Under a level 2 project, BCER does not regulate the operation of the infrastructure itself. That’s the continuation of that theme. The Ministry of Transportation has powers to restrict access.

Section 7(2)(k), division 3.1, public requests for investigation, of part 5. These provisions relate to the investigation authorities that are specific to methane emissions and cannot be used for other purposes. Obviously, that flows from that.

Sections 7(2)(l), (m) and (n) are sections 103, 104 and 111 of the ERAA. These provisions relate to different regulation-making authorities related to construction and operation of projects.

Disapplying these authorities would ensure that various regulation-making authorities under ERAA do not apply to level 2 streamlined projects for the reasons stated before. These regulation-making authorities would be used to regulate the construction and operation of projects and normally are used for projects that are permitted by BCER under ERAA.

These regulation-making authorities would apply to level 3 streamlined projects, not level 2 for the reasons we’ve discussed consistently, such as wind or solar projects. We’ll just make a couple of additions for examples, and we’ll provide that to the hon. member for the rest of the debate.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for the very thorough response. I apologize; I don’t know the language to request this, but I would like to table that so that I have a chance to review and compare it to my notes and come back to it.

At that point, could we perhaps move on to clause 8 and come back to 7?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Hon. Chair, is it possible to stand clause 7, move on to clause 8, then return to clause 7 after the lunch break? Would that work?

The Chair: If there is unanimous consent of the committee, we can stand down clause 7.

Clause 7 stood down.

On clause 8.

Larry Neufeld: I am going to ask for a slight amount of latitude here, in the fact that this particular question is more of a general one, but it is related to this piece of legislation. In what we had talked about yesterday, we spent quite a bit of time talking about the definition of “renewable energy,” and one of the things that we did discuss was biogas.

Now, this is something that I thought of last evening, when the eyes wouldn’t close — biogas. We’re looking at a biochemical process whereby we have decomposition of organic material. The by-product of that decomposition is primarily methane. Natural gas. We have decomposition of organic material with a by-product that is primarily methane.

I question, in my own mind, from a very basic scientific definition, where the differences between those two are. One obviously has had significantly more media attention and more challenges around factual information being shared in a lot of cases.

My question to the minister would be, again going back to the possibility of expanding those definitions…. Perhaps I’ll make it more general.

Could you help me understand where the differences actually lie and why those two are treated so differently?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I want the member to know two things.

One, there’s a replay of this debate, at about two or three in the morning, that might assist him in his sleeping patterns. Just suggesting that. I say that without drawing any conclusions about my own participation in that.

The second thing, which is sort of an admission, is that I didn’t do super well at grade 10 science. Can I admit that in this House? Are we in a safe space to admit these things? I did better in grade 11 for some reason. I don’t know why.

I’m told that biogas really comes from the waste humans create. Therefore, more can be created. It’s renewable in that sense. Why the act was expanded to include it, which makes sense…. Natural gas, of course, which is our largest export, is a good and a major factor. Subsurface rights deplete. That’s the difference, I understand.

I want to note that the people involved, obviously, take these issues seriously. I think the natural gas industry has lots of advantages and is at a different level, obviously, than the biogas industry, which has real opportunity, both for assisting our economy and for assisting on issues of climate change and other things.

So I think it’s important, but obviously, natural gas is at a different level, has a different level of regulation. It has, in fact, had this, Bill 14’s kind of regulation, for the last 25 years. That’s the difference, as it was explained to me. I want to be clear.

Larry Neufeld: I agree 100 percent with that assessment. I think it was important to me to just get it on the record that essentially we’re talking about two processes. I do very clearly understand the differences between biogas generation and natural gas, but I think it is important to get it on the record that we are calling biogas a green product.

Natural gas is being treated in an exceptionally different way. So I think that is important for the folks that are watching and to get that on the record. Again, it’s a very, very simplified…. We’re not talking about the brine water that may come up with it or any of the other issues that may or may not be associated with it.

Again, I appreciate the latitude, and I did really want to get that on to the record.

Moving on, with respect to clause 8, can the minister outline which projects are currently intended to be added via regulation to this section?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Thank you to the member.

I would say that part of the intent of the bill is to do the opposite of what he suggested, which is to apply the same sort of one-window regulation that’s been successful for the natural gas industry. You could see that success immediately in 1988 and ’89 when the new legislation came into place. Then subsequent to that, there are other factors, of course, as there are over time, including commodity prices and everything else.

Overall, we are applying the same one-window regulation to biogas, in effect, and to renewable projects that we’ve been applying for a long time to that sector. In a sense, if there’s inequality, it was the other way, inequality in regulation up to now. That’s what I think is really valuable about the legislation but why I support the B.C. Energy Regulator, as well, in the work that it does.

I should say that initially the government intends to prescribe wind and solar projects as level 3 streamlined projects. For level 3 streamlined projects, the BCER will be responsible for most of the natural resource authorization. This is where it’s similar to hydrogen and to gas industries associated with the projects as well as most other aspects of the project activity, including site planning, safe construction operations, decommissioning and restoration — full life-cycle regulation.

Level 3 streamlined projects allow the same framework we use under the Energy Resource Activities Act for oil, gas and hydrogen, as I’ve just noted, to be applied in whole or selectively to support the regulation of renewable energy projects.

[11:35 a.m.]

Subject to the regulations, of course, the following elements of the Energy Resource Activities Act will apply to level 3 renewable energy projects.

Project proponents will be required to apply to BCER for permits under the ERAA. These permits provide for the life-cycle regulation of the activity from site planning and construction to deactivation and restoration, an approach which the member will be familiar with from the natural gas industry.

The Lieutenant Governor in Council will have regulation-making powers in relation to level 3 projects, such as the power to make regulations related to environmental protection, management of off-site environmental mitigation and how BCER carries out its authorities. The board of BCER will be able to make regulations related to level 3 projects, including with respect to consultation and notification, permit and application requirements and security.

The level 3 projects will be subject to comprehensive compliance and enforcement provisions meant to ensure safe and sustainable projects from construction to deactivation and restoration.

The intent here is different from the level 2 projects. Why there is the distinction is life-cycle regulation, which is crucial. It’s one-window regulation, which is important. It’s, of course, maintaining standards and the capacity to ensure that the regulation is effective, as it needs to be, and as it is, I believe, in the sectors that BCER is responsible for.

That’s the approach here to level 3 projects. I wanted to give a longer response just to put all that in context. I’m happy to take further questions from the member, of course.

Larry Neufeld: I’d like to thank the minister for identifying that perhaps my example wasn’t as clear as I wanted it to be when I was doing the…. For the purpose of the transcript, I don’t know how to describe what it is that I’m doing, but showing hand movements, I guess.

I wasn’t meaning to imply that the regulatory regime was treating natural gas to an unfair advantage. I was referring more to public perception in that respect.

Thank you for pointing that out.

My next question on clause 8. Is the minister able to identify projects that are not specifically…? You know what? I’m going to skip that one. That actually doesn’t make sense. I must have been tired when I wrote that one.

Next question. We’ve seen the government be able to pass a bill, all stages in one sitting day, and then, of course, the carbon tax, where we all had a beautiful evening in this wonderful place. I’m curious if there was any consideration given through this bill of why additional projects haven’t been brought or are not intended to be brought before the Legislature but be done through regulation.

Hon. Adrian Dix: As we discussed in previous sections, we’ve identified wind and solar projects, which were successful in the call for power, and the North Coast transmission line.

We’ve talked about other projects as well. The North Montney transmission is, I think, a really exciting project that’s really a tribute to the commitment of the natural gas industry as well, who are obviously our partners in that effort. But it will have a significant impact on, I think, the value of B.C. natural gas and also on the climate. So we had that proposal.

We also have, as the member will know, a new call for power on new projects. Those projects don’t exist yet, obviously. We have a call for power and a rigorous process and competitive bidding. All of those things will occur. So we can’t name it or discuss it in the legislation because we don’t know what they are. But we know that there will be other projects that this will apply to.

We know, from the most recent round, because of the competitiveness of wind and solar, that we’ll expect some of them to be wind and solar. So that’s the intention up to now, to do those.

But if the member’s asking why we haven’t identified all of the projects now, we haven’t identified all of the projects now because there isn’t a successful competitive bid. They’re not projects yet, but they will be.

So that’s the reason why you put legislation in place, not just for this list of projects, but to change the way we regulate renewable energy, which is the core focus of this bill and this section, and also parallel it to other forms of energy, which have a single-window regulation on the one hand, which is really important, I think, and to help us proceed with these projects and others in the future.

[11:40 a.m.]

There is no question that we envision other renewable projects in the future. We just announced the second call for power. But the names of those projects or what they are will be determined by the competitive bids that are put forward in that call for power. I have every confidence that it will be successful.

Larry Neufeld: I’d like to thank the minister for that answer and apologize to him and his staff for the repetition of the question. Yes, it was answered. I guess with long hours, we all tend to slip here and there.

With that being said, I’m going to hand over to my colleague.

Trevor Halford: At this time, I’d like to table an amendment. I know that we’re close to the lunch hour, but I’ll put it forward now, and maybe we can come back to it. Or we can address it now, whatever the Chair wishes.

The Chair: What we’ll do is we’ll take the amendment. Then if you want to speak to it, we’re going to adjourn for lunch, and then we can come back after lunch and finish up with the amendment.

Trevor Halford: Great.

[SECTION 8, by deleting the text shown as struck out:

8 This Division applies in relation to a prescribed level 3 streamlined project.]

On the amendment.

Trevor Halford: This amendment here proposes to eliminate the ability of government to add any project they choose under divisional level 3 streamlining. This is a conversation we’ve continually had over the last, I’d say, closing in on 24 hours, just about the guardrails and the ability for government…. I keep saying: “Picking winners and losers.”

I think this amendment should be supported, and I can have further comments after lunch if it’s deemed to be in order.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’ll reserve my comments on the amendment to after the lunch hour and move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: We are adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:42 a.m.